This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Wind Turbine Output.

logo


      •  



    •  



    •  





      •  



    •  


  •  

  •  


    •  





      •  



    •  



    •  


  •  

  •  



    •  

  •  

  •  

  •  

  •  




      •  



    •  



  •  



      •  


  •  


    •  



    •  


  •  


  •  



 


  1. Home



 

Offshore wind



 



We're leading the world in offshore wind right here in the UK


On this page
Home to the world’s largest offshore wind farms

Breaking our own records

Generating renewable energy with the world’s biggest offshore wind turbines

Helping to develop a competitive UK offshore wind supply chain

Community benefits of offshore wind

Limitless supply. Limitless opportunity.



 



The UK is the world leader in offshore wind, with more capacity installed than any other country. Offshore wind powers over 7.5 million UK homes a year and is set to become the backbone of a clean, reliable and affordable energy system. By 2030, the UK will be getting about a third of its electricity from offshore wind.



Offshore wind is one of the country’s biggest growth industries, already employing thousands of people in highly-skilled jobs and attracting billions in investment, helping to transform coastal communities.


Orsted UK offshore wind farms

Home to the world’s largest offshore wind farms



The UK is home to the world’s largest offshore wind farms and here we have 12 operational offshore wind farms that we either own or partly own, one wind farm under construction and a further three in our development pipeline. Ørsted’s current installed capacity in the UK is 4,921MW which is enough green energy to power over 4.4 million UK homes a year. This will rise to over 5.6 million homes a year by 2022.



Take a closer look at our offshore wind farms



Image shows 4.4 million homes powered by Orsted wind farms

Breaking our own records



Wind farms have been increasing in size; for a long time the largest was London Array, but in 2018 we overtook it with Walney Extension located off the North-West coast of England. However, our Hornsea One Offshore Wind Farm is nearly double the size of that – truly representing a step change in the size of offshore wind farms. It is the first offshore wind farm ever to be built over one gigawatt, the furthest from shore and now powers well over a million homes with clean electricity. But it won’t hold the title for long, it’s sister project Hornsea Two will take the crown in 2022, providing enough clean electricity for well over 1.3 million homes.



 



We've become a global leader in offshore wind, and by 2025 it is our worldwide ambition to power 30 million people with energy produced by our offshore wind farms.


Generating renewable energy with the world’s biggest offshore wind turbines



Turbines now generate over four times the power of the first UK offshore wind turbines, dramatically reducing costs across the industry. Innovation has been a key driver of cost reduction and we expect to see turbine sizes continue to grow.


The evolution of offshore wind farms

Once operational in 2022, turbines constructed for our giant 1.4GW Hornsea Two offshore wind farm will be almost 18 times as powerful as those used for Vindeby, the world’s first offshore wind farm located off the Danish island of Lolland.


 



One rotation of a wind turbine blade can generate enough electricity to power a house for over a day.


Z.


  • It's impossible to run an economy with this technology. Complete nonsense. 

    small scale nuclear is the only option.
  • Jon Steward:

    small scale nuclear is the only option.


    I have been watching the programmes on the Beeb on the building of Hinckley Point C. It is evident that a huge amount of the work is providing containment for an incident such as at Chernobyl. I doubt that it could be replicated on a smaller, but much more numerous scale.


    The power output at Hinckley with be 3.26 GW. The Rolls-Royce consortium's ones will produce about 0.5 GW. So with the proposal at Sizewell and a dozen of the smaller ones, that comes to 12.5 GW.


    Clearly during the construction period, other power stations will be withdrawn from service, so that is not a net gain; but it is moving in the right direction.


  • I worked in the Hinkley Point Power Station, circa 1980, for a week... MASSIVE place BUT, can I just say how stupid these wind turbines are!!?


    Anyways... that's what I think!


    SORRY!
  • Jon Steward:

    It's impossible to run an economy with this technology. Complete nonsense. 

    small scale nuclear is the only option.


    I have found by experience that there is always more than just one option.


    Z.


  •  can I just say how stupid these wind turbines are!!?


    Why do you say that Tom?


    Z.


  • Well there really isn't a choice. Hinkley and Sizewell are massive, too big. Small scale is needed, just like the Chinese are doing. The powers that be insist on continuing down the green path which our children and grandchildren will be paying for. Do you think they're going to thanks us. 

    You can't just waste money that would be better spent on conservation not environmental green agenda.

  • I'm not sure they will thank us massively for lots of little piles of radioactive stuff that they have to stand guard over for a long time either.

    Early nuclear, and a quite a few early turbines, are both now being decommissioned, and the nuclear sites are going to be a lot more troublesome in terms of re-use for a lot longer.

    You only have to look at the problems with Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the US, and the contamination of the water table to see what happens when  the maintenance of the containment is skimped  for a couple of decades on a decommissioned facility.

    In many ways, despite the grief, the Sellafield pile-fuel-storage-pond   is an example of shining good practice in comparison.

    Mike.
  • I am not entirely convinced by the "small scale" stuff for an entirely different reason. Security is a big cost for nuclear and is similar for a small or large reactor, and a small one would be much easier to damage to cause a leak. Fortunately, we have not had a Western sinking of a nuclear ship or sub, but this could be a big problem too. They sound a good idea, but the cost is not likely to be much different for the same power output, and as we need 100GW as I said elsewhere, that is an awful lot at 0.25 or 0.5 GW where other costs will be much more important.
  • The new Sizewell plant will employ 6000 people. All set to move into the sleepy Suffolk village . Where's the housing and infrastructure. Are they ready?
  • Well perhaps we shouldn't have lost our coal fired stations.

    But I hope by now the experts know how to deal with nuclear or we're all doomed.  Again. !!