Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
You're welcome.

The concept to grasp here is that the "main hypothesis" you quote is meaningless. Capacity factor is a measure over time; instantaneous or short-term have zero meaning (except for those monitoring loads of wind turbines operating above nameplate capacity.)

What do the "experts" mean by market share? Do they mean short-term grid incursion? In which case you already cited one disproving stat, of which there are thousands. Or do they mean in some poorly worded financial sense, which is a failure of market design that has nothing to do with their "variable renewable energy" output thesis.

Like climate deniers, they've used complex meaningless gobbledygook to confound and confuse. They CLEARLY don't understand capacity factor, which has been a utility standard since long before renewables entered the picture.

"the scope is still too local for system analysis"

Grid integration actually becomes easier as the grid becomes larger, either geographically or in terms of generation scale. So taking more local grids (like Denmark or Spain) does actually prove the point.

Except there's actually no point to prove or disprove. I used the phrase complex meaningless gobbledygook before. I should have said your "experts" are full of shit.

Did you know we can change the angle of attack on modern turbines in the control algorithm within minutes (including measurement), so full capacity isn't reached if necessary. At our command, for all manner of reasons. Or at the command of the grid operators! Take that, "experts."

The difference between garbage full of shit and dangerous full of shit depends on the source and funding of the shit. But it's still SHIT.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Jun 10th, 2015 at 04:42:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series