sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to Green Energy@slrpnk.netEnglish · 9 days agoChina is building 75 solar parks in Cuba, and the island’s power crisis is becoming an infrastructure experimentwww.vozpopuli.comexternal-linkmessage-square101linkfedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10cross-posted to: climate@slrpnk.networldnews@lemmy.ml
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkChina is building 75 solar parks in Cuba, and the island’s power crisis is becoming an infrastructure experimentwww.vozpopuli.comsabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to Green Energy@slrpnk.netEnglish · 9 days agomessage-square101linkfedilinkcross-posted to: climate@slrpnk.networldnews@lemmy.ml
minus-squareKazumara@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up0·8 days agoWhat I don’t get is why that number apparently went down since. This daily report only mentions 54 solar parks: Los 54 parques solares fotovoltaicos generaron ayer 4240 MW/hora, con una potencia máxima de 792 MW. Funny side note, even the writer of this note is confused by W vs Wh. They must mean 4240 MWh, MW/h is meaningless.
minus-squareKazumara@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up0·8 days agoSo looks like the article posted by OP, written in 2026, somehow takes his headline from a translation mistake from the Prensa Latina Article from 2024, and then cites a Granma Article from 2025 for most of its content. Why not use the 92 parks in the newest plan for the headline? Is this just automated bad blogspam or what is happening?
What I don’t get is why that number apparently went down since. This daily report only mentions 54 solar parks:
Funny side note, even the writer of this note is confused by W vs Wh. They must mean 4240 MWh, MW/h is meaningless.
So looks like the article posted by OP, written in 2026, somehow takes his headline from a translation mistake from the Prensa Latina Article from 2024, and then cites a Granma Article from 2025 for most of its content.
Why not use the 92 parks in the newest plan for the headline? Is this just automated bad blogspam or what is happening?