It is good that attention is being paid to Harvard’s purchased interest in Stetson II. Here are some hard facts – let’s see if Harvard cites these uncomfortable figures:
According to FERC’s quarterly summaries, Stetson II (when construction was completed) produced 10 GWH in the third quarter of 2010 and 20 GWH in the fourth quarter of 2010.
The installed capacity of Stetson II is 57 GWH per quarter. That’s 30 GWH produced for the half year; installed capacity for the period was 110 GWH. This as a Capacity Factor of 30 divided by 110, or .27. The following full year, 2011, Steston II produced a total of 60 GWH. That’s a CF of 220 divided by 60, or Capacity Factor of (again) .27. For the first quarter of 2012 FERC reports 14 GWH produced, a Capacity Factor of .25.
Wind promoters likes to cite things like “an reliability record of 97 %.” But what good is a turbine, however reliable it is, if the wind simply does not blow? I live in northern Maine, and much of the time I look out the window at 100-year old treetops that are essentially stationary.
I am waiting for Harvard to compare Stetson II’s power production record to their touted goal of providing 10% of Harvard’s campus power needs with “green” power. How about it, Harvard? Have you done your homework? What grade do you give yourself?
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding