DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Granite Geek is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Granite Geek

Jump to original thread »
Author

Big offshore wind farm in R.I. (but not that big)

Started by nashuatelegraph · 9 months ago

This would be an OK offshore wind farm by American standards, but in the grand scheme of things it's not that big. Under GraniteGeek's trademarked unit of power measure - the Seabrook - this wind farm would have an annual output of 3/1000ths as much as the Seabrook nuclear plant. ... Continue reading »

4 comments

  • M Murray, PSNH Spokesman

    9 months ago

    I tried to replicate your math and came up with a somewhat different answer of .0003, i.e., 3/10000ths....
    In any event, here's another way of looking at the issue - call it The Merrimack:
    478 MW x 8760 x 0.85 (capacity factor) = 3,559,188 megawatt hours/year.
    Your 1 mw wind plant with a capacity factor of 0.33 has an output that is is 0.00081 the size of Merrimack Station.
    Perhaps easier to understand is that it would require approx 1,231 one mw wind turbines to replace Merrimack Station.
    reply
  • DaveBrooks

    9 months ago

    Yes, you're right: I dropped a decimal point, as I have noted in the now-corrected post.
    reply
  • Wilj

    9 months ago

    Where did you get your information on the size of the windfarm?!?! It is my understanding that the project will be 400 megawatts. Although it is not known which turbine will be used, the rated capacity of a single offshore turbine these days is 3-5 megawatts. Inconceivable that they would put up a single, 1 megawatt turbine, even as a pilot phase...please, dig a little deeper.

    As far as an "OK offshore wind farm by American standards", as we have yet to build one this seems pretty irrelevant. You're right about siting issues and distance to shore/connecting to the grid but as for the size of the project - the majority of offshore projects currently in development (Europe and US) are several hundred megawatts on average.
    reply
  • DaveBrooks

    9 months ago

    You are absolutely correct ... not sure where I got that number, but it's crazy. What was I thinking? I have placed a new post, fixing it - thanks.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login