Renewable Revolution

Some news about WIND POWER that Gail Tverberg may have missed... 

This is certainly an interesting initiative, and I’m happy we had the chance to dig into it in more detail than we did when the initiative was unveiled in November.

It does help bring electricity to people without electricity or who are using dirty, expensive, health-damaging fossil fuels for electricity generation — 50 million such people is the target.

It also provides revenue to Vestas and other initiative partners. In other words, it helps the environment, it helps individuals financially, it helps individuals to improve their quality of life a great deal, and it brings revenue to Vestas. Win-win-win-win.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/26/wind-prosperity-charity-pr-campaign-business/#29kJyi2ruKHhK0Yz.99

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIsZmoz6LHY&feature=player_embedded


CHEAP renewable energy for up to 1.3 BILLION people by taking old turbines being replaced by new, bigger turbines in Europe, refurbishing them and them putting them in proven high wind areas in third world areas in cooperation with governments providing incentives GIVES INVESTORS over 50% LOW RISK RETURN ON INVESTMENT! As the speaker says, "You don't get any better than THAT for a business venture.



So WHY doesn't Gail Tverberg recognize this and support it? Why does she spend time poo pooing wind power? You KNOW why. She is  biased for fossil fuels, period. She is urging people to throw away a tremendous opportunity for clean, environmentally friendly profits that actually help third world countries, unlike dirty polluting energy, in order to safeguard fossil fuel corporation interests.   
This is anathema to what an objective actuarial energy expert should be doing for the business community. She is giving bad investment advice, PERIOD. 

Several more short videos and story at link: 


Wind For Prosperity Is No Charity Or PR Campaign — This Is About Business (Exclusive Videos)

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/26/wind-prosperity-charity-pr-campaign-business/

Denmark: 99% Wind on 25th Jan


by Anna
 January 29, 2014


Category: 
News
 


Denmark is not only the birthplace of the modern wind industry and the original FIT policy concept, but also the pioneer of a bold national target to achieve 100% RE by 2050 in the power, heating, and transportation sectors. And they are well on their way. The screenshot shows that the country is well on its way. On 25th Jan, 99% electricity in Denmark came from wind turbines: 4.112 MW wind production and 4.156 MW electricity consumption. 

As one can see from this website of current power production (http://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/UK/index.html), the Danes publish a real-time overview of their power sector broken down into the categories of central power stations, cogeneration (local CHP), and wind turbines. Add those three together and subtract electricity consumption, and you get the net power exchange.

US Wind Energy Output Breaks Records 

 Michael Goggin, AWEA 
 April 04, 2014 

Wind energy is breaking records across the U.S., thanks to long-needed transmission upgrades that are relieving congestion on the power grid and allowing more clean energy to reach consumers.



Last week, a new record was set on the main Texas grid, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), reaching over 10,000 MW of wind. This was the most ever for a U.S. power system, the equivalent of powering more than five million average Texas homes. In two previously unreported records, wind energy supplied a record 39.7 percent of total ERCOT electricity demand this past Monday, March 31, and two weeks ago the Southwest Power Pool region just to the north of Texas set a new wind record with 7,202 MW of wind production.

Full story here:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/04/us-wind-energy-output-breaks-records

DEFINITIONS: AWT = AXIS WIND TURBUNE
HAWT = HORIZONTAL AWT
VAWT = VERTICAL AWT


Digging Deeper Into The UGE


Earlier this month, UGE launched its latest vertical axis wind turbine – VisionAIR3. Tina Casey’s coverage on Clean Technica sparked some lively discussion about the small wind industry, both in the comments on the article and in a separate article by Mike Barnard.



Barnard and UGE CEO Nick Blitterswyk recently engaged in a point/counterpoint on some of these areas of contention, and I was Cc’d on all of that. We decided that it would be worthwhile to publish this for a broader audience. An edited version of their conversation appears below.

Nick: First off, Mike, thank you for your article and for the opportunity to have this discussion. Your article provided a good analysis of where the technology is at, and you have every right to be skeptical given the industry’s past.

We’ve tried to be very honest over the years, even when it’s been difficult in an industry that has had a lot of unsubstantiated hype. Like any company, we’ve of course tried to draw interest to our products, but always try to stay within the bounds of reality. We appreciate you keeping things in check.

Mike: I’m glad you reached out.


VIsionAIR5 micro wind turbine.


Nick: One thing you mentioned in your article is the rated sound level. To clarify, 38dBA is the number that Intertek certified the VisionAIR5 unit at, which is the lowest that we know of for any wind turbine. Given the logarithmic nature of the measure, this is significantly less than one rated at 42dBA. To make two other points, first, our units’ RPM decreases as the unit size increases, and this does result in a lower sound level   , so the UGE-9M measure of 38dBA we note is correct (as is the higher measure for our smaller VisionAIR3 unit). And second, I thought I would draw attention to the fact that in the certification process Intertek could not discern any measurable volume of noise below 8 m/s, something we also found impressive.


Mike: On the noise issue, please understand that I have read virtually every acoustics study related to wind turbines, as well as all the health studies, and interact with acousticians such as Dr. Geoff Leventh all globally every week in my efforts around dismissing the noise and health myths related to utility-scale wind turbines. I write on acoustics regularly and am even occasionally asked to peer review studies in the space.

The difference of noise is certainly there but is a fairly irrelevant differentiation unless the device is positioned right on top of people’s bedrooms. You can certainly highlight it as a marketing differentiator but from an empirical perspective it’s a trivial amount of noise easily mitigated. In industrial settings it’s even less relevant. And highlighting it as a marketing differentiation for VAWTS tends to tick me off because it feeds a certain class of anti-wind hysteria    which impacts utility-scale wind deployments.

Thanks for pointing out the slower revolutions resulting in less noise. I look forward to certified results on that as well.

Nick: Understanding where you come from on the noise issue helps me understand your point; it’s not one we’d want to muddle for sure. Like you said in your article, there is a class of customer to which this point is important, though, and that is primarily who we are targeting when we mention it is quiet. We meant no harm to the industry; our intent was not to state that a typical HAWT is loud, per se.



Mike: People have overly heightened concerns regarding noise.  As my assessment of acoustic attenuation pointed out, any sensible siting will mean virtually no difference between the UGE VAWT and an equivalent HAWT. And outside of a tiny niche of acoustically sensitive commercial sites, once again there will be no appreciable noise from either device. I understand that it’s useful marketing, and that the UGE VAWT is quieter, but it’s going from really quiet to really really quiet, or to put it another way from an irrelevant level of noise to an irrelevant level of noise, for the majority of your customers. But this is a place where people are irrational, and noise is a deeply complex space that’s poorly understood and poorly explained. I’d undoubtedly be using it as a differentiator in your shoes as well.

Nick: Thanks for the clarification. On to the naming issue you raised — the “5″ in VisionAIR5 is named with respect to the height (roughly 5 meters). This is in line with what utility-scale wind turbines most commonly use. Within distributed wind, Southwest for years sold the Skystream 3.7, where 3.7 was the diameter in meters of its rotor. By no means are we trying to confuse anyone into thinking it is rated at 5kW.

Mike: There isn’t a standard per se, just some observable patterns and some potential for confusion. Regarding the number 5 and the impression it leaves, I have looked at specs on a lot of wind generation devices and the majority have output as a numerical qualifier on the name, especially in utility-scale wind. It might be different in the small wind category, especially historically, but that’s more the observed reality that I see. Point taken that it’s not intended to imply output, but I trust you see why it could be misconstrued as well.

Nick: Interestingly enough, when we used to use the kW rating it actually caused a lot more confusion, as 1) people just didn’t understand what it meant, and 2) you’d find companies using any range of rated wind speeds to, in essence, cheat the system. When speaking with our customers we stress the kWh output according to the SWCC certification, which we find a much more useful measure for both ourselves and our customers.

Mike: Fair point. I’m working up more material on real innovation in the wind industry. I’m interested in more information on the levelized energy agreement and your focus on developing nations. Can you share more on that?

Nick: We launched our Levelized Energy Agreement Program last August. Similar to the United Wind model you referenced in your article, it involves project financing, though our fund is dedicated to the telecoms industry in developing countries. The problems of course are well known — expensive, variable, and unreliable diesel, without really any good alternative. What we do is look at the operator’s current costs and lock in the same rate for a 10-year contract. We then upgrade the power equipment on the site (including RE), thereby lowering its OPEX and benefiting over the project lifetime. Because we’re making the primary energy source, diesel, the back-up, and adding RE and batteries, it’s clearly a more resilient solution as well, addressing another key concern.


Whole Foods Brooklyn

Mike: The part that appeals to me is the business model innovation of going after developing countries as a market. It will be interesting to see how that plays out as many countries have small wind generation manufacturing shops of their own, with folks reverse engineering the common designs to create adequate, local and usually very cheap offerings. As adequate eggbeater VAWT blades can be made with pretty much aluminum siding and some wire, it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Nick: Part of how we’ve been able to raise financing for this market is to separate the country risk as much as we can by targeting large telecom operators with a safe parent, often one based outside of the country our project is in. I’m sure you’ve looked at this too, but the economic returns of DRE projects in developing countries is often very strong, so it’s a nut we’ve at least partially ****, for one (sizeable but somewhat niche) market.

Mike: Once again, I continue to like UGE as a business and wish you every success. Given your model of multiple technologies as a system, it’s unclear why you wouldn’t offer a horizontal axis device as a component to people who want more output for less footprint as well as your vertical-axis device but I’m sure that’s a debate you’ve had internally many times. At least right now UGE is differentiated in part by offering the VAWT, but I suggest to you that business model and channel differentiation are now more important to your future than adherence to a singular wind generation technology.

Nick: We understand that the Cp of our vertical axis wind turbines is currently lower than that of leading horizontal axis wind turbines, though we have been making significant progress over our company’s history to increasing the efficiency and very firmly believe we have the most efficient VAWTs available, with further improvements in the works. Like you said in your article, we benefit from aesthetic and noise considerations despite the lower efficiency; we believe there are durability advantages as well, though admit that is still being proven. This is where the industry is at, and we’re happy to be able to lay the facts bare.

You mentioned in your article that we imply someone could or should place a wind turbine on top of a home. If we say this anywhere I apologize, though I don’t believe we do and would be embarrassed if so. The picture you show in the article was from a very temporary exhibition in Spain, circa 2010, that displayed the unit not unlike one would install a wind turbine indoors at a trade show.

Regarding offering a HAWT, we’ve considered it many times, and we actually offer a 10kW unit in limited volumes. We continue to consider making it a mainstay of our product offering, but for two factors. First, we wouldn’t want to design and manufacture one ourselves unless we felt very confident we could clearly differentiate ourselves in that market. Maybe we could, but it would take years and millions of funding, and we don’t think the pay-off would be there. Which leads me to the second point — unfortunately, very few of our customers are asking for it. The way the solar market is going, we are growing very fast on the solar side, but get very little interest for a horizontal axis wind turbine. We wish that wasn’t the case, but unfortunately it is. Most of our customers wouldn’t consider installing a Bergey-like wind turbine (as solid of a product as it is), but quite enjoy using our VAWTs, so we continue to focus on making that technology as strong as possible for those customers, while also investing additional R&D resources on the rest of the DRE solution, including our SeamlessGrid line of power electronics, battery storage, and site optimization software. So while not married to the VAWT technology, we are happy with how our business model is evolving, but remain open to considering other technologies down the road.

Mike: My external response to people not approaching you asking for HAWTs is that right now your brand is fairly tightly tied to the helical VAWTs. It’s in practically every picture published, it’s visually distinctive and the tiniest bit of Googling leads people to the supposed advantages of VAWTs over HAWTs (and to Gipe’s and my material on the two as well). Good marketing, but not necessarily what’s best for all of your customers. I would bet that if you replaced your graphics stock with 50:50 VAWT and HAWT instead of 100% VAWT, you would get a lot more people asking for HAWTs, or about them. After all, your real innovation isn’t the technology, although you are strongly identified with it right now. UGE really is a small renewables solutions firm whose sole wind component happens to be a VAWT. There’s a chicken-vs-egg thing here, and I think you are ignoring a big part of your potential market, but I’m also sure you’ve had these debates a million times.

To your point on solar, while I’m the wind guy, I recommend solar before wind (and efficiency before either) for most people and small businesses. Solar does extremely well distributed virtually everywhere, while wind is much more constrained in terms of useful wind resources.

To your point about building vs OEMing, I get asked fairly often about how to become a manufacturer of small wind turbines, and I invariably answer, “Don’t.” OEM them and build your own distribution and installation firm, or become part of the distribution channel of an existing company. Designing a new small wind turbine in the USA for manufacturing is a route to bankruptcy, not riches. The products are stable, refined and mostly commodotized. It’s the business model that differentiates these days. There are good choices out there. Given your success, I wouldn’t be surprised to see an outright acquisition strategy at some point.

Nick: Completely agree. On issues like noise, selling a HAWT, etc., it’s clear you know the industry extremely well  as you touch on many of the same points we have mulled (and continue to) over the years. In terms of what the future may hold, I look forward to discussing further and keeping you updated! Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/21/draft-discussion-article/#LhTrqaQxV0LWJcIk.99

  

Agelbert NOTE: A HUGE part of the Renewable Energy ANSWER is BLOWIN' IN THE WIND.

China Boosts Offshore Wind Power Development 
   

 Liu Yuanyuan, International Correspondent 
 May 22, 2014  |  1 Comments 

BEIJING -- China has taken steps to accelerate the development of its offshore wind power industry in a bid to increase the installed capacity beyond its 428.6 MW installed at the end of 2013.


Some industry analysts expressed pessimism concerning the offshore wind power sector in China as the industry has experienced slow progress with only 39 MW in installed capacity added last year, a year-on-year decline of 69 percent. However, the China National Renewable Energy Centre (CNREC) said that a number of new offshore wind farms are scheduled to kick off within this year, including the 100-MW Phase II expansion project of Don ghai Bridge in Shanghai and China Lon gyuan Power Group’ (Lon gyuan) Nanri Island project already under construction in Fujian province. Two projects are also under contruction in Jiangsu province: China General Nuclear Power Group's new offshore project in Rud ong on track to start construction in the second half of this year and Lon gyuan's windmill project in Dafeng.

In early 2014, the National Energy Administration (NEA) issued a Notice on Developing Offshore Wind Power Projects selecting Shanghai as well as Fujian and Zhejiang provinces as the locations for the country’s key pilot construction projects for offshore wind power. The Shanghai government announced in early May new initiatives to boost support for its new and renewable energy sectors, providing subsidies of 0.1 yuan per kWh for onshore wind power projects and 0.2 yuan per kWh for offshore wind farms. However, some industry analysts expressed concerns about the impact of regional subsidies on the nationwide feed-in tariff for offshore wind projects.

The rapid growth of the Chinese offshore wind power sector requires a rational and clear tariff structure, allowing offshore wind farm developers to have realistic expectations of what the return on their offshore wind power investments should be and in turn, boost the development of the whole sector, according to analysts.

The NEA and the pricing department of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) have been in ongoing discussions concerning the tariff rates for offshore wind farms and expect to issue the rates within this year.

An industry expert at NDRC indicated that the combined capacity of approved offshore wind farms in China, including intertidal projects, has exceeded 4,000 MW. The combined capacity of offshore wind projects scheduled to start construction by 2015 will exceed 300 MW, according to data from CNREC.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) said in early May that it will allocate up to $141 million to three pioneering offshore wind demonstration projects over the next four years to help speed up the deployment of more efficient offshore wind power technologies. Benefiting from the support for offshore wind projects in the U.S., Fishermen's Energy's 25MW offshore windmill backed by Xiangtan Electric Manufacturing, a China-based electrical equipment manufacturer, won a US$4 million grant from the DOE, subject to regulatory approvals.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/china-boosts-development-of-offshore-wind-power

1 Comment

Add Your Comment
 
 A. G. Gelbert   
 May 22, 2014 

The rapid growth of the Chinese offshore wind power sector requires a rational and clear tariff structure, something the Chinese are serious and methodical about because they are clear eyed about what the future holds if they do not make sure ALL renewable energy technologies achieve the goal, and achieve it SOON, of total demand destruction for fossil fuels. That's what the USA can't seem to understand.

This is NOT about replacing an inferior technology for harvesting energy with a superior and cheaper technology; this is about Homo sapiens survival. The Chinese understand this. If only the USA did. We have, in the USA, the stupidest, most suicidal energy policy on the planet.

I hope the Chinese pull the plug on the building of coal power plants, decommission built ones and embrace Amory Lovins' accurate assessment of industrial civilization that with efficiency increases in the energy production technology from power source to consumer, over 90% of the wasted energy can be eliminated and we can power ALL the needs of present industrial civilization with only 10% of what we now use. It's called NEGAWATTS and it is REAL. Why? Because a 5 to 10% efficiency increase (easily achievable with modern technology) in the transmission and/or generation of power has a multiplicative effect when it reaches the consumer. A 5% efficiency increase at the generation source EQUALS over 70% energy saving at the consumer. That is why the consumer savings, so far, have had such a small effect on fossil fuel demand. That HAS to change. Amory Lovins knows how to do that and has been doing it for several years.

I think China gets it. Our US (s)elected (by the fossil fuel oligarchy) "representatives" don't. 

Offshore wind power to grow six-fold, boosting turbine makers, HSBC says                 


Offshore wind power is set to grow six-fold by 2020, benefiting turbine makers including Vestas Wind Systems (VWDRY, VWSYF) and Gamesa Tecnologica (GCTAF), HSBC says.

Total global installed capacity of wind turbines at sea is forecast to rise to 43 gw by 2020 from 6.5 gw at the end of 2013, with the U.K., China and Germany the biggest offshore wind markets, according to HSBC.

The opportunity for manufacturers justifies a strategic long-term focus on the offshore segment, the firm advises; after 2015, “the rapid growth in offshore installations becomes a key to driving growth in wind technology."

http://seekingalpha.com/news/1720763-offshore-wind-power-to-grow-six-fold-boosting-turbine-makers-hsbc-says

Friday, June 06, 2014

JAPAN WIND SETS ITS TARGET 50% HIGHER

Japan Wind Lobby Boosts Wind Capacity Target by Half   

Chisaki Watanabe, May 30, 2014 (Bloomberg News)

“…[As the country expands its use of clean energy, The Japan Wind Power Association revised the target for wind power capacity by half to 75 gigawatts by fiscal 2050] from a previous goal of 50 gigawatts…Under the new target, Japan’s onshore wind capacity should increase to 38 gigawatts by fiscal 2050…Offshore wind will make up the rest from bottom-fixed turbines as well as from floating turbines…Japan is gearing up to increase renewables, starting an incentive program in July 2012 that pays above-market rates for clean-energy producers. So far, solar makes up most of the added capacity since the program began…In fiscal 2010, the country had about 2.5 gigawatts of wind capacity, mostly onshore…”

http://newenergynews.blogspot.com/2014/06/japan-wind-sets-its-target-50-higher.html

Global Wind Energy Day
 

By Mary Coday Edwards
Colorado Voices

Updated:   06/14/2014 11:09:24 PM MDT

NEXTera Energy wind farm, pictured (at link) in 2013, has 250 wind turbines that dot the landscape north of Limon. (Helen H. Richardson, The Denver Post)

June 15 is Global Wind Energy Day. As Colorado is a world leader in wind energy production, it is not only fitting to tout our success, but to encourage its further production.

Colorado's installed capacity of 1,530 turbines produces 2,332 megawatts of electricity, or 13.8 percent of the state's electricity, and powers the equivalent of more than 870,000 average Colorado homes. But according to the American Wind Energy Association, the state has the 13th best wind resource in the nation, and this wind power has the potential of meeting more than 24 times the state's current electricity needs.

With 19 manufacturing facilities, Colorado's wind industry provides employment for about 5,000 workers.  This is set to increase when NextEra Energy Resources completes its wind farm 28 miles east of Colorado Springs. That facility is scheduled to come on line by late 2015.

What's holding Colorado back from developing this renewable energy resource to its full potential? At least two things: the untruth that only renewables are subsidized; and that damages incurred to the natural environment in energy production are borne by society — not the energy producers and its consumers.

The Production Tax Credit for wind farms expired at the end of 2013, and Colorado Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet are asking for a 10-year extension of the program. A bill that would have provided about $13 billion for wind energy stalled in the Senate on May 15, amid cries of "corporate welfare" from its opponents.

Nick Loris with the conservative Heritage Foundation told the Washington Free Beacon that "taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill to help it [wind energy] remain economically viable." He said the subsidy is equal to "shifting labor and capital around to 'politically preferred sectors of the economy.' "

However, the Free Beacon avoided anymention of the $4 billion in annual tax breaks — otherwise known as subsidies — to the fossil fuel industry. Nor did it include reports on the cumulative dollar amounts, over the lifetimes of their respective subsidies, at about $630 billion in the U.S. for oil, coal, gas and nuclear industries, while the renewable energy sector (wind, solar and biofuels) received roughly $70 billion.

In other words, let's end that $4 billion in annual subsidies for the fossil fuel sector. After all, if the sector's viable, it can stand alone.

However, Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports that even without the subsidy, the cost of wind energy has declined by 42 percent over the past four years as technology has improved. 

Our society doesn't put a price on our water supplies or our clean air. Nuclear and fossil fuel producers pollute and consume these resources to nonsustainable levels, and then these damages are externalized and borne by society at large.

Thermoelectric power plants fueled by coal, natural gas, oil and nuclear fission all boil water to produce steam, which then turns a turbine that generates the electricity. This water comes from our streams, lakes and rivers, with the power plants also drawing in and killing millions of fish per year. After the water passes through the turbine, more water is needed to cool the steam back into water for reuse. Nationwide, electricity production is the largest user of water.

Coloradans deserve an honest discussion of the state's wind power potential as well as its benefits to society and to our natural environment. Let's not be hijacked by those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry.

Mary Coday Edwards is a former newspaper editor and member of the 2014 Colorado Voices panel.

http://www.denverpost.com/voices/ci_25958285/global-wind-energy-day