Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Boiler appears to be genuinely too stupid to understand that wind power is never intended to be the sole source of a community's electricity.
Never said it was. I pointed out how the 60 Minutes piece was disingenuous..............using nameplate production when these wind farms NEVER run anywhere near nameplate.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Never said it was. I pointed out how the 60 Minutes piece was disingenuous..............using nameplate production when these wind farms NEVER run anywhere near nameplate.
Boiler, you really don't understand what you're talking about, do you? Nameplate capacity refers to the maximum output of a generating facility under ideal conditions, and the term applies to conventional as well as solar and wind plants.
Wind farms rarely hit nameplate production levels, except when weather conditions are ideal. The story you refer to NEVER claimed or suggested that that level of output could or would be constant. You misunderstood what was being said.
It is, by the way, quite possible for some wind farm sites to operate at a consistently high percentage of nameplate output. Wind farms atop Altamont Pass, east of the SF Bay Area, have been operating at 83% of nameplate for over a decade.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
Boiler, you really don't understand what you're talking about, do you? Nameplate capacity refers to the maximum output of a generating facility under ideal conditions, and the term applies to conventional as well as solar and wind plants.
Wind farms rarely hit nameplate production levels, except when weather conditions are ideal. The story you refer to NEVER claimed or suggested that that level of output could or would be constant. You misunderstood what was being said.
It is, by the way, quite possible for some wind farm sites to operate at a consistently high percentage of nameplate output. Wind farms atop Altamont Pass, east of the SF Bay Area, have been operating at 83% of nameplate for over a decade.
My argument is this. 60 Minutes used nameplate capacity when talking about how many homes these two farms would power. After 15 years, these two farms are producing at 1/3 of nameplate, which isn't a surprise..........this is the norm. This makes 60 Minutes either stupid, liars, or stupid liars.
Take your pick.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
My argument is this. 60 Minutes used nameplate capacity when talking about how many homes these two farms would power. After 15 years, these two farms are producing at 1/3 of nameplate, which isn't a surprise..........this is the norm. This makes 60 Minutes either stupid, liars, or stupid liars.
Take your pick.
Wow, this is an ongoing English language comprehension problem with you...you seem to not know the difference between "would" and "could."
Hint: they said "could."
DUHHH, Boiler.
Does Kevin understand the word NEVER. There has never been a wind farm across the world which has achived higher than 43% of nameplate capacity. That being said, 60 minutes reports on these two wind farms, which run at 35% of nameplate, as if they run at 100% of nameplate.
Prove me wrong............never trust a Lyin' Liberal. I provided Wikipedia info which proves my point, and Libs provide nothing.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
Does Kevin understand the word NEVER. There has never been a wind farm across the world which has achived higher than 43% of nameplate capacity. That being said, 60 minutes reports on these two wind farms, which run at 35% of nameplate, as if they run at 100% of nameplate.
Prove me wrong............never trust a Lyin' Liberal. I provided Wikipedia info which proves my point, and Libs provide nothing.
They never said that. Your "as if" weasel shows that you didn't understand the article.
If Kevin could understand math, and bothert to learn the average household electricity consumption (this is a simple Google), then Kevin could calculate that 60 Minutes used 100% of nameplate when telling viewers how many homes these wind farms power.
60 Minutes lied. Even Kevin now knows that these wind farms run between 31-35% of nameplate, depending on the year. It shouild be noted that EVERY Liberal rag tells the same lie when talking wind/solar power.
Boiler, it's pretty stupid to argue against something that was never said. But feel free- you've always had a very casual relationship with the facts.
Here are specific facts about these two wind farms.
Nameplate capacity 194 MW
Capacity factor 31-36% (2009-2012)
It should be noted that nameplace capacity is maximum capacity in 1 hour. "Capacity factor" is the actual output as a percentage of Nameplate.
For my challenged friends, here is the math.
194 MW X 24 hours X 365 days = 1,699,444 MW per year nameplate
But since the wind farms have a capacity factor of 33.5%, the REAL CAPACITY = 1,699,444 X .335 = 569,312 MW
The average UK household uses around 3,731 kWh/year
This amount equals 3.771MW
569,312/3.771 = 150,971 homes powered by these two wind farms.
Would anyone like to tell the class how many homes 60 Minutes claims these wind farms power per? Does anyone in class refute anything that I've stated here?
Never trust a Lyin' Liberal from 60 Minutes.
I watched the same program you did, and NOWHERE was it said that the wind farms discussed were operating at maximum capacity.
You might as well quit claiming otherwise. Why lie, Boiler?
