Wind power: for or against the wind?

[thibr]

it's 90% uptime, no nominal production, it seems to me ...

[sicetaitsimple]

it's 90% uptime, no nominal production, it seems to me ...

Yes, I don't know how they define availability, but since it would have produced 2,2GWh in the first half, the average load factor over this period would rather be around 25%.

[Meszigues3]

it's 90% uptime, no nominal production, it seems to me ...

Yes, we understand that here.
We understand availability as possible production time, excluding adjustments, tests and connections.

So we have :
1st quarter: 90 days x 24 h x 2 MW x 68% = 2938 MWh
2nd quarter: 91 days x 24 h x 2 MW x 90% = 3931 MWh
Total: 6869 MWh.

Load factor: 2200/6869 = 32%, very plausible.

[jean.caissepas]

Scotland produces 2x the energy that its homes consume, in wind ..., an example to follow?

https://www.clubic.com/energie-renouvel ... ienne.html

[izentrop]

Julien Aubert: "As the financial fiasco of wind turbines shows, we need less green and more ecology" https://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/357 ... ien-aubert

The theme of global warming was brought up by environmentalists who managed to make people believe that it was the priority, but in reality their real agenda is not the future of the planet but denuclearization.

Completely agree, a large majority

Here is a proof: during yesterday's hearing where I presented the Minister of Rugy's figures, the latter immediately attacked me, not to contest the figures for wind power, but to say that nuclear was much more expensive. Let's take it at the word:including the dismantling of power plants etc., we add thirty billion euros: the sum rises to 135 billion euros for 75% for 40 years, against 80 billion euros for 15% for twenty years. Per year, that is 45 million% of nuclear power against 266 million for wind power!

[sicetaitsimple]

After the blades (see video posted on 24/06 above), the beast: 12MW, 700t. Amazing ....

P20616228D3780477G_px_640_.jpg (35.09 KB) Viewed 2166 times

[Remundo]

it's big! and say we're gonna throw it over 100m high

[sicetaitsimple]

it's big! and say we're gonna throw it over 100m high

About 150m according to the figures recalled above by Sen-no-Sen (260m in height and a rotor of around 110m in radius)!

[GuyGadebois]

The noise, the landscape and the birds are the classic argument of anti wind turbines ...

I am a neighbor of the Verdon and we see the sign "no to the wind turbines" blooming in the corner ... After (small) investigation, it seems that it is the mayors and their associates (therefore farmers, hunters, pillars of bistros, beaufs, manipulated morons) more than the ecologists (the real ones, not the ayatollahs) who cry out loud.

[wini47]

Hello,

Just to point out something there is now, the wind turbines without blades.

Come on, good luck, I must pick up. To pluch '.

And thank you for being here.