Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Power News Science Technology

Global Wind Power Capacity Tops Nuclear Energy For First Time (japantimes.co.jp) 297

mdsolar writes: The capacity of wind power generation worldwide reached 432.42 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2015, up 17 percent from a year earlier and surpassing nuclear energy for the first time, according to data released by global industry bodies.

The generation capacity of wind farms newly built in 2015 was a record 63.01 GW, corresponding to about 60 nuclear reactors, according to the Global Wind Energy Council based in Brussels. The global nuclear power generation capacity was 382.55 GW as of Jan. 1, 2016, the London-based World Nuclear Association said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Global Wind Power Capacity Tops Nuclear Energy For First Time

Comments Filter:
  • capacity vs actual (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:41PM (#51548795)

    My car has the capacity to cover 240 km/h, but never will. I need sleep, the car needs repairs and fuel.

    To actually surpass the output of nuclear power will we require a constant hurricane?

    In other words, worthless bullshit article posted by our anti nuclear nut, mdsolar. His posts are so shitty I will readily admit to not reading the article. Typically it's just a waste of time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      So, here is another indication of the ignorance of reporters and those who push the agenda, as capacity does not equate to electrical output. With nuclear capacity factors close to 90%, and avg global wind capacity is closer to 30%, you need about 3 or 4 times wind capacity in GW to produce an equivalent amount of electrical output in MWh.

      And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, wind would not yet even be a realistic option. Wind and solar ride on the backs of traditional sources of power.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Alomex ( 148003 )

        With nuclear capacity factors close to 90%

        Erh no. They reach 90% in the summer but throughout the year they tend to run at 60-70% capacity.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Surprising how actual facts show some people are just full of it.

      • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:56PM (#51549201) Homepage

        And, of course, without base generation like nuclear, wind would not yet even be a realistic option.

        Actually, nuclear pairs pretty poorly with wind. Nuclear isn't very responsible to rapid changes. Natural gas and hydro are what usually pair with wind.

        It's possible to make rapid response nuclear plants, but most aren't.

        Basically, you're confusing baseload power and peaking. Peaking has of course always been with us, and always will, regardless of generation type, because even without supply fluctuations, there's also demand fluctuations (rather major ones, actually). Note that there's a number of ways to reduce supply fluctuations and to better fit the demand curve. Long distance power transmission spreads out demand peaks and evens out supply intermittency. Mixing different types of intermittent power makes a much more stable overall power. And of course there's also storage, of a wide variety of types, including some built into plants themselves (such as solar plants with thermal storage).

        • You are confusing the ultimate need for steady , reliable power with the challenge of filling in the gaps for unreliable renewables. Without a solid base of reliable power, we couldn't even entertain adding the intermittent, unreliable sources. SInce reliable sources enable unreliable renewables, they can be added and we can deal with intermittance however we choose.
          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            Again, you're confusing baseload and peaking. Intermittent sources don't need baseload, they need peaking. And the amount of peaking needed is based on the reliability of the intermittent source, which is affected by the above-discussed issues.

      • With our current infrastructure, that's true. However, imagine a situation in which everyone has a battery bank at home, with a smart interface to the power grid. If the solar panel or wind turbines are not kicking out enough power, the home runs off the battery bank. When there is ample juice in the pipeline, the battery bank gets charged and the home runs on direct power from the grid. That would be doable. It would require a change in end-user mindset and more up-front costs to the end users, but it
        • With our current infrastructure, that's true. However, imagine a situation in which everyone has a battery bank at home, with a smart interface to the power grid. If the solar panel or wind turbines are not kicking out enough power, the home runs off the battery bank. When there is ample juice in the pipeline, the battery bank gets charged and the home runs on direct power from the grid. That would be doable. It would require a change in end-user mindset and more up-front costs to the end users, but it could be done.

          Yes, imagine that infrastructure. Imagine what it would cost, for one. Imagine the ecological impact of mining for the rare earth elements for those batteries, the production of chemicals used for manufacture, and the waste of the batteries themselves as they need to be replaced every decade at least.

          There is lots to imagine, but if we talk practicality and affordability those dreams take a 'reality break'.

      • Yes, that terrible, evil Renewables lobby, which buys politicians and pundits, hires think tanks, and pays internet trolls... oh wait, that's what the nuclear and fossil fuel industries do. The rest of us just want a less polluted world. So spare me your talk of "agendas".
  • Max Capacity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by neonv ( 803374 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:41PM (#51548797)

    This assumes all wind is blowing everywhere in the world to maximize the capacity of wind power. Unless that is happening, nuclear is still ahead.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nuclear plants are being decommissioned and not replaced. The opposite trend is in place with wind power. Regardless of the assumptions that went into the article, the trend is crystal clear.
  • So? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:44PM (#51548811)

    Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.

    Nuclear is a far superior power source, given it's low land use, lack of environmental impact (eyesores, noise, bird/bat kills for wind) and constant output. Nuclear plants should be built out to completely replace coal, at a minimum.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by slashping ( 2674483 )
      If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.
      • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:00PM (#51548885)

        If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.

        We are. The global nuclear capacity is increasing. And, if it were not for base sources such as nuclear, gas, & coal, wind would not even be a viable option.

        • > If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.

          Right. The world is completely rational and efficient.

          • Right. The world is completely rational and efficient.

            The point is that nuclear is not superior in our irrational and inefficient world.

          • > If nuclear was far superior, we'd be installing more of it.

            Right. The world is completely rational and efficient.

            I agree that Nuclear is superior for the simple reason that it is efficient and provides consistent power. Yes, bad things can happen. But modern designs are much safer.

            As for popularity, well... Justin Beiber, Paris Hilton, Kardashians... I think that I made my point.. Just because something is popular doesn't mean that it's a good decision or superior.

            I just want to point out that it's not an either/or situation. Personally, I love solar and wish we had much more of it in the US. Panels are finally

            • An average wind turbine kills 4 birds a year. A cat kills 17.
              • An average wind turbine kills 4 birds a year. A cat kills 17.

                While they may "purr", you can't scratch turbines behind their ears and watch their blissful reactions.

                Well, not without a loong ladder...and quick reflexes...

            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              As the sibling post mentions, domestic cats are one of the largest killers of birds. Another big killer is windows. My living room window seems to kill about the same number of birds as my cat and it gets much worse with buildings that are mostly glass.
              I seem to remember some studies that locally the biggest killer of birds are the big non-native squirrels which love egg and baby bird and are having a population boom.

        • by Teun ( 17872 )
          But there is a problem with building more nuclear, it is fairly obvious when you look at the political systems in the places where it's happening.

          Nuclear has it's use but the heydays were 30-40 years ago, these days we have in every sense superior renewables, easier with relatively simple tech, cleaner during the building, operation and decommissioning and decentralised so less sensitive to local problems.
      • by Glock27 ( 446276 )
        If nuclear was regulated in a sane manner, we'd be installing more of it. What's needed right now is big investment into next-gen nuclear like LFTR...
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Nuclear was never any good, except at making tons of money for the ones selling the fuel and building the plants.

    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DamonHD ( 794830 ) <d@hd.org> on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:58PM (#51548873) Homepage

      I like nukes (and solar and wind), but let's not forget the tiny tiny issues around radioactive fuel and waste, and the fact that nukes are pretty difficult to turn down to match variable load, and tend to fail in large blocks which causes the grid big problems.

      The capacity factor of nukes is not 100% either (and indeed was only about twice that of wind in the UK), though I do agree that comparing name-plate ratings for intermittent renewables with run-always generators is unhelpful.

      Rgds

      Damon

      • Re:So? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:19PM (#51548983)

        The nice thing about coal is that all the radioactive waste is pumped into the atmosphere.
        That's so much better. No need to store anything.

      • The inability for nukes to load follow is a myth perpetuated by anti-nukes. Many of the existing plants were not designed to load follow because they were filling a baseload need. But it is quite easy to design nuclear plants that load follow, and even some plants in France initially designed for baseload to have been modified to follow load.

        Be rest assured, the anti-nukes will ignore the facts and keep saying what is not true.
        • Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)

          by DamonHD ( 794830 ) <d@hd.org> on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:44PM (#51549159) Homepage

          Actually no, AFAIK.

          Only one nuke in the UK *can* even load follow, and never has. (My uncle was chief counsel that got it through the public enquiry; I'm really not against nukes at all.)

          France has a nuke fleet that can nominally load follow, but how much depends on the age of the fuel and ranges from ~50% down to 0 IIRC, for an average of maybe 25% across the fleet, which is one of the reasons that nukes are limited to ~75% of French generation capacity, ie so that enough following can be provided by other means (given a typical 2:1 ratio between high and low demand). That is the best of my understanding, and I ran it past the UK's former energy minister recently who I was sharing a platform with on nuclear electricity generation, and he did not disagree, though maybe he was just being polite.

          So, if even the French have not been able to get a fully load-following fleet I think it must be very hard to do.

          So, again, I am simply not anti-nuke. Nor am I a frothing fan-boy. Nukes do not solve all problems and are most useful as part of a mixed fleet IMHO.

          Rgds

          Damon

          • According to https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/r... [oecd-nea.org]:

            Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode, i.e. participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. In France, load-following is needed to balance daily and weekly power variations of the electricity supply and demand, since nuclear power plants have a large share in the national mix. In Germany, load-following became important in recent years when a large share of intermittent sources of electricity generation (e.g. wind) was introduced to the national mix.

            The minimum requirements for the manoeuvrability capabilities of the modern reactors are defined by the utilities requirements that are based on the requirements of the grid operators. For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100% of its rated power P r , with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of P r per minute.

            Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in the wide power range and with ramps of 5%P r per minute. Some designs are capable of extremely fast power modulations in the frequency regulation mode with ramps of several percent of the rated power per second, in the narrow band around the power level. The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor. In the case of nuclear, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, if compared with fissile sources. Thus, operating at higher load factors is profitable for nuclear power plants, since they cannot make savings on the fuel cost while not producing electricity. In France, the impact of load- following on the average unit capability factor is sometimes estimated as about 1.2%.

            Since most of the currently used nuclear power plants implement strong manoeuvrability capabilities in their designs (except for some very old NPPs), there is no or very small impact (within the design margins) of the load-following on acceleration of ageing of large equipment components. However, there is some influence of the load-following on the ageing of some operational components (e.g. valves), and thus one can expect a slight increase of the maintenance costs. Also, for older plants some additional investment could be needed, especially in instrumentation and control, in order to become eligible for operation in the load-following mode.

      • Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @02:50PM (#51549453)
        Nuclear capacity factor is about 90% [wikipedia.org].

        Wind capacity factor is about 25%. It varies from about 20% in non-choice locations to about 30% in good areas. Offshore is higher. Especially good areas offshore often hit 40%, while the best areas (off Scotland) can hit 60%.

        The way load works, nuclear and coal provide base load. Renewables provide whatever they can on top of that. Gas and especially hydro handles the dynamic load - making generation match actual demand. So nuclear not being good at following the exact load curve is not a problem. It only becomes a problem if you're like most renewable fans who insist that only hydro, wind, and solar generate all the electricity.

        The best way to match demand is (at least) one base load source + (at least) one dynamic generation source. Variable (unpredictable) sources like wind and solar can be added n on top of base load as an option. They reduce the base generation requirement, but put more stress on dynamic generation since it may be called upon to cover a shortfall in the variable source. Consequently, they're the least desirable power source - you still need a base load generation source and a dynamic load generation source.
        • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DamonHD ( 794830 ) <d@hd.org> on Saturday February 20, 2016 @03:03PM (#51549507) Homepage

          Actually I'm inclined to regard "baseload" as an artifact of how we have traditionally managed generation systems, eg the way the domestic consumption (and Economy 7 in particular) were encouraged basically to provide demand when factories weren't. Throw in lots of cheap local storage and baseload demand might simply evaporate making nukes hard to use; I know it's not happening yet, but the point is that baseload is an emergent and contingent property, not a fundamental one, IMHO.

          And your use of the term "least desirable" is only in the eyes of the grid managers. I don't much like the long-term externalities of some of the non-renewable generation methods.

          In any case we're agreed that a mix is good, and sources have pros and cons.

          Rgds

          Damon

        • > Wind capacity factor is about 25%.

          In the US, in 2014, it was:

          Coal 61%
          Natural Gas Combined Cycle 48.3%
          Nuclear 91.7%
          Hydro 37.3%
          Wind 34.0%
          Photovoltaic 25.9%
          Geothermal 74%

          Source: https://www.eia.gov/electricit... [eia.gov] and https://www.eia.gov/electricit... [eia.gov]

    • Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.

      How does average nuclear production compare to its maximum capacity? Its almost certainly higher than for wind, but it's not like every nuclear plant is constantly running at 100% capacity.

      If a maximum wind capacity to maximum nuclear capacity comparison is a bad comparison, then an average wind production to average nuclear production comparison is needed instead.

      Regardless, if wind power production keeps growing this quickly (it likely will because windows power is so cheap--nuclear isn't), then its avera

      • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:27PM (#51549047) Journal

        It doesn't make a lot of sense to compare wind vs nuclear because they are used for different purposes, in a 3-way mix, but ...

        > How does average nuclear production compare to its maximum capacity?

        Nuclear ranges between 80%-90%, wind is 20-30%.

        The benefit of wind is that it allows you to turn down your natural gas plants whenever the wind happens to be favorable.

        Nuclear can't be quickly and easily throttled up and down. That's it's one actual weakness - it's reliable, etc. (There was a purely political weakness , but environmentalists are now undoing the damage they did back in 1960s, admitting it was a mistake).

        So what you do, if you want clean, reliable power (rather than purely political points) is you have nuclear and hydro for the minimum load, because they are steady. You have wind and MAYBE solar to get what you can, whenever nature wants to allow it, and natural gas to make the difference. You throttle the natural gas plants up and down to meet the difference between current demand and current supply from wind + nuclear/ hydro.

        Hydro is nice, in very specific locations, most of which are already in use. So it's an important source of power, but can't be increased much.

        • by DamonHD ( 794830 )

          ... Nuclear ranges between 80%-90%, wind is 20-30%....

          There have been recent intervals when nuke capacity factor in the UK has been barely more than twice wind IIRC, and our last major (500,000-user) power-cut was induced by a single large nuke tripping off unexpectedly (followed by a large coal plant).

          Note also that wind capacity factor is rising with better turbines, and in any case is already comfortably above 30% for UK offshore wind:

          http://www.renewableuk.com/en/... [renewableuk.com]

          For onshore wind this is 25.74%
          For offshore wind this is 34.88%
          The load factor for all wind (onshore + offshore) is 28.42%

          Rgds

          Damon

        • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          You throttle the natural gas plants up and down to meet the difference between current demand and current supply from wind + nuclear/ hydro.

          Or you throttle demand up and down [wikipedia.org] to meet current supply from wind + nuclear/hydro. Smart meters [wikipedia.org] help with this.

      • > Regardless, if wind power production keeps growing this quickly (it likely will because windows power is so cheap--nuclear isn't), then its average production will probably overtake nuclear sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that's good or bad; it's just how it is.

        I know it's bad form to introduce facts into this kind of discussion, but here is US Net generation by source:

        https://www.eia.gov/electricit... [eia.gov] and https://www.eia.gov/electricit... [eia.gov]

        Since 2005, total US utility generation has remained ro

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by slashping ( 2674483 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @02:40PM (#51549401)

      Wind maximum capacity is pretty meaningless, I believe the average production is around 1/3 of rated.

      In that case, the number isn't meaningless. You just need to divide it by 3.

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      Noise, really? I've never noticed any noise coming from wind power, so I looked it up. At 100m a wind turbine generates about 50db -- about the same noise level as the ambient sounds in a quiet suburb [purdue.edu]. As for eyesore, it depends. Maybe in a neighborhood of charming historic buildings, but in industrial neighborhoods turbines are often the least ugly built thing around.

      As for building out nuclear to replace coal, it's a good idea, but the problem is having a solution in place in advance for decomissioning

  • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:45PM (#51548817)

    These figures are for nameplate, or maximum possible output, of each turbine. First you have to triple the number of installed turbines, so that the capacity factor comes out to about the same availability as nuclear. Then we have to attach those turbines to Smart Grid, which when it exists will allow fluctuating renewables to shuttle their output across large distances (windy in Texas this morning, in South Dakota later in the day).

    The first element of Smart Grid is the smart meter, which will report continuous load information to the grid and eventually be able to turn your major appliances on and off to match supply. These meters are hotly opposed by Greens because they radio their reading to the utility or as the Greens put it, "emit radiation."

    • by DamonHD ( 794830 )

      ... These meters are hotly opposed by Greens because they radio their reading to the utility or as the Greens put it, "emit radiation."

      Only science-illiterate "greens", who are therefore actively undermining their own attempts to do good. We need more science and less woo-woo.

      Rgds

      Damon

      • Science illiteracy can be found all over the political spectrum, unfortunately.
      • A scattering of science-literate Greens does exist: Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, et. al. All the other Greens sneer at them as sellouts (the logocal fallacy of argumentum ad monsantium) and will no longer let them join their drumming circles at all the sites of major infrastructure projects they are trying to get shut down.

    • by Teun ( 17872 )

      The first element of Smart Grid is the smart meter, which will report continuous load information to the grid and eventually be able to turn your major appliances on and off to match supply. These meters are hotly opposed by Greens because they radio their reading to the utility or as the Greens put it, "emit radiation."

      Bull, the reason many people are not happy with smart meters is the same as with many other IoT and cloud services, you lose control about your life.

      Not that someone is going to switch off your light but the fact they can do a Google and analyse the shit out of it and abuse this data to sell you stuff you didn't ask for.
      Or it's security model is broken and the bad boys get the info to check when you're not at home.

      So first fix the legislation around those smart meters and then I'll let them into my hou

  • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @12:51PM (#51548843) Homepage Journal

    Nuclear reactors were a fad that will soon blow over.

  • by careysub ( 976506 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:06PM (#51548911)

    I am a big wind energy supporter, but this isn't a very meaningful milestone, although it is a sign of the rapid emergence of large scale wind power.

    When wind energy production in annual gigawatt hours exceeds nuclear power, that will be something indeed. That will happen of current trends continue, but not until 2030 or so.

  • by jeffb (2.718) ( 1189693 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:13PM (#51548951)

    ...film at 11.

    Folks, it clearly says Power Capacity. Power, not energy, and capacity, not average actual output. The headline and summary are precise and correct. But if you're deprived of your usual stalking points -- people trying to report power in kWh or energy in kW -- I guess you have no choice but to accuse the authors of not really meaning Exactly. What. They. Said.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Picking a metric that most people would misconstrue to mean something else is not exactly honest reporting, even though it's technically true. It's clear that the impression the headline gives is that wind is a comparable power source to nuclear in volume. It's a bit like measuring cargo delivery using motorcycle and semitrailer by miles driven. Sure in a few cases like mail delivery maybe that is the right metric since it's about making the rounds, not the bulk size or weight but for the most part it's tot

  • I think it would be better to use LED lamps, to change architecture of of homes in order to reduce air-conditioned/heated area and increase open space like courtyards, reduce maximum allowed weight of personal cars, etc.

    In my opinion, we should keep earth in a natural state, and leave airspace to birds, tourists, RC hobbyists, aircraft, etc. More and more, wherever one looks there are communication towers, high voltage power-lines, industrial chimneys, and now also wind turbines. And they are not just st
    • Can we stop making the surface of this wonderful planet ugly?

      No, because we'll never stop making children.

    • "I think it would be better to use LED lamps, to change architecture of of homes in order to reduce air-conditioned/heated area and increase open space like courtyards, reduce maximum allowed weight of personal cars, etc. "

      if all homes were insulated to passiv house standards, there would a huge dip in power requirements for both hot and cold weather environments. Even better would be if every roof, where possible, carried solar and every home had its own power storage and then utilities could become ene
    • Acoustic pollution from windmills? But RC aircraft and aircraft are OK? You might be nuts.
    • by Teun ( 17872 )
      That's what we have PV panels for, invisible till you trip over them.

      But you have clearly missed the memo we're now over 7000 million people on this earth and we're not evenly spread out so an impact on the scenery is guaranteed. Especially because most of the people don't want to go hunting and foraging every day we need significant tech to keep them warm, fed and watered.
      Oh yeah, and entertained, as the old Romans said, "Panem et circenses" and they were just a couple of million!

      Personally I don't thi
  • First time??? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by freya_bacchus ( 764907 ) on Saturday February 20, 2016 @01:46PM (#51549171)
    I thoght we had windmills an the 17th century already, but guess i was wrong as slashdot is always right
  • In the first place, it is hard to avoid the impression that many anti-nuclear campaigners do not have a firm grasp of the scientific facts and figures. Rather, they have a powerful feeling of impending doom: they somehow feel that radiation is unseen, deadly, and threatening, and therefore must be banned. But whatever the means of generation, power sufficient to run modern cities and nations is capable of immense harm. Consider Buncefield, for example: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5899376... [gizmodo.com] Or even the danger of

    • by Uecker ( 1842596 )

      While most anti-nuclear campaigners indeed do not have a firm grasp of the scientific facts and figures, the same seems to be true of most nuclear fanboys on slashdot. But with respect to energy policy the more important facts and figures are the economic ones: Those facts speak a very clear language: nuclear is not the solution for our energy problems and, especially not somewhat cool but insane designs such as molten salt reactors. Fusion is also cool but far from done. In contrast renewables have been sh

      • "...somewhat cool but insane designs such as molten salt reactors..."

        Do you have any justification or explanation for this extreme characterization, or are you just going to let it hang out there in the wind?

  • I'm always amazed that wind and solar get all that starry-eyed looking fans every time it pops up in the news. It never seems to dawn on those people that wind and solar are *inherently stochastic*, and thus, can NEVER replace more stable forms of energy-delivery. Some little know facts: when the power of a windturbine is mentioned, it does NOT mean that it actually delivers that power. For instance, if it says "This is a 8MW windmill that can support 100000 households...that is simply a lie, in a de facto

    • > The vast majority only deliver ONE THIRD of their pretended maximum power (a lot even less)

      No, the "nameplate capacity" is their actual maximum power, the most they will deliver under the right circumstances. Just like every other electrical device, the maximum power rating matters for the power lines they are connected to, whether it's a wind farm or your stove at home. The term you are searching for is "capacity factor", the percentage of maximum power delivered over the course of a year. For win

  • This is like bragging your son is now taller than you, when in fact you just had your legs amputated.

Another megabytes the dust.

Working...