Good investigative work on your part! Economics and government subsidies are definitely not my area of expertise but I think you captured the 2 essential elements why this particular wind farm might be producing less energy than it could. Energy is power times time (energy = P*t). kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gpNjoc2b0qzVe5s.htmlsi=COymwcWiUoSJjA-p To make a lot of energy you need a powerful device and you need to use it a long time. Not sure if the turbine rating you mentioned is correct(?). 100mW (mili) is super super small. You might mean 100kW (kilo)? Even that's super small compared to a modern industrial wind turbine. A 100kW turbine might be a super old turbine from the 1980s? 1MW (mega) might be more representative of a "relatively" modern wind turbine. Even then this is small considering modern turbines are now around 2.5MW. More to the point the capacity factor of 12% is super low AND the fact there is a loss of availability of a significant percentage of the turbines due to maintenance issues both of which affect the time a particular turbine can generate energy. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rZmTpM5-0NrJYqs.htmlsi=Zqm9DTwUhvAYeKbS In a perfect world this wind farm would have more powerful turbines, be better maintained to increase availability, AND relocated to a spot with a higher capacity factor! Ironically enough some of the older wind farms with older turbines are being looked at as possible upgrade sites. Way back when they put up a lot of small turbines in the windiest spots (ie: high capacity factor). Now those small turbines are way past their service life and a number of larger, more modern turbines might be a better fit for these high capacity factor areas.

@bigbadtech Thank you for bothering to respond, and especially for responding in such a detailed way! I said mW, but I meant MW. My math was based on the 1MW wind turbine. The 50m wind resource map shows an average annual wind speed of 6m/s. I personally find these annual averages nearly useless. Without sharing all my thoughts about this topic, I'll say something about the wind resource maps below. Keep in mind, the wind farm manager would only answer my questions if they were very specific. For instance, I asked for the average capacity factor, but I received no answer. I said 40% - no. 30% - no. 20% - no. 15% - not quite. 12% - yes. And that's how the whole interview went. I gleaned from the conversation that they reset the cut-in speed of their turbines. The default cut-in speed of their turbines was 3m/s, but they adjusted it higher. The person seemed to be saying that 3m/s doesn't output enough to fool with, so they set them at 6m/s. I tried to dig deeper, and I believe lower speed wind is usually inconsistent, that the wind generally gets more consistent as it hits 6m/s or higher. I also asked about electrical inertia, and though I didn't receive a real answer, I asked enough questions about the subject that I believe electrical inertia also has something to do with them resetting the cut-in speed. Looking at the power curve, anything below 6m/s was useless. For instance, 5m/s yielded 0.02% output. 6m/s yielded 12.9% output. From what I could gather, I believe it's common practice to reset the cut-in speed to 6m/s. Given that the average annual wind speed is 6m/s, you can start to see why the capacity factor was so low. You mentioned upgrading the turbines, which seems like it wouldn't be as simple as it sounds. This isn't part of the knowledge I gained from the interview, rather from reading data sheets and other manufacturer and industry publications. The higher rated wind turbines require more swept area, and also require higher installation heights. Either of these individually would require a significantly larger foundation. Also, higher output turbines would be spaced further away from each other. All of these factors would disqualify the site for a simple upgrade. Upgrade meaning, replacing the existing turbines one for one, and each one remaining in the same place. To be clear, it has been 3 or 4 years since I went through all this "research" and I no longer have the information at my fingertips. This means I would need to spend some time (time I don't have right now) to figure this next part out. I'm not asking you for the answer, though it is something to ponder. If the site in question were to be wiped clean and start over (because that is what it would require to "upgrade" the site). I wonder how much more output the site is capable of? I ask myself this question because, though the turbines may double or triple in max output, I wonder if the increased spacing would cut the number of turbines by half, or even to a third. I imagine the power to area value would not be linear, over a range of turbine sizes. The one saving grace may be going from, say, 50m to 80m in height, where the wind velocities increase. Unfortunately, the wind velocity in the aforementioned site area, only goes from 6m/s to 7m/s. I have not followed your links yet, but I will sometime this week. Thank you so much for engaging in this discussion. I try not to engage with people who just read newspaper articles, rather people (such as yourself) who are particularly versed in the subject matter. Also, I subscribe to your channel and watch your various videos when I have time. You have a talent for teaching and producing high-quality videos!