Talk:Hydropower

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This environment-related article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

--Alex 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Physics Section 2 This page and Hydroelectricity 3 Newbie question 4 Vandalism - semiprotection 5 Timestamps for Statistics 6 Cleanup tag 7 Feedback 8 Vandalism 9 Dams produce methane?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Newbie question

Moved here from the article page:

can some one help me fing out about water power?? how it works? you can email me on : misticme(a)studentfreestuff.com thanks!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Feedback

I would use Hydro-electricity because it causes no pollution and can also be used as a recreation area. It looks a lot prettier than factories and windmills. Because of that, it is really expensive, but not as expensive as a nuclear factory. Effects include: no polluting water and the air. It can enhance micro-organisms in the water.

219.77.81.181 10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The page appears to have been vandalized again. I'll try to roll it back.

--67.149.80.17 21:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, someone took care of the issue before I could pitch in to help.

--67.149.80.17 21:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)