Talk:Penzhin Tidal Power Plant Project

Russia: Technology & engineering / Economy / Physical geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal 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 articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cost? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.87.104.40 (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miskeading figures?[edit]

The article reads “One of proposed variants presumes an installed capacity 87 GW and annual production 200 TWh of electricity.” However, this is physically impossible and a very simple calculation shall prove it: even assuming an unreachable 100% capacity factor (i.e., all turbines generate at maximum power 24 h/day during the whole year), 87×24×365 = 762120 MWh = 0.76 TWh. Perhaps it should read 200 GWh, implying a 26.2% capacity factor which is consistent with Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station at 24.8. Please fix! 190.195.158.232 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you off by a factor of thousand? Wouldn't it be more like 87×24×365 = 762120 GWh? -- marilyn.hanson (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their calculation is wrong and it's a good example of why not to leave out units when performing calculations. 87 GW * 1 year = 87 GW * 8760 h = 762120 GWh ≃ 762 TWh. When the units (and prefixes) are left in the calculation becomes self-correcting, and you avoid for example ending up off by three orders of magnitude... 2A00:801:733:5AAE:B94F:BE1F:7FB5:7940 (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]