German Producers Lead European Offshore Wind Growth

Posted on by
Print Friendly

 
Even though the title is pluralized, Siemens is the most influential German wind turbine manufacturer, by far. It accounted for 74% of European offshore wind turbines in the past 6 months.

Siemens, REpower, and Bard were the only companies to connect wind turbines offshore in Europe in that time. Not a close second to Siemens. REpower installed a little less than a quarter of them (22%). Bard, in third place, installed 4% of them.

Blythe Offshore Wind Farm. (Photo Credit: zabdiel, CC BY- 2.0 license)

Maybe the United States could learn how the Europeans managed to install only European turbines offshore in the past 6 months, literally 100% of them.

These wind companies were most active in the United Kingdom, where they installed 422 MW worth of wind turbines (114 turbines), according to EWEA (European Wind Energy Association).

In Europe, the amount of wind power generation capacity installed was 50% more than it was at the same time last year.

Christian Kjaer, chief executive of the EWEA, said: “Offshore wind power is increasingly attracting investors, including pension funds and other institutional and corporate investors, but it would be good to see more activity in southern Europe, where jobs, investments and growth are desperately needed.”

The EWEA is projecting another record year for wind industry growth, which is partly impeded by connection delays caused by weather, as another 650 MW of wind power generation capacity is awaiting connection.

The average size of wind turbines over the past six months has grown, as well. It grew 14.2% to 4 MW. Wind turbines have been getting bigger for years because larger turbines generate a larger more consistent supply of power per square metre of turbines. This applies to taller turbines in particular. This is basically due to the fact that wind speeds tend to increase with altitude.

Source: Reuters

 


 

Nicholas Brown (344 Posts)

I have a keen interest in physics-intensive topics such as electricity generation, refrigeration and air conditioning technology, energy storage, geography, and much more. My website is: Kompulsa.


  • Pingback: The Basics of Offshore Wind Projects - CleanTechnica

  • Dave2020

    “it would be good to see more activity in southern Europe, where jobs, investments and growth are desperately needed.”

    From where I’m sitting (in economically depressed Wales) “it would be good to see more renewables manufactured in the UK, where jobs, investments and growth are desperately needed.”

    Maybe the United Kingdom could learn how the Germans, Japanese, Americans and next the Chinese (solar and nuclear) managed to take over and run our domestic industries, or close down and take others abroad, so that we now have to import these essential products. Why won’t they ever learn?

    I think I can see why. Science education and R&D have been neglected, engineering has a low status in society, manufacturing and infrastructure are unattractive long-term investments and product innovation is ‘never’ a viable investment at all.

    The underlying cause is the evident fact that political lunatics took over the asylum in the 1980s and decided it was easier to make money out of money, rather than actually working for a living and making things. That neoliberal infection just kept spreading.

    I sent in my 10-page dissertation on ‘An Innovation Strategy for Wales’ only yesterday. The Welsh government invited me to contribute to the consultation, but even so I have a low expectation that any changes will be made. Very few people like to change their minds.

    “Wind turbines have been getting bigger for years” It’s amazing how a false design premise can become an obsession. There’s no functional or economic rationale behind this particular incremental development. When the ‘fuel’ is ‘free’, the efficiency of its capture is immaterial. You just end up with bigger peaks and troughs on your output graph! 

    They should focus on reducing the excessive amount of unproductive mass in their structural design. Orthodox turbines in deep water are heading in the wrong design direction, and ‘floaters’ are worse still, in their extravagant use of steel.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Dave tells us that this isn’t true…

      “The average size of wind turbines over the past six months has grown, as well. It grew 14.2% to 4 MW. Wind turbines have been getting bigger for years because larger turbines generate a larger more consistent supply of power per square metre of turbines. This applies to taller turbines in particular. This is basically due to the fact that wind speeds tend to increase with altitude.”
      Dave vs. the wind industry.
      Wonder who has the data?

      • Dave2020

        “Dave tells us that this isn’t true…”

        No Bob, Dave didn’t say that isn’t true. In my view it is a pointless design premise to work your butt off to get your turbines to capture more energy, more ‘efficiently’, if all you do with that valuable electricity is “curtail” it. No data at all is required to make that simple, sensible observation. The wind industry is going overboard with this idea that ‘bigger is better’, but their promotion of this is more spin than substance, in practice. Unless and until the industry addresses the issue of variability, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on, in my view.

        As we’ve just been discussing on a previous thread, at times the market determines that the extra electricity you generate has no value whatsoever. In fact, it’s a bit of a nuisance, in the way it affects the economics of the electricity market.

        Bob tells us that this is true:-

        “In fact, it probably will make sense to curtail the top 10% or so of wind before storage makes economic sense.”

        No facts, no data, and value judgements of probability and what makes sense. 

        Bob, why is it wrong for me to express my views without furnishing any data, when you are perfectly happy to do just that? Let’s have a sensible debate.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Beginning points: agreed, agreed, and agreed.

      Point about wind turbine advancements: clearly, more efficient turbines decrease their LCOE (we’ve seen this happen continually for years). this makes wind more competitive. i really am not sure how you are convinced this isn’t the case.

      • Dave2020

        I am not saying that isn’t the case, only that the efficiency improvements are small, and however much you reduce the LCOE that does not address the ‘cost’ of constraint. i.e. Whenever supply exceeds demand you turn the turbine off. That may not be an issue yet in the States, but it is over here. That is why we have a market intervention through ‘constraint payments’.

        Three years ago a study of ‘Operating the UK Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020′ predicted that the cost of ‘pulling back’ wind would be £1.6m per occasion, with 500MW of EV charging at night. Without that extra demand, wind power is even less efficient on a whole-system basis. That isn’t reflected in the LCOE is it?

        Anytime a generator can’t access the grid these payments may be due. In 2011 the total was £324m.

        Good energy storage eliminates that cost and most of the bill for back-up too.

        A 14.2% increase in size doesn’t say what the decrease in LCOE is. Can you tell us?

        The price of gas is the major component in calculating that LCOE. Efficient use of fuel is very important, With wind, capital accounts for 90% of the cost. That’s why I say, the cost of construction, installation and materials should be reduced.

        On-shore there is little scope for cheaper foundations or towers. Off-shore it’s a different story and the whole thing costs two or three times as much. Since my first post here, I have been making the case for a sea change in design to address that very problem. Nobody else is.