Talk:List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations

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

Format change[edit]

Hello NortyNort. This seems to be a very nice and helpful article. Although some changes may make it even better. Just suggestions, what would you think of these changes:

...basically to perform something like what i did to this article, (from this to this). Regards. Rehman(+) 07:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman, doesn't sound like a bad idea. It would cut the list by about 2/3 which would be good. --NortyNort (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should i move with the plan then? Steps include:

  1. Removal of unreferenced entries between 0-999 MW.
  2. Finding of refs for ones above 1000MW
  3. Moving 0-999MW entries with refs/article to regional lists - quite difficult, wouldnt mind help :)
  4. Changing table-format to a one like this

-- Rehman(+) 09:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can help move some and find references for all categories. There is this website I think people got a lot of em' from...I referenced about a dozen of these the other day. I think if we just get rid of the unreferenced, it is some info that is probably true but just not referenced. I had originally moved this this over from the pumped-storage hydroelectricity article and the references were a disaster to begin with.
Since the hydroelectricity article is beginning split into 3 segments, maybe we should split this article into two pages >1000, <1000? I am willing to help. --NortyNort (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Separating the page into segments did seem like a good idea, the only thing is that it would separate focus; both article wont be treated the same by editors and readers. Besides, if we list every facility above 1000MW, its unlikely it will be that big to split. I will be starting step one now. Hopefully, i will finish step two by today too. :) Regards. Rehman(+) 12:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'll be working in and out of the page the next few days. Just don't lose any of the unreferenced, I will look around to confirm them. --NortyNort (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. All entries (referenced or unreferenced) above 1000MW are left as it is, as mentioned in the above steps. Kind regards. Rehman(+) 23:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to lose the ones below the 1000MW as well, if they have an article linked to them, I wont bother referencing it. But >1000 MW is still a significant power station and I am sure they exist. Good thing about the referencing is that I am finding a bunch more. With that, I will keep plugging them into the chart (above or below 1000) or until there is a shift to regional lists for those below 1000.--NortyNort (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the 1GW limit, and moving the rest to regional lists. Keep the important Energy capacity column so we can add entries as they appear. Here is a 2011 list of global stations, unfortunately only by power, not energy. TGCP (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tehri Dam[edit]

Hello guys Are you sure that the Tehri Power Plant is a pump-storage power station? In any of the references I have consulted there is a mention to pump-turbine. All of them signal Tehri as a power station using Francis turbines. Thanks for verification, Ji.rodriguezmarin (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC) ji.rodriguezmarin[reply]

This source here indicates that the there is a Tehri 1000 MW PSP under construction. It is part of the Tehri project and not the dam itself though, see here. However, the PSP will use the Tehri Dam's reservoir as its upper reservoir and the Koteshwar Reservoir as the lower reservoir. I will make note of this in the Tehri Dam article and on the page. Thanks for the catch.--NortyNort (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vague locations[edit]

The list of country-locations is too vague. The US, China, etc are very large places. It is nice to have long/lat available, but not directly meaningful to humans, or deserving of taking up so much visual space for numbers with no use to the reader. Some of the stations have no working article links.

I took the time to track down all the US states and annotated the list. NortyNort reverted; guess she owns this article.

State/province information would be much more helpful to display, to the reader, than the long/lat numbers. Even the flag logos are less useful.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what NortyNort did is right. Practising such style would make such tables across the wiki uncomfortably large and cluttered, not to mention increasing pageload time.
For your problem, I would suggest you click the globe icon on the coordinates, a pop-up then immediately launches (without leaving the screen) showing the location. For detailed locale info, click (or middle-click, if you have a 3-button mouse with a tabbed browser) the coordinates values. Do note that there may be minor bugs if you use Internet Explorer; which I believe is currently being fixed.
I hope this helps to solve your problem. Rehman(+) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your courteous and thoughtful reply. I think you are mistaken. Including state/province information need not add significantly to either the visual size of the table nor the page load time, but it would make the table much more useful to a typical reader. It sounds like you have fallen in love with technology and style-rules and forgotten your primary duty to the reader. I added state information because the current list is quite useless to me -- it gives me no idea where these facilities are located. I am not necessarily interested in where any particular facility is; I am interested in knowing where they are, in general. The typical curious reader will be in the same position. It is fine to be able to click on something for more details, but readers will only do that for a particular facility of interest, not when browsing. I suggest you reconsider what belongs in the "location" column. Humans have no use for seeing these lat/long numbers. Replace them with state/province, and a link to click that uses the (small or hidden) lat/long numbers to do those complex high-tech things you like.
Please re-consider the status quo, and improve this article so that meaningful location information is more readily available to the casual reader.
The most useful high-tech thing would be maps showing the relative location of all facilities in a country, or larger region.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To add to what Rehman said: If we have U.S. states listed, we need to list the states/provinces for other countries and present them well. It is not only better for appearance but fair to other countries and people from them reading the articles. From a broad to specific view, it would make sense to have states listed over the lat/long. Most lat longs are in the article already. To accommodate all, maybe there is a margin we can squeeze to fit them in. We could cut the names down to just the basics, excluding -dam, -power plant, etc. Any ideas? I am a he by the way. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the states/provinces for all countries should be included. Certainly, the info should be presented as well as we can arrange. State/province info need not take much space, does not need a whole column -- but since there is already a "location" column, the state/province info is much more deserving of taking up visual space for the reader; the lat/long numbers should be smaller or hidden in link... Thank you for working on this!-96.237.79.6 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I don't see much purpose in having a separate "location" column. There is not much reason for readers to see the lat/long numbers, nor much reason for readers to want to sort on them. I think the state/provinces should be visible there instead, but again there'd not be much reason for readers to want to sort on that. So, there could be one combined country/location column, showing country and state/province, with a click-bug for lat/long; the column should sort on country; the flag logo is the least important extra luxury.

The current default seems to be to list in order alpha-by-station-name. I suggest it would be better to default to list in order by descending Capacity-MW. I suggest the second-best choice would be to list in order alpha by country name, then within country either by descending Capacity-MW or alpha-by-station-name.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom[edit]

Isn't there a second underground PSP in the UK in Scotland? Or is it nolonger operating or something? (I stopped by cause I couldn't remember the name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewanm89 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of completion[edit]

It would be useful to have a completion date column for this table, as is generally done with similar tables. I also like the previously proposed idea of listing the state/provice/city instead of just the country, since that's much faster than the inevitable clicking through. -- Beland (talk) 07:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe useful, but not necessary (so incomplete template is bit excessive). Also lot of power stations in list were built in phases (or upgraded), so one completion may be confusing. --Jklamo (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will be doing some more work on this list and will see what can fit. Jklamo makes a good point about the phases. Also, as with most lists, having pictures significantly reduces the columns.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the list of those under 1000 MW?[edit]

The article says they are included "below", but there is no such list. Roidroid (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cool it's fixed now Roidroid (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you throwing away useful information (stations under 1000Mw)? It is completely arbitrary to do so, and turns what would be a useful list into an utterly worthless list, having to trawl through regional lists to find the information is not an acceptable alternative, why destroy the value of this article? The edit history shows that it is quite clear the majority of people are expecting a full list of all stations not some 'elite' list based on an arbitrary number someone came up with. 105.237.220.190 (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few things, I wouldn't say the information is being "[thrown] away" or that the article is a "worthless list". If you look at the first discussion, at the top of the page ("Format change"), there was a discussion over five years ago about the threshold. 1,000 MW is similar to that at List of conventional hydroelectric power stations, and is intended to keep the list from becoming cluttered with a ton of articles. Currently there are 147 PSPP articles on Wikipedia, not counting the redlinks for PSPPs that don't have articles. With that, you are looking at a list about as large as this one. If the conventional HPP list had no limit, it would be very incomplete and in the thousands. As you can read, I had reservations about the 1,000 MW limit. If the community is okay with that and there is an effort to fill the list up, I am okay with it.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a long list should be a problem for anyone, I thought encyclopaedias were about easy access to knowledge not about accommodating people who are scared of it, if it is ordered by e.g. size people can simply ignore the lower half if they don't care about it. 1000 Mw is completely arbitrary, so as it stands the title of this article is now misleading, if it remains unchanged you should change it to "arbitrary list of some pumped-storage hydroeletric power stations" so as not to mislead people... An incomplete list is better than no list at all, and can at least be completed, if everyones work keeps getting reverted then of course it will never be completed. As for effort from community, the edit history shows multiple attempts to try add this information, so it seems obvious that quite a few people want such a list. 105.237.220.190 (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are already regional or country lists. This is just a list of prominent global sized projects and needs a minimum to restrict it. You can argue how big that minimum should be but with 1000MW minimum we already have quite a large list with lots not even listed yet. South Africa's pumped storage is listed in List of power stations in South Africa--Andynct (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This is just a list of prominent global sized projects" - Thats certainly not what the title says. "needs a minimum to restrict it" Why? According to whom? "South Africa's pumped storage is listed in" - Which helps people who are interested in a complete list how? Having to click through 100s of countries just to find the information is completely asinine. Say a student is interested in getting an idea of how many plants there are or what worldwide capacity is, or which ones were built in the 80s or whatever other info that involves comparing all plants, now he must go through 100s of pages because some editor decided that long lists scare him? The regional lists are not at all an acceptable replacement for having all the information easily accessible in a single place.
Not to mention that nameplate MW capacity isn't even the whole picture for these sorts of plants, what about e.g. reservoir size, is a plant that produces 1200Mw for 4 hours more significant than one that produces 900Mw for 24 hours? Why? As I said its completely arbitrary. 105.210.10.56 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most lists on Wikipedia are restricted or split into several different wikis to keep them manageable. Lists like List of conventional hydroelectric power stations are restricted to over 1000MW as this one is and always has been. South Africa is a very dry place but even just SA has more than 88 hydro power plants. Imagine the size of the list if all countries power plants were added.--Andynct (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 MW is not arbitrary; like Andynct explained, it captures the largest of the PSPPs while not adding too many. If you look at List of tallest dams in the world, you'll see there is a threshold there too. Should we include the tens of thousands of dams around the world? Wikipedia also has categories, lists, and navigation templates to help as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is arbitrary, it is the very definition of the word arbitrary (Do you have a basic grasp of the English language or not?). 999Mw plant doesn't qualify but 1001Mw one does. You've completely failed to address any of the questions including capacity, for pumped storage the reservoir capacity is arguably more important than the output. How is an 800Mw plant with enough capacity to maintain that for 4 hours (3200MwH) less significant than a 1100Mw plant with only enough capacity to run for 2 hours (2200MwH) - therefore the current measure is *completely arbitrary*. Of course the list of *tallest* dams is limited it has the word *tallest* in its title (If it were titled the *list of dams* then I would expect it to have all dams), you are comparing apples to oranges, for the same logic to apply here you must rename this article to the list of *largest* pumped storage schemes and even then its still wrong because as explained above you are ignoring half of how the size of such a project would be measured. If you want to keep arbitrarily limiting the list due to some phobia of having more than 20 items listed then you should update the title accordingly so that it is at least not misleading.169.0.73.98 (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pumped-storage hydroelectric island[edit]

Can the pumped-storage hydroelectric island project be mentioned at the article ? See http://www.dnvkema.com/services/etd/es/large-scale-storage.aspx KVDP (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only when it is under construction and if the scheme is over 1,000 MW. Right now it is in the feasibility stage.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.power-technology.com/projects/kazunogawa/
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations. 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) 02:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of pumped-storage hydroelectric power stations. 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) 21:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what about energy capacities?[edit]

It's very nice to have a list of the sort presented here, but I find it frustrating - not to say annoying - that the "capacity" column gives only the installed power capacity for the installations. Information about energy capacity is totally absent.

Given that the whole point of pumped-storage hydroelectric systems is energy storage, that seems a pretty glaring omission. (I really hope that this table was not compiled by someone who doesn't understand the difference between power and energy. I.e., one of those annoying idiots who confuses "megawatts" with "megawatt-hours") PHES systems have *two* capacity figures that should be listed: energy capacity and power capacity. They're independent, and both matter. 73.93.173.170 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nameplate capacity is a common word in the power station industry. It would be nice to have Storage capacity (energy) column as well, but I am not sure if we are able to collect this kind of data for all (or at least majority) of listed stations. If you are able to found these data, feel free to add this new column.--Jklamo (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are energy storage facilities. The energy capacity is the key value, the power output is secondary. This needs to be corrected. --Stodieck (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, energy capacity numbers are rare. Here is a simple online calculator (and a more complicated one), perhaps a website could list verified calculations which we could then refer to. TGCP (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations&oldid=1203680525"