Talk:Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity

External links needed

Since there is currently no illustration of the way this sort of hydro-electric system works, it would be good if the article had a few external links. Linking to an illustrated article would be valuable. Joel Russ 17:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. The article low head hydro power seems to be of the same topic as this article (run-of-the-river hydroelectricity). If no one objects, I would carry out a merge or redirect, depending on the contents. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 11:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Redirected page to this article. That article basically duplicated details from Hydroelectricity, Water turbine, Tidal power, and this article itself. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 08:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reverted. Under a day is far from adequate time for any notification or discussion of such a merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess you are right. Will leave this open for about a week, and if there are no opposes, I will redirect the page. Kind regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Mildly oppose. Low-head hydro also encompases wave and tidal power. Run-of-the-river hydro may get lost in the article and some of the information may relate only to tidal/wave or only to run-of-the-river hydro. Aflafla1 (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Taking a neutral stance on this merge. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As with most of these many hydro- related merges of late, their effect would seem to be to treat a general article (not just electricity generation, not just natural water head) as if it were a narrowly specific article (their hydroelectricity aspects only) and then merge it into a far larger and broader article. That's not a good move. Low-head hydro has a huge history for watermills etc. that had nothing to do with electricity for centuries. run-of-the-river has also (IMHO, admittedly) implications of being "zero head" hydro, based on large flow rates but almost no head (i.e. possibly a dam or weir as a barrier, but no constructed leat to provide a fall equivalent to the wheel diameter).

  Clearly there's some confusion here, but I don't feel that it's fixable by merging what we already have. I think a better route might be to write from scratch a "table of contents" section, possibly on a project talk page, not as wikilinks at all. This would list "new" articles that cover the broad scope of water power, in a way that gives a broad, balanced and appropriately detailed encyclopedic view of the entire topic. Then, and only then, we convert these article titles to wikilinks (or redlinks) and start wondering how we re-organise the content chunks we have available and ready-authored into being encyclopedic articles.

  Personally I avoid broad-scope articles like hydroelectricity (also steam locomotive, diesel engine etc.). WP works well on narrow-scope, but has an obvious problem in maintaining editorial structure and readability when we get to the broad scope. Everyone has their own favourite para they want to see included and the result is a list of factoids, not an article. "Editorial control by merge" doesn't seem to work to solve this, we need to take a stand further back and start structures or ToCs from scratch more often. After all, the content (and the work that represents) is still re-usable within them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Low head" and "run of river" are two differnt aspects; in principle one could build a dam that only holds back a couple of meters of head, or one could have a large drop and no dam. I've removed the merge tag. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination, per Wtshymanski. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Run-of-the-river

Please note that some jurisdictions, such as British Columbia, are contemplating separate financing and development structures such as Feed in Tariffs for hydrokinetic turbines as opposed to traditional 'run of the river'. This is significant given that there are still significant environmental problems with run of river. This all suggests a separate, and increasingly sophisticated discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of hydrokinetic. User: Noah Quastel 5:05, 16 September 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.227.23 (talk)

I would not describe run of the river hydro as a peaking resource but rather as an intermittent resource. In my understanding, a peaking resource can be dispatched at any time to any chosen level of output within its design range. "Peakers" are turned on (dispatched) when load demand is high for limited periods of time (hot, weekday summer afternoons). The classic peaker is a natural gas fired combustiion turbine-generator. Since a run of the river hydro resource can run only when (and to the extent that) the river is running, it can't always be dispatched in response to peaking load demands. It's more like wind or solar: you may be able to turn it off or down when the energy source is present, but you cannot turn it on or up when the energy source is not there.70.113.84.147 (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dependent upon the scheme, some ROR plants serve better as peaking power plants but they generally serve the purpose. River diversion ROR schemes can be supported by a larger reservoir upstream. ROR schemes, like large dams are subject to low river flows.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the user above who states run-of-river is not a peaking resource. True run-of-river is not dispatchable and therefore cannot be used to meet peak demand. U.S. regulatory guidelines suggest that run-of-river and peaking are actually mutually exclusive definitions (see footnote 9 on p.3). Some run-of-river plants might be considered baseload if they are small enough relative to the size of the river that they are nearly always running (some can have 90%+ capacity factors). To strengthen what is said above, not only can a run-of-river plant not be dispatched when there is no water, it is always dispatched depending on how much water is instantaneously available. Most resources run around-the-clock when and to the extent that water is present. They are properly classified as intermittent power, just like wind and PV. NortyNort suggests that some run-of-river plants may have storage reservoirs upstream, but that is not relevant to the discussion of the run-of-river plant itself. If a plant is part of the same project as the upstream storage reservoir, then it is by definition not run-of-river. --Matt 108.58.146.110 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

References

is improved navigation an advantage

I see that all 4 dams on the lower Snake River, Ice Harbor Dam, Lower Granite Dam, Little Goose Dam, and Lower Monumental Dam are described as "run of the river". I do not see in the discussion of advantages that dams like this can improve navigation on a river. I know that Lewiston, Idaho has become a seaport as a consequence of the construction of these dams. (Initially this benefited grain growers in the region, although other users have appeared. In 2011 heavy components for constructing processing plants for Athabasca tar sands are being imported via Lewiston.) Should improvements in navigation be included as advantages of dams of this type? I understand that locks are not essential to the run-of-the-river concept, but it appears that this type of dam can facilitate the construction of a lock system. AJim (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Large ROR, a new concept?

The second paragraph of the Context section is somewhat overstated:

In recent years, many of the larger ROR projects have been designed to a scale and generating capacity rivaling some traditional hydro dams. For example, one ROR project currently proposed in British Columbia (BC) Canada – one of the world’s new epicentres of run-of-river development – has been designed to generate 1027 megawatts capacity.

Mid-sized (150-500 MW), large (500-1,000) and very large (1,000 MW+) ROR plants have been around for a while! For instance, Beauharnois has operated since 1932! ROR means means a low head, high flow site at a certain cost per unit of capacity or energy. ROR hydro makes a comeback, but it's nothing new. Bouchecl (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about Chief Joseph too! I agree and took "In recent years," out of the text. I can't access the source but it may have been a bit of original research. This article is rather slanted towards BC hydro events, particularly the last bullet.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit :) Bouchecl (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with "ROR means means a low head, high flow site at a certain cost per unit of capacity or energy". High head and low flow are included in ROR. A run of the river project means no conventional dam construction. If a new plant has no dam but is on a river with an existing upstream dam, it is run of the river.Dougmcdonell (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Run-of-river or Run-of-the-river

Did they recently add the phrase "Run-of-river" officially? because I was taught that it is "Run-of-the-river" in my college. Sunwukong5 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Planned Edits

Hello,

In the next couple weeks, I will be revising and editing this article for an energy and sustainability course project. I would appreciate any feedback on my proposed edits, which I will be working on in my user sandbox. So far, my planned changes to the article include:

- Removing the 'Concerns' section and reincorporating parts of it into disadvantages

- Adding more information into the advantages and disadvantages sections

- Adding 3 more references to the bibliography

ToxicAgarian (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)