Talk:Hydropower/Archive 1

Physics Section
I think there should be an example of how many kg of water raised 100 meters in earth's gravity needed to generate 1kwh so that people can get an idea of the vast quantities of water storage needed, shall I add it in? 66.220.96.219 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think physics is a bad name for this section, but I couldn't come up with anything better offhand. Also, I think V dot is kind of a silly way of saying volume flux, but I used this because that's what is used in the water turbine article. Would appreciate comments --dikaiopolis
 * I agree, physics is a bad name. How about Theory of operation or something.  As far as V dot, I added the formula to Water turbine.  If you prefer something else, like Q or whatever, no disagreement here.  We should keep them both the same.  Duk 22:56, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page and Hydroelectricity
What is the difference between hydropower and hydroelectricity? Why do we have both? Should they be merged? --Andrew 05:15, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hydropower is a general term relating to the means by which power (energy - the rate at which work is done) is extracted from falling water. The term does not imply any particular form of energy, and certainly not only electricity generation. Hydropower applications also include waterwheels powering millstones, and water powered pumps, for example. Hydoelectricity on the other hand relates specifically to the technology for generating electricity.


 * In the context of these articles, the focus of the hydropower is the physics of extracting work from falling water. In contrast hydoelectricity focusses on the engineering technology for generating electricity.


 * To me these are quite distinct. If the distinction is not clear, perhaps each article should cross-reference the other with a description to help clarify. Perhaps the lead sentence in each should draw the distinction?


 * Sendervictorius 09:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I feel this should be merged.Canadianshoper 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Another question
What are the downsides of of hydro electric?

Speciffically in the scottish context of using Loch katrine, which provides drinking water to glasgow, to provide power from the water flow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.186.23 (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - semiprotection
I've semiprotected the page due to long term vandalism. For a long time most edits have been vandalism or reverts.--Duk 16:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
Ehm, isn't it time to remove the cleanup tag on top of the article? It has been sitting there since April and the article looks pretty good to me. But since I am not an active editor of this page I leave it to you guys to decide. --David Göthberg 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dams produce methane?
''Recent reports have linked reservoir construction to methane, formed by decaying submerged plants growing in the dried parts of the basin during drought. Methane is a greenhouse gas.''

I'll remove that bit. There is no reference to the claim, and it seems irrelevant. Even if there is a cycle of growing/decaying plants, I'm certain it would be several orders of magnitude from the environmental impact of fossil fuels, which is really what the greenhouse discussion is about.

I would also assume that any methane released is directly related to CO2 absorbed by growing plants, so I could just reverse the sentence and claim that dams building absorbs CO2 from the air.

In short, I'm missing a reference on how such a cyclical process can contribute to the greenhouse effect.

06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hydropower plant vs hydroelectric power plant
In the section "" above the difference is discussed/explained between Hydropower and hydroelectric power. However I strongly suspect that the terms Hydropower plant(hydraulic power plant/hydropower station/hydraulic power station) and hydroelectric power plant are essentially synonyms. At least that's what I see in first several references. I guess it is because the main term here is power station/power plant, which is always about electricity. Am I correct?

This question appeared to me after I read the wikipedia article about the Astaldi company. It says about its products: "hydraulic and hydroelectric power stations". I seemed suspicious to me and I looked into the orinas source. The original says: "hydraulic and hydroelectric projects", which makes more sense to me.

Please advise how to improve the articles in question, thank you. Mukadderat 18:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An example of a hydraulic project would be a municipal water supply. Water power not used to generate electricity is more common in a historical context, for example using a water wheel to turn the machines in 19th century industry. Another application is using water power as a pump. Question, should the renewable energy template renewable energy sources use hydropower as a link or hydroelectricity, as it does currently? 199.125.109.124 03:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Direct mechanical use of hydropower is not confined to the 19th century as many 20th century paper mills used hydro turbines to power paper machinery such as grinders. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydropower v hydraulic
While I accept that the two terms are cognate, both being derived from the greek hudor (Υδωρ - water), are they in fact the same? I associate the term hydraulic with the transmission of energy donw a pipe. The application of pressure at one end results in that pressure doing work at the other. The fluid used is often today not water, but an oil based fluid (as in brake fluid in cars). That is quite different from the harnessing of the potential or kinetic energy of water to generate electricity or power machinery. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a textbook called "Hydraulics:" that talks about open channel flow, as well as flow in pipes and in turbines. the department at the consulting firm that studies water flow in rivers and tells us how much energy could be extracted is called the "hydraulics" department. "Hydraulics" covers more physical principles then the flow through pipes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

History
I have added a sentence to include hushing as another way in which the power of moving water was exploited in the Roman period and later. It survives as a method of hydraulic mining. Peterlewis (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Renewable energy
Since Bush cut hydro from the list of renewables, hydro does not get the same kinds of incentives as do non-hydro renewables.

Should this issue be discussed in the hydropower article? Kgrr (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an issue whose scope is limited to USA. It should therefore be dealt with in an article with that scope, not one looking at the subject generally.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Ocean energy
Oppose- reasonably non-overlapping topics, and "hydropower" seems mostly to be applied to falling streams of water and not usually to tidal or wave energy projects. Certainly no-one calls "salinity gradients" a source of "hydropower". --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Hydroelectricity
no merge

Oppose. - We also have separate articles for Wind energy, Windmills, Wind turbines, Wind farms, and Wind power, and Solar energy and Solar power. It makes sense to keep hydropower separate from one way of using hydropower, hydroelectricity. We also have the separate articles, Water wheel, and Watermill. In answer to the question above, the renewable template should continue to link directly to hydroelectricity, because hydropower is not sufficiently specific. I think it is just fine for Canadians to be surprised that there are other uses for hydro (in the form of power). Delphi234 (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Delphi234. If nothing else happens, I suggest to remove this unmotivated merger proposal. No need to keep them around for months. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I still support the merge. Also would it make more sense to move the article hydropower to "Hydro power"? TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than a four year old discussion above, and if there was any reason for a merge it would have happened a long time ago, all you have done is put up two merge templates, and not even provided a place for discussion (had you used that old section, your addition would have been moved to a new section), let alone provide any reason, and saying "I still support" is not a reason, and if you have provided any reason in your edit summaries, I do not read those to find out. As to hydro, outside of Canada hydro- is simply a prefix, and not a word, and in Canada, well it means hydropower, specifically hydroelectricity, so saying hydro power would be like saying hydropower power. Oh wait, in Britain hydro means "a hydropathicfacility", whatever that is (and please, I don't want to know), so hydro power would be "a hydropathicfacility power". So, no, hydropower is much better than hydro power. Delphi234 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any argument in favor of the merge, and oppose it pending a convincing reason.   Will Beback    talk    05:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose -- Hydroelectricity is merely one expression of hyrdopower, i.e. power derived from water. It was in use long before the discovery of electricity, having been used to power water mills for at least 2000 years before the invention of the generator.  It is proper for this article to function as a parent article giving an overview of all aspects, with links diredcting the user to more detailed articles on each specific subject.  This kind of "tree" of articles is commonly used in WP.  There may well be room for criticising the content, but merger would be utterly inappropriate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested merge with Pumped-storage hydroelectricity
Yet another proposed merge wihout any justification. Pumped-storage hydroelectricity is a discrete topic and I don't see any reason to merge it here, or with Hydroelectricity, as is also proposed.  Will Beback   talk    01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see any advantage in a merger (which one that may be I have to guess) either. It is a reasonable developed article on load balancing by use of the potential energy of water. Besides that again no rationale is given, nor what is to be merged where, nor where to discuss this, the procedures as given on WP:MERGE are not followed. So I removed the merge tags. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Split US
It seems like the US section gives undue weight in this article to the situation in the US, since no other countries are mentioned. I suggest splitting that section off into an article Hydropower by country or Hydropower in the United States. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough content in that one paragraph to split into its own article. If that paragraph expands and starts to overwhelm the article then it should be split and a summary put here.  A better solution at this point is to globalize the section and add information about other parts of the world.   GB fan  talk 11:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you must be referring to a list of water mills; if so, it is no longer in this article. There is a long list of water mills in the UK.  I very much doubt there is any merit in splitting this general article by country, as the differences between one country and another are not great and it will be better to highlight them in a general (worldwide) article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there was a section about the US, which had a split-section template on it, but someone seems to have removed the sectionheader, and the template, and added a bit about the UK. It was a subsection of the small hydro section. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Move
no move. Closed per WP:SNOW. 199.125.109.19 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hydropower → Hydro Energy Conversion System — A move would make the article more correct, and would increase the scope of the article. Would also clearify other article and be more in line with the article wind energy conversion system, aswell as others. Other name could also be Ocean Energy Conversion System but this term would not increase scope of the article enough as allot of water energy converters would fall off the wagon, see Renewable energy KVDP (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. Long-winded mealy-mouthed euphemistic neologism which I don't believe I've seen in print anywhere until this talk page. Not a good search target.Not more correct - no-one calls *anything* a Hydro Energy Conversion System. The last thing this article needs is increased scope, it's got everything from gold mining to hydro dams in it already. Encyclopedia articles must have definite topics if they are going to be any use to anyone at all. The Google sniff test shows mostly patents, which are notorious for mushy language designed to allow lawyers to sue as many people as possible. The phrase "hydro energy conversion system" produces no results on a Wikipedia search. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Wind energy conversion system is a brand-new article that is also totally redundant with existing articles wind turbine and windmill and I suggest it be merged with the existing articles if any non-redundant content is found. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for the sound reasons given by User:Wtshymanski Knepflerle (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is the WP:COMMONNAME, and if you want to increase the scope, why don't you just write a new article instead? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all of the above. Maybe what is needed is energy conversion system which discusses the conversion from one form of energy (solar, wind, tide, wave, river currents, water, whatever) to a different form of energy (electricity, hydrogen, heat, whatever).  The back end of a residential conversion system for say electricity is pretty much the same for a wind generator, or a solar generator. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Hydropower is the common name and this is where the article should stay.  GB fan  talk 11:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hydro Energy Conversion System has been made into an article now, so the target is no longer a viable location to rename this article. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose --Both "Hydro Energy Conversion System" and a correctly capitalised version of the smae title are now redeirects to this article, so that the objection of Mr/ms 76.66.197.30 (why can't you sign in?) is not valid. The article created was a poor duplicate of this subject and that (rapid) outcome was correct.  The present title for this article is an appropriate one.  The target sounds more like a commercial product than a general article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

B class?
I have changed the ratings on this article to C as it is nowhere near meeting the criteria for B. Most of it has no references and the one reference for the section on resources in the US is a dead link. The references section is a mixture of general references, with no indication of which parts of the publications are being are referrred to, and inline citations. Also, the lead should summarise the article but it doesn't, as a number of the terms mentioned are not in the main body of the text. Richerman (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove sections
The small scale hydropower section doesn't really belong in this article. It is just a different "scale" of hydroelectric power generation. See Hydroelectricity.

Also, the Resources in the United States section is better off in an article such as Hydroelectricity in the United States, instead of a broad article like this.

If no one objects, I will do the changes in about a week. Kind regards.  Reh  man 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅.  Reh  man 09:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Formulas need checking
The "simple formula for approximating electric power production" lacks a rho term for the mass-density of water. It should also be properly typeset. -- Robbiemorrison (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice to find "acre feet" referenced in any test code. It would also be nice if we didn't have a murky notion of "energy" and "power", and if we could get the density of water right, and if we admit that acres have different definitions, and if we recognized that static head is not the sole factor (hint: what makes the water flow to the turbine in the first place?), etc. But don't listen to me, I only do turbine efficiency testing for a living. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, so check and fix it - but please stop blanking an entire section because you have yet another of your personal beefs with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What a load that was...now at the cost of an hour worth of editing we have two redundant equations that won't impress anyone who's made it past Grade 6 arithmetic (or whatever the equivalent is in your local educational system). And the bewildered Grade 6 reader is going to wonder why we introduced this wonderful "acre foot" and then don't use it ever again? But Andy has spoken and acre-foot must be retained. At least now that section shows some clue about the difference between "energy" and "power", and the density of water...and it doesn't abuse significant figures so much. The article was better off without the redundant math tutorial. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with acre foot, then I suggest you address that over there, where we even have an article on it.
 * BTW - I'm not defending the quality of this section, and your cleanup of it is welcome. However we should still cover its topic within an article on gravity hydropower. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Acre-foot isn't the problem. Using it as a barnacle on this article is the problem.  We can explain hydropower perfectly well without using acre foot, especially easily after we decide if we want to talk about power or energy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Per your inevitably sarcastic edit summary, the difference between fathoms and acre-feet is that fathoms aren't used to measure reservoir capacity (even as acre-fathoms), whereas acre-feet are. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So units that aren't relevant to measuring hydro turbine efficiency aren't to be used? Good, they we're agreed. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that very much. Especially not when you've just deleted an equation for the efficiency (which I would have to agree though is pretty trivial) behind an edit summary that said you were just simplifying units. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What the edit summary actually says is "per talk page discussion, only use relevant units ; link for the metrically challenged". Fathoms aren't relevant to hydropower, neither are nautical miles nor acre-feet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fathoms aren't relevant to the substance of your edit either. Being "economical with your veracity" in edit summaries and talk: discussion, compared with the actual substance of your edits, is a regular feature of your editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In case anyone out there reading this has missed it, Dingley is calling me a liar. Of course, he's so terribly clever, he's confident that I haven't noticed yet. I've cleaned up more of the crappy math lesson for you but try as I might, I couldn't find acre-feet, fathoms, nautical miles or hogsheads listed in any of the discussions of hydropower I consulted this morning. And one has to look at distressingly thick books to find all those factors listed in one equation; most people seem happy to say a cubic metre is a ton and let it go at that. I've no idea how many Troy ounces are in an acre-foot, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See
Hydro-electric power is said to be renewable. It is dependent on the sun, which will eventually run out. Admittedly, this will not happen for about 4,000,000,000 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Timestamps for Statistics
Water power is becoming more and more important. The total capacity of the world's hydro plants is growing. Therefore, each number telling about capacity and percentage should get a date and, ideally, a source. I'm sorry I can't do that (don't know where to get reliable statistics), but I want to encourage anyone writing stuff like "Hydroelectric power now supplies about 715,000 MWe or 19% of world electricity." to give information of where he found these numbers, and the date.--Andreas, 15. June 06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.7.239 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Seems to be identical topic with Hydroelectricity. Merge. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please respond at Talk:Hydroelectricity to keep the discussion centralized. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)