Talk:Hydroelectricity/Archive 2

Keep which version?

 * Please discuss here whether to keep page Hydroelectricity, or whether to replace it with page User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Being the editor who created the new version, let me share more about it. The new version was created after I proposed a merger; proposing the merge of Small hydro, Micro hydro, and Pico hydro, into this article. As discussions progressed, turning the three articles to completely point at this article turned out to be somewhat controversial, which then made me to drop the merge, after completing the merge to some extent. The new version now holds the following key changes:
 * The different methods of hydroelectric generation is more clearly explained
 * The different sizes of hydro facilities are explained
 * Advantages/disadvantages of hydroelectricity is much more simplified
 * Added new charts and did some cleanup to World hydroelectric capacity
 * Removed long lists of power stations (thats already included in: this, this and/or other regional articles or lists) that unnecessarily increased file size.
 * Rearranged overall article arrangement.
 * --Rehman(+) 11:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Rehman's version has much loss of text (44,997 bytes to 34,074 bytes): see this compare. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The change in size is due to the removal of large duplicated lists and the agreed removal of parts of the disadvantages section. And also probably due to the fact that categories/inter-wiki links are temporary excluded. Rehman(+) 06:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I compared both versions and have a few comments. Overall, I think Rehman's version is better organized and flows better but the Small/Mirco/Pico articles shouldn't be deleted.. The whole article needs work/references though. I am willing to help with any of these changes.
 * In the "Sizes and capacities of hydroelectric facilities" section, a main article link like Main article: Pico hydro should be inserted to bring readers to each article. After seeing some of the comments here, I don't think the small, pico and micro articles should be deleted, especially if they have been around for awhile.
 * With the main article links, the sections and subsections for each type, ec. "Turbine types" could be removed. They confuse me anyway when I read though. It may confuse other readers.
 * Under the "Disadvantages" secton, the "Failure Hazard" section should be readded and renamed "Dam Failure Hazard". Rewording it to discuss the unique problems the associated dams poses, ie failure whether structural or from silt, storms, etc.
 * In the "Comparison with other methods of power generation", I think it was good to remove that paragraph about Hydro in Canada, it didn't really belong there. That is 893 bytes.
 * Most of the "Old hydro-electric power stations" section was referenced and if true should be intertwined in the history section. The "Claverack Creek" is "believed to be the oldest in the U.S." Most sources believe the Niagara was. That was 3,400 bytes.
 * On the main pic, that Hoover Dam image is the same as that for the article on dams. Maybe we could find a different one?--NortyNort (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed to all comments above. I have made the following edits (here) in respect to the above:
 * Removed/shortened paragraphs (i.e. Turbine types) and added main article links to parent articles.
 * Added short Failure hazard topic in the Disadvantages; to be expanded.
 * Seems like facts relating to Canadian hydro are already removed.
 * History section needs some work; for now, I have just tagged expand-sect.
 * Changed the main image; it can always be changed later.
 * Please do feel free to edit the userspace if you feel like it. :) Rehman(+) 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Replace this article with the new version found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.59.222.14 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This IP above seems suspicious. I had commented that I thought the removal of the Canadian hydro was a good idea. Is there a consensus?--NortyNort (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

More opinions please

 * So far most arguments and all alterations are by User:Rehman. User:NortyNort raises a few points; he put a new section in Hydroelectricity but has not edited User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity. User:113.59.222.14 put in one 8-word short comment. I await an opinion from someone independent. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are your comments? I haven't seen any here or in edits, aside from reverting. Do you oppose or are you just supervising the process?--NortyNort (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am supervising the process. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity looks to be a definite improvement. It should be accepted as an improvement, and to maintain momentum in the editing process.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * New Zealand also produces the majority of its electricity from hydro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.3.75 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--NortyNort (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I view the User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity as preferable, largely due to the superior organizational structure of the page.--E8 (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A complication is that 10 edits (not counting those by me) have been made to page Hydroelectricity (see this difference) since page User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity was started. (18 edits have been made to page User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I Prefer the version by User:Rehman for its more logical layout and more focussed approach. However, the longer this debate goes on, the more edits will be made to both versions making comparison increasingly more difficult. I would propose being bold and making the switch with immediate effect - this debate has been going quite long enough for anybody with a real issue to have commented by now.  Velela  Velela Talk  07:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Velela; the more we wait, the more edits needs to be deleted. So far, there were no opposes by any editors commenting on the topic. And this is going too far for an uncontroversial cleanup. Worst case, if someone does oppose the move so strongly, s/he could simply restore to the old version. Rehman(+) 09:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, let's get r' done!--NortyNort (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Rehman. This process has needlessly bogged down a normal editing process.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

History merge not done

 * The first edit of this page (at 01:43, 26 June 2010 by User:Rehman) was copied from a edit (at 21:46, 25 June 2010 by User:NortyNort, or earlier) of the page which is now at Hydroelectricity/version 1 but was formerly at Hydroelectricity. I cannot history-merge it, as page Hydroelectricity/version 1 has had over 5000 edits and so cannot be deleted (either temporarily or permanently) by ordinary administrators. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted those two page moves. "This page" now means User:Rehman/Hydroelectricity. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the above technical reason, the new version was added by this single copy-paste edit. Further information on the reverting may be found here. Rehman(+) 10:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Disadvantages
Hello editors. In the disadvantages section, I believe that, "Failure hazard", "Large power outages caused by dam failures", and "Limited service life", does not make sense. Because, these points are the same with nearly all types of power stations; I believe these are better off in a power station or similar article. I would be glad to hear your points of whether or not to keep or remove them. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 04:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Failure: Take a nuclear, coal, gas-fired or any other plant for example, it has a great failure risk too.
 * Power outage: All, absolutely all, large power stations are at a risk of large power outages.
 * Limited life: As you already know, every power station would someday need to be closed, due to wear-and-tear, or other safety or economical reasons.


 * Agreed. None of these are peculiar to hydroelectric plants. ( If Pointe du Bois makes it another 18 months or so, it'll be 100 years old...there are no 100-year old steam plants. ) I've taken out the dubious additions. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree those factors apply to all power stations and quite frankly, the specifics that are unique to my hydroelectric power stations apply to their accompanied dams. Silting of the reservoir and failure of the dams are unique and should be described as disadvantages of hydroelectric power. Maybe a new short subsection under the disadvantages "Dams" w/ limited service life, failure hazard and maybe the low flow/drought section included? --NortyNort (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Good article. Shouldn't the effects on fisheries be included under the disadvantages?  Will Beback   talk    23:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is under the 'Damage and loss of land' (regarding Salmon and cold water) and under the see also "Environmental_impacts_of_reservoirs". I don't think there should be much more expansion within this article.--NortyNort (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the heading to "Ecosystem damage and loss of land" to make that clearer.   Will Beback    talk    00:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hydroelectricity (article) - Large Hydro (topic)
[This is -- suggestion to add a section]:

Large Hydro is an arbitrary designation (meaning it has different definitions, in different settings, or by different agencies). For example, US DOE identifies Large Hydro as being larger than 30 MW. Yet, it is still included under the Renewable umbrella.(A) However, CA excludes Large Hydro from the definition of renewable energy resource.(B)(C)  Such exclusion is based on politics, not science. Such assertion is because Large Hydro is the epitome of renewable. It takes the mechanical energy, of the pressure of water onto the wheels, the rotation of which creates a magnetic field, across which electrons jump, to create electricity.[insert - link to Hydro Power article]

Specifically, back when the CA renewables program was in its inception, the intent was to earmark funds to develop (underlined) alternate forms of power. If Large Hydro was then included, funds would of course be directed toward this proven and workable technology. But now, we are in a fully different construct. Namely, the state wants to install (underlined) more renewable power. So, now is the appropriate time to return Large Hydro to the defintion. The alternative forms of power have been developed. For benefit of the customers, the most cost-effective solutions should be able to viewed with parity. If not, this could set CA up to be in a deficit position, such as in the marketing of emssion credits, against other US states or other countries that indeed do recognize Large Hydro as "renewable".

Some argue that such an action would mean that the RES (Renewable Electricity Standard) would therefore need to be increased. So be it. At least it would be accurate representation. For instance, per CEC (California Energy Commission), thru year-end 2007, in-state generation was 14% renewables, but if include Large Hydro, it was 25%.(D) Likewise, if projects slated to meet the previous targets come to fruition (20% in 0202, 30% in 2030), CA would actually attain closer to 30% in 2020, 43% in 2030. And the CA governor spoke to this very figure, in his speech at dedication of the Renewable Transmission Project (May 4, 2010):

[indent] - And I want to also tell you that I will negotiate tirelessly to get our renewable policy set for the rest of this decade so we reach the 33 percent. And when I talk about 33 percent, that's a watered-down 33 percent, because in reality, when you add hydro, it's actually 43 percent.(E)

And Large Hydro is not just green power. It is now used for firming-up the electricy grid, such as when the demand from customers varies over the course of a day (called "load following"). And Large Hydro can respond in mere minutes.(F) Such is a straight-forward application of the concept of supply and demand. Large Hydro also has the capcity to provide Energy Storage, such as behind "intermittant" renewables (such as, when the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine). These actions ensure power "reliability" (when hitting the switch, the power goes on). Large Hydro can help with all these energy problems. It thus seems far too good a resource for CA to contiue to ignore.


 * (A)http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/hydro_plant_types.html#sizes
 * (B)Public Resources Code Section 25741(a)(1)
 * (C)Public Utilities Code Section 399.12(a)(3)
 * (D)http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
 * (E)http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/speech/15072
 * (F)(there was a website that this, can't find it now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.13.48.17 (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think including the DOE threshold in the large hydro section is reasonable. It would be great to have the given large hydro threshold for another country's department or company. Such as HydroQuebec? --NortyNort (Holla) 23:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * [reply] - in Canada, small hydro definition goes to 50-MW. http://canmetenergy-canmetenergie.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/eng/renewables/small_hydropower.html
 * [reply] - also, Vermont includes within its definition of renewable the hydro from Quebec. http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/03/12/quebec_utilities_in_vt_renew_their_deal/
 * [reply] - the US DOE secretary Steven Chu has said MANY times that he supports increased use of hydro for electricity. Most telling was an MOU signed with the Army Corps of Engineers and Dept of the Interior, to increase hydro.(March.2010) So, it shouldn't be only government lands that can count hydro as renewable. States need to (also) be given that latitude. (see second article, Sep.2010) http://www.hydroworld.com/index/display/article-display/5351759734/articles/hrhrw/News-2/2010/02/u_s_-government_agencies.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.13.48.8 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Large and specialized industrial facilities" (misnomer)
Sub-section for "Large Hydro" is missing from "Sizes and capacities of hydroelectric facilities". The title of the existing sub-section is a misnomer, as it discusses ultra-large (GW size) and industry specific. Suggestion - put each of those under its own heading, and add a third, such as Specialized Industrial, Ultra Large, Large Hydro (followed by existing Small, Micro, Pico). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.13.48.8 (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Add a dam to the list of dams that have destroyed major cultural/historical sites.
The Dalles dam on the Columbia River should be added to the short list of dams that have damaged major cultural/historical sites. The dam inundated Celilo Falls. This destroyed a fishing ground and fishing village that had existed in some form for approximately 15,000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.247.114 (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, good comment. I think the significance of the relocation in the "Relocation" section is what you are talking about. The Grand Coulee Dam had a very similar impact as well. Each dam in that sentence had/or is going to have a significant impact on relocation, with maybe the exception of the Clyde Dam which I am not too familiar with. Three Gorges relocated around 1.1 million people, Ilisu will around 40k and part of Hasankeyf, while the Ataturk Dam (not even listed) already relocated about 40k as well and flooded an ancient city as well. Other dams could certainly be in there but those are just a few extreme examples. I don't think we should make the sentence too long.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Banqiao and Shimantan Dams
Electrical power capacity of the dam - anyone know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Caption under first picture
I believe the phrase should be "conventionally dammed hydro facility." Conventional(ly) modifies dammed; both modify hydro facility. "Dammed-hydro" is not a compound adjective. 76.205.177.30 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅, by Wtshymanski. Reh  man  02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Brazilian Hydro plants database for Google Maps and Google Earth
Hi all, I would like to sugest an External Link:
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.35.227.99 (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Some small edits
The section "Flow Shortage" under "Advantages and Disadvantages has some minor typos:
 * 1) The font on the double "f"s in run-off is strange.
 * 2) Brazil has a heavy reliance, not a "heaving" reliance.
 * 3) There is an unnecessary comma after "regime." Really, that sentence is poorly written. I would rewrite it:
 * "Brazil is particularly vulnerable due to its heavy reliance on hydroelectricity. Increasing temperatures, lower water flow and alterations in the rainfall regime could reduce annual energy population by 7% by the end of the century." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.179.12 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 23 November 2011
The figures given in the statement "Worldwide, an installed capacity of 1,010 GW supplied hydroelectricity in 2010. This was approximately 16% of the world's electricity, and accounted for about 76% of electricity from renewable sources" do not match those given in the quoted reference.

16% of the world's electricity is from renewables. 21% of this is from hydroelectricity, which is 3.4% of the world's total.

This needs to be changed as there is clearly a striking difference between the two figures which skews the reader's perception and understanding of hydroelectricity and its contribution to global energy.

MegWhiteIII (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for the correction, C T J F 8 3  01:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes about figure "Ten of the largest hydroelectric producers as at 2009"
There are some mistakes or errors in your text: You mention "annual power" in the text what is named in the table column as "production [TWh]. Production is ok, annual power is wrong, power stands for TW or MW.. not for Work [TWh]. The term "capacity" for the column about installed peak power is completely confusing. Capacity is physicaly indicated by for example TWh, never as MW!!! Please correct and name the column as follow:
 * ¦ annual avg production [TWh] ¦ installed peak power [MW] ¦ Power to Energy ratio ¦ REM *) Hydro power percentage to countrywide installed power ¦


 * I sugest this definition. it is not yet clear how the figures are related in this part of the table!!

--Cosy-ch (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Power calculation
The current calculation for power is:


 * A simple formula for approximating electric power production at a hydroelectric plant is: P = ρhrgk, where
 * P is Power in watts,
 * ρ is the density of water (~1000 kg/m3),
 * h is height in meters,
 * r is flow rate in cubic meters per second,
 * g is acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2,
 * k is a coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0 to 1. Efficiency is often higher (that is, closer to 1) with larger and more modern turbines.

I suggest using standard units:


 * A simple formula for approximating electric power production at a hydroelectric plant is: P = ρhrgk, where
 * P is Power in watts,
 * ρ is the density of water (~1 kg/L),
 * h is height in meters,
 * r is flow rate in liter per second,
 * g is acceleration due to gravity of 9.8 m/s2,
 * k is a coefficient of efficiency ranging from 0 to 1. Efficiency is often higher (that is, closer to 1) with larger and more modern turbines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.125.40.82 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cubic meters is standard in engineering applications, and considering of the magnitude of the volumes, is more appropriate in this application.--E8 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Where the dam is big enough to send power to more than one cusomter, yes, the usual measure is cubic metres per second (or cubic feet per second in inch-pound literature). The hydrology department may measure leakage in litres/second. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The formula works pretty well. Here's an example with data taken from the Robert-Bourassa generating station (including LG-2-A). 1,000 kg/m³ &times; 137.16 m &times; 5,920 m³/s &times; 9.80665 m/s² &times; 0.97 = 7,723,988,046 W or 7,724 MW Actual values are: 5,616 + 2,106 = 7,722 MW. However, the calculation assumes nominal parameters: maximum head, flow and water at 3.98 °C. I'm also guessing k to be at a value around 0.97. Bouchecl (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Temperature influence
 * I supose that temperature has really a low influence to output power due to really really low compression rate of water. There is true that water has the biggest density at nearly +4 degree, but the "loss" of efficiency due to lower density at higher temps is nearly nothing. There are so mutch other and bigger influences then temp (for example perfect coupling between network impedance to generators impedance and therfore losses in absolute active power due to non-ideal networks (let us say resulting impedance from network including all consumers) --Cosy-ch (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from, 13 March 2012
Edit request: "Depending on the location, water exiting from turbines is typically much warmer than the pre-dam water" does not make sense: 1 kg of water falling for 1000m (HUGE assumption) would generate an energy of ~ 10000J, total. At an 80% efficiency, that leaves 20% on the table. Assuming half of that (10%, which is HUGE) goes into heating the water, that leaves 1000J on the table. Which, for 1 kg of water, rises the temperature by a spectacular... 0.25 degrees vs. the pre-dam water. Hence, the statement does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.166.206.128 (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this might need to be fixed, but it's not the movement of the water that warms it up, it's the holding of the water in a sunny reservoir that affects its termperature. ( Haven't calculated it yet but the heat energy stored in the reservoir is probably an order of magnitude more than the gravitational potential energy in the water.) 1 kg of water falling 1000 metres in Earth gravity would produce 9810 joules - that's only enough energy to warm 1 kg of water by 2.3 degrees C. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ---and a 1977 New Scientist article on Google Books says that a Russian dam was going to *drop* the temperature of the water, since it was discharging water from deeper, cooler layers of a resevoir. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought the major temperature change concern of dams was cooler than normal water being discharged downstream because of where it is drawn from the reservoir. That is a major problem downstream of Hoover Dam which is in a hot area of the world, but maybe warmer water is a problem at a large dam in a cold area like Sayano-Shushenskaya Dam. I couldn't find a good source to back up a warmer-water claim but agree its plausible, if only a few degrees. I made some tweaks to the sentence.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My recollection is that it was not a problem with the Hoover Dam, but became a problem when the Glen Canyon Dam upstream was built. Delphi234 (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly is not ubiquitous. Water leaving the turbines at Nant y Moch dam, Llyn Brianne and many other reservoirs which generate hydroelectricity in Wales is generally very much colder than expected as the water is drawn from the Hypolimnion.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I propose to completely remove this argument from the text bevause it is unrelated and the effects definitly unreal and not measurable. Worlds biggest (most powerfull) pelton turbines in swiss area (see for [|Bieudron])shows that water coming from turbine is mostly too cold (it keeps the temperature of mutch higher altitudes and becomes not warm enougth while falling)So absolutely no problem about warming --Cosy-ch (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Disadvantages
One major disadvantage is not mentioned: the risk that a hydroelectric dam generates far less power than expected as other hydrolectric hydroelectric dams are being built on that river by other countries and as these are not calculated in. This has been documented by the document submitted by R. Edward Grumbine and Maharaj K. Pandit. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6115/36.summary

Include in article KVDP (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It can go both ways. Upstream dams can regulate the flow of a river, allowing for a better capacity factor, or they can restrict flow during periods of drought, decreasing generation. I am thinking of a way to include both.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Major Projects in Ethiopia and Rest of Africa Omitted
The following major projects have been omitted: This information is on this webpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dams_and_hydropower_in_Ethiopia
 * Gilgel Gibe IV 2,000 MW - Ethiopia
 * Grant Ethiopia Renaissance Dam 5,250MW - Ethiopia

196.2.76.20 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. - a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Grand Ethiopian added. I don't think Gilgel Gibe IV construction has begun yet. Can't find a source... Gibe III appears to be behind schedule.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014
can I edit the research that you people have added i am a professor at Harvard with new research.

203.100.5.114 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Update Largest dams list
Xilodou Dam is now fully operational it should be added to the top 5 list kicking off the Grande Coulee... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.144.141 (talk) 03:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thank you, IP. Iselilja (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Underground"
Is "Underground" a method for developing hydroelectricity or rather an engineering consideration when selection the location of a hydroelectric power station? I am wonder if it belongs elsewhere in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific Countries
I have noticed that several countries have pages discussing Hydroelectricity specifically within their borders. Hydroelectricity_in_Canada, Hydroelectricity_in_Romania, Hydroelectric_power_in_New_Zealand, Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States, Hydroelectric_power_in_India, Hydroelectricity_in_Italy, Hydroelectricity_in_the_United_Kingdom, Hydroelectric_power_in_Kenya, for example. It seems like this information should at least be linked from this page, but I don't see that anywhere. Is there reasoning behind this? --Geneocide (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, the pages you have linked above are largely about local hydroelectric power stations, policies, market share, etc of the respective country, whereas this article explains about hydroelectric power in general (methods of generation, efficiencies, advantages, etc etc. At least that's how it should be. :) Reh  man  13:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We have which I've linked - a list would be the usual form but categories are easier to maintain. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm satisfied. Great list. --Geneocide (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028220929/http://idbgroup.org/exr/doc98/pro/pvel1003-06eng.pdf to http://idbgroup.org/exr/doc98/pro/pvel1003-06eng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100629051317/http://www.cjwsjy.com.cn:80/News/Company/200808055706.htm to http://www.cjwsjy.com.cn/News/Company/200808055706.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

water car
Hey, we could use the hydroelectric generator concept, add a reservoir, pump, and battery, and drive hydroelectric cars, and drive them across the hydroelectric dams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregMarson (talk • contribs) 05:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://reme.epfl.ch/webdav/site/reme/users/106542/public/SHS4/Gr01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120307120342/http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf to http://www.externe.info/expoltec.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Citation 15
Citation 15 is a dead link. It should be replaced by an archived copy. 121.45.177.31 (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718181410/http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/download/RE_GSR_2006_Update.pdf to http://www.ren21.net/globalstatusreport/download/RE_GSR_2006_Update.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614050746/http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2041318 to http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2041318
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120920024704/http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=5792&title=climate-change-disasters-electricity-generation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823024822/http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-29/entire.pdf to http://www.usace.army.mil/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-29/entire.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426092643/http://tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=1636&lang=English to http://www.tve.org/ho/doc.cfm?aid=1636&lang=English

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Pollution from Hydro
Dams for hydro emit massive amounts of methane in tropical areas.
 * "Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. " https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil. http://www.opb.org/news/article/northwest-researchers-link-carbon-pollution-to-hydro-dams/

Mercury as well. https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2016/11/human-health-risks-from-hydroelectric-projects

Microbes convert naturally occurring mercury in soils into potent methylmercury when land is flooded, such as when dams are built for hydroelectric projects. The methylmercury moves into the water and animals, magnifying as it moves up the food chain. This makes the toxin especially dangerous for indigenous communities living near hydroelectric projects because they tend to have diets rich in local fish, birds and marine mammals such as seals.

Why have you locked this article? it is full of mistakes. Is this because this is an overview article and the article on dam base hydro covers it, if there is such and article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianMcVanScientist (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * A couple of points - the concerns raised apply to all reservoir creation, Environmental impact of reservoirs may be a good place to talk. Some hydro uses reservoirs and some doesn't. The methane problem is in the article. The methylmercury article you linked to was probabilistically modeled, that makes it a theory, not a fact. Finally methylmercury is naturally produced by microbes that live in aquatic systems including lakes, rivers, wetlands, sediments and soils, it is more involved than just reservoirs. If you can quote a reliable source that measured a rivers methylmercury before and after a reservoir being built, it needs to be added to wiki.Dougmcdonell (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121231233454/http://thesouthslope.com/content/pumped-storage-explained to http://thesouthslope.com/content/pumped-storage-explained
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090731064419/http://www.t4cd.org/Resources/ICT_Resources/Projects/Pages/ICTProject_287.aspx to http://www.t4cd.org/Resources/ICT_Resources/Projects/Pages/ICTProject_287.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090902184753/http://www.ijee.dit.ie/articles/Vol14-4/ijee1012.pdf to http://www.ijee.dit.ie/articles/Vol14-4/ijee1012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130821120709/http://www.dams.org/report/ to http://www.dams.org/report/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018201733/http://www.ehdc.com.cn/newsite/DisplayNewsMaster/ShowNews.aspx?Id=1175 to http://www.ehdc.com.cn/newsite/DisplayNewsMaster/ShowNews.aspx?Id=1175
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707013437/http://www.cb600.cn/info_view.asp?id=1357280 to http://www.cb600.cn/info_view.asp?id=1357280
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717015158/http://zt.xxgk.yn.gov.cn/canton_model12/newsview.aspx?id=368628 to http://zt.xxgk.yn.gov.cn/canton_model12/newsview.aspx?id=368628

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2009/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2009.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501225851/http://www.esha.be/ to http://www.esha.be/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018
{{subst:trim|1=

could I edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian1482 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for permission to edit the article. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article; however, you can do one of the following:
 * If you have an account, you will be able to edit this article four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
 * If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this article.
 * You can request unprotection of this article by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. An article will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
 * You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri {{sup| Talk }}

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydroelectricity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613142851/http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf to http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/pdfiles/bcpact.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone add this to the article please?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/09/hundreds-new-dams-could-mean-trouble-our-climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacman455 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Impeller vs. turbine runner
Text under one of the pictures states "An old impeller on display at the Glen Canyon Dam"

I suggest that the word impeller be changed to runner or alternatively "turbine runner".

Cheers Tommy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy Erkkilä (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge
Seems to be identical with Hydropower. Merge. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The article about hydropower deals with any application of the energy of falling water, while hydroelectricity is specifically about the use of this energy for electricity generation. However, I agree that there is significant overlapping in the two articles at the moment. This should be fixed and their difference should be further clarified. I am not sure if they should be merged, since they are clearly different topics, but electricity generation is by far the largest application of hydropower. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In other words, the broader topic includes water mills. Thus, hydroelectricity may be considered as a subtopic of hydropower, per summary style. I'll adjust the merge tags accordingly. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. Hydropower is the broader term, which goes back to antiquity and covers all methods of harnessing water to perform work. Hydroelectricity only dates back to the 19th century.
 * That said, I agree with others that there's far too much material in hydropower which should only be in hydroelectricity. That material should be merged into the latter article to avoid duplication and to eliminate any WP:CONTENTFORKing. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support
 * (A) WP:SIZESPLIT says articles shouldn't be too big or too small. Although the larger article Hydroelectricity has over 50,000 bytes the operative statistic is readable prose and it has just 26,000 bytes of naked text.  The smaller article, Hydropower has 26000 bytes total, including all formatting, references, and images.  I didn't bother to analyze the readable prose size.  If we combined them and purged the overlap, the readable text would be right in the ballpark of just right.
 * (B) Cost-benefit of the merge.  Combining them would pay off by (A) eliminating overlap  (B) preventing redundancy creep in the future long after we have been replaced by other editors and thereby minimize longterm maintenence headache, (C) when this article is repeated on other platforms its all there instead of readers on the other sites maybe only seeing part of the info.
 * (C) WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Although Narky Blert correctly points out that the concept of hydroelectricity is new compared to non-electric forms of hydropower, in my opinion Narky errs first by suggesting the term hydropower itself goes back to antiquity (there are no references for this claim) but even if that were true Narky also errs by implicitly suggesting the historical etymology should decide this question.  In my view, where there is no good SIZE limit for two articles, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA should take precendence.   I have no published study for this, but I betcha twenty bucks for every person who knows what hydroelectricity means, there are at least five more who understand "hydropower".
 * (D) HOW-TO. I suggest merge to hydropower.  In the history section, I do not know of any incline planes for the RR that operated on hydropower. The ones I know about used canals to approach the hills, then rails and other forms of power to go over the hills until they reached the canals on the other side.  But that's my own knowledge from visiting places, I don't have references to cite.  Missing in that section is industrial material handling via Flume and its incorrect to suggest these non-electric systems are relegated to history.  It would be interesting to add contemprorary non-electric uses, whether in industrialized or remote corners of the world.   But for now there is plenty of readable prose room to put it all under the most familiar name, Hydropower.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - these are two different topics (hydroelectricity is a subtopic of hydropower). However, the hydropower article needs to be completely rewritten to refocus on the general discussion of hydropower and less focused on hydroelectricity specifically. For example, a bigger discussion of watermills. About the comment above: the fact that merging the article would result in an article with acceptable size is not a reason to merge. The cost benefit is also not a reason to merge. The fact that it is more convenient does not make it more right. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose One is a subset of the other, not a synonym. They're both huge topics and whilst one is fairly recent at 140 years, the other is millennia old. Nor are watermills the only non-electric form. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * At first glance I supported a merge since the terms seemed identical and confusing. But actually, the rare title; "Hydroelectricity" needs to be changed. The "industry standard" is either Hydroelectric (power is inferred), or Hydroelectric Power.  For examples, see; DINKEY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATER RIGHTS DECISION https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/d1550_d1599/wrd1588.pdf .      " water storage and hydroelectric projects." "The applicant proposes to construct a hydroelectric power project on..."  I've read many similar documents, formal and informal and don't recall ever seeing "Hydroelectricity."  Electric and electricity are NOT synonyms; noun V. adjective.
 * Reading the above PDF also suggests a whole range of issues in "Hydroelectric Power" that are unrelated to older kinds of hydropower, including water storage rights, and environmental degradation. That's just a hint. (Insert modern debates and issues.) See also: Hydroelectric Power: How it works, USGS Water-Science School https://water.usgs.gov/edu/hyhowworks.html I believe changing the title of "Hydroelectricity" to Hydroelectric Power would also allow clarification/simplification to the lede section.  Does the word; "hydroelectricity" even exist? Both https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hydroelectricity and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/hydroelectric#hydroelectric go to "hydroelectric."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1034:A82D:20B4:B5E8 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "Hydroelectricity" is not rare. It returns almost 3 million results on Google. It is not only obviously existing (as your link to the dictionary actually demonstrates) but widely used. Hydroelectric is an adjective, while hydroelectricity is a noun, thus they are not interchangeable. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

volunteers
Is anyone planning to fix the huge overlap we all agree needs to be fixed one way or the other? If they were already one reasonably sized article its doubtful there would be consensus to split them, based on I like and just right reasoning above, so we have WP:THERIGHTVERSION vs WP:THEWRONGVERSION. Of those favoring two articles, who wants to do the grunt work of fixing the overlap?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I have done some work on hydropower to make it more coherent with the actual topic of the article. --Ita140188 (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wthout looking, I think you might be saying you added non-electric aspects for the topic. Thank you very much!  A great start!  Going forward who wants to actually do the work of re-organizing this material into two concise coordinated articles and then tend them against redundancy creep?  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Quebec
Why does the article not mention Quebec?

From Economy_of_Quebec.

— Srid 🍁 20:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)