Jump to content

Talk:Hydropower

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noolu Mani Kumar. Peer reviewers: Noolu Mani Kumar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hydroelectricity" ??

[edit]

I believe the section called "Hydroelectricity" has been misnamed. It should be called "Hydroelectric Power," also a common term used for "Hydroelectric Power generation." In normal speaking, just; "hydroelectric," is often short for both terms. For example, see; "DINKEY CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATER RIGHTS DECISION." For example the first sentence is wrong: "Hydroelectricity is the application of hydropower to generate electricity." But in fact; Hydroelectric Power (generation), or just "Hydroelectric" is the application of hydropower to generate electricity (or presumably; to generate "hydroelectricity").

However, the "Hydroelectricity can also be used to store energy..." is a correct usage, electricity is electricity when it comes to the end usage. Does the word; "hydroelectricity" even exist? Both www .merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hydroelectricity and en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/hydroelectric#hydroelectric go to "hydroelectric." I write more arguments, with several URLs at Talk:Hydroelectricity#Merge. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:1D6E:AFF9:2F27:2C4F (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage of Installed Hydropower capacity and Natural potential by country

[edit]

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/04/us/alaska-record-heat-trnd-wxc/index.html

Could one include or refer to a List of countries on their installed Hydropower versus natural capacity? Wikistallion (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kawther.H. Peer reviewers: StolteKate, MccEmma.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rain power

[edit]

What do other editors think of creating a section on rain as a power source? Would this be the best article for such a section (or maybe renewable energy or hydroelectricity)? Please feel to write a section on the issue using these articles or other reliable sources on the matter. Here are some sources on the issue -

Look forward to hearing from others. Helper201 (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(invited by the bot) First, a few starting notes:
  • 1st, 2nd and 4th refer to truly new technologies, the third is fundamentally really old fashioned hydropower. By the definition of the third one, nearly all hydropower is rain power.
  • I suspect that the technologies discussed at the 4 links will turn out to be duds. There is an obvious absence of the items most fundamental which are available power and produced power. The lack of the latter is occluded by smoke-and-mirrors discussions of voltage (which, considered separately is meaningless) and lighting LED's.
That said, IMO there should be a "Rain power" section on everything that people are calling rain power. Whatever it's status, it should be covered in Wikipedia. And a section in this article would be a good place to start it. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Futurism" item isn't a source. It's just a pointer to the Engadget story. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely enough coverage to write something up - a new section or even a new article. Why the RfC? Why not just WP:DOIT? ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they weren't 100% sure and just wanted extra input. Although RFC is going farther than needed. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​​​​Let me answer some questions. I posted this here because I wasn't sure which article would be best to put this section, whether it be this one or another one, or give it an article of its own (which I'm starting to think might be a good idea) and wanted other editors’ feedback. Secondly, apologies if I did not follow exact recommended rules, as North8000 said, I wasn't sure and wanted extra input and many related talk pages seemed to have little or no activity going back quite a while. My knowledge on this topic is also virtually non-existent and I was looking to find editors with more knowledge on the topic or surrounding science that may be better writing a section or article about this than me. This is also applies in finding extra sources about this topic and where to look for said sources, as I only gave a handful and thought others may know of other reliable sources to cite when writing about this topic. Please do write a section about it here with the sources provided and hopefully more you know of or create a new article about this. I have more trust that an editor with more knowledge of the topic could do a better job than myself. Helper201 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll create a small section based on the listed sources. The gist of it will be per my July 14th post.North8000 (talk) 11:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did it. Of course everyone feel free to expand. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping, North8000. Here are more sources I have found for everyone to potentially use to expand or create a dedicated page -
Hope these help. Helper201 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The ScienceAlert and Phys.org items look like churned press releases, as is typical for those sites, and a student's homework write-up is hardly a WP:RS either. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So briefly, "rain power" is either just renaming of conventional hydropower in certain cases, or a non-viable "get energy from the kinetic energy of raindrops" idea which got some smoke-and-mirrors coverage and which the BBC Science Focus Magazine magazine debunked. And Wikipedia coverage of the topic informs readers of that. North8000 (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with North8000: we should probably say something about the topic given the apparent interest from sources. Explaining the alternate name and the sensationalist "power from kinetic energy of rain drops" coverage in context would be useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the .001KWH BBC figure means that the one square meter collector would need to run about 1,000 years to produce $1 worth of electricity. North8000 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: ERTH 4303 Resources of the Earth

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2023 and 7 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ontarioeditor03 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ontarioeditor03 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be editing and adding to this wiki article for an assignment. Today, I will be adding citations where I can and editing if required. Any editors that have worked on this page: do not hesitate to reach out about any concerns. Thank you. 65.95.186.89 (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How does hydropower affect our world today?

[edit]

How does hydropower affect our world today? How often is it used? What is it used for? TrueLightMaster123 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would take several books to answer but you can start by reading the article. North8000 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power calculation

[edit]

As posted in "Calculating the amount of available power"

"The power available from falling water can be calculated from the flow rate and density of water, the height of fall, and the local acceleration due to gravity:

where 

(work flow rate out) is the useful power output (SI unit: watts)
("eta") is the efficiency of the turbine (dimensionless)
is the mass flow rate (SI unit: kilograms per second)
("rho") is the density of water (SI unit: kilograms per cubic metre)
is the volumetric flow rate (SI unit: cubic metres per second)
is the acceleration due to gravity (SI unit: metres per second per second)
("Delta h") is the difference in height between the outlet and inlet (SI unit: metres)

To illustrate, the power output of a turbine that is 85% efficient, with a flow rate of 80 cubic metres per second (2800 cubic feet per second) and a head of 145 metres (476 feet), is 97 megawatts:"



Okay, you forgot to subtract the kinetic energy of the discharge flow. For example, Hoover dam has a maximum head of 180 meters with a discharge flow of ~630 m^3/s at 140 kph. 140 kph = 38.9 m/s and using Ke = 1/2 mv^2, the discharge water needed to run the generators has a constant 1/2 * (38.9)^2 = 756 J/kg. Doing the math on the 180 meter head,


A = 9.81 m/s^2

V = At

D = 1/2 At^2 = 180 m


Solving for t, t = ((180 m) * 2 / (9.81 m/s^2)) ^ (1/2) = 6.058 seconds

V = (6.058 s) * (9.81 m / s^2) = 59.43 m/s

and Ke/kg = 1765.8 J/kg


Subtracting the discharge energy of 756 J/kg max head energy leaves 1009.8 J/kg, meaning the discharge energy is 756/1765.8 = 42.8% Unfortunately, it appears that 50% of the head divided by (100-42.8)% = 0.5 / 0.572 = 87.4% is being cited as the maximum efficiency vs the head for Hoover Dam, which is simply wrong. Like any other heat engine, the maximum efficiency is 50%, and more like near 37% as with the various other power plant types. Even with a discharge energy of 42.8%, I wouldn't expect the turbines to deliver more than that much power after losses in the pipes. Youjaes (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Quote from Google search: "hydroelectric efficiency"

The efficiency of today's hydroelectric plant is about 90 percent. Hydroelectric plants do not create air pollution, the fuel--falling water--is not consumed, projects have long lives relative to other forms of energy generation, and hydroelectric generators respond quickly to changing system conditions.

Hydroelectric Power

United States Bureau of Reclamation (.gov) https://www.usbr.gov › power › edu › pamphlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youjaes (talk • contribs) 08:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youjaes (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hydropower&oldid=1251027123"