Sign-In  or  Create a Free Account
Sign-in with:
 
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
 
Our Magazines Article Archives
 

Turbine Tech Turn Up: Machines for an Evolving Market

Do you like this magazine?

 
 
Page 3 of 3
7 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 7
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? ;]
Comment
2 of 7
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!
Comment
3 of 7
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.
Comment
4 of 7
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?
Comment
5 of 7
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.
No image available
Comment
6 of 7
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.
No image available
Comment
7 of 7
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.
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
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Wind Technology

Distributed with Renewable Energy World Magazine to a global readership, Renewable Energy World’s Wind Technology provides the technical insight, information and trends for decision makers with the latest in design, blade tech... more »

 

David Appleyard

View David Appleyard's Profile
About: David Appleyard is Chief Editor of Renewable Energy World. He also currently holds the position of Chief Editor for sister publication Hydro Review Worldwide.... more »

Advertise With Us

Canadian Solar Inc. CleanEdison geoAMPS American Solar Energy Society EcoFasten Solar Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. Helios Solar Works
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
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 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