| Revision as of 20:49, 15 February 2008 edit199.125.109.98 (talk) →What happened to the data?← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:47, 15 February 2008 edit undoWtshymanski (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users76,122 edits cleanup anon edits and old newsNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| ; One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --] 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ; One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --] 17:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Please review '''HVDC''' section and suggest link == | |||
| Is AC synchronization discussed anywhere else other than your ]? The wiki section on ] needs a justification for synchronization within utility grids and the consequences of accidently or otherwise connecting an unsynchronized supplier. In one '''Electric power transmission#HVDC''' paragraph, I tried: | |||
| : "... to transmit AC power as AC when needed in either direction between Seattle and Boston would require the (highly challenging) continuous synchronization of the electricity grids in both cities. Grid synchronization ('''this is an intuitive not physics description''') means the alternating current electrons need to move up-and-down at the same moments ..." | |||
| Linking to a slight extension of your "stability" discussion would be even better -- since your article looks like an appropriate place to discuss. Please review the HVDC discussion of AC synchronization and either recommend a wiki link, maybe extend your well written "stabil | |||
| ty" discussion, or kick back to me and I'll try adding. ] 23:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : This next few days I'm editing for money, not for fun, and doing specs for a generator. Write what you can and I'll try to look at it when the water drops below my chin. --] 01:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Electrical substation == | == Electrical substation == | ||
| Line 16: | Line 9: | ||
| :Was ] the sort of thing you had in mind? — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | :Was ] the sort of thing you had in mind? — ] <sup>]</sup> 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ==Wind power== | |||
| You seem to know a lot about the subject, but the novice can't read the article without being terribly confused, which is why it is necessary to include an example of capacity factor. What may seem trivial to you is over the head of others. ] (]) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==More wind power== | |||
| The reference is right there, the whole reason I am editing this section is because it used to say "A well-sited onshore wind generator will have an annual capacity factor of about 35%.", and I added a reference, and took out the baloney about "well-cited". It also isn't so much that one "builds" a 10% capacity factor wind turbine, but if a wind turbine that gets a 35% capacity factor in Scotland is installed in a less windy location, the capacity factor plummets to 10% or even less. ] (]) 19:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm curious - do people routinely spend tens of millions of dollars building wind farms that get a 10% capacity factor? Not baloney. People build wind farms where the wind blows. just like they build hydro dams where the water is and solar panels where the sun shines (well, except in Germany, of course). --] (]) 23:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Who is spending tens of millions? That's chicken feed. Last year over $25 Billion was invested in wind turbines. "Well sited" is also what we call peacock words - they sound impressive but mean nothing. You noticed that Germany has been the world leader in solar installation even though they are very low on the list for economic viability, so as you can see there is something much more important than capacity factor at play. Ever heard of global warming? ] (]) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==What happened to the data?== | |||
| What happened to the data? Also, "however this effect is yet to be exploited in commercial wind power plants" doesn't mean anything. Did you think that complementary means that wind farms need to have solar panels on the tops of the turbines??? You aren't making any sense. ] (]) 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Here is a Youtube video you might like - showing the prototype combined power plant. ] (]) 19:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| This isn't number fiddling by "an anon". This is cleanup from the discussion started way back in November. ] clearly indicates that 10% is bogus, and that up to 70% is being considered. Besides, 10% is low, 20% is moderate. In one sentence you say low to moderate, but 10% rejects moderate. You can't have one and not the other. ] (]) 20:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == . == | |||
| I liked your edits to ] --'''] ]''' 07:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:47, 15 February 2008
Binary Prefixes
- One thing I've learned...stick to your guns. --Wtshymanski 17
- 47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Electrical substation
Hiya. This article could do with a one-line diagram. Shall I draw one? Obviously, regional variations in symbols would be an issue, though. — BillC 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, sure! I will be using Inkscape to redraw it in SVG format, so a scan of a rough pen-and-paper sketch might even do. — BillC 17:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was this the sort of thing you had in mind? — BillC 07:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)