Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Barra79 OP t1_jaxc48e wrote

Here's the same graph for just Offshore: https://imgur.com/gXTKRg4

And using Borkum, which is an island on the West coast:https://imgur.com/a/GNR2M9c

34

geek66 t1_jaxdtun wrote

This one makes a little more sense to me, I would expect max power to be at lower speed than the original Germany based plot, and the decreasing power at high wind speed as they go offline and “park”

15

mfb- t1_jazsc80 wrote

OP is the total production in Germany, extremely windy conditions in Hamburg will usually come with less extreme winds elsewhere.

8

geek66 t1_jb0j5ut wrote

Exactly my point, so it dilutes the data, and gives misleading impression.

3

in_taco t1_jb0t9k1 wrote

Wind turbines derate earliest from 20 m/s and cut out around 30-40 m/s. On this graph it drops off at 14 m/s, so it doesn't fit.

Also I hate seeing powercurves in km/h. Nobody does that in the wind industry.

2

geek66 t1_jb0wcbc wrote

Point being, the original post did not reflect this behavior at all.

1

holgerschurig t1_jb3t37v wrote

Why not, it's SI units. Everyone (in europe) knows km/h and has a pretty good picture of it, e.g. from driving. So the selected units meets the intended audience.

I hate the "knots" or other measures. They should perhaps switch from BS units to SI units.

1

in_taco t1_jb3tcso wrote

Because you're plotting what's called a "powercurve". It's a standard figure in the wind industry, because wind is nearly always measured in m/s or knots.

I've worked with wind turbines for 11 years and made hundreds of powercurves. Never seen anyone use km/h before.

1