@RexRed,
The article is highly deceptive on several levels.
The most glaring is the implied claim that the 140MW of installed wind generating capacity will actually produce 140 MW of electrical power. The truth is that the best modern on shore wind turbines produce, on average, only 28% of their rated power - in this case about 39 MW. The reason; the wind doesn't blow all the time and wind turbines must be designed to handle the highest sustained local winds, as opposed to the average which is much less.
Coal-fired or nuclear power plants are limited only by required shutdowns for maintenance and economic factors relating th the relative costs of their fuel. The 100 nuclear plants in this country have averaged an output greater than 90% of their maximum rated power continuously for the last ten years: coal plants somewhat less, about 75%, and that only because they are shutdown first during periods of low demand because their fuel cost is much higher than that of the nuclear plants. The standard coal or nuclear plant is rated at 1,150 MW with an average output of 1,058MW for nuclear plants and 860MW for coal plants.
Thus the expected output of this 7,700 acre (12 square miles), $350 million wind farm will be just 3.7% that of a standard nuclear plant occupying just 300 (or so) acres, and on a unit of output basis will cost 40% more to build. Moreover its operating costs, based on recent history will be almost three times that of a nuclear plant on a similar unit of output basis.
The second element of deception is the complete lack of meaningful comparisons with other sources of power. While this may well be the largest wind project in the State, it represents only a trivial fraction of the state's consumption. It will take only 27 or so such wind farms, costing $9.45 billion and occupying 325 square miles to equal the output of a single $6.5 billion modern nuclear plant occupying a few hundred acres.
