If I don't screw up: 106 000 tons per year (2006) means 290 tons per day, one ton of crude is around 42 GJ so that's 12.2e12 J per day, 30 MW for a day is 2.6e12 J so a bit more than 1 unit of "electricity" energy to get 5 unit of "oil" energy (not counting refining, further transport, etc...).
Of course in the begining when they pumped out 750 000 tons per day the ratio was 7 times better.
It plays bloody hell with your numbers when you start looking at vehicles and think that the British have super efficient little vehicles that all get 50 miles gallon. Until you realise that one imnperial gallon is 1.2 US gallon, so it's a less impressive 40 US mpg, not 50 mpg like you think. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
Yet more complications... When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
The lesson here?
It's about time that all us Anglophones just drop the act and learn to use metric. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
I guess we'll stick to liberty miles. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton_of_oil_equivalent
Power Produced - 5 mega watts for each turbine, giving a total of 10 mega watts for the Demonstrator Project. This is enough power to provide about one third of the electricity need to operate Talisman's Beatrice platform.
Also please replace "750 000 tons per day" to "per year" (on the 1975-2001 period) in my post, the ratio "7" is valid though.
Capacity factor is the percentage of full load achieved over X time, usually a year. No plant, including base load, achieves 100% capacity factor, in fact, many base loads are in the 70's (though some reach in the 90's). Nuclear power, for example, often produces capacity factors of 100% while they're operating, but of course like any plant, 0% while they're shut down. In fact, in the US, nuclear power capacity factors have just reached fractions above 90% in two years since the early 70's, and did not reach above 80% until 1999. (EIA)
According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the average capacity factor in 2006 was 89.9%, compared to coal at 71.1% and nat gas ranging from 17.2% to 39.9%. (This is because coal plants need significant maintenance downtime, while natgas is burned primarily in peakers.)
No question offshore has higher potential capacity factors than on land, because the wind is both stronger and more consistent. What's also most advantageous about offshore is the lower turbulence intensity. (TI is a wind turbine's enemy number one.) This is because there's nothing to increase surface roughness for thousands of kilometers, except waves and more waves. On land turbulence is increased because of terrain changes like hills and valleys, and buildings and bridges, and cell phone towers and carnival rides, and the odd wind turbine here and there. Skennah Kowa
