On 07/03/18 17:03, The Other Mike wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 23:28:12 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 23:41:20 UTC, 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%?


As they get taller, there is more wind?

Yes that is nearly always the case, but to quote a capacity factor of any
percentage without regards to a specific location with verifiable wind speed
data from a test tower is ridiculous.

It's also pointless in the UK as the ability to overstate the capacity factor
/understate the maximum output to increase operator revenue has zero impact when
the output of a single turbine or group of turbines is above 5MW.


Its not pointless in the war for 'green and wet behind the rears' hearts
and minds

Even below that level and around the FIT transition points derating and
increasing capacity factor will be detected, flagged and investigated. Having a
100m tall white elephant that yields absolutely zero FIT return because of a lie
on a form is very amusing.

This isn't about income, or facts, its about *marketing* - keeping the
meme going that progress is being made, wind turbines are generating
more and getting cheaper etc etc. So that people are happy to subsidise
them.



Even when its total ********.



--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"