On 07/03/18 10:41, wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 07:12:51 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/03/18 23:41, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 19:13:42 UTC, harry wrote:
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/ge-hal...-wind-turbine/

how on earth could it be 63%?


NT

well it cant be really since capacity factor is utterly dependent on wind.

Unless they derate the turbine ...so it ocassionally produces more than
100% of its rated capacity.

And igobore down time due to weasr and nresakages.

This seems to be what they have in fact done, made a massive 'light
wind' turbine amd called it a lower capacity than it actually should be.

It's rated at 12MW but the size of it indicates compared with smaller
turbines it should do more than that.

Large blades & smaller generator, large height, the ability to rotate the blades to limit output & the ability to turn out of the line of the wind can all increase the amount of time it can generate full rated capacity, but 63% is more than hard to believe.

Not if its 'rated capacity' is small compared with its diameter.

Essentially they are playing with numbers.


Its a light wind turbine of rather low power output that will be
feathered in strong winds, but will be able to reach good outputs in
light breezes. A smaller higher rated turbine would probably generate
more electricity, but at a lower capacity factor...


Anyway its all pointless. Average output is not the issue with
intermittent renewables.

Guaranteed output is.

And its still zero for a windmill with no wind




NT



--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.