Wikipedia

Talk:Wind farm

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Chidgk1 in topic Overlap with other articles such as wind power
Learn more about this page

"Nearshore" vs. "Offshore" -- a distinction without a difference?

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article currently (October 2010) contains both a "Nearshore" subsection and an "Offshore" subsection. It makes the attempt to distinguish between "Nearshore turbine installations ... on land within three kilometres of a shoreline or, on water within ten kilometres of land." while stating that "Offshore wind development zones are generally considered to be ten kilometers or more from land." Neither claim is sourced, despite being fact-tagged for over a year now.

  • 1) Is this distinction common in the industry?
  • 2) Is this a distinction worth making in the Wikipedia encyclopedia article?
  • 3) Even if a consensus for 1) and 2) are 'yes', is it a distinction that should be made by different article subsections, as opposed to merely mentioning the distinction in the text of a single paragraph?

My thoughts: on 1), I don't know. re 2), definitely not unless the distinction is supported by verifiable and sourced information. on 3), I would think not.

What do other editors think? If no objection, or if no citation is provided for the distinction from a reliable source, I will make some changes to tone down the emphasis after a week or two. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think this could be revised. There is a distinction in the industry between deep-water wind power that needs floating foundations, as opposed to shallow-water installations that can rest directly on the seabed. But this is more a function of water depth than distance offshore. So, perhaps this is the disctinction we should be describing here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good job, N2e. I had the same "itch" about that term since around the same time you posted the above topic. Glad to see it sorted. Cheers, Rehman 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The distinction is used in the industry, but perhaps it has not been represented in mainstream media. The distinction seems to refer to whether the transformer is located offshore or onshore, and water depth (offshore is water deep enough for common ships, nearshore is water too shallow for ships). Both aspects impact cost, and thereby feasibility, and in an edge-case, whether the project happens or not. I think the notability corresponds to a few sentences, perhaps a table column. I don't see it being sorted anywhere? TGCP (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

How do you install a megawatt?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

From the second paragraph of the lead: "For example, the Gansu Wind Farm in China has over 5,000 MW installed with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020." This sounds very odd: megawatts aren't installed, wind turbines are. Megawatts are generated by wind turbines. So are we saying the Gansu Wind Farm generates over 5,000 MW with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020? Or does Gansu Wind Farm have over 5,000 turbines installed with a goal of 20,000 turbines by 2020? Or what? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's a common way of describing capacity. All power plants have varying output, some more varying than others, but the technical capacity remains the same once installed. Also, turbines have very different sizes, so capacity is a better measure of plant size (a plant being a number of turbines). TGCP (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, but the language is still confusing. I'm changing it to "the Gansu Wind Farm in China has a capacity of over 5,000 MW with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020." And MW should be linked there rather than in the next sentence. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

What constitutes a single wind farm ?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are different ways of defining a wind farm. The list in this article includes Jaisalmer Wind Park but not Gansu Wind Farm which is noted in the lede. Neither is mentioned in this PT list which fails to define what a wind farm is and is not, but it seems to show a single entity owning/operating the park. That single entity has two or more companies as owners, but in principle, the wind farm has a single owner. However the same could be said for Gansu, owned by Chinese government power companies. The London Array has two substations and six cables to land. All parks are built in stages with presumably several substations and grid connections, so that adds to the confusion.

We are having the same discussion over at List_of_offshore_wind_farms.

So I guess my question is; should we define a single wind farm as turbines in the same area having one owner ? Or what? TGCP (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.power-technology.com/projects/greatergabbardoffsho
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-biggest-wind-farms-in-the-world-texas/
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Criticism section seems heavily biased

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The whole section looks like a defence of wind farms, intended to refute criticism of them. It starts off categorising all opposition to wind farms as based on a "not in my back yard" mentality. After mentioning bird mortality concerns, it follows with "Deaths by collision with wind turbines must also be compared with alternatives, for example one company reported 20 eagle deaths by wind turbines and 232 by power lines for coal plants" as though it's the article's responsibility to refute this criticism. This happens again regarding noise level concerns, with the statement "however this has not been supported by reliable peer-reviewed research", which is sourced to a publication by the Canadian Wind Energy Association, whose website says it "is the voice of Canada’s wind energy industry, actively promoting the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy". Not exactly a neutral source! The human health doesn't even bother to start off by stating the criticism; it immediately begins with "A 2007 report by the U.S. National Research Council noted that noise produced by wind turbines is generally not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so" again as though the purpose of the article is to defend wind farms against their critics. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

There were some unsubstantiated claims of damaging as well as lack of damaging effects, and these should be cleared out, leaving only the scientific research. TGCP (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has a requirement of due weight. Thus, criticism must have a presence proportional to its weight, not too much and not too little, giving balance to its purpose of describing the subject in a fair manner. As such, the Criticism section might be a bit large, but I guess we can live with that, however it is cumbersome and somewhat clumsy - the wording that offends you I see mostly as just clumsyness. Some subsections point to further articles describing that area better.
As for the "peer-reviewed research", it is a meta study by independent scientists in fields not related to wind power, collecting the present knowledge of of scientific literature. As such it has significant scientific value, unrelated to AWEA / CanWEA. Should there be other peer-reviewed scientific research on the subject, please submit it for inclusion in this article. TGCP (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Wind farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Wind farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suspect some stuff is in the wrong place (for example countries should not be here?) or duplicated. If it was just me I would use more excerpts but I know some people don't like them. So do you think there is a problem of info in wrong wind articles or duplicated? If so any ideas how to solve? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wind_farm&oldid=1214215699"