Talk:Low-head hydro power

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Low-head hydro power article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Fix or delete?[edit]

On the one hand, "low head hydro power" is a feasible search term and could be a good place to collect related information, and offload the long article at hydropower. On the other hand, the original essay dumped-in by a one-issue editor months ago and ignored ever since, needs so much work to turn into an article. On the gripping hand, WP:SOFIXIT and all that. Sigh. We've got 10,000 people working on cataloging the Pokemon universe and nobody working on hydropower. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be renamed Free flow turbines as it is about turbines in the freeflow of a river or ocean current. Low head turbines require a head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Daglish (talk • contribs) 21:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be fixed. The title is perhaps not ideal, although it might be a worthy redirect (it's essentially the search term I used to arrive here). More commonly I see these projects labelled "free flow" or "in-stream" hydro. There's also a pretty big direct copy from this article, and some fairly promotional content. I'll have a crack and see what can be done. Basie (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note also Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity which is quite similar, and Micro hydro. Basie (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of low head hydropower[edit]

This section of the article seems to not be neutral. It seems to be trying to promote the use of low head hydro power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.194.210 (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention disadvantages. I think the problem is the advantages and disadvantages are repeated in several sections. Shannock9 (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low Head[edit]

Can someone put in the lede exactly where the term "low head" comes from or means?Jadon (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo or not?[edit]

"The power will be transmitted by cable to conversion equipment located off shore." Eh? I'm an electrical engineer and not specialised in Hydro. But it would make more sense (to me) to put any conversion on dry land. Shannock9 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree, and have boldly changed it. It has to be a typo. Thanks. Reh man 14:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low head vs No head[edit]

There is quite a bit of interest in "low head" turbines, however this article is focused on "no head" obviously to promote future ideas from Instream Energy Systems. I would suggest the fiction be removed and it be organized into those two areas.Dougmcdonell (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Centric[edit]

The government regulation parts of this article seem to be US centric

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Low head hydro power. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]