Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower

Clipper Windpower and BP Form Wind Energy Alliance

July 17, 2006 | 8 Comments

Do you like this news?

Bookmark

Feed

Carpinteria, California [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Five of Clipper Windpower's wind energy projects in New York, Texas and South Dakota, with an anticipated total generating capacity of 2,015 megawatts (MW), will benefit from a recent strategic alliance forged between Clipper Windpower and BP Alternative Energy. Under a long-term turbine supply agreement, BP has secured a mix of firm and contingent orders of up to 2,250 MW of additional Clipper turbines in its global wind portfolio.

"We believe the Clipper turbine is a breakthrough in reducing the total cost of renewable energy."

-- Steve Westwell, BP Alternative Energy, CEO

As part of the agreement, BP Alternative Energy will purchase 100 MW of Liberty turbines in 2007 and 200 MW in 2008, which it will use on other projects in BP's global wind business. These orders represent the initial deliveries under the long-term supply agreement for up to 900 Liberty turbines over the next five years.

"This strategic alliance provides both Clipper and BP an unparalleled opportunity to capture a major foothold in the U.S. wind energy market," said Clipper Windpower CEO James Dehlsen. "It enables Clipper to secure a pipeline of turbine deliveries in the next five years. The consideration for the proposals will assist in the execution of these deliveries. With active negotiations for other turbine and portfolio sales currently taking place, it is possible that further contracts will be announced before the Clipper EGM [Extraordinary General Meeting] and at that stage an update will be given on our business plan."

BP has agreed to acquire a 50% interest in the project portfolio along with an option to acquire an interest in Clipper Windpower Plc, for a total of $30 million. In addition, BP has agreed to pay Clipper up to US$30 million upon successful completion of the development projects. BP will also make a US$30 million down payment for the 300 MW Liberty turbines scheduled for delivery in 2007/2008.

"We believe the Clipper turbine is a breakthrough in reducing the total cost of renewable energy," said Steve Westwell, CEO of BP Alternative Energy. "We are pleased to be the first large customer for this innovative technology. Our strategic relationship with Clipper represents an important step in expanding BP's low-carbon power business."

BP Alternative Energy, formed in 2005, brings together all BP's interests in zero and low-carbon power generation: BP Solar, the company's photovoltaic business; wind power generation; and hydrogen power -- which combines fossil fuel power generation with carbon capture and storage to provide extremely low carbon power; and BP's natural gas-fired power interests.

Additional Information

Wind Power

8 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 8

kerry-beauchrt-51249

July 17, 2006

I think it's interesting that the head of Clipper Windpower (Jim Dehlsen) was instrumental in the evolving technology of wind power, bringing a technology virtually from the stone age to what we know today, in the process making what once was a forbiddingly expensive form of alternative energy and reducing its costs from 80 cents per kwH (in today' s currency) to around 5 cents today. Without that technological improvement, wind power simply would not be feasible, even with today's high energy fuel costs. General Electric got its start in the wind power business by buying the technology of Dehlsen's earlier
turbine designs. One of Dehlsen's biggest
successes was in redesigning the bearings to
acheive a more maintenence free and longer lasting turbine. He also introduced blade feathering technology to optimize energy extraction from the winds. He'll go down as the
father of American wind power.

Comment
2 of 8

dan-ost-41761

July 17, 2006

Whose responsibility is it to upgrade the feeder lines?

Comment
3 of 8

kerry-beauchrt-51249

July 17, 2006

This is big, really big. Once the big oil companies start moving in, we should see much needed muscle behind wind power, which has been hampered in the past by a sort of "Do it yourself" kind of mentality and lack of resources (or common sense) to supply sufficient infrastructure, as has occurred in Minnesota , where wind towers are being paid not to operate because the utilities haven't sufficient capacities in their feeder lines. Texas, however, is doing things properly, having identified the sections of the state with the greatest wind resources and begun constructing power paths to those areas.
Texas should serve as a model to other states
planning on tapping large wind resources.

Comment
4 of 8

philip-j-griffin-18837

July 19, 2006

The feedback thus-far is interesting; the news is the commercial alliance between 'one-of-us' and an Oil Major Multinational, and the discussion is almost all about manufacturing & supply logistics and regional interests within a single country.

The fact is that this sort of contract will be the driver for big R&D budgets and market development - it's big, AND it is international.

Comment
5 of 8

azel-beckner-18350

July 19, 2006

Those wind turbines look extremely inadequate for the purpose for which they were constructed. Maybe a redesign and open competition for construction is needed. As long as there is a monopoly on wind energy controled by GE there will be a failure to adequately harness the wind energy properly and adequately.

Comment
6 of 8

kerry-beauchrt-51249

July 19, 2006

"Why aren't these turbines being built in New York, Texas, and South Dakota, instead of Iowa? "
Shipping a turbine is not difficult or very expensive considering its overall cost - a single railroad car can handle several of them and makes it pretty cheap to ship them. Tractor
trailers haul the units the last miles and are,
per mile, more expensive, but there's no reason to assume that that leg of the journey would be
shorter just because you have an assembly plant in the state. Regardless, any conceivable transport savings would be microscopic compared to the costs involved in building a new factory that would have a limited lifespan. The costs of simply planning a new factory would overwhelm any conceivable transport savings. The center of the country is where most of the wind is, so
locality of production would favor Iowa, anyway,
even though it isn't a major siting factor.

Comment
7 of 8

laurie-kutina-9278

July 19, 2006

Why aren't these turbines being built in New York, Texas, and South Dakota, instead of Iowa? This is not a rhetorical question-- I am curious. With all the proposed NY and Northeast turbine projects and competition for the turbines, why has no one has attempted to manufacture them closer to the projects? transportation is always an issue.

Comment
8 of 8

shanmugham-kangala-8081

August 1, 2006

The Generator technology is new - Permanent magnet type - for MW Class Wind Turbines. It is claimed that it would have more advantageous and that the problems in DFIG design would be eliminated. DFIG type itself is recent and is preferred by many leading manfacturers. Is there a comparative evaluation ?

What is the reason for neglect of the sub-MW Class of Wind Turbines ?

Shanmugham Kangala
email : knsh06@gmail.com

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!