Talk:Nysted Wind Farm

One or two?
I think they should be considered as two wind farms, not one. They have different owners who do not share production, and blades are different - maybe nacelles are different too. I concede that they are placed close together though. The line between extension and wholly new is blurred and is subject to debate. Maybe there are examples from base load power stations with different owners on one site. TGCP (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * good question, and no obvious answer. This article in Power Technology refers to Rødsand II as an extension of Rødsand I; and says that E.On are developing Rødsand II, and are part-owners of Rødsand I with DONG. But I think, elsewhere on wikipedia, Horns Rev II is treated as a separate windfarm to Horns Rev I. I think they may merit separate entries in the list of offshore windfarms, but I don't see any advantage in having one page for Nysted/Rødsand I, and a separate page for Nysted/Rødsand II . I think one of the things that makes Rødsand II notable is that it was the lowest-cost tender under a power purchase agreement with the Danish Energy Board: 62.9 øre (=0.629 DKK =€0.084 =gb£0.070 =us$0.112 at today's exchange rates) per kWh for 10 TWh (= 50000 full load hours x 200MW) - are there any other sources for that, to back up the Power Technology article? ErnestfaxTalk 22:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

R2 operational?
according to Nordpool 12aug R2 may not be producing to wind capacity yet as maintenance and testing occur until 31 October 2010. TGCP (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed: the ENS data shows that all turbines are now installed; but looking at the August production figures, not all were fully operational in that month; and it hasn't yet been commissioned. So Oct looks plausible. ErnestfaxTalk 05:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.power-technology.com/projects/rodsand/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)