RenewableS 2013 GlObal STaTUS RePORT - REN21

Global Wind Turbine OEM Market Leader,” press release (Chicago,
IL: 11 February 2013). For example, Suzlon (India) plans to build in
Brazil and South Africa, per BNEF, “Star shines bright for China as
Europe’s subsidies fade,” Energy: Week in Review, 9–16 July 2012.
81 Package deals from Stephan Nielsen, “China Grabs Share in
Latin America Wind with Cheap Loans,” Bloomberg.com, 20
November 2012; subsidiaries and partnerships from Elisa
Wood, “China Focuses on Overseas Wind Partnerships,”
RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 2 October 2012.
82 Navigant’s BTM Consult, op. cit. note 80.
83 Longer blades and lower wind speeds from David Appleyard,
“Turbine Tech Turn Up: Machines for an Evolving Market,”
RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 19 June 2012. Concrete is cheaper
than steel and can be manufactured locally; Enercon has
manufactured its own concrete rings for several years, and JUWI
and Acconia Windpower are starting to opt for concrete, using
it in Spain, Latin America, and United States. Concrete has the
potential to reduce tower costs by 30–40%, from Crispin Aubrey,
“Towers: Concrete Challenges Steel,” Wind Directions, September
2012, pp. 48–50, and from AWEA, op. cit. note 13; carbon fibre
for blades from David Appleyard and Dan Shreve, “Wind Turbine
Blades,” Renewable Energy World, March-April 2012, p. 8.
84 Gamesa, “Gamesa launches a new turbine, the G114-2.0 MW:
maximum returns for low-wind sites,” press release (Vizcaya,
Spain: 12 April 2012); Suzlon 2.1 MW S111 low-wind turbine from
David Appleyard, “New Turbine Technology: Key Players On- and
Offshore,” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 11 April 2013; GE, “GE
Developing Wind Blades That Could Be the “Fabric” of Our Clean
Energy Future,” press release (Niskayuna, NY: 28 November
2012). Turbines for low-wind sites have enabled capacity factors
to be maintained, or even raised, even as less-ideal wind resource
sites are developed.
85 Automated from James Lawson, “Blade Materials,” Renewable
Energy World, Wind Technology Supplement, May-June 2012, pp.
5–6; shift back from Navigant’s BTM Consult, op. cit. note 80.
86 Average size delivered to market (based on measured rated
capacity) was 1,847 kW in 2012, up an average 170 kW over 2011,
from Navigant’s BTM Consult, op. cit. note 1.
87 Germany from MERCOM, op. cit. note 60; Denmark (3,080 kW),
United States (1,930 kW), China (1,646 kW), and India (1,229 kW)
from Navigant’s BTM Consult, op. cit. note 1.
88 Offshore Europe’s increase based on 3.5 MW average size turbine
connected to the grid during 2011 from EWEA, The European
Offshore Wind Industry: Key 2011 Trends and Statistics (Brussels:
January 2012), p. 15; and on 4 MW average in 2012 from EWEA,
The European Offshore Wind Industry – Key Trends and Statistics
2012 (Brussels: January 2013), p. 3; 31 countries from EWEA,
idem, p. 4.
89 Most manufacturers and 7.5 GW from JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports, op. cit. note 63. Note that Siemens introduced a 6 MW
direct-drive machine for the offshore market in 2011, and Vestas
and Mitsubishi announced production of 7 MW machines, while
Enercon is offering a 7.5 MW machine exclusively for on-shore use.
Vestas has a multi-stage gear drive, and Mitsubishi a hydraulic
drive, per Steve Sawyer, GWEC, technology contribution to REN21,
March 2012; Enercon from “E-126 / 7.5 MW,” www.enercon.de/
en-en/66.htm; Stefan Gsänger, WWEA, personal communication
with REN21, May 2012. Even larger turbines based on Siemens
testing a 6 MW machine and considering developing a 10 MW
turbine, from Stefan Nicola and Gelu Sulugiuc, “Vestas and
Mitsubishi Planning to Build Biggest Offshore Wind Turbine,”
Bloomberg, 27 November 2012, at www.renewableenergyworld.
com; Vestas announced plans to develop an 8 MW machine with
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and DONG Energy for offshore use,
from idem, and from Vestas, “DONG Energy advances its involvement
in Vestas’ prototype testing of the V164-8.0 MW turbine in
Østerild” (Aarhus: 11 December 2011).
90 “REpower Commissions its Tallest Wind Turbine,” Renewable
Energy Focus, July/August 2012, p. 10; also getting higher from
AWEA, cited in David Shaffer, “Wind Farm Towers Rise to New
Heights, With More Power,” IndependentMail.com, 12 September
2012; “Siemens Unveils ‘World’s Longest’ Wind Turbine Blade,”
RenewableEnergyFocus.com, 14 June 2012.
91 In Europe, average water depth for new wind farms was slightly
lower than in 2011, but these trends continue in general, from
EWEA, op. cit. note 88.
92 Yoshinori Ueda, Japan Wind Energy Association and Japan
Wind Power Association, personal communication with REN21,
14 February 2013. The United States and United Kingdom
announced plans in 2012 to develop floating offshore turbines, per
“Wind Updates – UK-US Boost Floating Tech,” Renewable Energy
World, Wind Technology Supplement, May-June 2012, p. 20.
93 EWEA, op. cit. note 88, p. 3.
94 Frank Wright, “Offshore Potential – Five Years to Grow
Offshore Wind,” Renewable Energy World, September-October
2012, pp. 85–88. Korea’s largest ship builders—including
Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering, Hyundai Heavy
Industries, Samsung Heavy Industries, and STX shipbuilding—are
moving onto wind power, building five installation
vessels for offshore wind facilities, per Korea Wind Energy
Industry Association, cited in “Korea Shifts to a Wind Energy
Powerhouse,” 27 June 2012, at www.evwind.es/2012/06/27/
korea-shifts-to-a-wind-energy-powerhouse/19402/.
95 Pike Research, op. cit. note 51. By the end of 2011, more than
330 manufacturers around the world offered commercial systems
and more than 300 companies supplied parts and services, per
WWEA, op. cit. note 49.
96 WWEA, op. cit. note 49.
97 Natalie Obiko Pearson, “RRB Energy Targets African Market with
Smaller Wind Turbines,” Bloomberg, 24 July 2012,
at www.renewableenergyworld.com.
98 Bayar, op. cit. note 45.
99 Table 2 based on the following:
POWER SECTOR
Bio-power: Bioenergy levelised costs of energy for power
generation vary widely with costs of biomass feedstock (typically
USD 0.50–9/GJ), complexity of technologies, plant capacity
factor, size of plant, co-production of useful heat (CHP), regional
differences for labour costs, life of plant (typically 30 years),
discount rate (typically 7%), etc. In some non-OECD countries,
lack of air emission regulations for boilers means capital costs are
lower due to lack of control equipment. So before developing a
new bioenergy plant, individual cost analysis is essential. Details
of cost analyses can be found at: IRENA, Renewable Power
Generation Costs in 2012 – An Overview (Abu Dhabi: 2013);
Frankfurt School – UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate &
Sustainable Energy Finance and Bloomberg New Energy Finance
(BNEF), Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012
(Frankfurt: 2012); O. Edenhofer et al., eds. IPCC Special Report on
Renewable Energy Resources and Climate Change Mitigation,
prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (Cambridge, U.K. and New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2011); Joint Research Centre of the European
Commission (JRC), 2011 Technology Roadmap of the European
Strategic Energy Technology Plan (Petten, The Netherlands: 2011).
Geothermal power: Capacity factor and per kWh costs from
Edenhofer et al., op. cit. this note, pp. 425–26 and 1004–06. Cost
ranges are for greenfield projects, at a capacity factor of 74.5%, a
27.5-year economic design lifetime, assuming a discount rate of
7%, and using the lowest and highest investment cost, respectively;
capital cost range was derived from Edenhofer et al.,
(condensing flash: USD 2,110–4,230; binary: USD 2,470–6,100)
and from worldwide ranges (condensing flash: USD 2,075–4,150;
and binary: USD 2,480–6,060) for 2009 from C.J. Bromley, et al.,
“Contribution of geothermal energy to climate change mitigation:
The IPCC renewable energy report,” in Proceedings World
Geothermal Congress 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 25–30 April 2010, at
www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0225.
pdf. (All monetary units converted from USD 2005 to USD 2012
dollars.) IRENA estimates the LCOE of a typical project to be USD
0.09–0.14/kWh, per IRENA, op. cit. this note, p. 17. In 2010, the
International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated the LCOE of a binary
plant to be USD 0.08–0.11/kWh, per IEA Energy Technology
Systems Analysis Programme, Geothermal Heat and Power,
Technology Brief E07 (Paris: May 2010), Table 5.
Hydropower: Characteristics based on Edenhofer et al., op. cit.
this note, and on Arun Kumar, Alternate Hydro Energy Centre,
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, personal communication
with REN21, March 2012. For grid-based projects, capital cost
ranges and LCOE for new plants of any size provided in table are
from IEA, Deploying Renewables: Best and Future Policy Practice
(Paris: 2011). Note that Edenhofer et al., op. cit. this note,
estimates capital costs in the range of USD 1,175–3,500, and
LCOE in the range USD 0.021–0.129/kWh assuming a 7%
discount rate. IRENA notes a LCOE range of USD 0.012–0.19/kWh
for projects larger than 1 MW, with 80% of evaluated projects in
the range of USD 0.018–0.085/kWh, and a median of
02
Renewables 2013 Global Status Report 161