https://www.theengineer.co.uk/ge-hal...-wind-turbine/

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

On 06/03/18 23:41, 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.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

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?

On 07/03/18 08:33, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 07:12:48 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 06/03/18 23:41, 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.

Just more misleading numbers from the green camp, then.

Of course.



--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

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.


NT

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.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Just more misleading numbers from the green camp, then.

Of course.

Any more guesses as to the true and final cost of a new nuclear power
station then?
Or just the usual back of a fag packet estimates.

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

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.

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.
--

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?"