140 meters. I see you deleted my facts on this before. So here again is the ge actual site. http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/wind_turbines/en/15mw/specs.htm The rotal diamer is 77 meters. THe sle model has been chosen by Noble. Effie - why did you pull this posting and keep the disinfromation?

BTW, the 3MW model is for off shore use. While its an interesting illustration, 1.5 GE SLEs are planned by Noble and Vestias 2.0MW are planned by Horizon.

Yes, the 3MW model is for off shore use, however, UPC Wind's Chris Swartley has told the Bethany turbine committee point-blank that this is the model they intend to use onland in Bethany. I'm on that committee.

Interesting because John Quirke - who is a ex GE Rep told me that anything above the 1.5 range was not existing technology. And even there proposed 3.6 MW version has a 104 Meter sweep.

UPC's stance is that by the time the project is ready to go forward, the 3MW turbines will be ready. They acknowledge they are not in production at this time.

Well, this project must be quite a bit in the future. Its a bit like ordering an A380. Interesting though about the 3.6MW. It does have the same cut in and cut out speed of the 1.5SLE yet only has a slight larger rotor diameter - 77M versus 104m. Seems like a risky bet but one that will quite a bit more efficient if they get deliveries and the maint. is low. Wouldn't affect the hub height much either

2 years, approximately.

I like the equipment. Your town is lucky. It can harvest more without that much larger of a footprint.

UPC's web site - notes use of GE 1.5 MW machines. Its also noted in their prattsburgh DEIS filings. Is this the same project?

No.

Does anyone know where this graphic came from? Have an original source?

2.5MW Clipper's for Cohocton in 2007. Not too far into the future eh "Visitor"?

Formosa - I think you need to read what I said. I said 3.6MW were a thing of the future. Seems like I am right. A bit of a difference between a 2.5 and a 3.6. Lets introduce a bit of precision shall we?

Drat. I can't find the original source. I only have about eight boxes of wind material, though :)

The one thing I do remember is that it was made by a funded study group - a university or research lab. It was not made by pro- or anti-wind groups.