It has everything to do with your original point that the tax law was rejected because it was a bad idea. What I’ve demonstrated for you is that the policies that have been implemented don’t actually work any better than the rejected tax law in accomplishing their stated goals.
Wind capacity is at an all-time high. There was less wind than usual that year, so less electricity was generated.
very clearly showing there’s no tangible increase in capacity, with it decreasing slightly in 2023
Again, here’s what we see in a country with a functioning government that’s able to pass effective policies. World wind report shows that China’s wind capacity is now more than the US, EU and UK combined. Meanwhile, the US installed less than 1/2 of what it did 2 years ago, and lowest level since 2014.
You’re confusing capacity factor and capacity. Take a look at both graphs in that document, including the one that shows a steadily increasing capacity. It’s the graph you apparently cut out of the above image, can’t miss it!
I’m not confusing anything. I’m pointing out that the actual tangible change in electricity production is effectively non existent. The increase in overall capacity is not actually very large, and that’s why the capacity factor is effectively flat. Again, compare the increase in capacity in US with the increase in capacity in China to see what actual progress looks like. It’s incredible to me that you’re incapable of accepting what’s happening.
The increase in overall capacity is not actually very large, and that’s why the capacity factor is effectively flat.
Capacity and capacity factor are not connected. You could have one wind turbine or a thousand and they would tend to have a similar capacity factor, all else being equal. If you need another illustration of this, consider this table of China’s stats, which includes the capacity factor. It stays steady at around 20% in a time period where capacity has increased by a factor of over 300.
You’re right, but steady capacity factor with the total capacity doubling every year is a very different situation from what you see in US where it took a whole decade to double, you get that right?
I’m going to stop arguing since this has nothing to do with a wealth tax. That said, you should reread the source you gave:
Wind capacity is at an all-time high. There was less wind than usual that year, so less electricity was generated.
It has everything to do with your original point that the tax law was rejected because it was a bad idea. What I’ve demonstrated for you is that the policies that have been implemented don’t actually work any better than the rejected tax law in accomplishing their stated goals.
very clearly showing there’s no tangible increase in capacity, with it decreasing slightly in 2023
Again, here’s what we see in a country with a functioning government that’s able to pass effective policies. World wind report shows that China’s wind capacity is now more than the US, EU and UK combined. Meanwhile, the US installed less than 1/2 of what it did 2 years ago, and lowest level since 2014.
https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GWR-2024_digital-version_final.pdf
You’re confusing capacity factor and capacity. Take a look at both graphs in that document, including the one that shows a steadily increasing capacity. It’s the graph you apparently cut out of the above image, can’t miss it!
I’m not confusing anything. I’m pointing out that the actual tangible change in electricity production is effectively non existent. The increase in overall capacity is not actually very large, and that’s why the capacity factor is effectively flat. Again, compare the increase in capacity in US with the increase in capacity in China to see what actual progress looks like. It’s incredible to me that you’re incapable of accepting what’s happening.
Capacity and capacity factor are not connected. You could have one wind turbine or a thousand and they would tend to have a similar capacity factor, all else being equal. If you need another illustration of this, consider this table of China’s stats, which includes the capacity factor. It stays steady at around 20% in a time period where capacity has increased by a factor of over 300.
You’re right, but steady capacity factor with the total capacity doubling every year is a very different situation from what you see in US where it took a whole decade to double, you get that right?