Photo Credit: REpower
article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (75) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
February 4, 2005

Germany Inaugurates 5 MW Wind Turbine Prototype

Hamburg, Germany [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

The world's largest wind turbine, a 120-meter (394-feet) behemoth capable of generating 5 MW at full output, has just been officially inaugurated and connected to the German electrical grid.

"We're proud of the way our engineers and installers have successfully realized these new dimensions."

- Chairman of REpower Fritz Vahrenholt

The "5M" turbine, designed and built by Germany's REpower, was officially inaugurated at a dedication event in Germany this week with over 600 guests from business and politics. In a symbolic gesture, the turbine was activated by the German Federal Minister for the Environment, Jurgen Trittin.

Germany has one of the strongest wind power markets in world. In bare figures, wind power already meets more than 30 percent of the electricity demand in the German states Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

Trittin, Volker Hauff, who is the president of the German Council for Sustainable Development, Chairman of REpower Fritz Vahrenholt and Chief Technology Officer for REpower Matthias Schubert, climbed up the prototype hours before the official activation.

"We're proud of the way our engineers and installers have successfully realized these new dimensions," Vahrenholt said. "With our 5M technology, we will be able to produce power at competitive prices, particularly at offshore wind farms."

The machine has the capability of generating approximately17 GWh of power a year, which could supply 4,500 people in the region with electricity.

The turbine's LM Glasfibre 61.5 meter rotor blades -- also the largest of their kind in the world -- are constructed of a glass and carbon fiber hybrid-fabric that is held together with synthetic resins. REpower said the materials contributed to significant weight reductions for the blades. Each blade is equipped with its own electrical pitch system.

Winds as low as 3.5 m/s will disengage the electromagnetic disc brakes and the turbine should have peak performance during winds of 13 m/s. Winds of 25 m/s or more will cause the turbine to cut-out.

The nacelle was designed with a helicopter platform on the roof for ease of access in off shore applications, which the turbine was designed for. During prototype testing, however, the 5M will remain on-shore.

Offshore projects are in the making though. During the event, Talisman Energy, coordinator of the EU-supported "DOWNVInD" project confirmed their plans to propose to the European commission the use of two REpower 5M turbines as a demonstration project 25 km off the coast of Scotland.

In addition, a cooperation agreement was concluded with BARD Engineering GmbH as part of the development of the BARD Offshore I project in the German part of the North Sea. Final planning permission is expected for this year.

REpower worked on the 5M project with LM Glasfibre, Offshore Wind Technologie and the Center for Renewable Energy Sources. Funding came from the European Commission's Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development program; and the European Regional Development Fund through the German state of Schleswig-Holstein.
Image Gallery (1)
 
For Further Information
Please Note: RenewableEnergyWorld.com does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Previous Article
Next Article
View All
Reader Comments (75)
 
No image available
Anonymous
February 4, 2005
It's really disgusting to hear about this !
Where does this end ?
What is the next sort of a monster ??
Comment 1 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 4, 2005
Really exciting to hear about this!
Comment 2 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 5, 2005
Very good news! And I'll order another 100 on behalf of John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia.
Comment 3 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 5, 2005
Wonderful! Please send 100 to Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa. Thank-you.
Comment 4 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 5, 2005
Excellent news! We need many more of these "monsters"
Comment 5 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
Windpower fanatics always avoid to address the main issues:

1) - windfarms do not save on greenhouse gases: their erratic production must be stabilised by fossil fuel generators operating in parallel and wasting fuel and emitting CO2 for nothing.- see. www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1186

2) - It would take 2,666 monster 5 MW wind turbines to produce the same as Drax, UK's biggest power plant.
But that plant would still be needed for 24 hour backup of the intermittent wind turbines - and for the days without wind.

3) 2,666 monster turbines over Scotland would wipe out the population of eagles, ospreys, swans, geese etc.
And over Wales, the population of red kites, geese etc.
see: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875 chilling statistics

4) the effect on tourism would be disastrous.

5) the effect on neighbours, and on quality of life in the UK in general, appalling.
Comment 6 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
Some of you "Experts"critisizing Windpower would probably also eliminate Solar Cells,since the Sun shines only during the Day.
Your shortsighted Stand and Ignorance only confirms my Suspicion,that You are trying to pawn off your Belief that Stupidity is a Virtue.
Comment 7 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
I agree with Sion Pritchard. Wales is only 8015 square miles, yet it already has about 400 wind turbines up to 100 mtres in height, visible from 50 mile radius on green unspoilt hills.
This is not Texas. Wales is only about 120 miles north/south and 100 miles east/west at its widest and 40 miles east /west at its narrowest. It has 3 million population.
Texas is 261,950 square miles in area , with only about 1.8 million people[ plus about 100,000 illegal Mexicans]. You have the SPACE !! But how many wind turbines 150 ft plus are there in Texas ??
Comment 8 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
Sion Pritchard is correct. What planet do you pro windies live ? Get real !
Comment 9 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
The United Kingdom uses 350,000,000,000 kwhrs of REGULAR power - do you really think that erratic, over subsidised Wind Energy will ever make any serious contribution to UK energy needs?
Comment 10 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
Quite right ! The wind is FAR too erratic. You cannot PLAN AHEAD, so how can you turn your fossil fuel power stations DOWN, let alone OFF ?? Can you tell me what your wind speed will be in 4 hours? I live on the Atlantic coast. I can see the ocean right now and there are NO WAVES and only a gentle breeze. Wind turbines would generate NOTHING AT ALL !! That would mean POWER CUTS!! Only TIDAL ENERGY is DEPENDABLE !! If everyone bought LOW ENERGY LIGHT BULBS OR LAMPS and insulated their homes, it would save more than wind turbines ever can. Also how about www.wowenergies.com?If that works, it will make electricity from the massive amounts of waste heat emitted by factory/power station and oil refinery stacks.
Write to the press and publicise wowenergies.com. They claim that it works. It cuts CO2 DRAMATICALLY, unlike wind energy !
Comment 11 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
The UK needs 57000mw of electricity at winter peak.There are over 1200 wind turbines from 150 feet to 327 feet high in the UK.
They generate only around 180 mw in total SPORADICALLY...backed up by fossil fuels ALL of the time . So they DO NOT EVEN SAVE THAT MUCH !!
Makers claim 30 per cent of installed capacity is generated. In Mid Wales , they AVERAGE 21 per cent per annum ....only 5.7 per cent in May 2004. That is a RECORDED FACT!!
In North Germany ,wind turbines produce 15 per cent of installed capacity. 40 per cent was the PROMISE for off-shore and 30 per cent on-shore. THEY DO NOT DELIVER!!
THEY WILL NOT CLOSE A SINGLE FOSSIL FUEL OR NUCLEAR POWER STATION!! The wind DISAPPEARS almost daily !! SALT is WRECKING wind turbines at Horn's Rev off the Danish coast !!
See www.wind-farm.org
Comment 12 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
How can a 5 mw wind turbine generate electricity for 4500 people [ how many HOMES is that anyway?] when it produces NOTHING below 9 miles per hour or above 60 miles per hour? It needs almost CONSTANT back-up from fossil fuel power stations , so it is MAINLY duplicating electricity production. For the UK, check www.metoffice.com/education/archive/uk to see how OFTEN the wind drops below 9mph. There was hardly any wind from October 20 th to December 15 th 2004 in the UK. Similarly there were 22 days in April and 25 days in May, when the wind dropped to 9 mph! WHERE would the "4500" get electricity THEN ?? The other day , we had GALES of up to 127 mph. This machine cuts out at a MERE 60mph!! It is USELESS, BECAUSE IT NEEDS BACK-UP !!!
Germany, with THOUSANDS of wind turbines, burns MORE fossil fuel PER CAPITA than the UK !! FACT !!!!!
Comment 13 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
I have been working in the renewable energy since few years. I found there is tremendous scope to make this globe rapid growth of economy. Of course there will be only one global currency which will remove all disasters and natural calamities from te world. Thanks to the compnays R & D.
Comment 14 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 6, 2005
I'D ORDER SOME FOR PRES. BUSH, BUT HE DOESN'T GIVE A HOOT!!
Comment 15 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Hans....Coal Power stations on OR off ?? Sure ! That is why they are LEFT ON !!
The wind can DROP when you NEED it and blow when you don't ! What good is that ?
Put Darmstadt Manifesto into Google to hear what INTELLIGENT German professors have to say!Why do you burn MORE fossils per capita in Germany than the UK ? Why is electricity in hypocritical Denmark [ Which BUYS Nuclear FROM SWEDEN ] DOUBLE the UK price ?? Wind causes CHAOS in Denmark , which only has 5 million people.
UK has 60 million !!! Why were Horn's Rev
wind turbine parts replaced ? SALT DAMAGE ????? ANSWERS , PLEASE !!
Comment 16 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Sure, get real!
See www.wind-farm.org and www.bmpg.co.uk
It is Scotland and Wales that are having thousands of USELESS wind turbines up to 130 metres high . That is a THIRD of the height of New York's former TWIN TOWERS!!
Wales is being DESECRATED AND SACRIFICED !! For WHAT ?? The world population increases by 3 million , equal to the population of Wales , EVERY TWO WEEKS !! You are HYPOCRITES in the USA AND ENGLAND !! PUT 130 METRE WIND TURBINES IN FORESTS NEAR YOUR HOMES !!
Comment 17 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Hear ! Hear ! "electrical engineer". Wind turbines will not close one fossil fuel power station. 1200 UK wind turbines generate about 21 per cent of installed capacity in "tiny segments" interspersed every few hours by light winds or no winds, so how can anyone with half a brain say they can close fossil power stations ?The UK uses 57000mw in cold weather. It has 60 million population. Get REAL YOU DREAMING WINDIES !!
Comment 18 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
How can back-up fossil fuel power stations be turned down , let alone off, if the wind is dropping below 9 knots in the United Kingdom , every few hours? The wind is unpredictable and erratic. Just check www.metoffice.com/education/archive/uk.How can any sane person compare THAT to regulated, controlled fossil fuel power stations ?? Wind turbines CANNOT SAVE MUCH , IN THE WAY OF FOSSILS !
Comment 19 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Hans and other windies , you are talking NONSENSE !!
Germany , with THOUSANDS of wind turbines , burns MORE fossils PER CAPITA than the UK. It has its turbines on the low-lands of Schleswig Holstein , in North Germany, not on the Bavarian Alps.So why does England not put them on ITS LOW LAND ?
No England DUMPS them on the hills of Wales!
Tony Blair would be OUT if he dumped wind turbines in Southern England. Wind energy is HIS IDIOTIC POLICY, yet he SIGNED AN OBJECTION TO 2 WIND TURBINES NEAR HIS CONSTITUENCY HOME IN SEDGEFIELD !!
He is a HYPOCRITE like all you windies. How many of YOU have 100 METRE MONSTERS 500 METRES FROM YOUR HOMES ??
YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE !!
Comment 20 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Nobody has ever said that nuclear and other power plants will or should be replaced by wind turbines...
These kind of electric generators however produce green energy useing never ever depleating source.
Is not worth make use of it?
Comment 21 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Anti-wind activists keep reapeating themselves with the same old arguments, that can be debunked very easily.

Check out the "myths" and "faq" parts on www.yes2wind.com.
Comment 22 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
The issue of birds has been researched in endless studies. With proper placement bird kill is totally negligable compared to other human activities. Birds aint that stupid, they now how to avoid windturbines.

If you like birds it its best to :
take the train instaed of the car
put a bell on the neck of your cat
put a preditor silhouet sticker on the outside of your office building.
Don't let coalplants release their heavy metals into the envrionment

A lot of studies have found the influence on housing prices non-existent.

There are also many studies about tourism. Some tourist may stay away but others are attracted. Netto result: neutral or positive.

By the way I like hiking in Wales and I love the sight of the white giants. (By the way I never heared them) I did not like passing a lake polluted with radioactive Americanium.
Comment 23 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
By the way coal and nuclear are the most subsided forms of power generation.
The damage of coal powerproduction is higher than the price of it's elektricity.
See www.externe.info
Comment 24 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
With stronger international connections the percentage of wind can rise even further. European wide there is always wind somewhere, and existing hydroplants can store elektricity.

Wind is not unpredictable. Research on windprediction is still young, neverthelless it is already possible to predict the windspeeds two days in advance with 95% propability.
Comment 25 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
What the anti-wind people forget is this:

All power sources are variable and unreliable. For example coal power plants are down 30% of the time.
Also they cannot deal with demand variations, they can only be on or off. Furthermore the demand is very variable. The production system is built to handle these kind of variations. This is the reason that gasstations have a production factor of ca 25%.

The need of 100% backup is really a fable. In reality ca 20% of the electricity production can come from wind, with only 5% extra back-up of the wind power.


I
Comment 26 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Seems amazing....
Wind Turbine like this could be really helpful in bringing out of the energy crises....
Comment 27 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
Note that oil is a limited resource that will eventually double and quadruple in price long before it runs out, which means that the plants that burn it will eventually be forced by economics to close down. In the meantime, the production cost of electricity from wind turbines will continue to drop as technology improves, and unlike the oil in wells, wind will not run out. As to stabilizing of electrical production, many other forms of energy generation can be used to do that, it does not have to be oil. Wind turbines do not have to be placed in the middle of bird migration paths but can be placed far enough (offshore) that this does not pose a problem. They can be moved far more easily than the plants. Larger turbines actually have less of an effect on wildlife than smaller ones, due to their slower rotational speed per megawatt. Tourism has traditionally been affected more by other factors (such as fuel prices for instance) than windmill placement.
Comment 28 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 7, 2005
What are you pro-fossil fuelies drinking...no one has said 'use only wind energy'...get real, conservation, improved efficency, expanded use of solar (yes, wind energy) is the route... Pres. Bush saying that nuclear is the only clean energy shiuld have everyone s..ting their pants. His attittue is very scary. The alternate energy field should unite not fight...can't you see who the real problem is?
Comment 29 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
Oh, and Daffydd -

How many wind turbines are there in Texas -

A whole lot more than in Wales.

A WHOLE LOT MORE.

Like I said, check your facts before spouting.
Comment 30 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
Hey, Dafydd - at least get your facts straight when you start maligning the great state of TEXAS -

Population, 2003 estimate 22,118,509

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html

You aren't even in the ball park.
Comment 31 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MIDDLE EASTERN OIL FALL TO 20 DOLLARS / BARREL BY 2015 AND 5 DOLLAR/ BARREL BY 2030....AND I WOULD NOT BE SEVERELY TROUBLED IF THE 5 DOLLAR PER BARREL PRICE ACTUALLY HAD TO BE SUPPORTED BY SOME MIXTURE OF CREDIT/ DELIVERY TERMS....NOW HOW THAT HAPPENS IS DETAILS.....MAN , JUST DETAILS...FOCUS ON THE GOAL.....A CHURCHILLIAN EFFORT( 190.9 gal man 2-08)
Comment 32 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
oops - I meant to say - the generation will be matched to the demands...
Comment 33 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
R.H. - your comment is probably the best one in this discussion! When transmission access to the global grid is available to all renewable energy sources (wind, ocean energy, solar, hydro, biomass, geothermal) the loads will be matched to the demands by the latest semiconductor switching stations, and most of the above talk will be moot.

Transmission allows intermittent generation to be sent 4000 miles (7000 km) cost effectively. ( see: www.geni.org ) With enough properly placed transmission capacity, load leveling across continents will allow generation to follow demand peaks, which follows the sun.
Comment 34 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
I think a 5 Mwe wind generator is great. Every type of power plant has to have backups to have a stable grid. All plants experience outages. Wind can off set some of the current and future power needs. All sources will be needed. I have been in the nuclear electric generation field for the last 30 years and I think it is very funny that folks make personnel attacks here. The markets will eventually decide if wind is a good power generator. Many are betting that it is.
Comment 35 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
The 5 MW machine is designed for offshore use. Machines designed for land-use start delevering energy at 2m/s. As said before, the windspeed at hubheight is not the same as at the ground. Furthermore there is a correlation between windspeeds and energy use.


To speak of chaos in Denmark is an enormous exageration. They get 20% from the energy from wind without big problems. And that with the extra handicap that they also have a lot of decentral combined heat-powerplants, for who the elektricity production is determined by the heat demand.
Comment 36 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
Some tips for further education:

1) www.windpower.org

2) www.ewea.org

3) www.bwea.org

4) www.yes2wind.com

Comment 37 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
My mistake, I meant "no need to shout".


About Horn's Rev. One of the sub suppliers made a manufacturing error. Can happen. The defective parts were replaced the There are two other Danish offshore windparks that work without any problem.


The amount of fossil fule per head depends on a little more than the amount of windenergy.

Comment 38 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
I am not familiar with UK-figures. I do know that in 2004 the average production factor in the Netherlands was 26%. This is from a mix of old and new windturbines. If you take only the windturbines installed the last three years the number will be higher. (developments go very quickly). The UK is much windier so a higher productionfactor should be possible. So the 21% is probably based on old data or old technology.

Windspeed at the ground is not the same as at hubheight.

Windturbines deliver energy 80% of the time. Coal plants on average only 70%.

The point about coal power plants is that they cannot vary their supply with the demand. That is why coal and nuclear plants always have to be supplemented gas plants or hydrostations.
That is why gas plants generally have a productionfactor of below 30%.
Comment 39 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 8, 2005
Hey you anti-windies. No need to shoot.

Your point about 100% backup would be right if conventional powerstations were 100% reliable, demand was constant and you would want to switch to 100% wind. This ain't the case. Wind is integrated into a system with already abundent back-up.

Conventional powerstations fall out of the net all the time and much more sudden than the smooth variations in windspeed.

Windturbines are not all located at the same place, the output of a large number of windturbines is much smoother than of a single windturbines

To see what is possible with wind you have to make a more intelligent statistical study. A number of these kind of studies have performed and they show that about 20% of elektricity can be integrated in the production system with only very limited extra back-up.
Comment 40 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
TIME OUT! I thought my last comment about how many square miles of panels it would take seemed awfully high so I reversed my math and - well, oops is all I can say. Thank God I'm not running a nuclear power plant. If there's 154,440 sq meters in a square mile, and 150 watts per square meter is actually available (15% efficiency) then you would get a little more than 23 Mega watts per square mile. So to get 400 GIGA watts it would take 17,267 square miles to power the country. Anybody willing to double check me is welcome.
Comment 41 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
Given that sunlight puts out 1000 watts per square meter and guessing that the the entire US grid runs at maximum around 400 Giga watts (California runs at max around 40 giga watts and it probably consumes 1/10th of the national supply see: http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html) it therefore would take about 150,000 square miles of 100% efficient solar panels to power the entire country. Or, more realistically since most panels run around 15% efficiency, about a million square miles of panels to run the country. Sounds like a lot.
However, everyone needs to face up to the cold hard truth that eventually the supply of fossil fuels will run out. ANYTHING we do now to use renewable resources extends that time line and will lessen the blow when the hammer falls. Technology development takes time and we're only fooling ourselves and messing up our children's futures if we don't start acting like responsible adults right now.
Comment 42 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
Answer: Three bushels of light years cubed.
Comment 43 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
About wind plant power fluctuations: one relies on the mix of sources to average out the amounts needed, and the same for the wind sources - it is usually very windy in one area and less windy in another. ...As noted previously, average wind speed at heights is much higher than average wind speed at ground level. ...And, yes, the first order of the process is to reduce the power needed to provide jobs, community, and simple human comforts ("hot showers and cold beer"). Due to system losses, Negawatts are always cheaper than installed capacity.
Comment 44 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
About backup generating plants: it takes way less power just to keep the steam turbines spinning than the energy they burn under load, and they use less energy when they are at partial load than at full load. This is due to the mechanical loading produced by the "invisible" electromagnetic drag in the generator. To visualize this invisible drag, you only need to try peddling an "Energy Cycle" (bicycle powered 12 volt generator with switchable loads) at an energy fair with different numbers of light bulbs turned on and off to get a gut understanding of it.
Comment 45 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
PLEASE SOMEONE OR EVERYONE : WHAT IS THE EXACT FIGURE FOR THE AMOUNT OF SOLAR ENERGY THAT FALLS ON EARTH DAILY OR HOURLY OR BY THE MINUTE Question two...........what is a reasonable figure for a percentage of solar energy required for vegitation, maintaining status quo of temperatures on the planet and thus what is AVAILABLE FOR SOLAR ENERGY DEVICES ?
Large amounts are highly unaccessable !
Comment 46 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
And I agree that windpower in itself ins't the answer to our growing energy needs. But it is a partial solution. Why spit on it? A decent electricity generating network consists of many centralised and DECENTRALISED generators, being balanced to accomodate the demand. If a growing part of those generators are using a clean free resource, why be against it? Because they aren't reliable? Heck, my car is reliable as long as I can fill her up with diesel. I guess that once petrodiesel is souped up, I will have to fill er up with biodiesel. Let's hope that by then , we are using a hydrogen fuel, generated by electricity using clean resources like the wind, the sun , wave, geothermal and waterdams. The whiners will then be glad that some people had the premonition to start looking what was ahead, and develop solutions before everyone was accutely aware of those emerging problems.
Comment 47 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
And I am apparently not the only one who thinks windturbines are a good investment. Some Norwegian entrepreneurs are in the planning phase for the erection of an offshore windparks producing 1900Megawatt of electricity. Where will all that juice go? Well, Norway is in the process of developping new natural gas fields in the barentz sea. That will require dehydratation, compression and pipeline transport systems using electrical power in massive amounts. That will be supplied by that windpark, being backed up by the numerous waterdams active in Norway, that are refilling while the wind is blowing. The produced Natural gas will be sold to the UK and the USA.

Now that' s a smart approach. Use free windenergy to produce fossil fuels that are sold to countries that are paying hard currency to get it .......
Comment 48 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
my country relies on nuclear energy for 57% of electricity produced. The rest is supplied by NG powered turbines and hydroelectricity. My shortsighted governement doesn't give any subsidies to electricity producers. However I see slowly but surely new wind turbines parks emerging around where I live, a country with a population density of >300 people per square kilometer - 900 people per square mile. Most are in the range of 1.5 to 3MW. So apparently, some bizzness people think they are a good investment, and able to compete heads-on with local nuclear and NG powered turbines.
That will only increase with windturbines becoming bigger AND cheaper due to bigger production numbers.
Comment 49 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
Some additional info @ Gomathinayagam and MM,



1) Wind is a fluctuating source, but not random and not unpredictable. At the moment it can be predicted two days in advance.



2) Actually windenergyproduction fluctuates less than the windspeed

a) Modern windturbines have a variable rotation speed. As a result the rotor acts as a fly wheel. If the wind drops suddenly the turbine keeps generating more energy than expected from the momentanious windspeed. Vice versa for a sudden windgust.

b) Most windturbines have constant elektricity production between windspeeds of 8 and 25 m/s. The latest models (e.g. www.enercon.de) have a cut of speed above 28 m/s.
Comment 50 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
I also agree that the Feb 8 remarks of RH and pmd to be the most realistic forecast of what will finally happen. The unpredictable vicissitudes of nature will be met with a diversity of energy methods with the market perfectly matching demand after oil, coal and gas gradually fade and the earth becomes a more healthful and beautiful place for all life. Moderation, patience and perseverance until the ultimate, non-polluting, limitless fuel, hydrogen is generated by the unending power sources of nature. Yes, Bush must go first.
Comment 51 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 9, 2005
Hello Non-windies, wind power is ofcourse as random as the wind itself. But imagine what is the kind of transmission losses that happens in the GRID. However small may be, the penetration of wind power in a country like India, it certainly helps to atleast reduce the tranmission losses statistically if evacuated as early as it is produced. No wonder it is GREEN Power not only in Germany , around the GLOBE
Comment 52 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 10, 2005
About Electricty prices

The current powerplant generation has been build with public funds. The commerical companies currently exploiting paid nothing of very little for them. The current electricity prices therefor only rpresent the fuel and operation costs of the plants. In the next ten years new plants have to be build. The full capital cost will then have to be presented in the kWh price. As a consequence electricity prices will rice even without a rise in fuel costs.
Comment 53 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 10, 2005
For the apparent internet newbies here: Writing in capitals is equivalent to shouting and is generally considered to be very impolite.
Comment 54 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 10, 2005
@ Jim ,

You make two mistakes working in different directions.


1) There are actually 2,658,999 sqr meters in a square mile (1,609.344 x 1,609.344).

2) Solar irradiance is not constant, but varies during the day and with the seasons.



To generate on demand solar energy has to work to gether with other sources, and/or storage.
My calculation above only shows that the limitation of the use in solar energy is not in the potential nor in the technique to generate electricity.

The amount of energy given by the sun is enormous. Let's use it!
Comment 55 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 10, 2005
The average daily solar irradiation in the middle of the US (lat 40 long 101) is 4.21 kWh/m^2/day. (http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/sse/). So per year 1536.65 kWh/m^2. Let's round that on 1500 kWh/m^2/year. To be on the safe side I use the lower limit of current system efficiency: 10%. State of the art systems perform better, but I don't want to be accused of being to optimistic.

System efficiency is the the combination of module efficiency and inverter (the apparatus that converts the DC of the panel to AC of the grid) efficiency. So we than have 150 kWh/m^2/year.
.
Elektricity use in the US in 2003 was 3.85 trillion kWh (http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/infocardnew.html) or 3.85 * 10^12 kWh/year. So to cover all of the US elektricity needs you need 25667 square kilometers. Or, in other words, a piece of land with the size of 160 km by 160 km. (appr. 100 milesx100miles). ,br.Ofcourse, If you decide to put such plants in new mexico or texas, you would require even less land.
Comment 56 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 10, 2005
In Canada we use the wind energy and scale back the hydro use. Then when a healthy reserve of water is built up, we scale back the coal or natural gas produced energy and use more hydro.
Comment 57 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 11, 2005
Due to centuries of oversight in worldwide science education, few know or care how heavy air is. Air in quantity is extremely heavy and one million tons of it occupies just a tiny dot only one cubic kilometer in volume on most maps. One million tons is the weight of some two dozen super large ships the size of the Titanic. Just thin air. The motion of one million tons at 10 mph has a Betz-adjusted energy of 16 MWs, 20 mph 127 MWs, and at 40 mph has over 1000 MWs in it, more than many of the largest conventional power plants including nuclear. Again, this is just one cubic kilometer of air or one square mile 1000 feet high, small to nothing in terms of land or offshore sea usage, hundreds of times this being readily available for all continents. Further, ask Steve Fossett about windspeeds at higher elevations. Everyone please use copy and paste to save this short comment to your computer files. Thanks. See www.integener.com for more.
Comment 58 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 12, 2005
In adding a qualifying statement to the comment above made yesterday, it should be said that the numbers came from calculations based on one million tons of air over one square mile to a height of about 1000 feet, thus explaining the use of MWs rather than MWhs. So, during the course of an hour, 10 of these blocks of air move across the boundary of the power zone at 10 mph, 20 at 20 mph, and 40 at 40 mph, consistent with usual wind generation power generation standards. Here in Tehachapi, CA it is not unusual for the wind sites to see windspeeds of 20 meters per second, which exceeds the turbine rated windspeeds and is equivalent to about 45 mph with a potential power generation using the above assumptions of about 1,400 MWs.
Comment 59 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 13, 2005
The windpower "Prophets of Doom" wakeup! Throughout the inventions, there has been, and still shall be "resultant" hitches that need solutions for the for respective advancement to work optimumly! Will incoporating "FLYWHEEL" technology make you confortable? GIVE IT A THOUGHT!!!
Comment 60 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 15, 2005
Prophets of Doom, visit Beacon Power and behold, "there shall be light"!!!
Comment 61 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
February 21, 2005
just kidding im bi
Comment 62 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
March 2, 2005
Also, regarding the astetic properities of the turbines, its a mixed bag based on impact. Most studies indicate positive feedback. In fact at our sites, school children and others come to tour the sites and gaze at the big turbines. When was the last time you saw people who were interested in visiting a coal or gas fired power plant?

I'd rather have a view of cool looking turbines than athsma and smog from coal fired plant emissions. But to each his own. Of course landowners love them $$.
Comment 63 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
March 2, 2005
Funny, one guy seems to MAKING ALL THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS.

I work in Wind in the USA. Wind is an excellent clean source of power and the economies for business are there when supported by subsidies similar to Oil and Coal. Of course you don't run 100% grid on Wind.

When you compare to fossil fuel like coal, consider the effect of strip mining on the environment and how many animals that displaces, and how pretty that looks, the caustic water run-off from the site. Underground coal is dangerous to extract and miners die on the job every year as well as from effects of black lung. Burning coal also puts heavy metals into the air and particulates. Getting the idea?

New large scale wind turbines are much more efficient from those only a few years ago. Yes, perhaps in some cases projects placed turbines where they are not producing to plan, but in most cases a LOT of studies are done before investing big $.
Comment 64 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
March 27, 2005
I don't see why the fact that wind is erratic should be seen as a deadly objection. All that is required, obviously, is a way to store energy from high-wind periods that can be used during low-wind periods. For example, flywheels, or water pumped up a hill, or even hydrogen from electrolysis. Yes, this requires extra equipment. So what? Extra equipment means extra jobs for engineers and technologists. Any money we spend on our wind power system will be money we spend domestically rather than sending it to Arab oil sheikhs.
Comment 65 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
April 1, 2005
iam gerhard,exspert 20 year as turbine engeenering.
Comment 66 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
May 20, 2005
I wish we would be erecting these wind turbines here is the US. The ones in California are too little to be of economic viability. I wouldn't mind if they put out 50 mw monsters in remote locations. The blades spin around 40 to 60 rpm so birds are not a problem. The Germans will be putting these in the North Sea so looks are not an issue. I like the looks of these over a refinery any day. If they are in multiple locations, some will be offline while others are online. The only ones complaining about them seem to be Brits. Maybe they are on the board of BP. Nothing is perfect.
Comment 67 of 75
No image available
Anonymous
June 20, 2005
www.nywind.com

New Yorks entry into wind energy. Questions or comments email us.
Comment 68 of 75
No image available
June 1, 2007
Wind Monster? People are often afraid of new things. When the potato was first brought to Europe from Peru, people called it the devils plant since it was not mentioned in the bible. European legends claimed that the potato caused leprosy. This "monster" vegetable was finally adopted 200 years later and it became a principle factor of European development/tyranny. We will soon look upon wind turbines as great engineering and architectural achievements. Even the current "monster" turbines are but the progenitors of greater projects. Future wind turbines might resemble Taipei 101 or the millennium tower. There is much to said here.
Comment 69 of 75
No image available
December 11, 2007
concerns about carbon from backup power stations: Given that only a small proportion of the wind capacity needs backup , that wind power in the UK tends to match demand quite well (during the three half hour periods with the maximum electricity demand in the year wind farms tend to be operating at around two thirds capacity factor), the best direct match would appear to be gas turbines ( can be switched on and off ) not coal ( needs to be on most of the time) . In either case if you were to use renewable fuel ( wood chip for "coal fired" and biomethane for gas turbines) the whole discussion becomes a bit pointless. Drax is committed to using increasing amounts of wood, and Wilton 10 is entirely wood fired.
Comment 70 of 75
No image available
December 11, 2007
Concerns about spinning reserve: The main reason for spinning reserve in the UK is to handle the sudden loss of a steam turbine ( up to 660Mw needed instantly) or the French inter connectors ( not too reliable ), sudden demand for 1Gw, storm damage etc. This is handled by two pumped storage power stations.Its nothing to do with wind which anyway produces a much more predictable and slower change in performance.
Comment 71 of 75
No image available
December 11, 2007
Wind monsters? I came across an old book saying that in 1750 there were 20,000 windmills in the UK. Nowadays we protect the remaining non working ugly inefficient monsters as heritage despite the fact that they are usually on the tops of hills which in their day were part of pleasant countryside. The current UK plans involve 7000 wind turbines largely placed offshore in large arrays.No big deal. Relax folks it's progress!
Comment 72 of 75
No image available
How do you contact this company
Comment 73 of 75
No image available
July 20, 2008
If wind turbines in UK match demand quite well, as ian page says, and during periods of maximum demand they get capacity factor of two thirds, how is it possible that average capacity factor for all wind turbines in UK was 25 % in 2005 ( 2.9TWh from 1.33GW) and 22% in 2006 (3,7TWh/1,97GW)? Don't they want to use them when they need energy?
In case of Germany it was 17% in 2005 and in 2006 and for all wind turbines in Europe capacity factor was 19% in 2005 and 2006. It means that you would have to use 5MW turbines to get 1MW of electrical power.
Comment 74 of 75
No image available
February 21, 2009
it is great i too doing research on renewable energy i have another advance type of wind power energy design which will give epf of 85% to 95% very soon i am going to lanch in india mangalore city of karnataka. design under constraction.
Comment 75 of 75
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
Rolls Battery Engineering Thompson Technology Industries, Inc. (TTI) AEE Solar GeoGenix LLC EFD Alpha Technologies
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo