BNEF Vestas V164 Nears Completion and Increases to 8MW

Published on April 25th, 2013 | by Joshua S Hill


Vestas And GE Tie For First Place Among 2012 Turbine Manufacturers

April 25th, 2013 by  

2012 was a good year for renewable energy installations, and a new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that it was a very good year for the wind energy sector, installing a record 48.4 GW of new capacity.

This report comes just days after the report from Pew Charitable Trusts was released, which reported that a total of 88 GW of additional renewable generating capacity was installed during 2012.

The wind energy sector’s contribution to the overall renewable energy total is measured the same in both reports, unsurprising considering that Bloomberg New Energy Finances are Pew’s clean energy research partner. Vestas V164 Nears Completion and Increases to 8MW

Vestas has regularly been a world leader in the wind energy sector, but General Electric (GE) were beneficiaries of the surge of development sparked by the expiring US tax credit. In the end, more than 96% of the wind turbines that GE commissioned during 2012 were installed in the US market.

GE wasn’t the only company to benefit from the expiring tax credit in the US, with European Manufacturers such as Siemens and Gamesa similarly making the US their single-largest 2012 market. Even Vestas, sitting pretty on top with GE, had 40% of its 2012 capacity additions in the US.

“2012 was a great year for Western manufacturers in terms of adding new capacity, particularly those with large exposure to the US market,” said Justin Wu, head of wind analysis at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. “Unfortunately, this boom was largely based on beating the deadline on an expiring subsidy and not on sustainable growth. As such, 2013 will look very different.”

Sadly, 2012 was not a great year for the Chinese wind market, which saw an 18% drop in annual capacity added for the year. As a result, the four largest Chinese turbine manufacturers were pushed to the bottom of the Top 10 rankings, due to a national drop in capacity and the fact that Chinese countries do 99% of their business within their home country.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance believe that 2013 will see a stabilising of the market, with the US market set to decline in the wake of the tax credit expiration.

The top 10 suppliers contributed 33.5 GW of 2012’s total global commissioned capacity, equalling 70%. Those 10 include:

  1. GE (US) – 11.8%
  2. Vestas (Denmark) – 11.8%
  3. Siemens (Denmark) – 11.0%
  4. Enercon (Germany) – 7.2%
  5. Suzlon/REpower (India) – 6.6%
  6. Gamesa (Spain) – 6.4%
  7. Goldwind (China) – 6.0%
  8. Guodian United Power (China) – 3.5%
  9. Sinovel (China) – 2.7%
  10. Sewind (China) – 2.3%


Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (, and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at for more.

  • Bob

    I read somewhere there was a manufacturer that came up with
    an idea of using a photovoltaic coating on the blades of the turbines and generated
    power in two generators but I can’t find any info on this company. Anyone know
    of this process of manufacturing a wind turbine like this?

  • Why don’t fossil fuel companies buy a few of these companies to hedge their future? Odd.


  • agelbert

    All these added GW are hurting fossil fuel bottom lines and causing their ongoing demand destruction. GOOD!
    Typically, mendaciously covering for big oil, the main stream media, when they mention it at all, explain this demand destruction as a result exclusively of the downturn in the economy. I firmly believe that both factors contributed in equal weight, and, within a decade or so, the contribution of renewables to fossil fuel demand destruction will reach 100%. For example, if the current rate of demand destruction for gasoline alone in the USA continues, by around 2020, there won’t BE ANY DEMAND for gasoline. We’ll see.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I read an interesting report yesterday…

      “”EIA said quark spreads, which measure the potential profitability of nuclear power plants, in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic have ranged from about $10 to $35 per megawatt-hour (MWh).

      Quark spreads in 2008 ranged from $20 to $90 per MWh.

      A quark spread is the difference between the wholesale electricity price received by a nuclear plant and the cost of fuel needed to generate the electricity.”

      “EIA said the estimated average national fuel costs in 2011 for coal and natural gas plants were $25/MWh and $36/MWh, respectively. Nuclear fuel however costs averaged only $6/MWh.”

      They failed to mention wind’s role in bringing down the spread.

      And it doesn’t take a lot of reading between the lines to see if nuclear is in trouble with a $6/MWh fuel cost that coal must be in deeper trouble with its $25/MWh fuel cost.

      (NG is dispatchable. It can turn off when market prices are low. And it has a low capex and financial nut to cover. It’s OK for a while.)

      • Otis11

        Well, yes, but Nuclear has a lot more costs than fuel alone… in fact I’d be surprised if fuel was even their largest individual cost.

        But yes, I think the decline of FF is inevitable as renewables continue to build their market share… sadly, though, as prices get cheaper people will care less about efficiency.

    • Ronald Brakels

      Australia never had a recession as a result of the global financial crisis and has the healthist economy in the developed world and there has certainly been plenty of demand destruction here. Gigawatts of coal capacity have closed down and gas plants are operating at below expected capacity. A lot of this has been due to rooftop solar although wind is also playing a big role. This despite the state of Queensland, which is larger than most countries in the world, having yet to build any wind power capacity.

  • James Wimberley

    The drop in China seems mainly due to grid problems: connection delays and inadequate long-distance transmission capacity, leading to growing regional curtailment of installed capacity and a disincentive for generators. This is strange in a country run top-down by engineers. Coal and hydro are geographically localised too and require a big grid..

    • justsaying

      Its a timing issue. It takes years to build a new coal plant or big dam, which gives you time to build the transmission lines. But once approved turbines go up fast, so it is easier to out pace the transmission line construction.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I get the feeling that China is undergoing a major rethinking about their energy future.

      They started down the hydro/coal/nuclear pathway toward modernizing their grid but I suspect the rapid drop in renewable costs have caused them to reconsider. Coal and nuclear fuel are expensive for them to import. If they use their own coal they still have to import a lot of oil to move coal to plants. Wind and sunshine are free.

      I would expect their leaders, being very engineer-heavy, have looked at what it would take to continue the coal/nuclear route as opposed to renewables and are doing a course adjustment.

      I think China can see that its days of making huge money by being a cheap manufacturer are limited. It’s in their best interest to limit the amount of stuff they are forced to import.

      They are also putting a very heavy push on getting their people into EVs. No oil required.

      • agelbert

        I agree. And the more decentralized the power available to the populace through neighborhood PV projects, the less strain on their power grid. This way they can be weaned from coal power plants sooner.

Back to Top ↑