Norwegian energy groups to build new British wind farm

July 1, 2014
A photo taken on January 18, 2013 in Stavanger, Norway, shows the entrance of the headquarters of Norwegian partially state-owned oil group Statoil

Norwegian energy companies Statoil and Statkraft said Tuesday they will build an offshore wind farm in Britain with 67 turbines that will eventually power over 400,000 homes.

The groups will invest one billion pounds (1.25 billion euros, $1.71 billion) in the Dudgeon project.

The will be located 32 kilometres (20 miles) offshore, north of the town of Cromer in Norfolk, and will have a total capacity of 402 megawatts.

"This is in line with our commercial and stepwise approach to renewable ," Statoil executive vice president Eldar Saetre said in a statement.

Dudgeon is expected to power up around 410,000 homes by 2017.

The wind turbines themselves will be built by German company Siemens.

Explore further: Germany's first offshore wind farm begins turning

Related Stories

Germany's first offshore wind farm begins turning

April 27, 2010

The blades began turning at Germany's first offshore wind farm Tuesday, 45 kilometres (28 miles) off the coast in the North Sea, with 12 turbines producing energy for 50,000 households.

RWE, Siemens unveil plans for giant Welsh wind farm

June 4, 2010

The German power company RWE and industrial group Siemens unveiled on Friday a joint venture to build a giant British offshore wind farm worth more than two billion euros (2.4 billion dollars).

Recommended for you

Paleontologists report world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex

March 22, 2019

University of Alberta paleontologists have just reported the world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex and the largest dinosaur skeleton ever found in Canada. The 13-metre-long T. rex, nicknamed "Scotty," lived in prehistoric Saskatchewan ...

NASA instruments image fireball over Bering Sea

March 22, 2019

On Dec. 18, 2018, a large "fireball—the term used for exceptionally bright meteors that are visible over a wide area—exploded about 16 miles (26 kilometers) above the Bering Sea. The explosion unleashed an estimated 173 ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2014
that will eventually power over 400,000 homes.

Megawatts, please.

and will have a total capacity of 402 megawatts.

Estimated capacity factor, please.

These figures are meaningless when "average household" remains undefined, and the actual output of the wind farm capacity is left unmentioned. That means this article merely pretends to provide information, but in reality it's just trying to impress the clueless with large numbers.

Given a realistic 0.25 capacity factor for the turbines, the "average household" turns out to consume just 250 Watts of power, so someone is clearly trying to pull a fast one.
1 / 5 (2) Jul 01, 2014
In comparison, the average UK household consumes 530 W on average.

That means the wind farm would have to operate with a capacity factor of at least 0.52 to meet the claims, but the average capacity factor of wind farms in the UK was 0.285 in 2013 and even in the best times never exceeded 0.44
not rated yet Jul 05, 2014
The purposed Hinkley Point nuclear plant -
16 billion pounds, 5 million homes = 3.2 billion pounds per million homes

Dudgeon wind farm -
1 billion pounds, 0.41 million homes = 2.4 billion per million homes

Dudgeon projected to be on line by 2017. Hinkley, well, they might start construction by then.
not rated yet Jul 06, 2014

Your analysis misses the point. You can't control the wind. In contrast, a nuclear power plant can be controlled.

Wind and solar power are just useful as peak load capacity.

The bulk of European solar power is generated during the summer months. But economic activity, as measured by real GDP, is highly seasonable with the strongest quarters being 4th and 1st of each year. That is why economic data is seasonally adjusted. So green power is generally not available when we need it.
not rated yet Jul 06, 2014
You can control a nuclear plant. At least some of them. They can be ramped down somewhat when demand is low.

The problem is that: 1) Nuclear is already very expensive, about 3x the cost of onshore wind in the US. 2) Ramping down nuclear makes it even more expensive. The cost of nuclear is determined by taking the total cost and dividing by the MWh produced per year. If, for example, nuclear run full out (90% of the time, 10% for refueling and routine maintenance) = 12 cents/kWh and then you run it at half speed 50% of the time the price of electricity rises to 15 cents/kWh.

It's cheaper to power a grid with wind + solar + storage than with nuclear. Much cheaper than load-following nuclear or nuclear + storage.

BTW, the wind tends to blow harder during the 1st and 4th quarter.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.