Let me begin by saying I find this initiative very interesting from many points of view. Also, I have to mention I have just a basic idea of the energy and GHG worlds.
\n\nHaving said that, I regret to say I have found an important inconsistency in the \"estimated generation gwh\" column of gppd 120 pr.csv (which contains Power Plant data): the main energy source is a coal Power Plant which generates 450,563 GWh in a given year (2014?). However, the biggest Power Plant in the world, the hydro one in Three Gorges Dam (China) generated 92,452.6 GWh in a year, which is 5 times less.
\n\nI have checked the value in (what I guess is) the original source of Power Plant data, and I found that field is empty for that Power Plant, while the capacity value is 454.3 MW (as in the Kaggle file).
\n\nI guessed there should be a concept relating both values; in fact, it is the Capacity Factor which is \"the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period\". This means the Capacity Factor should be 0 < CF < 1.
\n\nI have added a capacity factor column to the dataset and found it is 113 for that coal Power Plant, which is not possible.
\n\nAlso, the capacity factor for the hydro Power Plants is 5.2, which again seems not possible. However, this is much less important since those are very low capacity plants compared to Oil and Coal Power Plants.
", "messages": [ { "id": "746206", "postDate": "02/14/2020 18:30:08", "content": "Let me begin by saying I find this initiative very interesting from many points of view. Also, I have to mention I have just a basic idea of the energy and GHG worlds.
\n\nHaving said that, I regret to say I have found an important inconsistency in the \"estimated generation gwh\" column of gppd 120 pr.csv (which contains Power Plant data): the main energy source is a coal Power Plant which generates 450,563 GWh in a given year (2014?). However, the biggest Power Plant in the world, the hydro one in Three Gorges Dam (China) generated 92,452.6 GWh in a year, which is 5 times less.
\n\nI have checked the value in (what I guess is) the original source of Power Plant data, and I found that field is empty for that Power Plant, while the capacity value is 454.3 MW (as in the Kaggle file).
\n\nI guessed there should be a concept relating both values; in fact, it is the Capacity Factor which is \"the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period\". This means the Capacity Factor should be 0 < CF < 1.
\n\nI have added a capacity factor column to the dataset and found it is 113 for that coal Power Plant, which is not possible.
\n\nAlso, the capacity factor for the hydro Power Plants is 5.2, which again seems not possible. However, this is much less important since those are very low capacity plants compared to Oil and Coal Power Plants.
", "rawMarkdown": "Let me begin by saying I find this initiative very interesting from many points of view. Also, I have to mention I have just a basic idea of the energy and GHG worlds.\n\nHaving said that, I regret to say I have found an important inconsistency in the \"estimated generation gwh\" column of gppd 120 pr.csv (which contains Power Plant data): the main energy source is a **coal Power Plant** which generates 450,563 GWh in a given year (2014?). However, the biggest Power Plant **in the world**, the hydro one in Three Gorges Dam (China) generated 92,452.6 GWh in a year, which is 5 times less.\n\nI have checked the value in (what I guess is) the [original source of Power Plant data](http://datasets.wri.org/dataset/globalpowerplantdatabase), and I found that field is empty for that Power Plant, while the capacity value is 454.3 MW (as in the Kaggle file).\n\nI guessed there should be a concept relating both values; in fact, it is the [**Capacity Factor** ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor) which is \"the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period\". This means the Capacity Factor should be 0 < CF < 1.\n\n[I have added a capacity factor column to the dataset](https://www.kaggle.com/ajulian/capacity-factor-in-power-plants) and found it is 113 for that coal Power Plant, which is not possible.\n\nAlso, the capacity factor for the hydro Power Plants is 5.2, which again seems not possible. However, this is much less important since those are very low capacity plants compared to Oil and Coal Power Plants.", "votes": null }, { "id": "746263", "postDate": "02/14/2020 19:49:02", "content": "Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention, we will look into it. In the meantime, I would recommend replacing the value with your best estimate, and including your rationale in the body of your notebook.
", "rawMarkdown": "Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention, we will look into it. In the meantime, I would recommend replacing the value with your best estimate, and including your rationale in the body of your notebook.", "votes": null }, { "id": "747160", "postDate": "02/16/2020 03:37:48", "content": "Good catch.
", "rawMarkdown": "Good catch.", "votes": null }, { "id": "747412", "postDate": "02/16/2020 11:55:00", "content": "I have just updated the Notebook with your suggestions, thanks!
", "rawMarkdown": "I have just updated the Notebook with your suggestions, thanks!", "votes": null }, { "id": "747533", "postDate": "02/16/2020 14:53:14", "content": "If you walk thru the links for the data set you can find you way to the original data and a document describing how it was generated. Like many things regarding emissions - estimates and allocations were made to create the estimate. 29K power plants are in the full data set. You can likely use the full data set to generate a better guess for the coal plant.
\n\nReading all 719 pages of the USA 2020 draft report for emissions (for 2018 year) you will see a couple of footnotes and references suggesting that the data from USA territories needs improvement. The creators of the original power plant data set probably missed a glaring error or two in the Puerto RIco data.
\n\n", "rawMarkdown": "If you walk thru the links for the data set you can find you way to the original data and a document describing how it was generated. Like many things regarding emissions - estimates and allocations were made to create the estimate. 29K power plants are in the full data set. You can likely use the full data set to generate a better guess for the coal plant.\n\nReading all 719 pages of the USA 2020 draft report for emissions (for 2018 year) you will see a couple of footnotes and references suggesting that the data from USA territories needs improvement. The creators of the original power plant data set probably missed a glaring error or two in the Puerto RIco data.\n\n[full data set from source](http://datasets.wri.org/dataset/globalpowerplantdatabase)", "votes": null }, { "id": "747604", "postDate": "02/16/2020 16:29:01", "content": "Thanks!
", "rawMarkdown": "Thanks!", "votes": null }, { "id": "747749", "postDate": "02/16/2020 19:47:26", "content": "Your notebook is a great example of one possible method to correct the potentially erroneous value in the power plant dataset. Good catch!
", "rawMarkdown": "Your [notebook](https://www.kaggle.com/ajulian/capacity-factor-in-power-plants) is a great example of one possible method to correct the potentially erroneous value in the power plant dataset. Good catch!", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 746263, "author_name": "paultimothymooney", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/14/2020 19:49:02", "content": "Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention, we will look into it. In the meantime, I would recommend replacing the value with your best estimate, and including your rationale in the body of your notebook.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 747412, "author_name": "ajulian", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/16/2020 11:55:00", "content": "I have just updated the Notebook with your suggestions, thanks!
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 747749, "author_name": "paultimothymooney", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/16/2020 19:47:26", "content": "Your notebook is a great example of one possible method to correct the potentially erroneous value in the power plant dataset. Good catch!
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 747160, "author_name": "pcjimmmy", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/16/2020 03:37:48", "content": "Good catch.
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 747604, "author_name": "ajulian", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/16/2020 16:29:01", "content": "Thanks!
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 747533, "author_name": "pcjimmmy", "author_url": "", "post_date": "02/16/2020 14:53:14", "content": "If you walk thru the links for the data set you can find you way to the original data and a document describing how it was generated. Like many things regarding emissions - estimates and allocations were made to create the estimate. 29K power plants are in the full data set. You can likely use the full data set to generate a better guess for the coal plant.
\n\nReading all 719 pages of the USA 2020 draft report for emissions (for 2018 year) you will see a couple of footnotes and references suggesting that the data from USA territories needs improvement. The creators of the original power plant data set probably missed a glaring error or two in the Puerto RIco data.
\n\n", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "746206": "Let me begin by saying I find this initiative very interesting from many points of view. Also, I have to mention I have just a basic idea of the energy and GHG worlds.\n\nHaving said that, I regret to say I have found an important inconsistency in the \"estimated generation gwh\" column of gppd 120 pr.csv (which contains Power Plant data): the main energy source is a **coal Power Plant** which generates 450,563 GWh in a given year (2014?). However, the biggest Power Plant **in the world**, the hydro one in Three Gorges Dam (China) generated 92,452.6 GWh in a year, which is 5 times less.\n\nI have checked the value in (what I guess is) the [original source of Power Plant data](http://datasets.wri.org/dataset/globalpowerplantdatabase), and I found that field is empty for that Power Plant, while the capacity value is 454.3 MW (as in the Kaggle file).\n\nI guessed there should be a concept relating both values; in fact, it is the [**Capacity Factor** ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor) which is \"the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period\". This means the Capacity Factor should be 0 < CF < 1.\n\n[I have added a capacity factor column to the dataset](https://www.kaggle.com/ajulian/capacity-factor-in-power-plants) and found it is 113 for that coal Power Plant, which is not possible.\n\nAlso, the capacity factor for the hydro Power Plants is 5.2, which again seems not possible. However, this is much less important since those are very low capacity plants compared to Oil and Coal Power Plants.", "746263": "Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention, we will look into it. In the meantime, I would recommend replacing the value with your best estimate, and including your rationale in the body of your notebook.", "747160": "Good catch.", "747412": "I have just updated the Notebook with your suggestions, thanks!", "747533": "If you walk thru the links for the data set you can find you way to the original data and a document describing how it was generated. Like many things regarding emissions - estimates and allocations were made to create the estimate. 29K power plants are in the full data set. You can likely use the full data set to generate a better guess for the coal plant.\n\nReading all 719 pages of the USA 2020 draft report for emissions (for 2018 year) you will see a couple of footnotes and references suggesting that the data from USA territories needs improvement. The creators of the original power plant data set probably missed a glaring error or two in the Puerto RIco data.\n\n[full data set from source](http://datasets.wri.org/dataset/globalpowerplantdatabase)", "747604": "Thanks!", "747749": "Your [notebook](https://www.kaggle.com/ajulian/capacity-factor-in-power-plants) is a great example of one possible method to correct the potentially erroneous value in the power plant dataset. Good catch!" }, "source": "meta" }