MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991420932

A glance at hydroelectricity evolution

2023· article· en· W6991420932 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydroelectricityHydropowerRenewable energyElectric power transmissionFossil fuelThermal power stationPower stationMill
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecological transition that many governments are implementing, notably the EU, will stand on the phase-out of fossil fuels and the consequent expansion of renewable sources, which will develop as a technological revolution.
\nHowever, hydropower is a major renewable source already at a mature stage and widely exploited. It early uses appeared quite soon in early isolated plants when mechanical generator became available, but in limited cases were flowing water was easily accessible. Plants and lines had limited extension at that time and thermal engines (both steam and internal combustion) allowed a more flexible adoption. 
\nThe advent of alternating current, which allowed the use of stepping-up and stepping-down transformer and thus power transmission at high voltage over long distances opened the way to the exploitation of large water resources in remote areas. An early hydroelectric power plant of this kind was put into service at Willamette Falls, Oregon, in 1889, to supply Portland through a 4-kV 125 Hz 22-km line. The soundness of the technology was proven in the 1890s. A major step ahead occurred in 1891, on occasion of the International Electrotechnical Exhibition at Frankfort, where the first three-phase power line, rated 240 kW at 15 kV and 40 Hz, extending over 175 km between the Lauffen waterfalls, were a hydrogenator was installed, and Frankfurt, was presented. Shortly after, some hydropower stations powering long lines were opened, e.g.: 
\n1892: Aniene–Rome, Italy (1.2 MW, 5 kV, 42 Hz single-phase, 28-km)
\n1893: Lake Hellsjön–Grängesberg, Sweden (300 kW, 9.5 kV three-phase, 14 km)
\n1893: Mill Creek n.1 hydroelectric plant, California US (250 kW, 2.4 kV 50 Hz three-phase,12 km)
\nIn 1895, the Niagara hydropower station was started, with three (increased to 10 by 1898) two-phase alternators each rated 3.7 MW 2.2 kV 25 Hz. Step-up transformers with Scott connection fed the three-phase 11 kV line powering Buffalo 35 km apart. Two similar systems appeared in the Alps, Europe, in 1898, namely the Paderno d’Adda three-phase hydropower station, rated 9 MW at 13.5 kV 42 Hz that fed Milan, 30 km apart; and the Rheinfelden three-phase hydroelectric power plant, rated 12.5 MW at 50 Hz (Germany-Switzerland). Following these achievements, countries and regions rich with water resources exploited them increasingly in the early decades of the 20th century, while extending their power lines and network which eventually were interconnected into national grids.
\nIn the first decade of the century, also pumped hydro power station appeared, with early notable installations in Germany and Switzerland, in 1908. US followed starting in 1929 and major developments occurred in different countries after World War Two. 
\nThe growth of hydropower was massive in countries rich with water resources, notably Switzerland, Italy, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Soviet Union, and, more recently, Brazil and China, as long as more water resources were exploitable. By 1920, 40% of the electricity produced in the United States was hydroelectric and in the mid 20th century, 96% of the installed power in Canada, 94% in Switzerland, 90% in Italy, and 80% in Sweden 80%, came from hydroelectricity.
\nHowever, when the water resources were saturated, the growing demand was satisfied with thermoelectricity fed with fossil fuels. For the sake of example, hydroelectric energy share in Norway was 96.2% of the total production and 117.9% of the domestic demand in 2016; conversely, in Italy hydroelectric energy production remained substantially constant in the last 60 years, counting 44,257 GWh in 2016, but hydroelectric energy share had dropped to 15.3% of the total domestic electricity production, although flanked by 22% of other renewables. On the other hand, pumped hydro is today by far the largest-capacity form of grid electric energy storage worldwide, accounting for 181 GW of power capacity and 1.6 TWh of storage capacity, which correspond to 95% of the global figures for energy storage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua)Same topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207