The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Technological Advances Improving Wind Power's Competitiveness

Phillippa Jones
February 26, 2013  |  18 Comments

Print

Anti-wind power lobbyists have long contested claims by the wind industry that wind power is competitive with fossil fuels. But technological advances, making wind turbines bigger, smarter, and more competitive in all situations, mean the wind is fast being taken out of the naysayers’ sails.

Both EWEA and GWEC, the Global Wind Energy Council, agree that “onshore wind power is competitive once all the costs that affect traditional energy sources — like fuel and CO2 costs, and the effects on environment and health — are factored in”. Taking CO2 costs alone, “if a cost of €30 per tonne of CO2 emitted was applied to power produced, onshore wind energy would be the cheapest source of new power generation in Europe,” states EWEA. Moreover, wind is already “directly competitive with conventional sources in many places around the world, such as Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, parts of China and the U.S.,” according to GWEC.

Australia also seems to have been added to this list after a report published by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) in February stated that wind is now cheaper than fossil fuels in producing electricity in Australia, a story reported on the EWEA blog at the time.

This game-changing potential is being given greater weight by technological advances — at least two of which were launched at EWEA 2013. The biggest impact on electricity production comes from making wind turbines bigger. Siemens Energy launched its new 4-MW offshore wind turbine at the conference in Vienna, which boasts a rotor diameter of 130 meters and provides slightly larger capacity that the current 3.6-MW turbine. Meanwhile, Nordex unveiled two new 3-MW machines — one for medium wind speeds and the other for very windy areas. The new machines have much larger rotors than previous platforms, increasing the swept area by 23-37 percent with a view to boosting energy yields by up to 31 percent, said the company.

Increasing the size of a wind turbine’s blades, and making the tower taller, allow a turbine to capture more wind, especially at low speeds. Certain companies are ensuring that they get the most out of such improvements by employing cutting-edge techniques. GE announced at the end of January the creation of a 2.5-120 wind turbine (a 2.5-MW machine with a rotor length of 120m), which over the course of a year can generate 15 percent more kilowatt hours that the turbines it is replacing. To reach this potential, the turbine will be operated and managed by specially developed algorithms that will let it keep turning when earlier generations of wind turbines would have had to shut down.

Vestas have also announced a new offshore turbine, the V164-8.0 MW, with a swept area of more than 21,000m2 — the equivalent to almost three football pitches. “When it comes to profitability, the biggest the swept area, the bigger the revenue,” the company says. Vestas also points out that bigger turbines means fewer turbines, fewer foundations and less cabling.

This is all great news, but there is still a long way to go. As Kobad Bhavnagri, head of clean energy research for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Australia, pointed out, while “new wind is cheaper than building new coal and gas, [it] cannot compete with old assets that have already been paid off”. For that reason “policy support is still needed to put megawatts in the ground today and build up the skills and experience to de-carbonise the energy system in the long-term,” said Bhavnagri.

This blog was originally published on the EWEA blog and was republished with permission.

Lead image: Wind turbine via Shutterstock

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

18 Comments

Register To Comment
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
J-D, without "the numbers" nothing can be said, except that put on or paint the roof reflective and then install a leased solar system, so you have nothing to worry about for years.
;]
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis
March 13, 2013
I don't know the specific numbers but think about this , Ovshinskies OV (now bankrupt because bought out by front co for super rich oil mongers) solar shingles have all these attributes why fight it, its a winner!
1. Super flexible like a sheet of think plastic
2. Runs radio on room lighting or in the rain outside (no direct sun)
3. Because of #2 , it out performs outproduces the Si types over a 12 hour period (sun up to sun down)
4. VERY IMPORTANTLY : they are super light weight.
5. They also don't ruin your roof with all the extra weight and nails/screws which create seep avenues to ruin the plywood underneath.
6 Because of #5 you have less roof repairs, (if any at all), saving $$$$.
7. Because of 5 and 6 you don't have to UNINSTALL to repair roof and then REINSTALL solar system .
8, In fact they could probably be used for siding on houses since they are light weight and flexible and do indeed outproduce over 12 hour period (they produce in indirect sunlight as well as direct which SI types do not). WIN WIN WIN
But of course the oil mongers knew this which is why the co was bought out and buried in instant bankruptcy!
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 13, 2013
J-D, if I'm "talking in circles" you seem to be writing in circle, in circles...
;]
If Ovshinsky can do >20%-efficient cells at <$1 per Watt, great. If his 'shingles' can be that and interconnected to deliver 10kW from 50 square meters of roof at noon, at $1/W installed, even better.

But then, multi-junction and nano-scale solar devices are coming on that will about double that output -- Ovshinsky?

Of course, military/space solar PV already exceed 40% efficiency, if one has the $. Solar PV is only in its infancy, technologically speaking.

Where does Ovshinsky's designs have room to improve power/sq meter? That's what counts.
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis
March 13, 2013
SAFETY: because they Dutch large sail windmills are slow moving they have few accidents compared to higher speed much types such as prop. Also they are much less expensive adding the economic incentive as well. ALSO feathering if done right is very safe ! (as I said double independent feathering systems can be installed to prevent over speeding in violent storms or hurricanes) (btw prop types have same feathering needs and are much more likely to cause damage if overspeeding does happen).
SUMMARY: Wind is great for HOME use if its large sail, solar of the super lightweight are higher efficiency than PVSi types and massively more robust (they can take drilling holes in them etc which PvSi can NOT, also they are more efficient thru the 12 hour day and are on top of all of that FLEXIBLE , you can bend them and flop them around where you need them whether on car or house...
Also remember that the house mounted heavy glass enclosed PvSI types are nailed or screwed to the roof which actually creates seeps avenues for RAIN which means you have to replace your expensive ROOF more often and also first have to go thru the odyssey of taking off the PVSi panels FIRST , then fix the roof and then reinstall the PVSi types...
Psst: Guess who bought thru 3rd party front co's the Ovshinsky ECD solar shingle co ? (it starts with traitors like T. Boone Pickens, super rich invisible 3rd party that controls both sides of congress (isn't that why they canceled Mesa ARIZ Solar farm after spending millions to build it, and even had the "gall" to say they wanted to focus on the "keystone" OIL pipeline?? Wake up smarten up, the world it being bankrupted to low IQ people, who don't care about average Americans (24 of worlds richest 25 DO NOT LIVE IN USA) who use dastardly tactics to outwit and intimidate the public into inaction (single term limits on congress would greatly alleviate the problem of because it relieves them of the worry of being re-elected (payola pay
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis
March 13, 2013
DrAlexC: You are talking in circles; solar silicon based is less efficient than the Ovshinsky solar shingle technology (which really doesn't require being a shingle but as you keep saying its vacant "area" on the DrAlexC: You are talking in circles; solar silicon based is less efficient than the Ovshinsky (OV) solar shingle technology (which really doesn't require being a shingle but as you keep saying its vacant "area" on the roofs so its a natural solution; his solar shingles can be held up with only the strength in your little finger and run even on cloudy even rainy days (look up the Alan alda video that was on Nova to see for yourself); which is the reason for why they are more efficient than PVSI technology which require heavy glass enclosures on both sides to prevent Si chips from breaking. Also Ovshinsky panels are much much much more forgiving as he even drilled holes in them and they kept running (similarly to how he shot his NIMH battery with a rifle and it kept on working as if nothing had happened. !! that's what I call robust fortitude !! PVSi when even one chip breaks , you lose the whole panel. nuff said, which explains why Uni-Sol bought Ovshinsky's ECD co out and drove them right into immediate bankruptcy to prevent this tech from reaching the markets where its so desperately needed. (please watch the Alan alda video first before answering). The Ovshinsky solar panel/shingle runs from first light to last twilight, while PvSi types require direct sunlight, which again explains why Ov types are more efficient over the 12 hour day.
For windmill... I'm suggesting that for HOME use , the large sail Dutch types as said works 24 /7 and thus actually works more hours per day, and works better in stormy weather , so in either fair or bad weather it works, while PvSi only works in clear sunny good daytime weather; which would you prefer, 50% maybe or 100% operation time in even stormy weather. SAFETY: because they Dutch large sail windmil
Christopher Hinton
Christopher Hinton
March 13, 2013
How will U.S. Wind Power electricity producers stay competitive as countries with cheaper labor enter the marketplace?

What are the obstacles that currently prohibit the wind power electricity from producing enough electricity to create a substantial job creation throughout the clean energy industry?
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 7, 2013
J-davis, the idea of sails on cargo ships ihas been uswed by the Japanese and others as a way of greatly reducing emissions from bunker fuel. It's certainly a good idea.

The problem arises when we think things like Dutch windmills and sails are optimal energy sources elsewhere. By fluidic engineering definition, they're not.

Caltech did an efficiency study and produced these results showing why prop generators, asd we use now, are easily supplanted by better designs...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13430
www.flickr.com/photos/carbonfreeenergy/3957479225/

But the problem remains of low power density, thus large demands on land, and some threats to species.

With efficient storage, including EVs, there's no need for wind, when local solar is more efficient and uses no land, threatens no species and loses no transmission power.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
March 7, 2013
J-Davis, "You have to remember that solar only runs well on sunny cloudless days and not at all at night" -- the whole world knows this.

They also know that even with [resent , 20%-efficient, commercial solar panels, there's more than enough structure to supply all the world's peak demand -- that means no land confiscated.

The point is simple: efficient storage is absolutely important and on the way. Given that, there's no need for wind.

You fail to mention that wind generators, as currently designed, are low efficiency in extracting wind energy. This is not news. It's partly because vertical, non-directional systems are far more efficient and because prop-generators must operate only when wind speeds are right ~5mph - 40mph. You statement about wind ignores the reality of disasters due to failure to properly feather, support, or just choose the right design. Here's a few...
http://tinyurl.com/bl9vlc7
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=-YJuFvjtM0s&feature=endscreen
www.homebrewpower.co.uk/html-renewable-energy-failures/vestas-wind-turbine-fail.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9837026/Wind-turbine-collapses-in-high-wind.html
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=ppLh5pGX3qQ&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=oke5PzwpBiE&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5PPBGsoQMM&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Your statement about solar panels & glass is very odd. I'm familiar with Ovshinsky and the various conspiracy theories, but the reality is that solar PV has at least 1 doubling of Watts/square meter available, even without concentration. Wind has nothing to match that, because it's inherently low power density, 2nd-order solar.

If you're really concerned with species, then wind is not for you. This wind religion is truly mystifying.
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis
March 7, 2013
Dr AlexC: You have to remember that solar only runs well on sunny cloudless days and not at all at night VS Wind which runs in rain, sleet, dark of night as well as fair weather days even doing better in stormy weather (with proper feathering features). SOLAR PV is good BUT its heavy glass enclosed casing makes it less attractive. ALSO solar on roofs at first seemingly good actually makes it more expensive to replace or repair the roof when needed and all the extra mounting nails/screws makes the roof more likely to leak sooner as well. So its not quite so one-sided as you may think. FYI : Ovshinsky the inventor of the NIMH battery (ref See Inventpeace.com follow links there) actually also invented using the similar NIMH materials a SOLAR SHINGLE which would have solved the whole issue (except that "you know who" used 3rd party front co's to buy out his ECD renamed UNI-SOL co and immediately drive it into bankruptcy (if you call them, they like the NIMH battery co's, don't seem to have a sales office? ) . Never before in the history of man has so much wealth been transferred to so few by so many, never before has the greed of so few killing to extinction 1000 species per year according to biologists (carbon emissions from gas/oil).. sad story on how the USA and world let the few take so much from so many as never before in the history of mankind ! (The invisible 3rd party of super rich control congress and much of the world, duping most into thinking that illegal price fixing of energy has not happened for last 14 years, cuasing untold misery to millions).
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis
March 7, 2013
HOMEFREE: We've been saying that wind is pretty good at a lot of things all along IE wind powers ships through the oceans/seas/lakes water and with not that much effort or expense and much less mast length (height of mast); so then switching to wind generators , it makes sense to use the sailing ship idea of shorter masts (rotor diameter) and much more sail area to catch those low speed winds and make energy. FOR example : what if we used the old Dutch windmill idea that they used to grind wheat/corn (gristmills)? they were slow moving (SAFER than fast moving blades), could catch small mph winds and produce power (a house needs only about 5-10 HP to be off the grid (or rather sell back to grid is even better because that method eliminates the need for expensive batteries). Each home could if done right have a large vane area slow moving wind mill generator in the yard or even on top of the house (with mods for strength to accommodate the house structure), and in high winds there are several good ways to 'pro-ratedly' feather the vanes so that they don't over speed (using 2 feathering methods independent of each other would be even safer), THUS: each home could be energy independent, and without batteries, (except those in the standard electric car or plug in hybrid, totally freeing the home user from gas or oil at all (the proven best NIMH large format Electric car batteries, see Inventpeace website for more on how Texaco's T.Boone Pickens bought the NIMH battery patent when it was found to be so much better than they had thought, holding the large format electric car batteries hostage , foisting the dangerous Li-ion batteries which can explode with deadly force if overcharged on the unsuspecting public endangering lives IE Boeing DreamLiner fiasco)/ In short, with a little work and an old Dutch style slow moving windmill driving 5-10 HP generator WE CAN BE FREE OF GAS FOREVER !! and since wind runs 24/7 it even produces at night to get paid for extra juice.
ANONYMOUS
February 28, 2013
It's unfortunate that many of you mis-interpreted my comments. All I was asking for is a more objective approach when comparing the "costs" of renewable vs conventional energy sources. While all of the comparisons I have seen add significant costs to conventional energy sources for variables like GHG emissions or impact on public health, at the same time these comparisons all seem to ignore the significant value of conventional energy's contributions to the economy and standard of living.

A perfect example is the US market for gasoline. The refinery typically earns about $0.20/gal, the wholesaler earns about $0.10/gal, the retailer earns about $0.08/gal, while state and federal governments take about $.40/gal. Obviously, the largest benefactor of gasoline sales are state and federal revenues. I'm not saying this situation is bad, but it also should not be ignored when comparing the relative merits of renewable vs conventional energy.
Dr. A. Cannara
Dr. A. Cannara
February 27, 2013
"technological advances, making wind turbines bigger, smarter, and more competitive in all situations, mean the wind is fast being taken out of the naysayers' sails." -- Really?

Wind is 2nd-order derived solar energy. But, 1st-order in direct subsidies.
;]
No matter how big and environmentally destructive one makes a wind generator (they're not "turbines"), the result is the same -- poor power density, poor average power delivery, high maintenance, significant causes of injury and massive wastes of resources, land, species and power -- yes, wind 'farms' waste power...

a) via necessarily long transmission to loads; b) in power consumption while idling; c) via conversion losses to grid interfacing; d) missed generation opportunity due to limited speed range; and e) limited array spacing.

As a result of all the above & more, windmills presently produce <10 watts per square meter. Local solar produces 200, with no land, little resource impact & easy low-loss grid coupling. This is why continually-improving solar PV & hot-water make wind irrelevant (except to those getting its $), apart from being wasteful.

Some refs -- injuries...
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf

Power density (the video is clear)...
www.seas.harvard.edu/news-events/press-releases/rethinking-wind-power
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015021/ (video)

And comparative life-cycle CO2 emissions -- nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal are all about the same, while solar was more but continually improves in efficiency to even the score...
"Comparison of Life Cycle Emissions in Metric Tonnes of CO2e per GW-hour for various modes of Electricity Production", P.J. Meier

These realities are why Calif. has engaged its "million solar roofs" initiative & other jurisdictions are rapidly deploying on-structure solar. It's also why the 2012 Calif. plan for 2050 advises 1/3 nuclear, 1/3 solar & wind, etc,. & 1/3 hydro, geothermal, etc. Wind is too wasteful.
Ken Higgs
Ken Higgs
February 27, 2013
Anonymouse is wrong. He is snivelling along the ground.

Also does not speak truth. Wa. & Or. gain huge hydro power
from Bonneville and Grand Coulee. And they are both now
heavy onto wind and solar. For good reason.

And, AnyMouse, if ....IF...the past 4 generations had the tech that we have today, and are developing everyday, which way would they have gone,'Back There-Then'. Human's 'ET': Emotional Tribalism' devotion to always liking what they do as routine today, extremes huge pressure on doing something different tomorrow. The only savior from that nonsense is not religion, morality, or social caring. It is the $$$$GOD$$$ only.

Rats, Mice, notwithstanding, AnyMouse.
DoggyDog World
DoggyDog World
February 27, 2013
You can't directly compare cost/kWh for a dispatchable source like NG and an intermittent source like wind. It makes just as much sense to add a intermittency price into the equation as it does to add a CO2 price (though both are hard to calculate and misused by both sides to buttress their own arguments.
Jan de Boer
Jan de Boer
February 27, 2013
@anonymous @3: I am so sorry I was so harsh on the starving Koch brothers and their friends. You made me see the error of my ways.
ANONYMOUS
February 27, 2013
Please JdeBoer, unclench the cheeks. We all know that fossil fuels are the elixir of life and a tidy sum of revenue what with their 0% production royalties on new natural gas and all. Have some sympathy for the impoverished folks in Washington State of have to rely on renewable energy for most of their electricity. Ditto the poor masses of Oregon. It should be patently obvious that failing to rely on fossil fuel is the pathway to poverty. Recall that the industrial revolution started with water power but didn't really take off until it was discovered that you can train children and the poor to mine coal. A large coal plant can produce about $5M worth of electricity per hour. It would cost them a whopping $100 an hour to curtail heavy metal emissions and another $50 for sulphur and nearly $250K for CO2 - you can't realistically expect them to cut back. Cost accounting for externalities is not that complex: just divy up half the costs for Sandy amongst the fossil fuel industry in proportion to carbon footprint.
Jan de Boer
Jan de Boer
February 27, 2013
@anonymous: During the last century the energy happened to come mostly in the from fossil fuels. That doesn't mean the positive effects are a monopoly of fossil fuels. The positive effects you mention come from the plentiful availability of cheap energy in general. My computer, washing machine, TV etc don't care if the electricity comes from a coal power plant, a hydro power plant, a windturbine or a solar power plant.

Ignoring external costs just because they are difficult to calculate is just lazy thinking and will not result in the optimal result for society.
ANONYMOUS
February 26, 2013
While it would be true to state that commercial wind COE is continuing to drop at a fairly rapid pace each year thanks to rapidly improving turbine technology, I would not agree that wind is truly cost competitive with conventional energy sources like NG. It is also a bit questionable to make a comparison using highly subjective criteria like "environmental and health costs", since they typically acknowledge the negative effects of fossil fuel use, while ignoring the significant positive effects resulting from fossil fuel use. The economic contribution to government revenues and GDP from fossil fuels is massive. And the positive effect over the past century on most of the global population's standard of living from the fossil fuel economy has been unrivaled.

How do you put a dollar value on such things when deciding the "cost" of mankind's fossil fuel use?

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Phillippa Jones

Phillippa Jones

Philippa Jones is a freelance journalist for EWEA based in Brussels. She writes for a variety of publications covering the environment, energy, chemicals, agriculture and health.
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Create a free account and start adding your blogs.

Create an Account

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 2
    Is the IRS Considering Solar REITs?
  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners
  • ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe
  • Johnson Controls, Inc.
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
  • AllEarth Renewables
  • Richardson RFPD, Inc.
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information