Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

China's Wind Industry Is About To Get Squeezed

By Louis Schwartz, Contributor
June 10, 2010   |   6 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
In addition, all Chinese wind turbine manufacturers (including to a lesser extent the "big three" — Sinovel, Goldwind and Dongqi) rely to varying degrees on technologies that they must acquire from abroad, which puts even greater pressure on their profitability.

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

6 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 6
June 10, 2010
Lou, it seems that your article's body doesn't support your opening assertion that the Chinese wind industry will run out of market. Rather, we are seeing an increase in markets as Chinese wind turbine manufacturers get good at their trade and find new projects. A partner of mine is developing a wind farm in the US with a Chinese company as financial backer and will use their turbines. The wind market is vast in the US, China and countless other nations and if we are to get a significant portion (33% or more) of our power from wind over the coming decades there will be far more market for wind turbines than China can meet. As a developer, I'm happy to see Chinese wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers on the scene in a serious way b/c they're bringing prices down across the board. There are always quality concerns, but it seems from my anecdotal experience in wind and solar that China is getting much better at emulating Japanese companies in terms of quality and low cost.
Comment
2 of 6
June 11, 2010
Maybe the investors in this junk "technology" are beginning to waken to the fact that it is incapable of providing the energy required to make a copy ?
It is readily possible to obtain several % p.a. of the cost - energy invested-in - a windfarm of a sensible design. This is some 40 ? times that obtained from "modern windfarms". There are 4 reasons which account for this disparity.
1) Turbine-Alternator Combimations have an unusual "economy of size". It is necklace-shaped because the two components exhibit opposite "e of s".
The lowest cost/m^2, or Watt, is for sizes where the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around a metre diameter. Just under this and the coupling gear-ratio can be 1:1.
2) There are two modes of operation of the T. Constant r/s, varying pitch. This takes power from the wind pretty-much pro-rata with windspeed.
Constant Pitch, revs to suit wind. This takes power very much cubicly related to windspeed. I.e. doesn't progressively waste the higher winds.
3) The "Betz limit" - caps the % of energy removeable by a rotor directly in the air at 33%. This can be incrreased by judicious "ducting"
4) The larger the TAC, the less able it is to face veering winds, and the greater the spread of wind velocities over the swept area.
No image available
Comment
3 of 6
Anonymous
June 11, 2010
Bert, to claim that the Betz limit "caps the . . energy removeable by a rotor directly in the air at 33%" shows the absurdity of your argument. The Betz limit is 59.3%.
Comment
4 of 6
June 17, 2010
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
I do not have an "arguement" All I do is point-out facts of which anyone must is aware, or which are readily verifyable. If you find simple facts "absurd" that is your problem. When people with such defunct minds start to use energy - to make "windfarms" for instance - the whole Earth foots the bill.
The limit imposed by the divergence of the wind around any object placed in it, and absorbing energy from it - first analysed accurately by Mr. Betz around 1920 - is in fact 33%, INTO THE ROTOR. Maybe I should have made that clear, but didnot, because it is the energy going into the rotor in which we are interested. The rest (59 - 33) goes into friction in the airstream.
Any "absurdity" you think that you see must therefore rest entirely in your own mind.
Comment
5 of 6
June 17, 2010
Bert,

I can live with 33% going to the rotor. After all, wind is FREE energy, and Big Energy hasn't yet found a way to put a meter on wind, unlike you.
For your information, many parts of the world have to rely on gasoline fed power generators to enjoy what you consider your birthright : having plentifull electricity supplied to you, day and night. For the 2 Billion people out there that aren't yet connected to the electricity grid, and have to rely on powergen's, the cost of their electricity is ABOVE $ 40 cents per kWh.
From what I read, wind power electricity gets generated at 5-9 cents per kWh right now, or provides a profit of 40 – 9 = 31 cents per kWh for those 2 Billion people out there that would like to have your whealthy lifestyle.

So, what's your point anyway, huh ? ? ?
Comment
6 of 6
June 24, 2010
Hi bertwindon - you have me a bit confused about the betz limit. That doesn't really matter, but the efficiency of large HWAT's at their rated wind speed approaches 50% if you divide the swept area by the kinetic power of the wind at that speed. More importantly they seem to be fixated on certain approaches. Why go for very expensive permanent magnet generators when most other generators use electromagnets?. It is not as if they didn't have an electricity supply available. In fact they absolutely need a reliable supply available to power the safety systems that move the turbine out of the wind direction and apply the brake in storm conditions. The aeronautical engineers who design these beasts are so familiar with the assumption that increasing aerodynamic efficiency and saving weight improves economic efficiency that they have not stopped to think that a wind turbine has a different job than an aeroplane. Aeroplanes get and need rigorous maintenance, but a wind turbine , if well designed and constructed should operate with minimal maintenance - if it is to produce energy economically. VAWT's operating on drag as well as lift may not be as aerodynamically efficient, but may also be cheaper to make, maintain, and recycle at the end of their working lives. Being quieter and less conspicuous will also be in their favour
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

Louis Schwartz

View Louis Schwartz's Profile
About: Lou Schwartz, a lawyer and China specialist who focuses his work on the energy and metals sectors in the People's Republic of China, is a frequent contributor t... more »

Advertise With Us

Endurance Wind Power Idaho Department of Commerce LORD Corporation Nextek Power Systems, Inc. Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group Solar Energy International (SEI) KYOCERA Solar, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine 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 India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters