Talk:Huntly power station
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit note
The paragraph on the load factor of Huntly had two clauses which made it look a bit silly. They were:
- "about twice what the best wind farms could achieve in New Zealand" - this is like comparing apples and oranges; different power technologies have different characteristics. Embedded in the clause is the implication that wind power cannot substitute for thermal generation. That is certainly a common argument from defenders of coal-fired thermal power stations but this par is not the place the have the argument;
- "in other words, it is rarely running substantially below peak capacity" - well, that is normal simply because of the characteristics of different generating units - ie maintenance downtime, load demand etc. there is no need for this extra clause given that the 85% figure is already cited.--Bob Burton (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think its a valid statement, it's in the refs or I wouldn't have put it in there, and it's far from comparing apples with oranges - this is about comparing fruit with fruit, which you can certainly do! However, I somewhat agree with you that it is not needed to be discussed at that specific place, so I won't revert your changes. Ingolfson (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
