Talk:Capacity factor

Seems like someone has been on a pro-nuke binge over the last couple months here. Purple (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, this reads more like pro-nuke apologetics than clear rational discourse. Two sources for all this data? And what does the page actually mean? Probably should be rolled into some article on nuclear power, or just deleted? Captain obvious (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, and soon. This article is without relevance to the mission. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Sample_calculations I'd say it's relevant. Needs some rewriting, though. ^sshole 00:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mind saying which point of the RW mission applies here? That WP page is available for refutation purposes, if need be. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy and science. And I actually agree with some of the article about how it relates to energy use, although it needs to be explained better and with better reference to other factors. To say the article is nonsense and without any basis in fact is just wrong as it is a) a real unit of measurement and b) an additional factor for consideration when choosing power plants. ^sshole 00:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just replaced the {{delete}} tag with a {{mission}} one. I don't dispute the voracity of the factor itself, just its relevance to RW mission. Still in favor of deleting it, me. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it as quite relevant to the complexities of quantifying energy concerns. So if RW has items on global warming and renewable energy this is a worthy inclusion to expand upon those. It's not like it's completely irrelevant as most WP entries would be. I agree we would need to write in more of an RW angle, but it's not worth just abandoning and forgetting about. ^sshole 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that we need this page, any more than we need our own article on Power factor. Certainly it makes sense to mention the WP article somewhere in [[Anti-nuclear_arguments#Debatable_anti-nuclear_arguments|this neighbourhood]], or anywhere else RW discusses the complexities of quantifying energy concerns. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, actually. ^sshole 01:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I always thought you were a clever fellow. I'll wait a while to see if anyone else chimes in. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd got for a further opinion on the subject. This is the kind of info we do want to mention, but there are a wide range of factors we'd need to write about to make it comprehensive and useful. Given enough of a wiki-walk to gather appropriate subject, we can start folding those in to one article. Then, if necessary, branch them off individually. ^sshole 01:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a small fry, but I see no reason why "choosing a power plant" fits the mission on the main page. It's just not relevant. Sister golden hair (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

With enough thought you could probably twist almost anything into the mission - but I really don't see it here.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Clever lads and lasses all. Done. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)