World Wind Market: Record Installations, But Growth Rates Still Falling

Tildy Bayar, Associate Editor, Renewable Energy World
August 04, 2011 | 28 Comments

The impact of the economic crisis can be seen in BTM's latest report, which again shows record new installations, but a much lower growth rate than in 2009. The rise of Chinese turbine manufacturers and the US financial situation have changed the balance of the market.

Yet another record year for newly installed wind capacity – to the tune of 39.4 GW – the year 2010 brought total installed capacity worldwide to around 200,000 MW, an impressive increase in cumulative worldwide installations of some 25 percent. However, in terms of the volume of annual installed capacity the increase was a far more modest three percent. Indeed, the effects of the global economic crisis can clearly be seen in this stagnation of growth: for the past five years annual installed capacity has grown by an annual average of 27.4 percent.

KEY PLAYERS IN THE WIND SECTOR

Vestas is still the world's top turbine manufacturer in terms of its percentage of market volume, but GE Energy lost its title as the second largest supplier to China's Sinovel. Together Vestas and Sinovel delivered 10,228 MW of capacity in 2010. The two leading suppliers' share of the total deliveries to the market was 25.9 percent in the year, which is a one percent increase compared with that of 2009 from the two players.

Sinovel took full advantage of the boom in the Chinese market, enabling it to move up from the third position in 2009 to second in 2010. Conversely, GE Energy dropped to third place due to the economic downturns in the US market. And, GE Energy is closely followed by another Chinese supplier, Goldwind, which installed almost the same number of turbines as GE in 2010. German Enercon ranks at No. 5 in the world, and is followed by Indian-based Suzlon Group at No. 6.

In their home wind power market Chinese domestic turbine manufacturers made further gains, while foreign-owned manufacturers only achieved a 10.5 percent market share in 2010 – a 3.5 percent drop from the previous year. Along with Sinovel and Goldwind, two other Chinese manufacturers were listed in this year's top 10 in terms of global capacity delivered. Dongfang, the third largest Chinese manufacturer, first entered the top 10 list in 2009, and United Power entered for the first time in 2010. Meanwhile, other Chinese companies Mingyang, Sewind and Hara XEMC, listed as No. 11, No. 14 and No. 15 in the world respectively, are emerging to challenge the positions of the traditional market leaders from Europe and the US.

It is worth noting that 2010 also saw more MW-rated Chinese manufactured turbines exported. During the year, five Chinese turbine suppliers installed 13 machines in five different foreign markets. Following its first three 1.5-MW direct drive wind turbines installed in the US in 2009, Goldwind installed six units of its 750-kW-rated gear drive turbines in Cuba. Meanwhile, Mingyang and A-Power installed their first wind turbines in the US market in 2010 and HEAG also installed three 1.5-MW turbines in Chile and White Russia.

THE TOP 10 SUPPLIERS OF 2010

Vestas Wind Systems (5842 MW)

Vestas Wind Systems maintained its position as the largest manufacturer of wind turbines in the world in 2010, both in terms of annual installations and cumulative installed capacity. lts market share increased from 12.5 percent in 2009 to 14.8 percent in 2010, despite the economic environment. Vestas was the top supplier to Sweden and was present among the top three suppliers in all the 10 largest markets in the world, apart from China and Canada.

Sinovel (4386 MW)

Sinovel has performed well over the past three years. The Chinese company entered the top 10 list in 2007 and became the second largest in the world in 2010. It increased nearly two percent of its global market share in 2010. The year also saw Sinovel connecting 34 of its 3-MW offshore turbines to the grid in Shanghai, China, which is the first project of this kind in Asia. For more on this groundbreaking project see our March-April 2011 edition.

GE Energy (3796 MW)

GE Energy is still the third largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world, but its overall market share has decreased from 12.4 percent in 2009 to 9.6 percent in 2010. With a strong manufacturing base, GE is naturally the largest supplier to the U.S. market, where it has more than 50 percent of the market share, and the second largest supplier to its neighbor, Canada.

Goldwind (3740 MW)

This pioneer in the Chinese wind power market installed 3740 MW in 2010. Its global market share increased from 7.2 percent in 2009 to 9.5 percent, a figure which represents one of the best performances among the top 10 turbine suppliers in 2010.

Enercon (2846 MW)

The German manufacturer Enercon installed 2846 MW in 2010, but its global market share dropped to 7.2 percent from 8.5 percent in 2009. Enercon was, nonetheless, the biggest supplier last year to both the German market – where it has a 55 percent market share – and France; it was also the third largest in Italy and Canada. It is represented in more countries than other suppliers, but at the same time is absent from the world's two largest wind power markets – the U.S. and China.

Suzlon Group (2736 MW)

Suzlon Energy, the major Indian company, completed the acquisition of REpower in 2009 and now holds over 90 percent of the shares and voting rights in the company. Suzlon installed 1876 MW in 2010 while its subsidiary group REpower succesfully installed 859 MW over the year. Together the two players accounted for 6.9 percent of world market share, which overall makes the Suzlon Group the world's sixth largest wind turbine supplier. Furthermore, Suzlon was the No. 1 supplier to India in 2010. Meanwhile, REpower claimed the No. 2 spot for wind turbine suppliers to France and was the third largest supplier to its German home base market.

Dongfang (2624 MW)

Dongfang, the third largest Chinese manufacturer and the world's No. 7, installed 2624 MW in its homeland during 2010. The company entered the top 10 list for the first time in 2009 and maintained its global market share in 2010.

Gamesa (2587 MW)

Spanish group Gamesa fell back to become the eighth largest supplier in 2010 from being the third largest in 2008. The company's world market share dropped from 12 percent in 2008 to 6.6 percent over the year. It did, however, maintain its leading position in Spain, and was also the largest supplier to the Italian market.

Siemens Wind (2325 MW)

Germany's engineering major Siemens installed 2325 MW in 2010, representing a 2.6 percent increase in market share when compared with 2009. It is a coincidence that its overall global market share was 5.9 percent in both 2009 and 2010. Siemens Wind was the largest supplier to both the UK and Canadian markets last year and retained its position as the largest supplier to the global offshore market.

United Power (1600 MW)

United Power was established in 2007 by China Guodian Corporation, one of China's 'big five' state-owned utilities. The company, listed as the world's No. 12 in 2009, installed more than 1600 MW in China in 2010, making it one of the top 10 players for the first time.

OTHER TOP 10 CONTENDERS

All candidates for a place in the Top 10, the next five manufacturers in line in terms of market share include Nordex, a recurring player in the top 10 list in recent years, which was ranked No. 12 in 2010. It follows eleventh place Mingyang, which successfully exploited the booming domestic market. Japanese industrial conglomerate Mitsubishi supplied some 643 MW over 2010, while Chinese players Sewind and Hara XEMC delivered 598 MW and 507 MW respectively and have already pushed a number of the established turbine suppliers from Europe out of the top 15 rankings.

SUPPLY SIDE: GLOBALISATION AND CONSOLIDATION

For the industry as a whole, the year-on-year growth rate in 2010 in fact decreased from 35 percent in 2009 to just 3%. Remarkably, it is the first year that the market has shown a slowdown in growth since 2004. Indeed, to achieve this three percent market growth rate in 2010 seems almost miraculous, and results largely because wind power installation rates fell by nearly 50 percent in the U.S., the world's second largest wind market.

China made the greatest contribution to the global wind power installations in 2010 and it is important to note that 48 percent of the world's installations over the year took place in the country. Vestas Wind Systems and GE Energy are still two large manufacturers of wind turbines in the world and now together hold 24.4 percent of the global market. However, their leading position was challenged by leading Chinese turbine suppliers in 2010. Sinovel has already replaced GE Energy as the worId's second largest turbine supplier and four other Chinese supply companies in the Top 10 list together account for a total of 31.2 percent of the global market share. Indian Suzlon Group consolidated its leading position in the wind industry by completing the acquisition of the Martifer Group's stake in REpower in 2009, although its global market share actually decreased by 2.8 percent in 2010.

Another characteristic of the 2010 supply pattern was that the 'top' lost market share to the 'bottom'. Before 2007 it was usually the case that the group of companies below the Top 10 accounted for five to six percent of the total market. This started changing two years ago. ln 2008 it was 15.8 percent, mainly caused by the rapid growth of Chinese companies. Last year it increased further to 20.2 percent.

Consolidation among turbine suppliers has been a particularly strong feature over the past three years. Following the 2009 acquisitions of Scanwind by GE Energy, Darwind by Hara XEMC and DeWind by Daewoo, Areva completed the purchase of Multibrid in 2010. At the end of 2010, United Technologies Corp. (UTC) completed its purchase of Clipper by acquiring all remaining shares.

The offshore sector has expanded, with a total capacity of 1444 MW installed in 2010, which represents a 109 percent annual increase. Nine new offshore wind farms, with a combined power generating capacity of 1405 MW, were installed in Europe, especially the UK. The remainder of new offshore capacity was in China, where Sinovel installed the first Chinese offshore wind project in Shanghai in 2010. Although the new offshore installations in 2010 represented only 3.7 percent of the global total, many projects are in the pipeline over the next couple of years, particularly in the UK and Germany. China and South Korea are also expected to emerge as significant markets for offshore wind.

DEMAND SIDE AND MARKET GROWTH

In terms of annual installations 2010 saw a modest increase of just three percent. This outcome happened in the second year after the financial/economic crisis struck the world, including some of the wind industry's most important markets in the US and Europe. Nonetheless, highlights on the demand side include:

Cumulative installed capacity by the end of 2010 reached 199,520 MW. Around 24,000 new wind turbines were erected across more than 50 different countries.
Europe lost its previous position as the largest wind power continent, though 27.9 percent of all new installation in 2010 took place in Europe. Four years ago the European share was 51 percent.
The Americas dropped dramatically compared to 2009. This was caused by a dramatic fall in the US market, where 5115 MW of new capacity was added. That was around half of the installations in 2009. Altogether the Americas accounted for a 16.8 percent share.
Asia experienced significant growth, including the OECD Pacific region which increased its cumulative capacity from 42,037 MW in 2009 to 63,645 MW in 2010, a growth of 51.4 percent. China was by far and away the leading country, with 18,928 MW of new capacity in 2010. India also saw an increase to see 2139 MW of new installations. The region as a whole accounted for 54.8 percent of the year's global total.
Among the top 10 markets, China kept its position as the largest in 2010, followed by the US. Germany installed 1551 MW in 2010 while the UK and Spain improved their positions, with 1522 MW and 1516 MW respectively.
Penetration of wind power in the world's electricity supply has reached 1.92 percent, the proportion expected to be produced in 2011.
In the offshore market, nine new projects were installed. The total offshore installation in 2010 was 1444 MW. Most of the new offshore wind is installed in the UK, but Denmark and Belgium contributed with large-scale projects. Germany saw its second and third projects developed: Baltic 1 and Bard 1 (phase 1). China, which entered the offshore arena in 2009 with Donghai Bridge, completed the project in 2010. The cumulative capacity of offshore wind came to 3554 MW in 2010.

TECHNOLOGY TRENDS – DIRECT DRIVE CONCEPT

Another interesting change in the wind industry is in the supply of direct drive wind turbines. Until recently, this was the sole preserve of the German company Enercon, but a large part of new installations in China have come from direct drive turbines, most significantly from Goldwind and Hara XEMC. ln total, direct drive turbines supplied by these three companies in 2010 accounted for 16.8 percent of recorded global supply, a 2.9 percent increase from 2009.

CONTINUED UPSCALING OF TURBINES

Wind turbine generators continue to get larger, but at a very slow pace. Despite the fact that larger turbines are being marketed in Europe, the average size of wind turbine installed increased only slightly to 1655 kW during 2010, an increase of 56 kW from 2009. This was mainly due to the impact of the new entrant Chinese companies, which mostly supply 1.5-MW machines, and the fact that most of the GE turbines installed are its 1.5-MW model.

PRODUCT SIZE SEGMENTATION IN THE 2010 MARKET

There are still no signs of a pause in the up-scaling in the size of wind turbines. At present the onshore market has been accepting the largest turbine models, some of which were designed with offshore installation in mind, although some logistical challenges have to be dealt with in terms of transport by road of very large components. Logistics might be a limiting factor for further up-scaling. Certain geographic areas are simply not accessible for large machines.

Enercon now manufactures the world's largest commercially available onshore wind turbines, with a rated capacity of 7.5 MW and a rotor diameter of 127 metres. The REpower 6M 6.15 MW turbine is the largest commercial turbine currently commercially available for offshore projects. A 10 MW offshore turbine is under development by OEMs like Clipper, SWAY, AMSC and Sinovel. Most recently, the results of a feasibility study for a 20 MW offshore turbine was presented by UpWind, a research programme supported by the EU.

FORECASTS AND PREDICTIONS FOR 2016-2020

BTM has upgraded its forecast slightly compared to last year's, predicting an average growth rate of 15.5 percent per year for new annual installations up to the end of 2015. By then the annual rate of new capacity is expected to surpass 81,000 MW per year. The cumulative level of installations expected over all five years is 314,175 MW, resulting in nearly tripling the current total. A growth of 16 percent over 2010 is expected in 2011.

For 2016-2020 BTM predicts an improved average growth rate of 11.5 percent. It says that Europe will lose its leading role by 2015 and account for 29 percent of cumulative demand over the forecast period; that the Americas, particularly the U.S. and Canada, will increase their contribution by the end of the forecast period; South and East Asia will take the leading role and see a rapid increase, particularly in China and India, and will account for 41.4 percent of all installations over the forecast period; the OECD Pacific will see stable growth led by Australia and Japan.

And, by the end of 2015, cumulative installations in the world will have reached 513.6 GW of which 179 GW will be in Europe, 188.3 GW in South & East Asia and 121.7 GW in the Americas.

The International Wind Energy Development report is published by BTM Consult - A Part of Navigant Consulting.

Tildy Bayar is a freelance journalist focusing on the energy sector.

28 Comments

Dr. A. Cannara
May 7, 2012

Hear, hear, Genie. But subsidies are powerful! This is interesting too...
www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1505.html

Marie Burton
May 6, 2012

When are governments going to realise that wind turbines are useless. They continue to need backup at mostly 1/2 speed from some other form of energy in case the turbines are not turning. Surely by now these turbine building companies look to some other forms of renewable energy and stop wasting taxpayers money with subsidies in any form to the wind industry. The turbines also add to CO2 emissions and long term degradation of the environment. Take a look at 13,500 rotting turbines in Dalifornia.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 12, 2011

Jamie, there you go again! Why not just go back and read what I've written, rather than show everyone you open mouth & stick foot in first?

But, since you're adverse to reading thoroughly, as a Sierra Club member, I fully support their policy of efficiency and solar DG PV/water. That's all we need here in Calif. for peak loads -- the CPUC knows no new generation is needed & the Club is keeping them honest on that.

However, we need to reduce base-load fossil generation, thus I support nuclear, which gives Calif. now about 12% of base load, France 80%... There are safer, low-waste forms of nukes and I support those. The Chinese, Indians, Brits, and others around the world do too. We've had the ability to eliminate the present class of waste-producing nukes for decades, but ignored the opportunity reported to JFK & Congress in 1962.

Following that report would have left us with all US power generated by safe nukes in 2000. But, you know Congress!?

Fortunately, the Chinese & others are now running with our 20 years of (now unclassified) R&D from '50s & '60s. While our windies are trying to make subsidy $ on measly increments of power, the rest of the world realizes we need to substitute a clean 1GWe every week from last January to 2050, just to maybe save 200,000,000 people around the world -- from climate change, sea rise, ocean-acidification & lack of fresh water (wind doesn't do that either).

So efficiency & DG plus storage meet our peak needs, while safe nukes supply the 24/7 base. Hopefully, bills in Congress and the push from Chinese competition will move us back on the 1962 track and we'll not ruin our debt further by letting the Chinese, etc. sell clean power & fresh-water systems around the world, using our inventions. Wind/wave are irrelevant.

Got it now, Jamie?

Jamie Schlinkmann
August 11, 2011

DrAC, I won't be as PC as JohnG. You are just as bad as any other fossil fuel junkie hanging onto the absence of change. You might as well be saying we should all get gas generators to firm up our solar installations and forego the utilities.

Your half-baked arguments that only cite negatives on the side of wind and positives on rooftop solar are mocking of professionals in both industries. 'But you know this'. The environmental impact of generation sources other than wind are certainly relevant when making a comparison of environmental impacts. 'But you know this'. Your California ISO does a good job of firming its wind capacity, so the net capacity factor is quite relevant. But you know this too. What I guess you don't know is that our society uses a lot of energy, and rooftop PV can only be part of the solution to a sustainable future. And while JohnG correctly states that it's important to have different points of view, yours is sadly lost in the slanted presentation style. :-)

John Giannasca
August 11, 2011

Thanks Doc. I may need one by then

Dr. A. Cannara
August 11, 2011

Gnie, it already has been happening that Minke whales are beaching because of offshore windmill vibrations coupled into the water. We really don't have the sense we think we have -- sound travels 5x faster and with far less damping in water than in air. Maybe aquatic mammals will get even with us by breaching & farting in unison all around the world on Whale Day?
;]

And John, no offense, I'll buy the drinks when the last windmill goes down!

Marie Burton
August 11, 2011

Well the rate of new turbines being built is a great investment for lawyers when people start suing for having either their homes acquired by developers or when people take developers to court because they do not want turbines within range of their homes. It seems in Scotland families 20 kilometres away can hear the turbines when the wind blows in a certain direcion. Keep on with building them off-shore and you will have dolphins and whales not knowing which way to go because of the interence with their communications with one another. I just wish I had become a lawyer.

John Giannasca
August 11, 2011

Hi DrAlexC. We are miles apart on this but that's OK. I am sure as we go on we will find that we have more in common than not. I have always remembered the old saying "If two people think the same then one of them is redundant". If I offended at all during my banter I apologize.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 11, 2011

Wow, talk about sitting & blogging, John!

But hyperbole or failure to read won't help. Your offense at the windmill noise statement shows you faiied to read that I wrote "(not me)". In other words, it was a comment from someone else, at the site listed.

Nonetheless, windmill noise has long been documented as high -- 50dB -- that of a loud conversation nearby, so a bunch of these will indeed churn up an annoying gaggle. Be happy to give engineering measurements.

It is interesting how non-sequiturs become arguments to you, like asking about animals killed by cars, or birds by windows. The point is, the windmills aren't needed, so other sources of deaths are irrelevant. But you know this.

And, you know wind subsidies are presently lucrative. We'll see how that 200-mile wide swath for wind through our entire midwest works out, eh?

John Giannasca
August 11, 2011

By The way nice emotive words. You should send a resume to the propaganda copywriters
" Depending on the atmospheric conditions and time of year, the air is filled with the sound and pressure of a tsunami coming over the ridge located 1.75 miles away. It is not "green" when birds are chopped up by them, nor is it green to mine the materials, transport,
manufacture the component parts or bulldoze virgin land for roads and pads."
How many birds die in the implementation of any energy form. Simple answer is "who knows".
Go through the full supply chain of raw materials, equipment and personnel used in the construction of a 50,000 home implementation of 100MW PV roof top. Well let me now think of the number of polluting cars and truck used just to transport those materials to site. Maybe on the way some of those cars ran over a few animals or has a bird or bug hit the windscreen. Hell maybe one or two had an accident. Of course what I have said is ridiculous. As ridiculous as the arguments I hear against wind warms.

John Giannasca
August 11, 2011

To reuse some of my own words:
Poorly planned and developed wind farms are wrong. Plain and simple. If I got drunk and decided to hammer a nail but instead I hit my thumb, I think it would be a pretty bad idea to ban all hammers. You are right in saying that some (and I don't know the number) wind farm developers have made poor choices when it comes to their developments. I don't know what the rules are like in the US, but in Australia the development process requires that all things you have mentioned be taken into consideration and only after all the studies have been conducted and agreed to will the wind farm be permitted to proceed. May I suggest that rather than a blanket "all wind farms are bad so lets ban them" attitude you shift to a how do we make sure that developments are planed so that they dont affect people in the way you find undesirable.

John Giannasca
August 11, 2011

DrAlexC, yes really.
By the way I wonder how many birds are killed flying into the closed windows of the 'anti wind intelligentsia' as they sit at their computers blogging.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 10, 2011

"remove wind farms from the map and what have you got. Zip. We would be starting from scratch in the movement to replace fossil..." Really? In Calif. we wasted sq miles & years & construction emissions, tax breaks & subsidies...in the '70s, and what we have is junk that's never being cleaned up. It was then too "commercially viable", because of the $ we gave investors. Now we have square mi to clean up -- where's the $?
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

It's not that we can stick up wind machines on pastures. It's that, as you say: "50,000 (say) home owners. Of course this is doable" -- right. It's doable, and being done, and should have been helped along earlier, and... The wind machines will fail to be maintained and become derelict once again, so why bother wasting material, power loss, subsidy & land on them?

We also don't bother the wildlife.

FYI, here are some comments from another discussion...
www.grist.org/list/2011-04-08-wind-turbines-kill-birds-but-they-dont-have-to-heres-how-to-do-b/N10/
(not me...)
How many of you actually live near operational wind turbines? I do and the noise alone from the cumulative (accumulated) number of turbines increase the noise. Depending on the atmospheric conditions and time of year, the air is filled with the sound and pressure of a tsunami coming over the ridge located 1.75 miles away. It is not "green" when birds are chopped up by them, nor is it green to mine the materials, transport,
manufacture the component parts or bulldoze virgin land for roads and pads.

It gets worse. Fish, Wildlife Services has a draft Eagle Take document in process to accommodate wind businesses. It is disturbing down to the soul. Wind Turbines and Whooping Cranes: Going Soft on Soft Energy (politically correct environmental damage). The agency charged with enforcing the
Endangered Species Act is evaluating allowing a 200-mile wide
corridor for wind from Canada to the Gulf.

John Giannasca
August 10, 2011

DrAlexC, I would like to shout this loud and clear. Roof top PV is great. I'm just puzzled as to why you deride wind with a seemingly greater veracity than the renewable skeptics.Your points are valid to a point (if that makes sense) but they are just not balanced. Wave a magic wand and remove wind farms from the map and what have you got. Zip. We would be starting from scratch in the movement to replace fossil with renewables. You know, I am sure, that remewables exceeded fossil in new generation last year. Take wind out of the mix and fossil wins hands down. This shift away from fossil is a paradim shift for energy. It indicates the world is moving to a cleaner way. The only thing now is to determine the speed. The sad thing is that internal to renewable movement we have so much dissension as the what the renewable future should look like, that we risk loosing it all.
Roof top PV is a very important part of the mix, and will always be so in an every increasing portion. The (or one of the) impediments to a greater uptake for roof top PV are the logistics of interating with seperate stakeholders. A 100MW wind farm (land based) is a transaction that in involves a few land holders. The same output for rooftop PV would require interacting with 50,000 (say) home owners. Of course this is doable...but!
The immediate answer is to actively promote all forms of commercially viable renewable energy ,which at the moment is wind an PV (if we leave hydro to one side). We need then to foster energy storage in its many forms. We need to assist those renewable technology forms that are not quite there yet in their costs to get them to a commercially acceptable level. We then need to foster the R&D required to explore the many other renewable and other technologies (yes I remember what you taught me about Thorium).
DrAlexC I enjoy the challenge you throw up to us to articulate to all the balanced approach to the renewable issues.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 9, 2011

Grateful, Jamie, that you're "only defending wind" because I'm "spreading misinformation with nefarious motivations"! Nefarious motivations -- you a shrink? A mind reader?

Let's go through your 'better' info...

1) Solar PV on existing structures -- no lands to lease, no transmission lines to build, no interface structures beyond their inverters, etc. And now solar installers offer leases with no $ down, even a $1000 kickback. So $4/Watt? Guess again. We're not talking massed solar out next to the wind 'farms'. We're talking local systems wind cannot match or compete with. And, your wind farm incurs continual loss from transmission and, perhaps, lack of storage.

2) "Average capacity" means what? Here's what we see for both solar & wind each day in Calif...
www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

Yes, we have 5x more wind capacity, but it largely occurs beyond peak needs, so what does "average" bring to the party without storage? Storage also incurs serious losses -- even pumped storage loses at least 25% of input energy.

Then consider that all the DG solar installed thus far doesn't appear in the graphs above. So the capacity numbers aren't even comparable. Both wind & solar need storage, moreso wind. But, you can't put windmills on houses at the same price per kW as solar PV, and you never will, because PV has miles to go in better efficiency.

And here's a church's own installation -- wind can't match it.
http://tinyurl.com/3znad4b

More than 75% beyond consumption is produced without transmission loss & without the penalty of 700 tons/MW of materials, not to mention the land diversion of 2 acres/MW, plus maintenance roads, etc. for wind. A church roof, producing >200kWHrs/day, smoothly predictable, locally consumed, independent of distant, vulnerable transmission, and for no money down!

Nothing against Iowa farmers having windmills (hope no tornados). So, what was that about misinformation & motives?
;]

Jamie Schlinkmann
August 9, 2011

DrAC,
Your words intimate that this is some sort of game to you--the victor being the one whom offers the most misguided information. Like JohnG, I am a proponent of both wind and solar (PV, CSP, CPV...all forms) and recognize that they both have their place, as do various ocean based renewable. The simple facts support the current investment scenario of wind power's capacity additions exceeding PV by 50:1.
Some facts that support the current situation:
1. Wind power installations cost on average about $1.60/watt while PV still exceeds $4/watt
2. The average capacity factor for wind installations is 30% while PV is about 18%.

Another simple truth is that solar has every subsidy-type incentive available that wind does, and many more in some places, and yet much more wind power is built. Wind supplied 20% of Iowa's electricity last quarter. PV hasn't ranked enough generation in any state to even round up to a percent. And not a single Iowa farmer lost their field in the process.

Again, I support all true renewable energy sources and am only defending wind here because of a blogger spreading misinformation with nefarious motivations.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 8, 2011

John, thanks, we agree on most of it. I'll just note that here in Calif. we have now more generating capacity than we need, and are working the FIT issues, plus the homeowner-financing issues too. The goal is to make distributed generation (DG) PV a reality that, with storage & hydro/nuclear base load, avoids combustion, wind/wave, etc. in the future.
The Japanese, rightfully scared by TEPCO (but not of peoper nukes) are working out their own FITs now, where solar will be very important. Even the Italians...
www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/07/new-italian-tariffs-complex-and-robust-2000-mw-may-be-
installed-in-2011?cmpid=WNL-Friday-July15-2011

If they have any money left!

John Giannasca
August 8, 2011

Post 10 was me. I don't post anonymous posts. Early morning here and haven't had my coffee

ANONYMOUS
August 8, 2011

DrAlexC, your right I was being a little cute about the early days of PV, but hey I was scratching a bit. Points of concession for me:
I agree Wind is not perfect. It its energy output is is not correlated to load as the wind is higher at night when the load is usually lower.
Wind usually bows in areas where the load is the lowest so transmission issues come into play
Wind is variable and causes power quality issues once it increases above 15% of generation
It causes base load generation to cycle at time of rapid wind change causing otherwise efficient base load generation to be less efficient and thus increasing CO2 emissions.
i.e. its not perfect. I know this...but
Wind is a large scale renewable resource that can be deployed now. If we were to stop the large scale integration of wind we would lose a very visible face of the push for renewables. It will be many years before we find a, and I hate this term but its reality, bankable large scale renewable power source. PV is there now, and despite my cute comments previously, I am a big fan of it. Our major share holder is Solon AG and we have a joint venture with Tianwei from China for the supply to the Australian market. But we are also working with Datang on large scale wind.
Roof top PV is and imortant and a visible renewable source. Its important to be visible because its a reminder daily to people that we do have an energy issue and that there are many ways to help. The problem we have in Australia that stifles the roof top PV industry is the lack of commitment by governments to support a national gross feed in tariff (with an exit of course) that will give the industry confidence for investment. The constant lack of commitment from government kills the momentum and prevents the penetration of PV.
Of course PV distributed on every rooftop is the Nirvana. I know it. The problem is that it will require a nationally coordinated effort for this to occur and in this country it is unlikely to happen.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 8, 2011

The trap is sprung -- "The amount of energy generated by wind turbines exceeds the energy used in producing the materials used in their construction within a matter of months" -- a valued admission.

However, what this ignores is the perpetual consumption of land/sea at the rate of ~2acres/MW, and the CO2 emissions generated in the production of the coal, steel, concrete, access roads, hauling, maintenance, transmission, etc.

Talking about "early days" PV is disingenuous, which you must know. And, the energy or emissions used to produce an acre of silicon cells is no where near what it takes to produce an equivalent wind generator, when solar PV is installed on existing surfaces. This you surely know too.

What you may not know is that the effect of solar PV on structures is even more beneficial than wind could be, because as PV efficiency increases, the thermal radiation (IR) from the surface decreases below that of the original man-made roof. This directly reduces atmospheric absorption of unnatural IR produced by human structures in sunlight -- some Aussies certainly know this too, because they're represented in the international Heat Island Group & aware of why LBL, DoE & other researchers have long said paint roofs white.

Wind machines create emissions from their very construction that they cannot compensate for. They lose in transmission more than bank interest in whatever power they generate. They consume open spaces. And they produce power with higher variability than other sources, thus adding to the cost of grid incorporation.

But, we could have known all this from our first crush on wind in the '70s. We still have a lot of those junked machines decorating what was once nice Calif. scenery -- what "decomissioning"?

Local solar PV has none of these issues. It combats climate change in more than one way, even when coal is gone (wind would still be burning coal for windmill steel). And, it builds a more robust grid.

John Giannasca
August 8, 2011

DrAlexC you are wrong. Your passionate objection to wind has lead I believe to your selective reporting of statistics and data. That's as polite as I can put it. The amount of energy generated by wind turbines exceeds the energy used in producing the materials used in their construction within a matter of months, this is despite the use of energy-intensive materials like steel and fiberglass. In the early days, PV consumed more energy than they produced. The situation has improved with PV efficiency and can now repay the energy contained in their manufacture in less than ten years. As the performance of photovoltaics continues to improve, so too will their energy balance.
But this argument is nonsense. We need both forms of renewable energy. We cannot hope to achieve any meaningful renewable targets with rooftop PV alone. The incentive schemes and roll-out programs to get the scale needed are just not on anyone's agenda. Even with MW scale PV projects we wont do it.
The crazy thing is we are both on the same side here. We both want a cleaner world and see the advancement of renewable as the way. Our company in Australia implements MW scale PV, roof top PV (we are the largest in Australia in this area) and Wind Farms www.cbdenergy.com.au

Dr. A. Cannara
August 8, 2011

James, even easier -- you choose BP as an example of wise investing? Really. Now dial out the subsidy-supported sales of wind machines and you'll see why its full of hot air (stealing from David Mackay). You can even download a sensible evaulation free (there's an investment), just Google
'Sustainable Energy – without the hot air'

John -- using straw men, like coal plants? Of course they operate 24/7, but no one advocates coal, oil, or even gas fired power, if they care about the envirionment.

That's why wind/wave, etc. are so silly. They gain subsidies for investors, paid by the rest of us, yet they consume large land/sea swaths for the same power, or less, as local solar PV generates on existing structures.

Is there so much frothiness in the windie crowd that they don't even do the math? -- ~700 tons/MW of fossil-fuel-processed materials (yes, coal is needed 5:1 for each ton of steel in those shiny white towers); similar for mining, crushing the aggregate & limestone (which must be kilned to make cement), then transporting & mixing same, all using fossil fuel; then constructing a 1000 cu yard concrete foundation per tower; access roads; transmission lines; control stations & grid interfaces -- all remote from loads, so about 10% of what wind power is generated gets lost forever (including the power drawn from the grid when there's not quite enough wind)...

We can go on, but as in the '70s here in Calif., wind is simply an investor scam, to be walked away from as soon as things turn down in the biz, as for instance the Chinese have already begun to experience with decaying winds in their western reaches due to climate change -- who's going to dig up those foundations & move the windmills somewhere better? For how long?

Yes, wind is 'free', except under honest science & engineering scrutiny.

As organizations are now advocating, efficiency, local PV, local storage together obviate the need for any new wind/coal/gas/oil plants.

John Giannasca
August 8, 2011

Dr AlexC your logic seems to go like this. I had a few too many drinks and decided to hammer a nail, and as a result I hit my thumb. From now on all hammers will be banned!!

Jamie Schlinkmann
August 7, 2011

If you review the investment strategies of the companies making the biggest investments in wind power, you won't find anything that looks like mortgage backed securities or credit default swaps. Nice try, but BP and Nextera don't play around when they invest.

John Giannasca
August 7, 2011

Dr AlexC whats your point. Have you reviewed the abandoned coal fired power stations and the coal mines that feed them.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 7, 2011

Too easy JAmes -- if $ invested meant wisdom/correctness, then those trillions in CDS's and all the other mortgage fluff must have meant something other than the disaster we got, eh?

Facts are just so pesky.

Jamie Schlinkmann
August 6, 2011

Sixty plus billion annual USD investment made by the world's most conservative companies and people still hold on to the belief that it doesn't work. I suppose we should applaud independent thinking.

Dr. A. Cannara
August 5, 2011

The real engineering & physics problems remain for wind: local solar PV has far more present ability & future potential; hundreds of tons of fossil-fuel-processed materials needed per MW; vast areas of natural land/sea consumed per GW; permanent loss in transmission; expensive control systems to handle variability & storage, etc.

And, without subsidies, the 'farms' end up unmaintainable today, just as they did here in Calif. after the '70s boom...
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

But the real naivete appears when the unquestioning prop-generator windmill folks finally run into some real scientists...
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/07/14/caltech-vertical-axis-wind-turbines-boost-wind-farm-power-efficiency-10x/

Or discover those 1000-ton concrete foundations might need to be moved...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/wind/a-less-mighty-wind
www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/us/21tttransmission.html?_r=1&hpw

Indeed, as always, wind is a passing thing (to make a buck on).

Add Your Comments

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

Tildy Bayar

Associate Editor, Renewable Energy World magazine

Renewable Energy World Magazine

With over 57,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed decision makers...