Photo Credit: Warren Gretz
Article Tools
Email This Story Share This Story Add to Bookmarks Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
December 19, 2007

A Snapshot of the U.S. Wind Industry

by Daniel M. Kammen, Green-Biz

At a recent Capitol Hill hearing I was surprised to learn that it was far from common knowledge just how competitive wind power has become. As a result, a bit of a data and price update memo may be of use, even to those who follow the industry. In addition, I will summarize the data on a few of the least cost wind farms in the nation.

Wind energy in the United States has continued to grow, and represented 19 percent of the new nameplate capacity added to the electrical grid in 2006. With a total cumulative U.S. capacity of 11,575 megawatts (1 percent of total U.S. nameplate capacity) at the end of 2006, wind energy is now often directly cost competitive with fossil-fuel generation, and at times is a least-cost supply option.

Representative Wind Project and Wind Power Costs

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) recently examined the estimated installation and power costs for twelve recent wind projects, finding that 2007 wholesale power prices for these projects range from 2.5 cents/kWh to 6.4 cents/kWh. Six of the projects provide wholesale power at less than 3 cents/kWh. These prices reflect available state and federal incentives, such as the Production Tax Credit, and any value from Renewable Energy Credits.

As shown in Figure 1, also developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, average wind power prices have trended downward over time, notwithstanding a more recent increase in those prices. Even with the increase, however, wind power is found to be competitive with wholesale power prices and with the cost of operating new natural-gas power plants. This is especially true if the production tax credit is maintained.  


Comparison of Wind Power Prices with the Cost of Conventional Generation Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory


Factors Affecting Costs and Future Cost Trends

As the LBNL findings show, the cost of wind projects can vary by a factor of three or more. The reasons for these are varied but include: installation and material costs (turbines purchased in 2004 and 2005 are less expensive than those purchased in 2006 and 2007), relative wind resources (Class 5 wind sites result in higher capacity factors than Class 4 or 3 wind sites), and developer/owner (i.e. experienced developers such as FPL Energy may be able to develop and construct projects at lower cost).

Wind power prices have trended up over the last couple years as shown in Figure 1, and as confirmed by Figure 2, a reflection of increasing installed project costs. This trend is now seen across all capital-intensive energy technologies. Reasons for these increasing costs include: weakness in the dollar; rising materials costs; the move towards increased manufacturing profitability; and a shortage of manufacturing components.

Although many of these cost drivers are global, higher costs for wind in the U.S. are also attributable to limited U.S.-based manufacturing of wind-turbines. U.S. turbine manufacturing remains somewhat limited due to uncertainty about demand and the continuation of the Production Tax Credit. New manufacturing plants are being built in the U.S. (for example, the Clipper Windpower plant in Iowa and the Suzlon plant in Minnesota), albeit not at the same pace as in other parts of the world. Some of the 2006 wind power prices reflect lower turbine costs locked in 18-24 months earlier.

In 2007, wind project and power costs are likely to trend higher as they will reflect increasing turbine costs. The increasing cost of wind turbines is partially mitigated by improvements in wind project performance. Increases in project capacity factors have been primarily driven by higher turbine heights, improved siting and technological advancements. As noted earlier, however, these cost trends are affecting other forms of electricity generation as well and, as Figure 1 shows, wind power remains competitive with wholesale power prices and with the cost of operating new natural-gas power plants.


 2006 Wind Power Price by Commercial Operation Date (COD)


Global Wind Energy Costs

The U.S. has the third-largest cumulative wind capacity globally, lagging only behind Germany and Spain. Both Germany and Spain have more sizeable national support programs for wind energy (such as guaranteed feed-in tariffs) as compared to the U.S. In Germany, grid operators must pay wind energy providers .0836 €/kWh (.12 US$/kWh ) for turbines installed in 2006 for at least the first five years of operation. This starting tariff decreases by 2 percent annually.

In recognition of increasing turbine costs, Germany recently reduced the annual tariff degression from 2 percent to 1 percent per year. Germany will also pay a bonus of € 0.007/kWh (.01 US$/kWh) for wind turbines that are more compatible with the needs of the grid. Germany manufacturers report explosive job growth for the wind energy sector and the creation and influx of technology firms to support the wind energy industry. All told, job growth in the roughly 25 percent of the German energy sector devoted to renewable energy was in 2006 equal to job growth in the entire rest of the energy generation sector.

As cumulative wind capacity increases in Germany and Spain, both countries are revising their rules regarding price support for wind energy. Spain has draft rules to establish maximum, as well as minimum, prices to be paid to wind farm operators. Under Spain's draft rules, for the first five years of operation, a wind farm operator will receive a maximum of .084 €/kWh (.12 US$/kWh) and minimum of .068 €/kWh (.099 US$/kWh). The tariff levels decline over the duration of the plant's operation.

Both Germany and Spain, as well as Denmark and other nations that have supported the development of significant wind energy industries, have documented significant job growth in the clean energy sector. Export orders for wind turbines in Germany, Spain and Denmark have now resulted in significant new job creation.

Green-Biz Editor-at-Large Daniel M. Kammen is the Class of 1935 Distinguished Professor of Energy at the University of California. He co-directs the Berkeley Institute of the Environment and is founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. Kammen has served as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He has appointments in the Energy and Resources Group and the Goldman School of Public Policy.

This article was reprinted with permission from Greenbiz.com.

Add Your Comment 16 Reader Comments
No image available
December 21, 2007
I agree with Edwin, because he is stating politcal fact. If you have followed alternative energy for a long time, you will realize that nothing has been done by politicians in any big way since Jimmy Carter, and much of what he did was disliked and ineffective.
Sure, sometimes things happen, but not often. Hilary's voting record on alternative fuels isn't so great.

Campaigns get people elected, money funds campaigns. Where is the money going to come from? How do you repay 30 million $$ worth of contributions? In whatever way the contributors tell you to. If you don't, you and your political cronies will be written off as welshers.

My only disagreement with Edwin is on Ethanol. There are a large number of ethanol producers who are not conglomerates or Ag Lobby hogs. Sadly, as long as the propagandists and PR spinners keep pointing the Ag hogs out, ethanol will be maligned.
No image available
December 21, 2007
I believe nameplate capacity refers to the maximum design capacity of the wind turbine. For instance, the Vestas V90 (?) is a 3 Megawatt nameplate capacity wind turbine. However, it doesn't always produce a full 3 megawatts under operation, depending on a variety of factors (siting, actual wind speeds, demand, etc). The same applies to other power plants, e.g. gas turbines, which may not be operated at full nameplate capacity due to other factors (demand, cost of natural gas, maintenance considerations, etc). However, these factors are more under the control of the operating entity for a fossil fueled plant since they can choose to burn more fuel when more power is needed.

Long term, wind power has a large advantage in that the fuel is free forever. Only maintenance and lease costs are left. With design improvements, wind turbine efficiency can improve which will reduce long term costs.
No image available
December 21, 2007
Paul,
You are repeating the dogma about free markets that has been hammered into our heads over the past 30 years. Fortunately or unfortunately, the building of major infrastructure on a timely basis almost always requires the help of the government in some form. In the last 25 years of free market dogma, our infrastructure has aged substantially, meanwhile the more dynamic economies of Asia have no problem calling in the government to help get infrastructure built. It's true Daniel points out that wind can get built now at times with a purely economic calculation...of course the now de-funded ITC and PTC have been big helps. Still, building an entire renewable energy infrastructure in a timely manner will need policies that favor renewables over fossil sources.
No image available
December 21, 2007
Sorry for the ignorance but what is "nameplate capacity"
No image available
December 21, 2007
Politics is about money. A shocking revelation.

Big oil has been there and is not goiong away.
Big coal has been there and is not going away.
Big Ag has been there and is very excited about ethanol and they are not going away.

There is no Big Renewables yet.
As important as the technology side is, it will get no where in Washington without Big Money even if the Dems win.

Unfortunately Renewables tend to "fight" one another for attention. Solar wants a tax credit. Wind wants a tax credit. Ethanol wants a tax credit (Big Ag). Geothermal wants a tax credit (supported by Big Construction). Etc. Then the government confuses the populace by using "Alternatives" which includes liquified/gasafied coal, etc.

We are making progress, but change in Washington is difficult. Remember, Germany, Spain, Denmark are the size of our States and have no oil or oil companies, and much more centralized governments. It is a different playing field.

Keep up the efforts.
No image available
December 21, 2007
I support all of this. I dont understand why this administration almost unilaterally opposes any kind of environmental legislation.
No image available
December 21, 2007
What an excellent article. This is information that definitely needs to be put out there as a neutral asssessment of the economics of wind power. In response to the first comment, I offer the opinion that feed-in tariffs are not in themselves superior to the mixed bag of state renewable portfolio standards and federal tax benefits. The principle characteristic of German and Spanish policy that sets them apart from the U.S. is consistency and predictability over the long term.

I would very much like to see a long-term extension of the federal PTC, as well as provisions to make it more accessible for community projects, but lacking that, state RPS mandates have done an admirable job in providing a certain amount of stability to the industry. Certainly, a stronger national stance would be ideal, but as indicated by another prior comment, we may be able to get some movement on that once the political situation changes in Washington.
No image available
December 21, 2007
Feed in Tarriffs are not necessary, "wind energy is now often directly cost competitive with fossil-fuel generation, and at times is a least-cost supply option".

Prices have risen because growth is so rapid that manufacturing capacity cannot keep up. Wind power generation will continue to grow rapidly without the government screwing it up.
No image available
December 21, 2007
This is great news for the class 5 sites. We need class 3 and 4 sites to be developed. We also have to support the smaller sites and projects. So congress should make it a level playing field. Re-enact the PTC or eliminate all the substities for oil, natural gas, and coal. I believe wind will win on a level playing field.
No image available
December 21, 2007
I am proposing a nationwide high speed train network. To drive the trains, renewable energy should play the major role.

Wind power is one of the most promising source. So demand for wind power id enormous. So US manufacturers should build their production lines to prepare for the network.

The network will become essential part of national security when oil is gone sometime in the middle of this century.
No image available
December 21, 2007
WE need to contact our representives and senators and urge them to extend the Production Tax Credit for wind energy. This issue will be discussed next year in the House/Senate.
No image available
December 21, 2007
Once ol' Georgey boy is history and the US Senate grows up is my guess!

Tom
No image available
December 21, 2007
encouraging news but when will the USA get its act together on feed in tariffs?
No image available
December 24, 2007
Timely topic. One of the issues in the article has to do with manufacturing of windmills in the US. The windmill industry has been subject to numerous starts and stops in the last 30 years (the most recent stop was when Bush allowed credits to expire in 2001). In Germany and Spain, it took a commitment by the federal government, something that Bush and the oil lobbies have refused. There would be many ways to accomplish this, one idea would be for the US to add, say 20 to 40% funding on any windfarm for the next 10 years in exchange for a like amount of electricity as long the windfarm is producing (I wonder how much the US government spends a year on electricity??). Most windmills have a payoff period of 7 to 10 years with somewhere between 20 to 30 year useful service life. The commitment is critical for the manufacturing to ramp up and for prices to come down.
No image available
December 29, 2007
This article is Proof that the feed in tariffs are not needed for Wind - its just a welfare give away.

Wind is being produced at less than $.07 per kwh and is competive or cheaper than other forms of energy.

Then Why does it need a welfare check/ feed in tariffs like in Europe?

The answer is simple. Wind doesn't need the tariff.
No image available
December 31, 2007
Does anyone know the name of the LBL study that Mr. Kamen refers to at the beginning of the article? Where can I get a copy?
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
Applied Materials Biomass Thermal Energy Council (BTEC) GT Solar Incorporated EFD Krannich Solar Inc. Conergy Inc. AltaTerra Research
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters