Talk:Glendoe Hydro Scheme

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Water as fuel?

The Glendoe Hydro Scheme is described on the official website as

Furthermore, it will be the UK’s most efficient hydro electric scheme, using water as its fuel to avoid the production of carbon dioxide, a gas associated with global warming.

I am wondering what fuel other hydro electric scheme use? I thought they all used water? --jmb (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a cleverly worded sentence, trying to make the scheme sound more impressive than it is. This sentence really contains two facts that should be kept separate to avoid ambiguity. These are that a) the scheme will be the UK's most efficient hydro scheme and b) that hydro schemes use water as fuel instead of coal, oil and gas etc. that produce CO2.

GARETHenterprises© 18:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

One million homes? Every home in UK consumes only 100 W?Calvingao (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually says a quarter of a million homes. The turbines (rated at 100MW) can generate up to 2400MWh of energy in a day, and thus each home would be supplied with around 10kWh of energy a day. Sounds reasonable to me. The average daily energy consumption in the UK is around 12kWh, so for summer months this figure could easily be accurate.

GARETHenterprises© 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly this arguement fails to take account of the amount of rainfall. Total output for the year is restricted to around 180 GWh because that is how much water is available. It would need 5 times as much rain to sustain 2400 MWh per day for the entire year. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Builder

I notice the article seems to avoid mentioning the company responsible for building the power station? Is this deliberate, shouldn't they be named (and shamed?)? jmb (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be included in the article alongside other information at that level of detail then it can be, however the article remains as a stub and should be comprehensively overhauled if this was to be added usefully... GARETHenterprises© 09:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now added a mention that Hochtief were the main contractor. Plus that SSE were seeking damages from them, following the tunnel collapse. Though the last report I have found of that is from 2010, I don't know if anything else has happened with the dispute since then? --Vclaw (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the latest news article on the scheme. There will most likely be a general lull in news until the scheme reopens, so further useful details of the scheme will not be likely to surface until after it is back on the grid... GARETHenterprises© ^{talk · contribs} 23:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with naming and shaming. The tunnel failed as a result of complex geotechnical factors, and it has been suggested in the technical press that a judicial review was not the best forum for deciding a very complex issue, whereas a technical assessment and engineering judgement decision might have been more appropriate. (See Seaton & Sawyer (2006) for instance) Bob1960evens (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Glendoe Hydro Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glendoe Hydro Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209081033/http://www.glendoe.co.uk:80/news/default.htm to http://www.glendoe.co.uk/news/default.htm#generationsus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

I have assessed the article against the following criteria.

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammar and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, map, images
Appropriately understandable

Since they meet them, I am awarding it B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]