Comments on: Offshore Wind Industry Will Become €130 Billion Annual Market By 2020

By: Dave2020

Dave2020 — Fri, 10 May 2013 08:48:00 +0000

“The report predicted that much of the investment will remain concentrated on the UK, which currently holds the title as the world’s largest offshore wind market.”
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2266411/offshore-wind-industry-poised-for-steallar-growth-as-investment-cranks-up

If the UK manufactured all this stuff, that “title” might be something to crow about. We don’t – most of it is imported and the power industry is largely run by foreign companies that ‘offshore’ their profits!

I sometimes wonder – do these speculative figures mean anything?! e.g. Is 3-4ct/kWh a realistic price for nuclear? The Rheinisch-Westfälischen Institute for Economic Research begs to differ! They figured it would be 10.7 €ct – 12.4 €ct. for 2010. (close to offshore wind, and rising)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The ‘economics’ have been spinning around in circles for years!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4457210.stm

“Even academics are having a tricky time crunching the numbers and coming up with a flat rate of comparison that would allow nuclear power to be judged solely on its economic merits.”

The fact of the matter is – trying to design a market, where market principles can’t possibly work, is a fool’s errand, an insane hypothesis. Economic theory is the antithesis of science.

By: Dave2020

Dave2020 — Thu, 09 May 2013 20:08:00 +0000

The Hywind floater has been 12 years in development, hoping to grow from a 2.3MW turbine up to 4MW. Higher substructure costs cancel out economies of scale achieved with longer blades. It’s the same taking sea-bed foundations into deeper water.

That dilemma, plus the inherent compromises entailed in mounting a large turbine above the level affected by wind gradient, were recognised by some engineers on the original team as an insurmountable problem for HAWT floaters.

They felt a radical change would be better and developed this instead:-
http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/turbine-technip-n%C3%A9nuphar-vertiwind-tid118.html

By: Marcacci Communications

Marcacci Communications — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:25:45 +0000

[…] Offshore wind industry will become €130 billion annual market by 2020 (via CleanTechnica) […]

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Wed, 08 May 2013 17:18:00 +0000

Seems to me that increasing the swept area/rotor to turbine size ratio one would also be increasing the hours per year that wind can supply power to the grid.

Turbines with long blades can feather their blades when winds pick up. Turbines with relatively shorter blades can’t stretch in order to harvest more energy in light winds.

Since wind generation is cheap and storage expensive, seems like it would make sense to maximize the number of output hours at the loss of some peak output.

By: arne-nl

arne-nl — Wed, 08 May 2013 16:51:00 +0000

The simplest way of increasing capacity factor is fitting a smaller generator relative to the rotor. In times of high wind, the turbine will produce less than would be possible with a larger generator. You can see it as a form of auto-curtailment.

Wind power penetration in Europe is such that at times of strong winds, electricity prices are lower thanks to the glut of windpower ‘swamping’ the grid. By fitting a smaller generator you lose kWh, but not much $ € ₤. The smaller generator reduces the cost of the turbine. There is an optimal generator size that maximizes profit. Having explained that, it will likely not be a factor, since most wind farms receive a fixed feed-in tariff.

The factors you mention are most likely the main reason.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Wed, 08 May 2013 15:59:00 +0000

It’s encouraging that Berger see a improvement in capacity factor from 43% to 48%. Their report doesn’t indicate where they think this is coming from. Aren’t hubs already high enough to overcome most of the wind gradient? Is it better controls, rotor designs and drive trains?