Talk:List of offshore wind farms

Chinese offshore wind farms under construction - finding a reliable source

There seem to be several contenders:

1. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/cixi-wind-farm-ii-china-cn13.html
2. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/fuqing-haitan-strait-intertidal-china-cn39.html
3. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/huaneng-rongcheng-intertidal-china-cn28.html
4. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/xiangshui-intertidal-pilot-goldwind-china-cn48.html
5. http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/chenjiagang-xiangshui-intertidal-project-china-cn50.html

Anyone know a reliable source for Chinese offshore wind farms under construction? Ernestfax^Talk 10:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I found some about one farm:

http://www.ordons.com/asia/far-east/7938-china-national-offshore-oil-constructs-chinas-first-offshore-windfarm.html

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2010/10/25/china-begins-world-largest-offshore-wind-farm/

http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/23/worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-begun-by-china/

but same farm here http://www.docstoc.com/docs/66525776/China-Investment-Corporation as 1st 50 MW phase only. --Jklamo (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jklamo. That's useful. I note that both the offshorewind.biz and cleantechnica articles are both sources from Ordons, so there's only one primary source there. Indeed, the same story got repeated across the web echo chamber. I don't know Ordons, nor its reputation - is it a a reliable source? The Ordons article doesn't mention where it got the news. I don't see any mention of this wind farm in CNOOC regulatory postings. I found a mention here on the CNOOC website: http://www.cnoocltd.com/encnoocltd/tzzgx/yjhtjcl/Results/images/200941327.pdf which refers only to one turbine already erected offshore. Ernestfax^Talk 08:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is extremly hard to found reliable and up-to-date sources from China. Here http://www.dk-export.dk/media/DWEGC._Chiina_s_Offshore_Wind_Farm_Projects._O.pdf is another interesting source of upcoming Chinese project, i think in III. 7) is that CNOOC project. Unfortunately no metion about U/C here. I have no idea about Ordons reliability.--Jklamo (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Intertidal location -- does this make a windfarm uniquely notable?

I just read the source article that User:Jklamo just added for Jiangsu Rudong Wind Farm, a newly operational 32 MW windfarm in China. It is currently one of the 25 largest offshore windfarms, and so makes the lists in this article on that basis. That much is clear.

However, I note that the source lays claim to uniqueness (first in the world, and challenges in engineering, etc.) for building a fixed-foundation windfarm in an intertidal zone: "between the land and the sea, which is drowned by sea water at high tide and appears at low tide."(sic). So my question to other interested editors is, when the Jiangsu Rudong Wind Farm rolls off of our list of "top 25", which at only 32 MW it will inevitably do in the next few years, is the Jiangsu Rudong Wind Farm sufficiently notable due to its "intertidal" uniqueness claim that it should be (then) added to the "Other strongly notable offshore wind farms" section of the article? N2e (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's true that it was the first inter-tidal - I believe that Rønland (commissioned 2003) is inter-tidal. 4coffshore gives its depths as 0-2 metres, and the aerial photo bears this out. :::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestfax (talk • contribs) 05:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Although Jiangsu Rudong may be the most intertidal, the term could also be true for Scroby_Sands_Wind_Farm, Robin_Rigg_Wind_Farm and Burbo_Bank_Offshore_Wind_Farm besides Rønland, so "first" is doubtful. If there are particular technical challenges not present in the previous ones, it may require further consideration, but that would likely depend on more widespread notability than a single location. TGCP (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Walney Phase 1

Walney Phase 1 started to produce electricity.[1] Beagel (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Anholt, and guidelines for "commencement"

I see that Anholt has just appeared on the list of windfarms under construction. As far as I can tell, no offshore construction has started for Anholt yet, and won't until 2012.

I have been assuming that we'd use the start of offshore construction as the point at which a windfarm would be eligible to enter the list - if it's just a matter of port works or an onshore substation, then there are quite a few more contenders for that list.

Any thoughts? Ernestfax^Talk 14:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Wait for offshore construction to start before entering the list. Onshore cable laying is a grey area. As for floating wind farms, I am not sure what to think. TGCP (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi TGCP. Just a thought on the floating wind-farms that you wondered about. I think it is fuzzy, and we may want to hash it around on the Talk page under a specific proposal at some point as to where the line ought to be drawn. However, for the deep-water floating farms, I suspect the first multi-turbine floating farm of ordinary large-scale turbines (> 1 or 2 MW) is probably sufficiently notable to consider adding to the table of other wind farms that are notable for other than mere size of the total installed power output. Now, just when exactly that goes from "early conceptual plans" and "statement of some intent" (by corporate or government interests) and is actually a "firm plan" is up for debate of course. I have added a note on the first multi-unit floating farm of large turbines that I am aware of, below. Early reports show Japan building a six-turbine floating turbine farm off the northeast coast of Japan. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anholt is officially under construction, not just on land but offshore as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.35.251 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Japan moving into deep-water floating wind turbines

As of September 2011, Japan plans to build a pilot floating wind farm—using full-size/large-scale floating wind turbines—with six 2-megawatt turbines, off the Fukushima coast of northeast Japan where the recent tsunami and nuclear disaster has created a scarcity of electric power. These floating turbines are a very different construction technology—closer to floating oil rigs rather—than traditional fixed-bottom, shallow-water monopile foundations that are used in all the other large offshore wind farms to date.

Here is the source, already written in wikicitation syntax: <ref name=bb20110916> {{cite news |title=Japan Plans Floating Wind Power Plant |url=http://www.breakbulk.com/wind-renewables/japan-plans-floating-wind-power-plant |accessdate=2011-10-12 |newspaper=Breakbulk |date=2011-09-16 }}</ref> After the evaluation phase is complete in 2016, "Japan plans to build as many as 80 floating wind turbines off Fukushima by 2020."<ref name=bb20110916/> The cost is expected to be in the range of 10-20 billion Yen over five years to build the first six floating wind turbines.<ref name=reuters20110913>Yoko Kubota [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-japan-wind-idUSTRE78C41M20110913 Japan plans floating wind power for Fukushima coast] ''[[Reuters]]'', 13 September 2011. Accessed: 19 September 2011.</ref>

Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates ?

The column "Coordinates" is long compared to the other columns. How do you feel about making that narrower? The font could be smaller. The column could also be placed further to the right, as it may be less informative than other columns. TGCP (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree: smaller font and further to the right would be good. Johnfos (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see examples of smaller coordinates in List of offshore wind farms in Germany and most of Lists of offshore wind farms by country. TGCP (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Smaller coords look good, and placement further to the right would also be good. Johnfos (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really nescessary to have "seconds" in coordinates? Wind farms are usually so large that they cover a few "minutes" of latitude and longitude anyway - a second is 31 meters and a minute is 1.8 km at equator, and smaller elsewhere. The precise location could be the center or the transformator, or it could be one of the corners - we don't know, and usually we don't care. TGCP (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Besides, satellite images are usually too fuzzy to show structures at sea. For small wind farms such as Middelgrunden, it may be nescessary with seconds. TGCP (talk) 12:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Proposed" is inaccurate

Proposed wind farms? I think the list of proposed wind farms consist of a lot of british crown estate 3 areas where licenses have been sold but no actual plans made or contracts signed with suppliers. The MW's here posted as "proposed" are merely potential which to me are a completely different thing. For example, Dogger Bank is an area with a potential og anywhere between 9GW-13GW according to www.forewind.com but theres no saying whether Forewind will use its full potential or if the MW installed will even be in one big farm or many smaller ones. The Dogger Bank website specifies that it will be built in several wind farms of no greater size than 1,4GW. "The Dogger Bank development will consist of a number of offshore wind farms, each with an onshore grid connection and a capacity of up to 1.4GW. These wind farms will individually comprise some hundreds of wind turbines (depending on the size of turbines selected), offshore substations, export cables, onshore converter stations and associated infrastructure." http://www.forewind.co.uk/projects/projects-overview.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.35.251 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

(I made a title for this discussion). The sections were discussed, but that particular issue should be investigated. Thank you for bringing it up. TGCP (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe a different headline might be more suitable, perhaps "dreamscenario wind farms". The Blekinge project, just like the British ones, is not on any serious level and there has been no new news posted in more than a year! http://www.blekingeoffshore.se/ its a project like so many others, but its not yet at any serious stage. I think most people will agree that just the financing part of offshore wind farms greater than 1,000 MW would take several years to get in place, never mind the sizes that were talking about on this list.

Why is Dogger Bank still on this site with a size of 9,000 MW when Forewind clearly says that will never happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.201.203 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The section about "Proposed" projects were reduced to only include those with government approval, as per discussion. Some current wind farms already include separate project parts, so there is not much different about multi-stage projects in this section. The headline already states "Top 10 Proposed Wind Farm Areas", not "Wind farms". As of April 2012 Forewind says 9GW agreed and 13GW potential as well as 6GW NatGrid agreements, so I am not sure where you get the "Forewind clearly says that will never happen" from. The section was included to show projects with some probability of completion in addition to those already being constructed. If you have an idea on how to make a section with confirmed projects yet to be constructed, please suggest a method. TGCP (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why talk about "wind farm areas" when everything else on this page is about "wind farms". Wouldnt it then be easier to just look at the whole north sea and pool all the farms together and just add MW's every time a new one opens? "The section was included to show projects with some probability of completion in addition to those already being constructed". Ok that makes sense, the only error is that the name of the area isnt a project in itself. Its merely an area where projects can be made.. or not. An idea on how to make a section with confirmed projects jet to be constructed? The problem is that theyre not confirmed until the developer as the necessary planning permissions have been given, suppliers contracted and a date of construction start has been set.

Good example of why the other list isnt working http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9303940/Offshore-wind-farm-is-cut-back-by-a-third-after-public-protests.html even with the developer cutting the farms size by a third the remaining 1,000 MV is still a maximum and no permission has even been given to begin construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.36.92 (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just undone your edit, because it is contradicted by the very source that you cite, which says "We will apply for planning consent to build Atlantic Array with up to 1500MW capacity". (NB capacity is measured in MW, not MV). That's because offshore turbine technology has moved on a lot since the Atlantic Array was first conceived, and now a 6MW turbine might be the best choice. 250 x 6MW = 1500MW.

Note that the consent criterion for the list is that a proposed area has achieved some (not necessarily all) of its consents. In the case of the Atlantic Array, it's achieved consent from the Crown Estate. That criterion isn't fixed in stone - it's subject to consensus. If you want to propose a specific change, please do, and let's discuss it. Ernestfax^Talk 07:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

When are two phases of a windfarm, a single windfarm? And other classification questions

I've made a few updates to the article today: Walney phase 2 finished, and Teeside started construction.

I've classified Walney 1 & 2 together, as that's what the media coverage has done. There's a case to be made either way, that they're a single wind farm, or two separate (but related) ones. We should have a standard convention for this, as it's an issue that's going to recur.

I've added Deeside onto the list of windfarms under construction. There's a case to be made that the Blue-H one (currently commented out) should be in the list, but in the absence of any reliable or recent information on that construction, I've left it out, as to me it's not substantiated. Just my subjective call, so feel free to amend, particularly if you can find more recent info on that project. According to the Blue-H web page for the project, it's "close to securing its final permit" - which I take it means that it is not under construction. Ernestfax^Talk 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not an easy question. Because Walney 1 and 2 were completed within a short time of eachother, it is reasonable to count them as one. But Horns Rev 1 and 2 were built some 7 years apart, so they should be counted as two. Or what? The amount of transformers and export cables may also influence the decision. Then there is the question of ownership : Two nearby wind farm phases may have the same owner, or several different owners, all the time or changing over time. How to choose? TGCP (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Some suggested differentiation criteria for whether multiple phases constitute a single windfarm:

1) if they've got the same operator, they might be one windfarm, whereas if they've got different operators, they're definitely separate windfarms.

2) if the contract between the operator and the customer (grid or whoever) jointly covers multiple phases, so that invoicing and payment is done as if they were a single windfarm, they're a single windfarm.

Ernestfax^Talk 14:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldnt it make sense to use the developers official websites to see if they refer to it as one or two parks? Or maybe look into the way the power reaches land? If the power comes through the same system it could be regarded as one unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.36.92 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please help keep the page well-referenced

I've just reverted a group of anonymous IP edits from 80.198.254.160 that made almost identical edits to a previous group of anonymous IP edits from the same address, and from 81.33.36.92; I couldn't find a reliable source to support the changes, and none were provided by the editor; which is why I've reverted them.

The changes I've reverted were:

1) the introduction of new sites in the "under construction" section, where the cited link provided no evidence of offshore works having commenced at any of them; nor could I find any myself. The cite was the same in each case, to a single unsubstantiated list at lorc.dk

2) large reductions in the capacities of the wind farm areas in the "proposed" section, without providing any cited support for these reductions; (again, I looked for a source myself for the reductions, and could not find a reliable one). See anon IP contributions on the same subject, above on this page here, in section #"Proposed" is inaccurate.

I've tried to preserve other edits that occurred around the same time that I could find substantiation for: in particular, the renaming of Norfolk Bank to East Anglia (with phase 1 being called East Anglia 1).

I won't revert a third time. I'm hoping that the anonymous IP contributor(s) will discuss it here, rather than making the same edits again. But can I appeal for other contributors to help ensure that changes to the page (made by anon IP or named contributor - including me) are supported by citations from reliable sources?

Ernestfax^Talk 11:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Windfarm: Chenjiagang (Jiangsu) Xiangshui

It seems to me that this windfarm is actually onshore, not offshore.

http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/chenjiagang-xiangshui-project-china-cn50.html states the following: "Wind farm located amongst salt pans. Crawler crane being used for installation" and refers to the project as "Chenjiagang Xiangshui Project (Onshore)"

It's a bit difficult to find information about chinese windfarms, but should this (onshore) windfarm really appear in this list?

Sorry, if this has been discussed before.

Regards, Schluppo (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have zoomed in to the 100-200m level on Google Maps on the location given by 4C. Satellite images are from 2013.

Several differently sized turbines and their shadows are visible over a quite large area, and they are clearly positioned on ground near roads and canals.

But the photo https://ssl.panoramio.com/photo/35484538 was uploaded in 2010 at n34.458163 e119.861870 , showing many turbines probably onshore as you can see some structures in the right side of it, but compass direction is unclear. Just to the north-east of that you can see two clearly offshore turbines on the satellite image.

Whether those turbines are in fact the Chenjiagang Xiangshui project I do not know, but there could be some onshore and some offshore like Frederikshavn. Offshore photos are not available.

I see tidal barrages near the river mouth between S324 and S325, and shallow water beyond the coastline. The general area may well have been tidal shifting between land and water 100 years ago, but filled in and landclaimed since then.

I suggest we let it stay on the list for a while longer, and hope for good offshore proof sometime. After a few months of missing references, we can remove it. TGCP (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Judgding from satellite footage of the sites alleged location, I think that this windpark consists of 132 onshore turbines and 2 offshore (or probably actually intertidal or nearshore) turbines. But I agree to wait a few more months before removing it or possibly moving it to the "Other highly notable offshore wind farms" section. Schluppo (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.power-technology.com/projects/100mwlillgrund/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.power-technology.com/projects/egmond/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-top-10-biggest-offshore-wind-farms-uk/

  Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

BARD Offshore 1 on this list ?

The inclusion of BARD Offshore 1 into this list may be doubtful. Although it seems to have been commissioned, it has yet to show reasonable availability, and may not qualify as an operational wind farm. How do we distinguish between short term faults and general lack of function ? See TGCP (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of offshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619014734/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/worlds-second-largest-offshore-wind-9476670 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/business/business-news/worlds-second-largest-offshore-wind-9476670
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006224732/http://www.dongenergy.com/anholt/EN/News/anholt_nyheder/News/Pages/AllturbinesatAnholtoffshorewindfarmnowoperational.aspx to http://www.dongenergy.com/anholt/EN/News/anholt_nyheder/News/Pages/AllturbinesatAnholtoffshorewindfarmnowoperational.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828045202/http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/oldenburg/offshore389.html to http://www.ndr.de/regional/niedersachsen/oldenburg/offshore389.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423030705/http://www.c-power.be/English/welcome/algemene_info.html to http://www.c-power.be/English/welcome/algemene_info.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/your-sector/energy/news-se-energy/News%20Details.aspx?itemId=%7B76BBD32A-4741-4052-8F95-642F2D6E1C16%7D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704025514/http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/70_interactive_maps_marine.htm to http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/70_interactive_maps_marine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of offshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112022212/http://www.dongenergy.com/west_of_duddon_sands/News/data/Pages/WestofDuddonSandsoffshorewindfarmreachesfoundationinstallationhalfwaypoint.aspx to http://www.dongenergy.com/west_of_duddon_sands/News/data/Pages/WestofDuddonSandsoffshorewindfarmreachesfoundationinstallationhalfwaypoint.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statoilhydro.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/NewEnergy/RenewablePowerProduction/Offshore/SheringhamShoel/Downloads/Fact%20sheet.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120527011623/http://www.theengineer.co.uk/news/wind-farm-project/308825.article to http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/308825/Wind+farm+project.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dantysk.com/press-info/press-releases/details/archive/2014/december/article/offshore-windpark-dantysk-speist-ersten-strom-ein.html?tx_ttnews%5Bday%5D=04&cHash=7dc177173f09f5a3119f83f4a21e282a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150619001701/http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/power-hit-Humber-Gateway/story-26656844-detail/story.html to http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/power-hit-Humber-Gateway/story-26656844-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120527011624/http://www.dongenergy.com/hornsrev2/en/about_horns_rev_2/about_the_project/pages/turbines.aspx to http://www.dongenergy.com/hornsrev2/en/about_horns_rev_2/about_the_project/pages/turbines.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161022222554/https://corporate.vattenfall.com/about-energy/renewable-energy-sources/wind_power/wind-power-at-vattenfall/horns-rev-3-offshore-wind-farm/ to https://corporate.vattenfall.com/about-energy/renewable-energy-sources/wind_power/wind-power-at-vattenfall/horns-rev-3-offshore-wind-farm/
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160515045800/http://www.offshore-power.net/Files/Filer/danish_supply_chain_study.pdf to http://www.offshore-power.net/Files/Filer/danish_supply_chain_study.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120730164047/http://www.dongenergy.com/Nysted/EN/About_the_park/Introduction/Pages/Introduction.aspx to http://www.dongenergy.com/Nysted/EN/About_the_park/Introduction/Pages/Introduction.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719122621/http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Statistik_og_noegletal/Oversigt_over_energisektoren/Stamdataregister_vindmoeller/Documents/AnlaegProdTilNettet.xls to http://www.ens.dk/da-DK/Info/TalOgKort/Statistik_og_noegletal/Oversigt_over_energisektoren/Stamdataregister_vindmoeller/Documents/AnlaegProdTilNettet.xls

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of offshore wind farms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921054229/http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/86182/rwe-innogy/news-press/press/?pmid=4006424 to http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/86182/rwe-innogy/news-press/press/?pmid=4006424
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730111220/http://www.repower.de/press/press-releases/detail-press/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=8109&cHash=071ef77c45bd3f13dc55372ca3c95111 to http://www.repower.de/press/press-releases/detail-press/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=8109&cHash=071ef77c45bd3f13dc55372ca3c95111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828000050/http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/961656/offshore-wind-farm-nordsee-ost/ to http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/961656/offshore-wind-farm-nordsee-ost/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081225110353/http://www.bwea.com/offshore/worldwide.html to http://www.bwea.com/offshore/worldwide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Pruning the list(s)

This list is quite big now based on the 200MW+ criteria - 40 windfarms and growing. Suggest increasing the limit. The list of 'under construction' farms is already limited to 300MW+.

• If the limit is increased to 300MW:
  • It will get rid of 16 farms leaving a list of 24
  • The under construction list will remain unchanged (12 farms)

• If the limit is increased to 400MW:
  • It will get rid of 27 farms leaving a list of 13
  • The under construction list will lose 3 leaving a list of 9

Any notable wind farms that will get the chop could be moved to the 'other notable wind farms section' on the same page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therandomarticle (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

47 is not so bad, but the problem is that in 200-250 MW section windarms are missing. 300MW or even 400MW thershold seems unnecessarily rigorous, but 250MW may be acceptable. But it would be appropriate to save all 200-250 MW data to Wikidata first (or check if there are already all of them).--Jklamo (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the growth of offshore wind power is slow enough that we can still keep the limit at 200 MW for a while. The list is still manageable and reasonably exhaustive and informative. In my opinion there is no need to cut it down. However, for consistency, projects between 200MW and 300MW under construction should also be listed in the second table. --Ita140188 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: the list is now much longer compared to 3-4 years ago. What about limiting to 300MW now? Pinging users who were recently active on this page or who may be interested: Jklamo Therandomarticle Robynthehode The DUST DEVIL --Ita140188 (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Compared to other lists of structures (such as the various buildings and tower lists) this list doesn't seem overly long for now with the cut off at 200MW. It would need to be monitored but I would leave it as it is for now Robynthehode (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with 250MW, 300MW and 400MW limits. As far as UK is concerned, farms are only getting bigger. NnG is the only "small" farm in development, whilst Seagreen 1A is a thing only because they were unable to connect 1.4GW in one go and had to split Seagreen into two. The farms are only going to be bigger from this point onward, which pipeline of largest proposed section clearly demonstrates. --The DUST DEVIL (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Times change fast, at the moment 250 seems to be low, I am OK with 300 MW or 400 MW. BTW 15+ Chinese 300 MW farms are missing in the list at the moment.--Jklamo (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)