Introduction

As you learned in my presentation, hydropower is derived from the movement of water, especially in rivers.  Most hydropower is produced at dams, where a reservoir is created and flow through the dam can be easily captured.  In some cases, water flowing down natural waterfalls is captured and converted into electricity. For centuries, people took advantage of hydropower to propel machines like mills for grinding grains or saws for cutting lumber.  The use of hydropower to create electricity was quickly realized at the end of the 19th Century.  The middle of the 20th Century saw great growth in hydropower, especially in the United States.  The last few decades has seen relatively little increase in hydropower development in the U.S., mainly because all of the major rivers have already been harnessed.  Instead, hydropower development has occurred mostly overseas, particularly in China. Many people believe that hydropower still holds great promise as a viable alternative to coal and nuclear fission for generating electricity. The purpose of this webquest is to enable teams of students to learn more about hydropower, and determine its potential to continue to serve as a significant source of alternative energy in the future.

Task

Process

• Wikipedia article on Hydroelectricity
  
• Environmental Literacy Council Hydroelectric Power website
  
• How Hydropower Plants Work
  
• Consumer Utility Services Hydroelectric website
  
• The energy planet Hydroelectric power website
• Thinkquest article on hydroelectric power
• Union of Concerned Scientists hydroelectric website
  
• Renewable Energy Access website on hydropower
  
• Online chapter on Hydro Power by Energyquest
  
• National Hydropower Association
• Explanation of pumped storage facility
  
• Andy Darvill web resource on hydroelectric
• Article on ecology.com
  
• Electrical Engineering Tutorials
  
• Article in New Scientist
• Pros and cons of hydropower
  
• Pros and cons of hydropower from Wellhome.com
• Article from American Rivers
• Article by Elizabeth Ingram
• Article by Laura Zuckerman
• Tidal power pros and cons by RP Siegel
• Tidal power pros and cons by Energy Informative
  
• Hydropower in Pennsylvania article
  

Evaluation

Item	5	3	1
Introduction	First one-two minutes clearly understandable, audience led into the objectives of the talk	First one-two minutes mostly understandable, audience should be partly prepared for objectives of the talk	First one-two minutes generally not understanable, audience not really prepared for objectives of the talk
Objectives	Clearly outlined	Presented in a general way, but one or more details confusing	Not clearly indicated
Number of bullet points addressed	4-5	3	1-2
Bullet 1	Discussion provided substantial insight into online resources, accurate presentation of information in articles, clear synthesis that goes well beyond rehashing posted information.	Discussion provided acceptable insight into online resources, presentation of information in articles generally accurate, some synthesis beyond rehashing posted information	Discussion provided superficial insight into online resources, evident inaccuracies in way that presentation of information in articles was presented, little synthesis beyond rehashing posted information
Bullet 2	See above	See above	See above
Bullet 3	See above	See above	See above
Bullet 4	See above	See above	See above
Citations	Consistently and accurately provided	Mostly provided, or some inaccuracies	Generally not provided, or grossly inaccurate
Powerpoint text	Clearly legible	Mostly legible	Poorly legible
Images	All clear and appropriate	A few unclear or not appropriate	Many unclear or not appropriate
Integration of Powerpoint between speakers	Well integrated	Partly integrated	Not integrated
Conclusion	Clearly executed, excellent summary of main points and synthesis	Generally well executed with acceptable summary of main points and synthesis	None or poorly executed, with unclear summary and / or no real synthesis
Length	18-21 minutes	16-18 minutes	<16, >21 minute

 

Item	5	3	1
Level of contribution to overall team effort	Clearly an integral part of overall effort	Secondary level of contribution to overall effort	Minor level of contribution to overall effort
Level of knowledge about topic	Clearly excellent grasp	Generally good grasp, some minor uncertainty	Clear level of uncertainty about topic
Attitude	Upbeat, professional demeanor	Some unprofessional comments / mannerisms at times	Significant unprofessional demeanor
Audibility	Excellent	Good (minor reading or a bit too much focus on screen)	Poor (too much reading or excessive focus on screen)
Rate of information delivery	Excellent	Slightly too fast or too slow	Significantly too fast or too slow
Eye contact with audience	Excellent	Good	None
Diction	Excellent	Some sluring or mispronunciation of a few words	Significant sluring or mispronunciations throughout presentation

---

Return to Homepage for BIO/EES 105

This page posted and maintained by Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D., Biology Department, Wilkes University, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18766. (570) 408-4758, kklemow@wilkes.edu.