Talk:Biglow Canyon Wind Farm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:00, 7 February 2008

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Start‑class Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

A fact from Biglow Canyon Wind Farm appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/February.

Wikipedia

This article was a Collaboration of the Week/Month for WikiProject Oregon January 28–February 5, 2008.

Notes

I pretty sure the Portland Business Journal and The Oregonian should have some coverage of this wind farm. It would be good to add the usual "125 megawatts is enough to power 10,000 homes (made up number)" to provide some context/scale for the average reader. Other items that would be good: The current number of turbines, how tall are the turbines, acres in the project, better description of location that just the county (near what city, in the Columbia River Gorge, elevation), maybe a few details on the canyon it is in, any construction of infrastructure besides the turbines such as transmission lines, and any employment numbers if anyone is actually employed there. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way to lay out the questions, those are all good ones. One more: I wonder if this is related to the dismantling of the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project. Part of the justification for that was that PGE would replace its (small) capacity with wind power. I'll look around, but if anybody knows a source, that would be helpful! -Pete (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great job everybody. I just nominated this for a DYK as we expanded what was a stub by more than 5 fold. I think it will be the first one for the COTW. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got a really nice PR piece. It's nice to mention the nameplate capacity of the generation when the wind is blowing, but the actual usefulness of the project for anything except PR work and tax credits depends on how much of the time the wind actually blows.

A discussion of the usefulness of these things should include a review of their potential to keep the lights on during peak load conditions---i.e. the hottest and coldest days of the year (my estimate zero), and the portion of time that power is actually available from them (my estimate 30%). Similarly if a lot of them are built, a discussion would be in order as to the number of gas or coal fired plants that will have to be built just to cover the time when the wind isn't blowing. Finally a writer looking past the PR aspects should look at how much of the cost is being paid by tax credits and other straws inserted in the state and federal treasury. (most of it--my estimate) Give 'em all the pretty PR man's spin you want but don't be naive enough to believe there isn't a darkside.Rvannatta (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS --- many of the issues that I raise are thoughtfully addressed in the generic wikipedia article on Wind Power. This article quotes a capacity factor of 20-40%--I said 30% and also discusses the issue I aluded to--how much of the total generating system can be windmills before it screws up the entire grid so badly it doesn't work---They talk of 20%Rvannatta (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 A discussion of the usefulness of these things should include a review of their potential to keep the lights on during peak load conditions---i.e. the hottest and coldest days of the year  (my estimate zero), and the portion of time that power is actually available from them  (my estimate 30%).   Similarly if a lot of them are built, a discussion would be in order as to the number of gas or coal fired plants that will have to be built just to cover the time when the wind isn't blowing.   Finally a writer looking past the PR aspects should look at how much of the cost is being paid by tax credits and other straws inserted in the state and federal treasury.  (most of it--my estimate)  Give 'em all the pretty PR man's spin you want but don't be naive enough to believe there isn't a darkside.[[User:Rvannatta|Rvannatta]] ([[User talk:Rvannatta|talk]]) 03:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
+PS --- many of the issues that I raise are thoughtfully addressed in the generic wikipedia article on [[Wind Power]].   This article quotes a capacity factor of 20-40%--I said 30%
+and also discusses the issue I aluded to--how much of the total generating system can be windmills before it screws up the entire grid so badly it doesn't work---They talk of 20%[[User:Rvannatta|Rvannatta]] ([[User talk:Rvannatta|talk]]) 04:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)