From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Timestamps for Statistics[edit]

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


The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Closed per WP:SNOW. (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

HydropowerHydro 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)


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? (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. (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 (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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split US[edit]

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. (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. (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

B class?[edit]

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[edit]

The small scale hydropower section doesn't really belong in this article. It is just a different "scale" of hydroelectric power generation. See Hydroelectricity#Sizes and capacities of hydroelectric facilities.

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. Rehman 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Rehman 09:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Formulas need checking[edit]

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 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)


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 (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydropower. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)