Rock Port, Missouri - The First 100% Wind Powered City

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Of course that's what they say. 3 million kWh more than they need.

Yes, energy, not power as you said earlier. It is an important distinction that is often missed. It was a gentle correction from a hoary old electrical engineer.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The term "up to" means between a low point and up to a high point. The high point being more than they need.

Quite so. The low point could be less than they need.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Yes, energy, not power as you said earlier. It is an important distinction that is often missed. It was a gentle correction from a hoary old electrical engineer.

Quite so. The low point could be less than they need.

Of course the low point could be less than they need. The articles acknowledge that, by indicating the need for grid backup. In this instance the article talks about power. I have mostly spoken about wind energy over an annual period. I made one point indicating they expect to produce more power than they require. I suspect that is the case as well, based on the articles. It's still power, just many units of power over time that's typically expressed differently as kWh. Perhaps a slight semantic oversight, that changes nothing and doesn't alter the overall message presented from the articles, that is most important of all. They still expect to produce more units of power over time than they expect to consume. Rather trivial. The articles are clear and frank though.

Another articles sites the 1300 population of Rock Port MO, so one can get an idea of the demand that might be there.

Wind Power Produces 123% of Residential Energy Demand in Rock Port, Missouri : TreeHugger

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Of course the low point could be less than they need. The articles acknowledge that, by indicating the need for grid backup. In this instance the article talks about power.

Not so. The headline mentions power but the article talks about energy. The 16GWh is energy, not power.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I made one point indicating they expect to produce more power than they require.

They expect to produce more energy than they require.
16GWh projected. 13GWh usage. Figures are for energy.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

They still expect to produce more units of power over time than they expect to consume. Rather trivial. The articles are clear and frank though.

Another articles sites the 1300 population of Rockport, so one can get an idea of the demand that might be there.

Wind Power Produces 123% of Residential Energy Demand in Rock Port, Missouri : TreeHugger

Interesting that the article is headlined "Residential Demand".
Two qualifications now?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Not so. The headline mentions power but the article talks about energy. The 16GWh is energy, not power.

Not exclusively. The articles talk about power and energy to some degree interchangeably. The articles are not perfectly written in that context, but the intent of the articles is clear. 16 GWh is units of power measured over time. It's still power, in the form of multiple units of power, expressed over time.

Rock Port, Missouri is the first 100% wind powered city in the US. Loess Hill Wind Farm, with four 1.25 MW wind turbines is estimated to generate 16 gigawatt hours (16 million kilowatt hours) of electricity annually. 13 gigawatts hours of electricity have historically been consumed annually by the residents and businesses of this town of 1,400 people.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/05/05/first-wind-powered-city/

The Loess Hills Wind Farm, built by the Wind Capital Group, employing 500 workers from 20 states for about a year, is expected to produce about 16 million kilowatt hours annually, while Rock Port only uses 13 million. The excess wind power will be sold to other communities in the area.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/home-residential-wind-power-rock-port-missouri.php

Rock Port, Missouri is set to become the first city in America capable of meeting 100% of its electricity demand with wind power. The town will use power generated from Wind Capital Group's Loess Hills facility, located on agricultural lands within the city limits of Rock Port. The facility produces up to 16 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity annually, which exceeds the 13 million kWh Rock Port uses each year on average.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52177

None of the articles quoted paragraphs above refer to energy, whilst referring to kWh or GWh. Two of them refer to power. Energy is then referred to elsewhere, in some of the articles. The articles are not perfectly written, but that should not detract from the value of the article. The intended meaning of the articles is clear.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

They expect to produce more energy than they require.
16GWh projected. 13GWh usage. Figures are for energy.

Obviously, GWh which is units of power over time. It's still power, just measured over time. It doesn't really matter that much. It doesn't change anything. Using the term power in conjunction with kWh, as some of the articles have clearly done, implies units of power over time, which equates to energy. Nothing to make a song and dance about.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Interesting that the article is headlined "Residential Demand".
Two qualifications now?

You need to get past the trivial pedantic of the semantics about the articles and just appreciate the intended meaning. Journalists are not robots and often nor experts about the subject matter they report, but their intended meaning of the articles is generally clear.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You need to get past the trivial pedantic of the semantics about the articles and just appreciate the intended meaning. Journalists are not robots and often nor experts about the subject matter they report, but their intended meaning of the articles is generally clear.

Journalists exist because media sells.
A statement like "Rock Port, Missouri is the first 100% wind powered city in the US" is much more likely to generate interest than "Rock Port wind farm may be able to produce enough energy, on average, to meet residential needs"
Call it pedantic if you wish, but which statement is more accurate?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Journalists exist because media sells.
A statement like "Rock Port, Missouri is the first 100% wind powered city in the US" is much more likely to generate interest than "Rock Port wind farm may be able to produce enough energy, on average, to meet residential needs"
Call it pedantic if you wish, but which statement is more accurate?

The meaning of the article is clear and not exaggerated, assuming the figures provided are reliable. In net annual terms Rockport expects to be a net exporter of electricity, not a net importer. In net terms Rock Port MO expects to produce more electricity from wind, for sale to the grid, than the electricity it buys from the grid. This in effect means that it can expect 100% of its electricity consumption to be offset by an equivalent or greater amount generated from wind. That is the crux of the intended meaning of the articles.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The meaning of the article is clear and not exaggerated, assuming the figures provided are reliable. In net annual terms Rockport expects to be a net exporter of electricity,.

Yes. Expects to be.......
The article...
"is the first 100% wind powered city"
I'm sure you see the disparity.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Yes. Expects to be.......
The article...
"is the first 100% wind powered city"
I'm sure you see the disparity.

Indeed I do. It's called being overly pedantic for no good reason and for lack of better things to spend thinking about. I Expect you will eat your breakfast tomorrow, unless of course you don't eat breakfast.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Indeed I do. It's called being childishly pedantic .

Ah, well OK.
It is a serious topic.
I had hoped that such comments could be avoided.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Ah, well OK.
It is a serious topic.
I had hoped that such comments could be avoided.

I had expected that too, however your remarks failed to meet my reasonable expectation of sensibility. In the context of my remarks, clearly Rock Port MO expects to be 100% wind powered, be because I used the word annual and they haven't had the Wind farm for one year yet. Thus it was appropriate for me to use that word "expect", in reference to the future. However in terms of the more immediate context, it's evident that on net balance estimates, Rock Port MO is 100% wind powered for all intensive purposes, based on the numbers they presented in the articles being accurate and of course also assuming thus far, their expectations have been met. The rest really is just being unnecessarily pedantic.