Talk:Environmental impact of reservoirs

POV check

This should be WP:NPOV checked. Concerned it might be a WP:CFORK. ZueJay (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

There are many benefits of dams which are related to the surrounding environment, (see Benefits of Dams), but these are not discussed in the article, and so the article is totally unbalanced. Johnfos (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article could be split into two major sections, Positive impacts and Negative, and then do a summary of all of them. An article this short really would belong in the dam article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I really think this article should be deleted, as it offers very little, and we should start afresh on these issues. Johnfos (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

These impacts and others do have a place though. Probably we should put them in Dam. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Then again, I take it back. see here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. At the same time I agree that all impacts should be sourced and presented in neutral way, and the article should be balanced. I don't think that creating Positive impacts and Negative impacts sections is the best way to develop this article—probably the best way will be to keep separate section for every possible impact. Beagel (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The merge was rejected by the Spotlight, as you can see here. Also, a new possible outline and work-in-progress page may be viewed here. Any further comments that you may have should be placed on the project's talk page. Thank you! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the article you're referencing for discussing the possible advantages of dam construction was printed by FEMA. That's biased indeed. Willacatheter (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Article replacement

The old article Environmental impacts of dams was replaced with the current one on the date and time following this post. If you want to know why, please ask me before reverting to the old article. Thank you. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

anadromous fish

should be discussed. -Pete (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What aspect of anadromous fish are you talking about? If you mean to include that dams break up their migration, that's already in there. Please be more specific. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I spoke too soon, I had somehow missed that section. It could use some work though, I'll see what I can do. Anyway-- sorry for the ill-considered remark! -Pete (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and I will readily admit the section needs expansion :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing to start class

This article needs formatted citations; {{citation}} or {{cite news}} etc. should make that an easy project. Impacts should be dealt with in a bit more depth too. I'm willing to help, but not right this sec :) -Pete (talk) 06:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do anything, I'm not claiming ownership; I still plan to work on this, but I've been too busy lately. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this whole article needs to be re-written to a large degree. For one thing, an author cites a study from 1973 as "recent" when making a scientific claim about water temperature. There is also a quite apparent disparity between what the sources cited say, and what the author chooses to include in this article. For example, author claims that fish ladders have "greatly alleviated" the problem of upstream migration, yet the external reference for that claim says that fish ladders have been highly ineffective. The sections on erosion are repetitive as well, and this whole article would be much more cohesive were it not split into upstream/downstream impacts. That's rather an impossible division too, I think, since the impacts are too related to split in such a manner.I'm going to work on it.Willacatheter (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of major changes

I am considering reverting most of the changes made by 12.167.37.241 on 29 April 2008. Those edits are sweeping, removing almost all previous content. The current revision is longer but of poorer quality: it diverges off the topic of environmental impact considerably, is completely unsourced, contains inaccuracies such as energy costs, and is not written in an encyclopedic style or tone (WP:SUMMARY).

The best option I can see right now is to simply revert the changes and make an attempt at adding back some good material from the editor. Would appreciate any help or feedback.--Ianml (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Economics is now an environmental effect?  ;-) I'll take a look at the refs he used for the changes and see if some of what he said can be included (definitely in a more npov, though). Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Flood prevention

I removed this section because it was more of a human concern than an environmental one the way it was written (ref. to farmers and safety of houses). I think the article has adequately discussed env. impacts of flooding (and lack thereof) and the flood section would be repetitive if included. Does anyone have a different idea about whether we need to include a flood-specific section that deals only with the environmental impacts?Willacatheter (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dam's impact on the earth's rotation?

I can't remember but i read somewhere that dams can affect the speed of the earth's rotation but a minute amount. Perhaps someone could look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.77.103 (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Konrad is the guy who stopped envirometal impact in 1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.212.33 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a well known fact of physics. Just like a figure skater that speeds up their spin when they draw their arms closer to their body... the Earth will rotate faster if water is drawn into a closed area (rather than being allowed to spread out by flowing in rivers). It has to do with a change in the center of mass.Fuzzform (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought....it's highly unlikely that changing a few rivers into lakes will noticeably effect the rotation of the entire planet. It does, however, sound good in an argument against dams.  ;-] Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio?

Judging by the format of the text in the article, it looks to me like large portions of it were copy-pasted from some other source. I'm finding what look like headings in the middle of paragraphs, odd punctuation, and a complete lack of citations. The only reference listed is the one book, and I suspect parts of the page might be plagiarized from said book. Can anyone verify this? 192.88.124.201 (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can assert that my own contributions are my own work, but they are pretty minimal in relation to the total work…it's a good quesiton, and we should look into it. -Pete (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

References

I cleaned up the references, but some of them are still pretty vague. Try to follow the format used by the reference "Can Science Rescue Salmon?". This format is widely accepted on Wikipedia. Also, I placed a few items in brackets to make them invisible... I couldn't quite tell whether they were references or what.Fuzzform (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Dams or reservoirs

Most of the impacts discussed here relate to reservoirs - and interestingly relate to reservoirs whether they are dammed or not. I would suggest that at the same time as editing a lot of remaining POV, that the article is move to Environmental impact of reservoirs  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   10:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A really short article.it can be enhanced a little more with disasters by dams,examples,etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.16.180 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Overengineering

Appearantly, a lot of dams created are allready overengineered. For example, the hydroelectric dams built in India, and especially on the Narmada (http://www.narmada.org/nvdp.dams/ ) can not generate more than 55% of their capacity. That means that 45% of the building just slow down the river excessively, and promote the creation of methane, hugely reducing the beneficial environmental effects of the dam.

Can something be written here on this, and can the overengineering issue be mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam#Economics aswell ? Most issues seem to result from plain bad construction of dams, and not simply the fact that a dam is built.

Also, overengineering will probably be the norm in hydroelectric dams in the East, as not a single country calaculates in the reduced flow of the river by dams not yet constructed in its own country, nor in another country. What's probably needed is a global assessment of all dams that will be built in a specific time period, so that the effects of each dam on another can be determined and all dams can be built at the exactly right capacity/size. Please mention in articles.

KVDP (talk) 07:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say most dams operate at 50% or so of their capacity and it relates more to the size of the power plant rather than the dam. This can be due to drought or no regulating dams upstream. Some dams just aren't designed to operate all generators all the time but can kick in extra generators when power demand is peaking. The Grand Coulee Dam was over-designed until other dams were built upstream in Canada. Engineers plan dam cascades in what affect each dam will have on the other so they can work in a hydraulic 'harmony' based on the average annual water flow for the river. The Belo Monte Dam is a good example of a dam which is hardly useful without other dams upstream which were originally part of the plan. Still, I don't think engineers expect a high factor of 75% or so. I find it hard to agree with your 45% figure though. If you reduced the dam's size by 45% then probably less that half of the remaining 55% would help generate power. The percentage would just keep halving (roughly, given reservoir's store most of their volume at the higher levels). You could only build half the power plant and have all generators running all the time but the dam would still be the same size. I am not sure if their is research out there aside from specific projects that have been cited for the low capacity factor problem.--09:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Environmental impact of reservoirs. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080831130021/http://www.dams.org/ to http://dams.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)