Display:
But manufacturers of wind turbines have not been able to increase production to meet demand.

This sounds fishy, to say the least. The Swedish boom is dwarfed by previous booms in Germany, Spain or the USA. Especially the latter, where the problems with PTC (production tax credit), i.e. that Congress would always be late to extend it every two years, meant that new installations would fluctuate by more than a thousand turbines from year to year. Maybe they mean some small Swedish producers? Or have they failed to speak about a worldwideboom that put strain on producers?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 06:39:16 AM EST
A part of the article I didn't translate talks about the worldwide boom straining manufacturers. There is also a part about a Swedish company which can't increase production enough to satisfy demand. I think a larger problem might be the lengthy approval process. There was the 8 years to approve the wind park in Lillegrund, an installation with 48 turbines. I don't know if the process would be shorter for smaller installations such as community or cooperative projects with only a few turbines.

I think in the end it is a story about how when a government decide to encourage investment in some "new" technology it takes a while for the manufacturers of that technology to catch up with production increases. The approval process might also be lagging factor that will get better as the involved agencies adjust. Or it might be that the process needs to be improved altogether. It is hard to tell from the information available if it is a problem of implementation of policy, or if the policy itself is flawed.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 07:27:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
8 years vs 1 -- if lengthly approval is so much longer, tghen the excuse of manufacturers 'not catching up' looks like a stupid excuse.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 07:37:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yup. It looks like the usual kind of stupidity. The government decides that something has to be encouraged and passes some new laws, usually tax laws, making investment more favourable. Then everyone is surprised that this is not enough, that in fact you have to look at the whole process, building approvals, the manufacturing industry, etc., and decide what else you need to improve,  in order to meet those targets specified on the top level.

I don't really think it is an enormous problem. They'll work it out as problems are identified if the will is there, which I hope it is. And I don't think that it is an enormous failure if the "10 times the power in 10 years" is delayed a year or two, as long as the wind industry is growing nicely during these 10 years and will continue to after as well. These sorts of high level targets can be useful to get an industry moving in the desired direction but it is less useful as a hard goal that must be achieved in the time allotted. The number is quite arbitrary to begin with, probably decided on because "10 times the power in 10 years" is a nice slogan to throw around in the election campaign. (elections coming up on September 17th)

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 08:04:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So the goal is 10 times in 10 years? Sweden had about 500 MW at the end of 2005, so 10 times would be 5 GW. Spain or Germany could install that much in two-three years, and even a smaller country like Portugal could produce a boom exceeding 500 MW/year. So I definitely think the goal is not at all unrealistic, and if there are problems they are in local Swedish regulation.

...on the other hand, the thought just appeared to me. Could it be that Sweden needs special cold-resistant turbines? If so, those could well be in short supply.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 09:26:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I doubt it. Unless I'm misinformed, most turbines will be along the south/west coasts, so whatever has been working in Denmark for many years should do fine.

(Although it would be fun to replace the hydroelectric dams up north. Oh and we have the mountains too. Wind powered ski lift anyone?)


-----
sapere aude

by Number 6 on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 10:23:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another angle on this: little Denmark, whose wind power investors' structure more resembles Sweden's than Germany's or even Spain's, could install 3 GW before their neoliberal PM deliberately throttled new construction with rule changes and pullout from government-sponsored wind farms. Sweden could do more, if the government would be serious about it.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Aug 9th, 2006 at 09:30:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series