| From: Eric | 11/16/2024 6:28:35 AM | | | | | | We need to get the cost of wind energy down in Australia – Chinese turbines are the likely answer
Cranes move components at the Stockyard Hill Wind Farm (Credit: Goldwind).
David Leitch
Nov 15, 2024
12
Commentary
Wind
Vestas is the world’s largest non-Chinese wind turbine supplier. Incredibly, Australia represents the biggest share of its forward order book.
Think about that. Despite Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, despite not many projects getting to FID (financial close) in Australia, we are the largest share of the world’s largest non-Chinese turbine suppliers order book.
Recently. Vestas achieved a confirmed order in Australia for the 342 MW Lotus Creek Wind farm South of Mackay in Queensland, owned by the government owned CS Energy. The project cost is stated at $1.3 billion.
- Goldwind is the largest Chinese wind turbine supplier and its total forward order book is double the size of Vestas. Its domestic turbine prices are more than 20 per cent cheaper than Vestas turbines. In terms of installed turbines, Australia is – by a whisker, with an installed based of 1GW – still the largest offshore base for Goldwind. Goldwind, however, doesn’t seem to have many new orders in Australia.
Given that Goldwind turbines are lower cost and, in my opinion, their costs are driven by learning rate impacts and will continue to come down, I wonder whether Australian developers shouldn’t give Chinese turbine suppliers more of a go.
It’s not like the Vestas stuff is perfect. There are other suppliers, of course; both other European companies and GE in the US. GE, though, is likely to focus mostly on its home country, and one of Australia’s biggest wind farm developers, the French-based Neoen, was not flattering in its assessment of the western turbine suppliers, and indicated it is looking at China.
See: “Not always a great quality:” Leading wind developer may switch from western to Chinese turbines
There is a potential opportunity for Australia, because I believe China has excess capacity at the moment, it’s already largely locked out of the US market and could well be locked out further post the US election.
Australia is geographically quite close to China and we have very strong trade relationships with it. Australia actually holds the upper hand with China when it comes to commodities because of iron ore, but we also export a good share of our LNG production to China. Of course, we import a bunch of stuff as well.
When interest rates were low, Australia could have done far more infrastructure investment than we actually did do. It was an opportunity missed.
Right now we can access all the wind turbines, all the solar panels, all the batteries, all the EVs we want from a willing seller. Let’s not waste the opportunity. Let’s put the foot down now while the opportunity is there and go hard.
I am not an advocate for China’s politics. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in such a restrictive political system, but as far as trade goes it seems well to Australia’s benefit to buy when the opportunity is there.
Equally, we need to get the cost of wind energy down in Australia. The landed cost of turbines is about 60% of the total cost of a wind farm. Getting that cost down 20% would represent a 12% reduction in total costs. The second biggest cost is probably the combination of grid connection and the associated typically very negative MLF. But that’s for later analysis.
Australia is expensive, it’s time to go down the cost curve Some work I have been doing on levelised cost of energy (LCOE) estimates from various respected commentators leads me to think that wind development in Australia is relatively expensive by global standards.
The reasons for these different estimates can be hard to pin down but, by and large, the wind resource and the land payment cost in Australia (estimated at say A$60k per turbine per year) are globally competitive and there is no reason to expect the capital cost of the turbine in $US is any different in Australia to what it is in South America.
So, I expect that much of the cost difference is due to things like connection costs, planning costs and delays, and labour, concrete, road access and so on. One thing I do think makes a difference is whether to build your wind farm on flat land or on a ridge. Crane costs are likely to be a lot higher on ridges, but this is just speculation.
LCOE/Internal rate of return (IRR)/Net present value (NPV) models of a generic description are available from a range of sources.
These include the NREL Annual Technology Baseline, which provides good documentation of assumptions but which is USA based. Lazards also produces a similar USA based analysis but with less assumption discussion. IRENA produces an understandably global report
In Australia, the most well known and heavily analysed report is the CSIRO Gencost report. However, in my opinion, the CSIRO diminished the reliability of its report by trying to include system LCOE as well as asset LCOE data.
In addition, investment banks and many others produce asset and/or project-specific NPV analysis.
However, the estimates of LCOE and inputs show considerable variation. In the following table, where an organisation has provided two or more estimates of a parameter, I have taken a simple average of the high and the low. Figures presented in $US have been converted to $A at 1.43.
Vestas turbine achieved prices are up 10%
Note I have left the new project data but in fact Vestas new orders were stated in the Quarterly p10 as:
Orders exceeded deliveries in the quarter and concentrated in EMEA and Americas.
Vestas has a pipeline of 28 GW, most of which is in APAC, and Vestas states its three largest pipelines are Australia, USA and Brazil. So Australia is the biggest global market for Vestas at present. However, there wasn’t much growth in the pipeline in the quarter.
Vestas’ profitability has improved and the company has low levels of debt. Cashflow is better than last year but was negatively impacted by working capital adjustments. The company is still working out some loss-making business. Vestas states that those loss-making contracts will be completed in the current quarter.
Goldwind has double the Vestas pipeline and cheaper turbines Unfortunately, who ever was responsible for the English-language presentation of Goldwind’s Q3 results forgot to put any currency numbers on the following figure. Still, I assume the quoted construction cost for China in 2023 is $US986/KW.
If I convert the US$ numbers to A$, it’s a construction cost in China of $A1410 (about half the cost of fully constructed and connected plant in Australia) and the LCOE is $A38/MWh. Those numbers are materially less than the NREL estimate for the USA and the IRENA global estimate. Obviously they are less than 50% of the cost of wind in Australia.
On price, Goldwind shows the bid price into China’s bidding system.
These numbers are shown in RMB per kW. For a capacity factor of 25% and 30 years of lifetime that amounts, on my arithmetic, to a subsidy of about $A5/MWh but my arithmetic is not very good. I guess the real point is it’s falling a little bit.
So assuming Goldwind’s numbers are accurate there are two implications:
– Australia will not be competitive with China in an electricity system dominated by wind.
– Australia needs to work on getting its wind costs down. I’d argue that one way to do that is to use the Chinese expertise.
Goldwind states China installed 39 GW in the first 9 months of the year, that’s 1 GW a week. Wind capacity factor was (1134/8760)*2=26% which is not all that bad. Australia could do quite a bit better if one was to ignore MLFs and curtailment.
Goldwind sold nearly 10 GW of turbines in the first 9 months of the year and about 57% of that was 6 MW or larger. Total backlog, conceptually a firmer measure than the Vestas pipeline, is 44 GW, of which 73% is 6 MW. More importantly, the firm order backlog was 29 GW. And more importantly still, 5.5 GW of new orders were ex China
Unlike Vestas, Goldwind is geared with $A11.7 billion of debt. Deeply regrettably I don’t read Chinese, but to the best of my ability I cannot find where Goldwind reports depreciation in its quarterly data.
Operating income, an American concept, close to the Australian concept of EBIT (earnings before interest and tax) was $A7.7 billion for the 9 months, let’s say $A10 billion for the year and I estimate EBITDA (earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation) at, let’s say, $A11 billion. That’s a debt:ebitda ratio of around 1, which is reasonably ok and compares to Vestas quite closely.
Note: This article has been corrected. I confused Vestas new projects with Vestas orders (backlog). I apologise for the error. The revised text shows the new orders corrects some incorrect inference about the relative importance of Australia to Vestas.
Vestas unfulfilled orders are concentrated in EMEA and USA and certainly not Australia. Additionally since I am making the correction readers might note some feedback from the earlier version. “The Goldwind turbine is indeed cheaper and cheaper to maintain but is expensive to erect. Goldwind towers are much heavier and use more steel.”
reneweconomy.com.au |
| | Wind Power | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Eric | 11/20/2024 3:13:14 PM | | | | | | World’s largest onshore wind turbine powers up for first time
Image Credit: Sany
Joshua S Hill
Nov 19, 2024
3
Renewables
Wind
Chinese wind energy giant Sany Renewable Energy has reportedly powered up the world’s largest onshore wind turbine, a 15 megawatt (MW) behemoth capable of powering 160,000 households with turbine blades nearly the length of the Melbourne Cricket Ground.
Sany Renewable Energy successfully hoisted its 15MW wind turbine back in early October, breaking two world records as it did so, as it is the world’s largest single-unit capacity turbine and the largest rotor diameter for an onshore turbine.
The imaginatively named SI-270150 boasts a rotor diameter of 270 meters and blades measuring 131 metres in length – which rolled off the production line earlier this year.
For comparison, a single blade could be laid down the length of the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) and there would be less than 15 metres spare on each end before you run into the goalposts.
Image: Sany
The three turbine blades, however, boast a massive 57,256 square meters – nearly three times the area of the MCG’s playing surface.
According to several reports this week, Sany Renewable Energy announced on Sunday that it had powered up the SI-270150, marking yet another milestone for the company.
reneweconomy.com.au |
| | Wind Power | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Eric | 11/24/2024 8:30:14 AM | | | | | | “Wild idea:” Could zeppelins really be used to air-ship huge wind turbine parts?
Image: Flying Whales
Rachel Williamson
Nov 22, 2024
4
Renewables
It’s an intriguing vision for the future of renewable energy. Giant white blimps slipping silently through the air carrying containers of solar panels, or, more likely, wind turbine blades which are expensive and devilishly tricky to move by road.
One of the biggest logistical challenges for renewable energy projects – and wind farms in particular – is the task of transporting heavy towers and turbine planes from ports to the project sites.
And finding a solution to this is the aim of French company Flying Whales, founded by entrepreneur Sébastien Bougon, who has already established bases in France and Canada and is now looking at opportunities in Australia.
“We looked at the market in Australia and there was a fantastic surprise, how much you are revamping your energy generation and energy network,” Bougon told Renew Economy.
“What we do today is work with all players to look at their business cases. For instance, wind farms in Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland or in Western Australia, and work with those companies to check out the technical feasibility, to check out the financial feasibility, and to confirm that when we [start operations in] 2028, everything is OK.”
Bougon is focused on metrics like the huge numbers of turbine blades needing to be installed in Queensland alone – as many as 40,000 in the coming year. Mt Isa in Queensland’s north-west has already been announced as one of the company’s six operations sites, with a second site imminent.
Bougon also sees opportunity in new and replacement transmission infrastructure along Australia’s strung out grid. A helicopter can carry 5 tonnes of weight, or a fifth of a transmission tower.
Bougon says one of his airships could carry the whole thing – in a cargo hold inside the “belly of the whale” or attached to the bottom if it’s more than 100m long – to a remote site fully assembled, and do it more cheaply.
Flying Whales is yet to take ownership of a completed model; engineering is complete, testing is underway, assembly is next and the first airship – a 200m long behemoth called LCA60T – will be ready in 2026 for certification.
Cutting out road transportation could improve project economics, says aviation researcher Craig Neal, who wrote a paper on the feasibility of heavy airship transport in 2016.
“Using airships to move renewable energy equipment is definitely feasible,” he told Renew Economy.
“What’s attractive with airships is they can make the actual transportation much simpler. It’s extremely complicated, takes a lot of planning, there is a lot of cost involved, and it’s very slow.”
But there are also some big question marks over critical details.
A wind industry source from a large global company suggested that airships would require their own set of infrastructure, such as a suitable lay-down ‘airport’ area with a tethering tower and a similar set-up at port, and all would need to be approved by aviation regulator CASA.
And as another pointed out, wind sites tend to be windy.
Figuring out how to deal with an aircraft that is lighter than air to deliver equipment to those areas could be the sticking point in any future featuring blimps.
Wind farms are windy
“Wow, incredible. It’s a pretty wild idea,” were the first comments out of the mouth of Stromlo Energy cofounder Garth Heron when asked about the prospect of airship deliveries.
Airships wouldn’t be suitable for moving a giant 477 tonne grid transformer, like the one needed for the Waratah Super Battery in New South Wales (NSW), although the third iteration of a model proposed by US company AT2 Aero could carry up to 450 tonnes.
But Heron points out that shipping wind turbine blades by air could be more dangerous than other methods.
“The component that they will be thinking of moving that are the most difficult to move are things like turbine blades,” he told Renew Economy.
‘What wind turbines are very good at is catching wind. [So] on the safety aspects they would have some incredible challenges.”
Heron says the amount of movement that can happen even when lifting a blade from the ground with a crane is “quite scary”, so safety while loading and unloading is the biggest problem an airlifted blade would pose for airship transportation.
Another wind industry source says deliveries would be reliant on wind speeds on the day, potentially making airship deliveries less reliable than the more laborious road method.
While some companies are proposing models that are loaded while on the ground, Flying Whales’ method is to use a “sling” to lift and lower cargo into an airship’s hold while in the air.
Bougon acknowledges the concerns around wind and reliability, but says they have built in safeguards against this as part of the original design brief.
“Our airship is actually a flying crane and when a crane installs blades on masts there can’t be a lot of wind, so it’s exactly the same for us,” he says.
The wind speed limitation while loading is the same as for a helicopter, of 40km/hour, if a helicopter was doing the same job. The wind speed limit a Flying Whales airship could take during flight is 100km/hour, he says.
The whole thing is stabilised with 4 megawatts (MW) of engines placed around the airship.
“We have 4 MW of embedded power around the airship [in] 32 electrical engines [powering] 32 propellers in order to stabilise it and ensure perfect behaviour,” Bougon says.
“Electric engines can distribute the forces all around and you can stablise the drone much easier than it’s exactaly the same as the aisrship, as soon as we could have electrical engines,… we could have complete stabilisation.
“It’s the evolution of the electric propellers and engines that could make drones happen, that could make this large airship feasible in terms of stabilisation when you load and unload.”
Other challenges also abound, such as the issue of variable buoyancy.
This is where an airship needs to account for the change in weight during drop off and pick up of loads. Releasing helium – priced at $35/cubic metre – isn’t feasible.
Flying Whales plans to carry up to 60T of water as ballast, while LA-based Aeros has developed a compression system, where helium is compressed and released inside the airship depending on the need.
Get rid of roads
If airshippers can convince renewables developers of their safety, they will then be able to appeal to their wallets: cutting out some tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in road upgrades between ports and sites.
“The issue is really about the cost of the road upgrade. That’s the problem this could potentially solve,” Heron says.
Logjams on roads is an issue that wind developers in Queensland are already worried about.
A report last year into wind equipment transportation by the Queensland Transport and Logistics Council outlined just how complicated the process is to move very heavy items from port, through towns and into regional areas.
“QTLC members have raised concerns regarding inefficiencies and constraints in current wind farm development processes, from the initial development application process through to the transportation of componentry and materials,’ the report said.
“If nothing is done, with the increase in wind farm projects coming online, these inefficiencies and constraints have the potential to significantly impact wind farm project delivery and increase costs.”
| Model | Payload | Cargo dimensions | | Flying Whales LCA60T | 60T | 96m long x 8m high x 7m wide | | Hybrid Air Vehicles Airlander 10 | 10T | N/A | | AT2 Aerospace Z3 | 453T | N/A | | Atlas LTA Advanced Technology ALANT 300 | 165T | 51.5m long x 8.7 high x 14 wide | | Euro Airship | 10T – 400T | N/A |
Examples of the size of airships being proposed today.
Heavy lifters Flying Whales is the only airship proponent seriously targeting Australia as yet, but it’s not the only company out there.
Hybrid Air Vehicles in the UK has already built and tested its pilot “flying bum” airship.
Also in the UK are SkyLifter, Varialift Airships and Aeromechanics.
Lockheed Martin spun its airship division out into AT2 Aerospace in the US, while Aeros, Blimp Works and Solar Ship are also based in North America. Israel has Atlas LTA Advanced Technology, Argentina has Aero Vehicles and France also has Euro Airship.
Image: Hybrid Air Vehicles. The so-called “flying bum” Airlander 10.
Economics might stack up Aviation researcher Neal speculated in his 2016 paper that airships would be doing the heavy lifting in Australia by 2020.
He says today the reason why that forecast didn’t happen is money.
“I think it’s been the age old story of investment. The funding has always been the issue,” he says.
“When Boeing developed the Boeing 787 [Dreamliner] it was some phenomenal amount of money they spent, something like $35 billion or something. If you had a fraction of that money going into airships we’d have different models running.”
Neal’s 2016 research focused purely on the economics of what airships might be useful for, and said the oversize overmass (OSOM) market was where gains could be made.
“They have the ability to vertically takeoff and land like a helicopter; to operate over long distances; and to carry vast cargo loads in terms of weight, volume and dimensions. Yet, depending upon the size and model of cargo airship, their cost per freight tonne kilometer (FTK) may be at a comparable cost to general road freight and significantly cheaper than current air freight,” he wrote at the time.
“The nature of the item being transported, the level of difficulty in the route taken, time of year, weather conditions and many other variables can make the level of planning and coordination required for these movements highly resource intensive.
“To date there hasn’t been a practical alternative to get an OSOM item to site, as rail and traditional air (both fixed wing aircraft and rotary wing) have limitations which make their employment unfeasible.”
reneweconomy.com.au |
| | Wind Power | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Eric | 12/19/2024 3:17:03 PM | | | | | | “A weapon for deep sea wind power:” Goldwind rolls out first 22MW offshore turbine
Image Credit: Goldwind
Joshua S Hill
Dec 18, 2024
Renewables
Wind
Chinese wind turbine manufacturing titan Goldwind has completed production of its first 22MW turbine, which is expected to be installed at an offshore wind farm in the first quarter of 2025.
Goldwind launched the new generation of 22MW offshore wind turbines from its manufacturing base in Shantou on the east coast of China in the province of Guangdong.
Designed specifically for deep-sea areas of between 50 to 70 metres, such as those off Guangdong, the 22MW turbine features a rotor diameter of 300 metres and blades measuring 147 metres with a wind-swept area of 70,000 square metres.
The turbine will reportedly be shipped out for commercial operation at an unnamed offshore project off the coast of the southeast province of Fujian.
Goldwind says the the 22MW unit has undergone more than 2,000 rigorous tests covering materials, components, subsystems, and has stronger adaptability and control capabilities in deep sea environments.
“Compared with the previous generation of models, the 22MW unit can further reduce the project’s levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by approximately 7 per cent to 10 per cent, becoming a ‘weapon’ to promote the high-quality development of deep-sea wind power,” said Fan Yanbin, assistant general manager of Goldwind’s Product and Solutions Center
Goldwind’s Shantou facility is expected to be capable of an annual production capacity of 3GW, though it is unclear exactly which turbine this production capacity refers to.
reneweconomy.com.au |
| | Wind Power | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Eric | 1/11/2025 8:24:21 AM | | | | | | Green Energy
Electrek Green Energy Brief
EGEB
Wind power
Offshore wind power
Europe’s wind power hits 20%, but 3 challenges stall progress
Michelle Lewis | Jan 10 2025 - 2:17 pm PT
14 Comments
Image: Wind
Europe Wind energy powered 20% of all electricity consumed in Europe (19% in the EU) in 2024, and the EU has set a goal to grow this share to 34% by 2030 and more than 50% by 2050.
To stay on track, the EU needs to install 30 GW of new wind farms annually, but it only managed 13 GW in 2024 – 11.4 GW onshore and 1.4 GW offshore. This is what’s holding the EU back from achieving its wind growth goals.
Three big problems holding Europe’s wind power back Europe’s wind power growth is stalling for three key reasons:
Permitting delays. Many governments haven’t implemented the EU’s new permitting rules, making it harder for projects to move forward.
Grid connection bottlenecks. Over 500 GW(!) of potential wind capacity is stuck in grid connection queues.
Slow electrification. Europe’s economy isn’t electrifying fast enough to drive demand for more renewable energy.
Brussels-based trade association WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson summed it up: “The EU must urgently tackle all three problems. More wind means cheaper power, which means increased competitiveness.”
Permitting: Germany sets the standard
Permitting remains a massive roadblock, despite new EU rules aimed at streamlining the process. In fact, the situation worsened in 2024 in many countries. The bright spot? Germany. By embracing the EU’s permitting rules — with measures like binding deadlines and treating wind energy as a public interest priority — Germany approved a record 15 GW of new onshore wind in 2024. That’s seven times more than five years ago.
If other governments follow Germany’s lead, Europe could unlock the full potential of wind energy and bolster energy security.
Grid connections: a growing crisis Access to the electricity grid is now the biggest obstacle to deploying wind energy. And it’s not just about long queues — Europe’s grid infrastructure isn’t expanding fast enough to keep up with demand. A glaring example is Germany’s 900-megawatt (MW) Borkum Riffgrund 3 offshore wind farm. The turbines are ready to go, but the grid connection won’t be in place until 2026.
This issue isn’t isolated. Governments need to accelerate grid expansion if they’re serious about meeting renewable energy targets.
Electrification: falling behind
Wind energy’s growth is also tied to how quickly Europe electrifies its economy. Right now, electricity accounts for just 23% of the EU’s total energy consumption. That needs to jump to 61% by 2050 to align with climate goals. However, electrification efforts in key sectors like transportation, heating, and industry are moving too slowly.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has tasked Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen with crafting an Electrification Action Plan. That can’t come soon enough.
More wind farms awarded, but challenges persist On a positive note, governments across Europe awarded a record 37 GW of new wind capacity (29 GW in the EU) in 2024. But without faster permitting, better grid connections, and increased electrification, these awards won’t translate into the clean energy-producing wind farms Europe desperately needs.
Investments and corporate interest
Investments in wind energy totaled €31 billion in 2024, financing 19 GW of new capacity. While onshore wind investments remained strong at €24 billion, offshore wind funding saw a dip. Final investment decisions for offshore projects remain challenging due to slow permitting and grid delays.
Corporate consumers continue to show strong interest in wind energy. Half of all electricity contracted under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) in 2024 was wind. Dedicated wind PPAs were 4 GW out of a total of 12 GW of renewable PPAs.
Read more: Renewables could meet almost half of global electricity demand by 2030 – IEA
electrek.co |
| | Wind Power | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Eric who wrote (970) | 1/16/2025 2:35:34 PM | | From: Savant | | | | Kites, not just for Kidz.... Power generation>>>
A Giant Kite That Powers Cargo Ships Without Any Fuel and replacing wind mills
Discover the revolutionary Seawing kite system, a game-changer in maritime travel. Designed to tow massive cargo ships weighing up to 165,000 tons, this 5,400-square-foot French innovation reduces fuel consumption by 20%, cutting emissions equivalent to millions of cars daily. Deploying at optimal wind altitudes, the Seawing harnesses wind power for sustainable propulsion. Beyond ships, kites like the Airborne Wind Energy System generate clean energy more efficiently than traditional wind turbines.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/a-giant-kite-that-powers-cargo-ships-without-any-fuel/vi-AA1xjtOv?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=13282e79bc0b482082c5b25eca7234b4&ei=21 |
| | Wind Power | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
