On Monday, 15 April 2019 18:32:53 UTC+1, wrote:
On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 9:57:26 AM UTC-4, tabby wrote:

Wind farms displace zero generation as their output is too unreliable. They are a huge consumer of resources per gigawatt for nothing of significant value. The power they produce could equally be produced by the other generation that must accompany them. Financially they are losers.

Where do you get your figures, or do you just make them up as needed?

Gridwatch is one source

There is an Iberdrola (Italian firm) wind farm in Columbia County, PA that is well over 90% operational, shutting down only for excessively high (80 mph+) speeds. It is on a mountain ridge, and is fully operational from 8 mph to 80 mph. And that is, as it happens, a somewhat older farm. And, also, as it happens, on a major raptor flyway - addressed by keeping the tip-speed (and rotational rpm) of the turbine within the reaction time of passing birds. Newer turbine designs can accommodate higher wind speeds, and with larger blades, lower tip speeds. But, 8 mph remains about the lower limit.

and that's the problem. Too much time is spent below 8mph.

There is a sea-facing farm off of Atlantic City, NJ that has been in place since 2006, with a high-90s operational record. About the same, as it happens, as the typical nuke (45 days of maintenance & fueling every two years at minimum) or fossil-fuel plant (2-5 weeks of maintenance, depending on age, each year).

Cost is about $1,500/kw installed, (as compared to about $7,000 for nuke, $4,500 for fossil, $3,000 for solar.

Woah woah woah. Those figures may apply to nameplate capacity, but they are in no way comparable. Nukes can put out full capacity nearly 100% of the time. Wind puts out full capacity just a small percentage of the time.


On-shore wind power is the cheapest form of renewable energy to install, to operate and to maintain.

If that were true everyone would be installing them without subsidies. No government would subsidise them.


NT