Posted on 10/20/2017 1:59:35 PM PDT by Twotone
It consisted of eleven turbines, each with a capacity of 0.45 MW, giving a total export capacity for the wind farm of 5 MW. The hub height of each turbine was 37.5 m and blade height 17 m, small by today’s standards. Because of its date of construction, it would have been all but totally reliant on conventional energy for its manufacture and installation. The original stated project cost was £7.16 million in 1991, which is equivalent to approximately £10 million today.[2]
During its lifetime, it delivered 243 GWh to the Danish electricity grid. This means that the actual amount of electricity generated was 22% of that which would have been generated if it had delivered 5 MW all the time for 25 years. In technical terms, it had a load factor of 0.22. From the same source we see the initial expectation was that 3506 houses would be powered annually, with a saving of 7085 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum.[3] There was no clear indication of Vindeby’s expected lifetime. Since the average household’s annual use of energy in Denmark[4] is 5000 kWh, we can calculate that the windfarm’s anticipated energy output was 438 GWh over its 25-year lifetime. The actual total of 243 GWh was therefore only 55% of that expectation.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegwpf.com ...
So it didn’t work like they said it would.
We would call that lying if a car salesman did it.
Ding Dong Dumb
Installation costs?
Anyone die installing it?
British speak...Brilliant!!!
Don Quitote!!!
Wind and solar power for homes is a joke.
Apparently wind energy costs more than it saves.
More stupid government stuff they have no business doing.
Very interesting statistics.
But it made people feel good. And in the final analysis, isn’t that what matters?
How many sea birds did their failed experiment kill?
I like to call them ‘bird filters’.
don’t forget all the bird decapitations....
Adventures of Petey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXEb_ODMlhs
So a $10Bn pound investment produced 243 GWh of power over a 25 year period, or nearly 10GWh per year. Perhaps you had better do the math.
Does the post-mortem include the millions of birds and bats killed during its lifetime?
Operational in 1991? Well that didn’t last long.
For a project promising to accommodate a doubling of the world population, wind power appears to fall short of even the most pessimistic expectations in every environment. Will the enviroweenie cult admit they were, once again, wrong in their utopian pipedreaming?
I just saw on ‘Ask this Old House’ that in Hawaii the utilities are no longer accepting power from private sources such as solar. So the individuals who have solar now have to install specialized batteries to store their power because there is no where else to send it.
Not as a supplemental source, when installations and maintenance become cost-effective. But the wind does stop, and there are cloudy days. Good ol' fossil fuel works regardless.
bkmk
It’s called “grid saturation”. With solar the idea is to make 24hrs worth of power in a 5-6hr time period each day. The grid capacity is only so big and it’s not that there is no place to send the excess power - it’s the fact that the wires are only so big and can handle only so much current. Which means there is no way to get the excess power onto the grid without upsizing equipment (ie. - mucho $$$).
Saturation levels have been raised to 100% (up from 25%) of the grid capacity for the time of day that solar generates.
The windfarm is now a was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.