Talk:Dam failure

This article does not cite the Potosi dam disaster in 1626. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.18.33.213 (talk • contribs)

This disaster, or indeed the dam, doesn't appear to exist. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

Table needs updating from Category:Dam disasters. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vote on proposed deletion[edit]

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Jump to: navigation, search [edit] List of hydroelectric power station failuresList of hydroelectric power station failures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) (Find sources: "List of hydroelectric power station failures" – news · books · scholar · free images) No one knows what the list is for. If it's not for dam failures, which is covered elsewhere, it shouldn't be for a hodge-podge of enemy action, transmission failures, mechanical failures. There's no criterion for what failures go on the list, and every plant trips once in a while anyway. Wtshymanski (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. When I first saw that page, I wanted to AFD it too. So I don't know, maybe we could delete if the creator doesn't have good reasons... Rehman 05:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Rename to List of catastrophic hydroelectric power generation station failures, and restrict content to failures in the generating yard/generating house/transformer yard. 65.95.13.158 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Err, isn't the new name a bit too long? If you want to keep it, we could always simply mention the criterion in the lead, without really renaming the whole page... Rehman 05:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) I don't see why it's a bit too long... though yeah, you could just add my proviso to the current article/name. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC) There is no list elswhere which covers solely the catastophic loss of power from a dam - such an occurence iis highly significant and is quite seperate from the structural faiure of a dam. Thereofore this list is highly significant. It cannot easilly be ocmbined with the dam faiure list which includes many non hydro elctric dams. The fact it is a hodge podge of different causes could equally well be applied to the existing dam failure list. It is quite abnormal for a large dam to lose all its output since this involves many simaltaneous unit failurs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

Delete There is nothing inherently more "catastrophic" about a hydro generation site going off line than a fossil unit going offline. It might be more unexpected, since there are fewer things to go wrong. A hydro site can typically go back online quicker, since they do not have to go through such a long startup sequence with boiler feedpumps etc. The list is a hodgepodge of dam overtopping and transmission yard problems, mixed with wartime bombing. No prospects for a complete list, no clear definition of which trips are catastrophic: "hours or months" of outage: how many hours? Cite some standard industry definition of "catastrophic outage." Edison (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Going offline is not a catastrophic failure, a boiler exploding is a catastrophic failure. So your statement about going offline makes no sense. The generating house of a Russian dam recently was destroyed, killing most of the workers inside when a turbine destablized and blew apart, flooding the entire structure and blowing huge holes in the building. That would be a catastrophic failure, a complete loss of power is not a catastrophic failure, and that sort of failure should not be listed. 65.94.232.153 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Keep. This is an interesting list that can not be found elsewhere. BTW, do we have List of nuclear power station failures?If not, we should. Biophys (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC) Keep. It is surely not realistic to compare the routine outage of a tyical 500 MW turbine gen set, with the for example the Iatapu failure which caused lost the entire 16,000 Mw and which would not have been anticipated by the designers,whereas routine tripping would have been. The article specifically excludes routine tripping. "This caused massive power outages in Brazil and Paraguay, blacking out the entire country of Paraguay for 15 minutes, and plunging Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo into darkness for more than 2 hours. 50 million people were reportedly affected.[7] "

That's a transmission failure, not a hydroelectric failure; you might as well call the great blackout of 2003 a hydroelectric failure, I'm sure a few hydro plants went off line during that debacle, too. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) yes but it is inherently linked to the fact that the transmission is to a very large singel source of power. Delete for reasons listed by Edison. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tokwe Mukorsi Dam in Zimbabwe did not fail. There was some erosion on the downstream slope when the lake partly filled before the concrete face had been placed and water flowed through the rockfill. The loss was replaced and the dam completed the next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordoneu (talk • contribs) 01:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

Could this article be renamed to "Dam failure", as the main article for the section of the main dam article? The first sections seem to read like an article on dam failure and it could be fleshed out around the list. Are there any objections? cyclosarin 07:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bigbluefish (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banqiao and Shimantan Dams 1975[edit]

China Extreme rainfall beyond the planned design capability of the dam - Do we know the Mw power capacity of this Dam / series of Dams?

Gleno Valley disater[edit]

I think that this should be added to the list: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disastro_del_Gleno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.82.6 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I added it and made an article as well: Gleno Dam. Thanks for pointing that out.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redlands Dam[edit]

Is the Redlands Dam incident of 2008 considered a failure? If so it should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utopian100 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion[edit]

Please see my proposal to rename Category:Dam disasters and its sub cats here. Opinions and comments welcome.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Dam after the 1925 earthquake (Santa Barbara, California)[edit]

is not listed?! --93.133.95.213 (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dam failure. 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) 15:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dam failure. 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) 06:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number incompatibility[edit]

This Page report 171'000 deaths in the Banqiao dam failure but the wiki page about that accident report it to be 230'000. Jovanin99 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of repairs[edit]

How many of the recent dam failures in the US were repaired by charging the local residents? 166.198.174.66 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]