By that number, the conventionally used one, you overestimate the output of this wind farm by a factor of at least 2.5. (Why at least? Because these 40% have yet to be measured. My physics textbook lists 40% as upper limit.)
And it's simply getting to me that the output of wind farms is habitually overestimated by a large margin, the cost underestimated by a large margin if not several orders of magnitude, wrong conclusions are drawn from that and taxpayers (that would be ME) are made to pay for that nonsense!
I don't understand your confrontational tone because I don't see what you're trying to achieve here. I've mostly on the pro-nuclear side of the debate here, and I've discussed the cost of nuclear various times, and i don't see how you could imply in any way that I've been peddling lies, and to be frank, I deeply resent that word. If you think a number is wrong, call me on it, give your arguments, and let's discuss it. If it's wrong, it's wrong. I can make mistakes.
And just so you know, I'm making a real effort at remaining polite here because your attitude is frankly unacceptable.
btw, the 40% number has nothing to do with physics, and everything to do with the weather, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Nuclear energy in France - a Sunday special
The real cost of electricity - some numbers (well, lots of them) (I suggest you go see the externality costs table in that diary if you want to complain about taxes)
Alternative energies: wind power wind power: debunking the critics In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
= 48MW on average =
Not 120.000. That's what's wrong.
