Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South DakotaWikipedia:WikiProject South DakotaTemplate:WikiProject South DakotaSouth Dakota
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not sure why you're comparing to North Dakota consumption, but your math is correct and I agree with your assessment that 25% Capacity factor is conservative. Based on what I've read and wind maps I've seen, a capacity factor of 40-45% would likely be where this project is at, and 50% wouldn't suprise me. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
The 'average' capacity factor for newer installations in 2008 was 35%. These are Liberty turbines, and are supposedly more efficient than typical. Also the location has higher class winds than Iowa, where many of the installations were that averaged to 35%. So 25% is indeed very conservative. 35% is even conservative. See 2008 Wind Technologies Market Report. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Update - recent wind generation installations (since 2010) in the state have achieved capacity factors in excess of 50 percent. A 45% capacity factor would now be a reasonable number to use for the calculation.--Aflafla1 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
