Talk:Taum Sauk Hydroelectric Power Station

message: We should add some before and after photos of the breach and of Johnson Shut-ins State Park.  
--Bushido Hacks 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm anxious to see what the after photos will look like.  I probably can dig up some before pictures for the park.  (Been meaning to get around to writing the article for the park.)  I've visited the reservoir a few times, and I think I have some pictures looking out over the water, but probably none that capture the essence of the thing.  You've seen my oblique topographic map of the place.  Maybe I can do the same but with aerial photo overlay, and make sure it captures the lower reservoir, too.  Unless there are ready, unencumbered images such as fit the bill already available. -- Kbh3rdtalk 01:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Curious how Geo-Synthetics' webpage about their relining of the upper reservoir disappeared the day after the failure.  That wasn't wholly unexpected, but it had some really good pictures of the drained reservoir taken during the relining project. — Kbh3rdtalk 17:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geo-Synthetics 

message: How on earth could such a project be permitted to be constructed by Missouri county and state authorities without the protection of a spilway ?  Instrumentation installed for saftey without a fail-safe backup (usually a physical one, but not aleays) is instrumentaion installed by a total fool.  It has all the signs of another egineering project designed by accountants. 
The costs of this failure, as indicated on the AmerenUE page indicate that more than $100-million had been spent or will be for corrective efforts and liability claims -- I wonder whether this plant has paid for itself, including these losses.
:Given that they spent at least $450 million on rebuilding it despite having to pay out close to $200 million in settlements (and have continued to invest in keeping it modernized after rebuilding)...I'd say it's got to be quite profitable for them. They were also very interested in building a sister plant on Church Mountain at two points prior to Taum Sauk's failure (2001/2005), so that says quite a bit about the profitability of these plants. The reason it was constructed without a spillway is complicated, a mixture of a lot of different factors, one major one being that it was built back in 1963 and was only the sixth pumped-storage plant in the United States. Design standards were a bit different back then... At any rate, the new plant design appears to have accounted for every possible safety consideration, including a spillway, and is rather impressively well designed. Garzfoth (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a dam, so it doesn't need a spillway. It has a drain that could have been used to lower the level and they chose not to use it. It had plenty of instrumentation which they let fail and, because of over-reaction to 9-11, they had stopped the tours that would have brought observers to the reservoir on a regular basis who would have detected the signs of over-topping. Three d dave (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spillway

message: I added a short paragraph on the progress of the reconstruction, based on a corporate press release, properly cited.  I tried to make a WebCite archive of the release, to protect against link rot, but the results page is blank even though I've received the email telling me the process has completed.  For future reference, the WebCite link is (should be) here.  --Kbh3rdtalk 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref for 25 Mar 10 corporate release 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Taum Sauk Hydroelectric Power Station. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geo-synthetics.com/taum_sauk.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916210531/http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=130&storyCode=2047683 to http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=130&storyCode=2047683
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517165656/http://www.psc.mo.gov/electric/report%2010-24-07.pdf to http://www.psc.mo.gov/electric/report%2010-24-07.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218034654/http://www.semissourian.com/story/1131377.html to http://www.semissourian.com/story/1131377.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310232900/http://www.ameren.com/AboutUs/adc_newsfull.asp?NewsSeqID=449 to http://www.ameren.com/AboutUs/adc_newsfull.asp?NewsSeqID=449
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310232929/http://www.ameren.com/AboutUs/adc_newsfull.asp?NewsSeqID=450 to http://www.ameren.com/AboutUs/adc_newsfull.asp?NewsSeqID=450
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324030052/http://mcgsc.usgs.gov/taum_sauk_reservoir_photos122005.html to http://mcgsc.usgs.gov/taum_sauk_reservoir_photos122005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061220003133/http://www.mostateparks.com/jshutinsdamage.htm to http://www.mostateparks.com/jshutinsdamage.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209041219/http://www.ameren.com/taumsauk/ to http://www.ameren.com/taumsauk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So I canned it. It was over a year old with zero talk page comments referencing it. No idea what the original drive-by tagger was so mad about. They certainly didn't add anything. 67.240.31.94 (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aug 2019 - That intro scarebox was bizarre and old