4 ms·

What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense.

What is wrong with that sentence? As of 2018 there was ~98k MW of installed wind capacity [1]. Reaching 100 GW of installed capacity in 2019 make perfect sense. It seems like it's you that doesn't understand the difference between power (watts) vs. energy (watt-hours / joules) yet are confident enough to call a journalist out even though they are correct. [1](https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-Wind-Report-2018.pdf https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GWEC-Global-Wind...) Page 29

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ppf 7y ago
The sentence is literally correct, but misleading. A continuous 100GW might power those two states, but that's not what you get out of a 100GW wind installation. The capacity factor for wind is about 25-30%.
- apcragg 7y ago
  It isn't though. Thats how we talk about installed power capacity. The capacity factor is important but seperate. Nobody says we installed a 2.5 MW* wind turbine accounting for capacity factor. They say we installed a 10 MW wind turbine. It is assumed, especially given this publications audience, that the power factor is a seprate point. The person I replied to said that the sentance was so wrong it was "cringy" which is not true.
  - ppf 7y ago
    You've highlighted my essential issue with wind (and other renewables). Under the guise of "ah the dumb public won't understand", things like the actual expected output of a wind farm are hidden. It's a long enough road to renewable energy without hiding away the essential facts. The capacity factor, and resulting actual output of a wind farm, is the most important figure, along with its cost (which is a whole different debate). Also, as has been pointed out, the loose use of terms for power and energy in the article is enough to make an engineer wince.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tda 7y ago
installed capacity equals power. That amount of power either is or isn't enough to power the states of California and New Jersey. The "for a year" part makes no sense in this context.
xyzzyz 7y ago
You can power some number of houses with 100 MW, or you can power the same number of houses for a year with 876 GWh, but you cannot power them for a year with 100 MW. It's as wrong as saying that the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is 60 miles per hour.
dang 7y ago
I know it's provocative to run across a comment that seems both wrong and arrogant, but please correct the former without escalating the latter. Then the thread for sure moves in a better direction. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ScottBurson 7y ago
I guess you've read "for one year" as "in one year", but that's not what "for" means, and anyway, I'm sure it took a lot more than a year to install 100GW worth of turbines.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ppf 7y ago

The sentence is literally correct, but misleading. A continuous 100GW might power those two states, but that's not what you get out of a 100GW wind installation. The capacity factor for wind is about 25-30%.

apcragg 7y ago
It isn't though. Thats how we talk about installed power capacity. The capacity factor is important but seperate. Nobody says we installed a 2.5 MW* wind turbine accounting for capacity factor. They say we installed a 10 MW wind turbine. It is assumed, especially given this publications audience, that the power factor is a seprate point. The person I replied to said that the sentance was so wrong it was "cringy" which is not true.
- ppf 7y ago
  You've highlighted my essential issue with wind (and other renewables). Under the guise of "ah the dumb public won't understand", things like the actual expected output of a wind farm are hidden. It's a long enough road to renewable energy without hiding away the essential facts. The capacity factor, and resulting actual output of a wind farm, is the most important figure, along with its cost (which is a whole different debate). Also, as has been pointed out, the loose use of terms for power and energy in the article is enough to make an engineer wince.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tda 7y ago

installed capacity equals power. That amount of power either is or isn't enough to power the states of California and New Jersey. The "for a year" part makes no sense in this context.

xyzzyz 7y ago

You can power some number of houses with 100 MW, or you can power the same number of houses for a year with 876 GWh, but you cannot power them for a year with 100 MW. It's as wrong as saying that the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles is 60 miles per hour.

dang 7y ago

I know it's provocative to run across a comment that seems both wrong and arrogant, but please correct the former without escalating the latter. Then the thread for sure moves in a better direction. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ScottBurson 7y ago

I guess you've read "for one year" as "in one year", but that's not what "for" means, and anyway, I'm sure it took a lot more than a year to install 100GW worth of turbines.