Turbine Tech Turn Up: Machines for an Evolving Market

A wave of new turbine design and model announcements reveals a trend for longer blades and lower wind speed performance, while the big offshore machines gather for their commercial debuts.

David Appleyard, Chief Editor, Renewable Energy World International
June 19, 2012 | 7 Comments

Presenting figures that show the global wind industry will install more than 46 GW of new wind energy capacity in 2012, the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) forecasts that by the end of 2016, total global wind power capacity will be just under 500 GW, with an annual market in that year of about 60 GW*.

The turbines that will deliver the bulk of those forecasts are emerging now as companies gear up towards series production of the latest generation of machines by 2013 and 2014. As with the previous few years, the bulk of these developments appear to fall squarely into two camps. On the one hand are design upgrades and rotor diameter increases; on the other are the large offshore machines, several of which are now moving from pre-commercial trials onto the market.

New Turbines on the Market

While the areas of development may fall into two clear camps, some manufacturers are less easy to categorise so distinctly. Take Spanish player Gamesa, for example. This group appears to be pushing hard on new turbine developments, announcing a swathe of projects both on and offshore.

For the offshore sector, in May 2012 the company announced it will install its first new 5 MW prototype at Arinaga Quay in Gran Canaria Island, saying its decision was driven by technical and wind resource considerations, offshore market trends and investment return criteria.

The location will optimise returns on investment and has reduced transportation cost, due its proximity to Gamesa's factories in Spain, where the turbine will be manufactured, the company says. Indeed the announcement spells the end for activities at Cape Charles, Virginia, USA, the location of the Offshore Wind Technology Centre, opened jointly with Newport News Shipbuilding, which will now wind down at the end of the year as the design of the G11X-5.0 MW offshore platform is completed.

'The offshore wind power market is developing at a firm pace. However, demand is being tempered by economic and financial factors and the difficulties being encountered by developers in accessing credit. The authorities are firmly committed to the development of offshore wind power in major markets such as the UK, Germany, France and China. Based upon the current situation, the US market appears to be set to develop later than others. Regional and country specific market conditions warrant even more rational decision-making process than ever, from both the technology and financial standpoints,' said Jorge Calvet, chairman and CEO of Gamesa, explaining the decision.

Installation of the new machine is expected to begin in the second quarter of 2013, with a view to achieving certification in the following months, to permit the installations of the pre-series turbines towards the end of 2013 or early 2014.

The offshore prototype - the G128-5.0 MW (50 Hz) - has a 128 metre rotor diameter. It is based on the existing G10X-4.5 MW machine. The initial prototype of the G128-4.5 MW, featuring a semi-integrated main shaft in a two-stage gearbox with mid-speed range output and a permanent magnet synchronous generator using a full converter, connected to the grid in April 2009. Now installing the first pre-series of the machine, Gamesa says the blades have new aerodynamic features and a structure which substantially reduces the machine's weight.

Running parallel to the development of its offshore technology, Gamesa is making progress on the installation of its offshore manufacturing base, having recently announced it had entered in Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) talks with the Forth Ports at Leith, Scotland, regarding the establishment of two plants (blades and nacelles) for its UK offshore operations.

Meanwhile, Alstom has also declared its vision to move ahead with its offshore ambitions, recently installing the first prototype of its new 6 MW machine, featuring its 150 metre rotor diameter. This direct drive machine uses a permanent magnet generator from Converteam, which has equipped Alstom's two 6 MW offshore wind turbine prototypes. In March, the so-called Haliade 150 machine was commissioned at Carnet in the Loire-Atlantique, in France, ahead of year-long tests on land before a second turbine is placed in the sea off the Belgian coast in autumn 2012. Pre-series production is planned for 2013 with production in series due to start in 2014.

Meanwhile, Alstom and LM Wind Power have developed the 73.5 metre-long blades designed specifically for Alstom's offshore machine. The use of specifically developed material compounds will enable LM to maximise strength and durability while producing an exceptionally light blade, they say. The blades are currently the longest in the world and will be manufactured in partnership with LM Wind Power in Cherbourg.

The Carnet site was chosen for its geological characteristics that are very similar to the submarine environment in which the wind turbines will eventually be installed. The 25 metre sub-structure (known as the jacket) was installed on pillars driven more than 30 metres into the ground on which the 75 metre high tower was then mounted. The wind turbine and its support structure have a total combined weight of 1500 tonnes.

Sticking offshore, Germany's REpower Systems SE has now seen its 6 M turbines, rated at 6.15 MW, installed offshore after the first units were erected in March 2012 at the Thornton Bank wind project, 28 km off the coast of Belgium.

With 48 machines set to be developed at the site, REpower and Belgian offshore project development company C-Power NV will execute the installation of the first 30 turbines for phase 2 of the wind farm, planned for 2012, as well as a further 18 designated for installation during a third extension stage by mid-2013.

With a diameter of 126 metres, three prototypes of the REpower 6M were installed at the Ellhöft wind farm, near the German-Danish border, in 2009. In 2008, REpower installed six of its 5M turbines for the first construction phase of Thornton Bank in water 12-27 metres deep. A further two turbines will be installed in the Westereems wind farm near Eemshaven in the Dutch province of Gronigen, a few kilometres from the German border. Completion is planned for mid-2012. RWE Innogy will use this machine at its Nordsee Ost offshore wind farm, some 30 km North of Helgoland. A total of 48 of the 6M turbines will be delivered over the course of 2012.

Viewing Page 1 of 3

7 Comments

ANONYMOUS
July 1, 2012

It seems to me that even the big wind OEMs do not fully understand the commercial market. When it comes to what types of product to develop, it would appear to be obvious that the most profitable market opportunity lies in developing large, low-cost, efficient, reliable on-shore turbine designs. While selling low-tech, super reliable, on-shore turbines using gearboxes and AC generators may not sound as sexy as selling massive, multi-megawatt, direct-drive, off-shore turbines with superconducting generators, it's definitely more profitable. The turbine operators are naturally wary of new technologies, due both to the poor historic reliability track record of turbine OEMs, and the fact that they will be stuck with the turbine for around 20 years. Put yourself in that position for a minute. What model of car would you purchase if it had to operate reliably, 24-7-365 for 20 years? The market is not evolving so much as the products are evolving to meet market demands. And that's the way things should be. The pressure of free market competition forcing companies to improve their product offerings.

ANONYMOUS
June 26, 2012

Ruth_Cooper- I would disagree. With commercial wind, bigger is definitely better. It's just the nature of our physical world. As wind turbines get larger the aerodynamics of the blades improves, the efficiency of the generators and drivetrains improves, and the LCOE metrics improve. Of course, while your comment about transmission losses has some merit, the situation with commercial wind is a bit more complicated. It would seem to make sense to build out offshore wind since it would put the generation point closer to large coastal populations. But offshore wind installations currently cost about 50% more than onshore installations. So the economics of offshore wind do not make sense. As for PV solar, the unsubsidized costs are also still far too high to work out. While I would love to see a world powered by low cost renewables, for now we have to accept that conventional sources like coal and NG are still the best solution in terms of cost and availability. We can't deny the fact that the US and world economies depend heavily upon cheap energy. We may not like it, but the transition to renewables will be slow. It will take decades. It won't be complete until long after you and I are gone.

Dr. A. Cannara
June 24, 2012

Ruth raises a good point -- the continual large losses from distant 'farms' (wind/wave/solar...) are easily avoided and the grid is more robust, if we distribute generation (DG) locally. That's exactly what the Calif. "million solar roofs" program is doing. It's what the local counties and school districts are doing. And, it's what municipalities with their own power districts are doing... www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1877?id=223 But, wind is a poor choice for DG, from cost, noise, reliability and efficiency. Local solar PV & hot water are all that's needed to meet peak loads. New York City was even laser surveyed and found capable of generating ~50% of peak daytime summer load from rooftop solar PV. And there are lots of people & loads per roof in NYC. So, solar PV, which is continually improving beyond anything wind can match on a Watt per square meter basis, plus efficiency, storage (EVs too) and safe nuclear, are all we'll need for thousands of years. There's better use for wind subsidies, materials and acreage.

Dr. A. Cannara
June 24, 2012

Didn't say they did, Anne. But, at only 1MW per many kg of REs mined, each windmill represents far more of an expense than other sources, such as local solar. And, REs suffer the monopolistic practices of China, plus the vast fossil-fuel emissions from their fabrication of about 700 tons of material per peak MW. Then there are the perennial transmission/conversion/control losses, species damage, land/sea usurpation, high maintenance/insurance, ugliness, noise, etc. But, subsidies do bring all sorts of things out from under the roks. ;] Your odd nuclear statement: "After 60 years nuclear power is still not able to stand on its own legs without massive government support." -- suggest you look up the public capacity factor for nuclear in western countries. Here, it's >90%. The profitability of nuclear is very high now, which is why we're now building some new units, despite their not being the ultimate designs, which are cheaper than any combustion sources. By the way, the fiction of nuke subsidiy was defrocked here... www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/briefs/policybrief_jan02.pdf Unlike wind farms, nukes pay into their decommissioning per kW. Any windmills paying into a bond to remove their 1000 cubic meter concrete foundation and 100 tons of steel/MW?

Anne van der Bom
June 24, 2012

DrAlexC, wind turbines do not depend on a steady stream of rare earth metals, only a steady stream of wind, over which the Chinese have no control. If rare earths become scarce, other technologies are available. Wind power does not depend on rare earth metals. So long as they're available, it is better to make good use of them. The Netherlands recently tried to build another nuclear power plant. After the Dutch government made it clear that it had to be 100% commercially funded, with no government backing in case of cost overruns (not a risk, but a certainty for nuclear projects) energy companies lost interest. After 60 years nuclear power is still not able to stand on its own legs without massive government support. Factoring in all hidden costs, nuclear power is more expensive than virtually everything else, including PV. Investors know that.

Ruth Cooper
June 23, 2012

I would like to propose that bigger is not necessarily better. I would also like to propose that we need to generate within the urban centres wherein consumption is at it's highest vs. needing to rely on infrastructural expansions and upgrades to bring electrons from point of generation to point of consumption. Building-integrated wind energy conversion systems (i.e. BAWT or UWECS) are technically feasible, though relatively unheard of. Unfortunately, our bigger is better mentality and limited ability to conduct the appropriate feasibility studies which would take true life cycle costs into consideration, predominantly results in the favouring MW wind farms by the development sector of the market. Hoping to be part of the wind energy paradigm shift to facilitate design and deployment of truly urban - integratable urban wind energy conversion (UWEC) devices!

Dr. A. Cannara
June 20, 2012

48, 6MW peak machines consuming several hundred sea acres and totally dependent on Chinese generat5or materials, etc. will yield, let's be generous, less than 150MW average, minus transmission losses. Wonder if they'll turn back, as the Dutch ship with Russ choppers for Syria just did, when their insurance was pulled? Wow, 1/7 of a single nuke, or 1/14 of a typical nuke plant on a hundred acres or so, running >90% of the time. Hmmm, Xthorg, perhaps these humans aren't as wise as our first scans of their primitive communications suggested? ;]

Add Your Comments

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

David Appleyard

David Appleyard is Chief Editor of Renewable Energy World. He also currently holds the position of Chief Editor for sister publication Hydro Review Worldwide. A journalist and photographer, he graduated with a degree in Applied Environmental...

Wind Technology Magazine

This supplement is no longer being published as of March 1, 2013. To subscribe to similar wind energy content click here. Or, subscribe to our worldwide Renewable Energy World magazine digital edition here.