Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Another record year for the European wind industry

by DoDo Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 08:46:13 AM EST

The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) just released its 2009 statistics. Despite the Great Financial Crisis (and some political problems in certain countries), the EU added more than 10 GW of new capacity last year -- a new record, and, like last year, the wind industry also beat all other technologies (39% of new capacity, with another 22% coming from other renewables, chiefly PV). The electricity they will generate annually is equivalent to 2-3 nuclear blocks.

2010 was the year off-shore wind really took off, but the 581 MW installed in the seas was still less than 6% of the total: so, despite some local obstacles and already significant buildup, on-shore development continued apace.

Looking at individual member states, the leaders remain Spain (almost 2.5 GW) and Germany (more than 1.9 GW) -- both numbers stronger than expected --; and Italy, France and the UK contributed a little over 1 GW each. Other stories of note are

  • significant new installations in new EU members (Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Bulgaria, Lithuania);
  • 50% growth (0.5 GW new) on the long sluggish Swedish market;
  • significant new additions in Denmark after a long (politically caused) lull;
  • still, now even Portugal overtook the pioneering country in total installed;
  • Beyond the EU, sustained high growth in Turkey (another 343 MW added for a 801 MW total).

The EU now has a total of almost 75 GW installed (in that a little over 2 GW off-shore).


On the negative side, three EU members remain to develop their wind resource: Romania, Cyprus and Malta. Nothing much happened in 2009 in four others: Austria (where halting wind expansion was an executive decision justified with supposed grid overload issues), Finland, Luxembourg and Latvia. One of the wind power pioneers, the Netherlands, also suffered a major market collapse.

Here are all the stats for new wind installations:

Here is the pie chart of all new capacity by type of technology:

Two notes:

  1. The above is based on capacity (what one measures in GW), and doesn't translate into generated electricity (measured in TWh/year), which is influenced by downtimes for maintenance, intermittency, and off hours for peaker plants.
  2. For the development of the power sector, decommissionings are relevant, too.

The latter are also shown in another graph in the EWEA press release:

For comparison of annual generation with coal and nuclear, wind should be divided by about four, PV (photovoltaics) by nine; I don't know about gas but I'd guess roughly by 2. So on that metric, in 2009 additions gas probably still lead. But here is the trend:

Display:
Let's not forget that increasing installations probably also meant creating more jobs in a recession.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 08:48:14 AM EST
Also see The stimulus saved the US wind industry in 2009by Jerome a Paris, in particular the comment thread on the then expected European numbers (in which Crazy Horse predicted the new EU member not-so-mini 'mini-surge').

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 09:02:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, on the map, whatever happened with the Kaliningrad region and Belarus?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 06:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently, they sank into the sea.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 06:14:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent summary Dodo and insightful comments by Jerome and Skenna Kowa.

I particularly appreciate your use of TWh of generation as the units most appropriate for describing the contribution of renewables.

I've found that for system-wide contributions, wind will deliver about 2,000 kWh/kW/yr of installed capacity. Thus, 10,000 MW will add 20 TWh/yr of generation.

Similarly, solar PV contributes about 1,000 kWh/kWDC/yr of installed DC capacity across Europe. Germany's total PV capacity of ~8,000 MW should deliver ~8 TWh/yr or ~1.5% of total supply.

Paul

Paul Gipe

by pgipe (pgipe(at)igc.org) on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 01:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
wind will deliver about 2,000 kWh/kW/yr

Yep, but with significant geographical variation even at country level: Britain should be closer to 3000 kWh/yr/kW, New Zealand even around 4000 kWh/yr/kW.

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

by DoDo on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 02:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi Paul  (waving)  it's me (shoossh)  it's Crazy horse, Skennah Kowa is Mohawk for Great Peace, which i wish with every comment.  (pssst, don't click and find out who i am, quiet.  i don't actually exist since i left amurka.)

Clue:  you did give me your AWEA Board seat a time or two.  Shhhh.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin

by Crazy Horse on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 04:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and it comes from good news across the board (ie in many different countries), suggesting that this is not a one-off and onshore will continue to be a growth story across the continent even as offshore takes off.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 10:17:06 AM EST
... and it may also be the beginning of the repowering sector in Germany, where older, smaller windmills from the early-mid 90's are replaced by newer models.  (will also assist emerging and 3rd world markets, where the reconditioned older turbines will go.)

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 10:24:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
About the 3rd world, how do wind energy works in places that get quite a few hurricanes each year ?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misres
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 11:04:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Almost since the beginning of commercial development, wind turbines have been designed to work with limited to no repair up to 125/mph 200 kph winds.  Survivable (with testing and repair) to 150+mph 240+kph.  Plus, hurricanes are known in advance, and steps can be taken to batten the turbines down.  since most modern (utility-scale) turbines only produce power up to 60 mph 96 kph 26mps very little energy is actually lost by these design standards.

Smaller scale turbines specifically for tropical areas or with high storm likelihood can feature tilt-down towers so the turbine can be lowered as a storm approaches.

In fact, Vergnet    in France does just that, for such markets.



"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 11:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the beginning of the repowering sector in Germany

In 2009, 55 turbines with 136.2 MW replaced the majority of the 76 decommissioned turbines with 36.7 MW. Indeed a jump from 18 (23.94 MW) last year, but in 2007, it was 45 (103 MW).

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

by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
windy Greece still lags, the travesty remains England (Scotland is working on it reasonably well.)

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 10:29:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree that it's unfortunate that there hasn't been more onshore development in the UK, but don't you think that there's something to be said for the large number of offshore projects with the Crown Estate?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 10:52:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No question, "there's something to be said," and the UK is the leader in installed offshore capacity.  It remains to be seen if the UK can build up the supply chain to implement the humongous Crown Estate plans, but no question it is very possible.

however, to the degree offshore is being used in the UK to ignore onshore development, it is a false step.  When onshore is being strongly developed, with significant annual capacity installations, then the pressure is off higher-risk offshore, and the industry can grow at a more healthy pace until it reaches maturity.

eggs, meet sole basket.

Hypothetically, it's possible the 126+ m rotor turbines need another generation or two to reach adequate performance levels.  Offshore slows down or even halts a year or three, then what?  (I'm not saying this is even likely, but there is no question the larger turbines are reaching unexplored territory.  Even the 90-100m rotor turbines have not reached full maturity yet.)

Case in point, the Crown Estate is invested in the Clipper 10MW turbine.  Clipper has an advanced design drive train, which took several years to reach operational status after first commercial installation.  While many prominent engineering analysts now claim that Clipper is back on track, i personally believe there's not yet a long enough data period to be confident they've solved the technical problems.  If that's the case with their 2.5 MW machine, what's to come with a 140m 10MW machine.

Clipper has assembled a top design team behind Amir Mikhail, and seems to have significant R&D funding secured.  if a proper prototype, testing and data analysis period is allowed BEFORE rollout, we could have a winner.  But the 2.5 was rolled out too soon, as are most turbines.  (GE 2.5 an exception.)  There's too much pressure to expand on offshore currently.

But J. is closer than I to industry sentiment, so i'll defer to his views here.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
however, to the degree offshore is being used in the UK to ignore onshore development, it is a false step.  When onshore is being strongly developed, with significant annual capacity installations, then the pressure is off higher-risk offshore, and the industry can grow at a more healthy pace until it reaches maturity.

Yes, but don't you get that windturbines are a horrible blight on the landscape.  At least for the twits who still wish that they could go fox hunting.

Point taken.  I imagine that you are right that the promise of what offshore might be able to do is being used to stop onshore from doing what we know it can.

Case in point, the Crown Estate is invested in the Clipper 10MW turbine.

140 meter rotors?  That's big. What's the hub height on something like that? I suppose that if you are invested in offshore, that you may as well pump up the size as much as possible.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:25:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hub height offshore is less critical than offshore, with lower alphas (increase of speed with height).  There is far less turbulence offshore as well, meaning lower hub heights suffice.  Onshore one needs to go higher to reach stronger winds, and eliminate as much terrain-induced turbulence as possible.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:53:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
True enough.  I was thinking that you had to be at at least 140 meters to accommodate the blades, but then I guess not. Each side is 70 meters, so I suppose that you could even put it on a 100 meter a be fine.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And what happened in the Netherlands? Was there a regulatory change?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Guess: Dutch politics are not interested in wind?

As you may well know, Econcern went bust last year. Eneco took over their core activities, but I don't know about any plans in the pipeline... I don't expect much from companies as Nuon and Essent.

I'm still under the impression that there will be at least 3 new coal plants built. I don't find much news on this after a quick google search.

IOW: The Dutch suck at wind.

by Nomad on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 04:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently the plans for all coal plants are on an extensive and costly hold for 1.5 years since March 2009 - largely through a NGO plaintive at the Dutch Council of State - the government's advisory body. The Council now investigates whether the scheduled coal plants will be violating EU's National Emissions Ceiling.

And there are actually plans for 4 coal plants... (RWE, Nuon, Electrabel and E.On)

A bit of good news at least.

by Nomad on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 05:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
New installations went from 500 MW in 2008 to just 39 MW. Lack of political interest or the collapse of just one larger-scale developer is not enough to explain this, even substracting off-shore.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 05:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A tender is under way now (bids due by early March, for a government decision by June) - this should allocate a feed-in tariff equivalent for 900 MW of offshore projects, to be built over the next 5 years (or faster).

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 05:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In addition to the last graph you posted above, I like to flag this one:

which shows that basically only two types of generation capacity have been built over the last decade: gas and renewables (mainly wind, aind increasingly solar).

There are two lessons there:

  • the policy measures put in place for renewables work; these developments are quite remarkable when one considers the significant hostility of the utilities and large chunks of the political world to renewable "subsidies"
  • if left to its own devices, the deregulated European markets would built nothing but gas-fired plants, making a joke of our carbon emission commitments and of our supposed security worries about Russian supplies

Gas power is actually more expensive than wind power, but it is more profitable and less risky in a fully deregulated market environment. So the continued push for deregulation is, quite simply, stupid.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 10:36:53 AM EST
You can't make that point more strongly or often enough; we might even find policy-deciderers realizing it soon.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 10:41:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way, can you fish up some real-world capacity factors for gas-fired power plants?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:11:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
you have roughly 1,100GW of capacity and 4,000TWh produced, so a capacity factor or 45% or so.

You can get individual capacity factors by type of generator at the links.

Gas is at 450 GW and 800 TWh, so a capacity factor below 20%...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:35:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nitpick: 877 TWh, so 22%. Even if all of them are peakers, surprisingly low -- I wonder if it is similar in Europe.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 04:23:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With these numbers, the comparison between gas and renewables in the diary is not really correct. For PV you have approximate capacity factors:

Fixed system, Netherlands: 10%
Tracking system, Netherlands: 12%
Fixed system, Sicily: 17%
Tracking system, Sicily: 22%

(PV calculator here).

I don't know much about wind capacity factors, but I seem to remember a figure above 30% for offshore wind in the North Sea.

Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.

by tomhuld (thomas punkt huld at jrc punkt it) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 06:20:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The overwhelming majority of European PV is fixed system, and most of it is in Germany. This figure is on one hand pushed up by PV in Spain, on the other hand, down by non-ideal siting (roofs not facing South, trees and hillsides), so I felt the ballpark figure from there (1/9 or 11.1%) could be applied. Now I did a second check on that, estimating the average capacity factor for Germany from total generation and installed capacity (uncertain due to the high growth of the latter), and got around 10.5% -- so it seems non-ideal siting counts less, and the EU average could be around 12.5% or one eighth.

Similarly, while offshore can even reach 40%, the overwhelming majority of European wind (73 out of 75 GW) is on-shore, and it can be well below 20% on some locations. Again I have the TWh and GW numbers for Germany, in 2008, the average capacity factor was around 21.5%, which is contrasted with higher numbers in virtually every other country on the Atlantic coast, so one fourth should be about right as EU average.

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

by DoDo on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 04:09:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found a diagram with 2008 pie charts for generation and generating capacity. Feeding them into a spreadsheet, I get:

Type of generationCapacityNet generation (TWh)Capacity factor
(%)(GW)(%)(TWh)(%)
Total100%147.1100%59946%
Nuclear14%20.623%13876%
Lignite14%20.623%13876%
Coal19%27.919%11446%
Natural gas16%23.514%8441%
Wind16%23.57%4220%
Other non-renewable11%16.26%3625%
Other renewable (incl. big hydro, biofuel)10%14.78%4837%

As I expected, the capacity factor for gas is higher than in the USA. As for the 46% for coal plants, note that they are mainly used for 'intermediate load' (pre-scheduled stepped variable generation; mainly to balance the expected daily variation, but also planned shutdowns of baseload plants and predicted wind/solar intermittency).

If the EU-wide average gas-fired plant capacity factor is similar to the German one, then the wind and gas plants installed in 2009 will deliver roughly the same amount of electricity a year.

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

by DoDo on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 04:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(an in depth piece, at that) in today's paper:


Resources: The power bill arrives

The EU leads the world in renewable energy and has set more ambitious targets for it than any other leading economy. It hopes the US will follow. Yet many in the industry are beginning to argue that Europe's commitment may be unsustainable.

The pledge to make the continent the global pioneer for renewables and emissions reduction was sealed by a previous generation of leaders, including Tony Blair of Britain and Jacques Chirac of France, at the Brussels summit in March 2007. There was a mood in the EU of climate "hysteria", as Günter Verheugen, industry commissioner, put it at the time. The vulnerability of Europe's energy supplies had also been highlighted by the most serious clash in a long-running dispute over gas prices between Russia and Ukraine, in January 2006.

Ohhh... stupid European politicians behaving hysterically and making silly commitments


European energy companies, particularly in France, Germany and Italy, were already facing a big task in replacing the generation of infrastructure installed in the prosperous decades after the second world war. The new targets added an extra degree of difficulty. The combination of the two objectives agreed in Brussels is much harder to achieve than a simple reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would have been.

"Replacing obsolete infrastructure is costly enough, but if you do it with emissions reductions and then put a renewables objective on top, it is incredibly expensive," says Dieter Helm, an energy expert at New College Oxford.

(we're so much poorer than after WW2 now...)


The cheapest way to cut emissions is to replace coal-fired power stations with gas-fired plants, which produce half the carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity. Yet with the EU's commitment to renewables, prompted by concerns about the security of gas supplies from Russia and other potentially unreliable countries, European countries are making commitments to invest in costly wind farms.

Never mind that wind is cheaper than gas. Never mind that gas power still emits a lot of carbon.


While governments have set the objectives, it is the private sector that is being expected to deliver the investment.

Arghhh - government is incompetent, so only the private sector should do things, but government is asking for silly things so the poor private sector can't deliver...


That will put a big strain on European energy companies, which - confronted by a shortage of finance and a slide in demand caused by the recession - have cut their capital spending programmes sharply for this year. As things stand, they seem unlikely to be able to step up again to deliver the investment needed.

The energy industries of the EU's five largest economies - Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Spain - invested about €35bn a year for most of the 2000s, then boosted outlays to €60bn in 2008 and €65bn in 2009. But spending will fall back to about €54bn this year, according to analysts at Citigroup - whereas to contribute their share of the €1,000bn, companies in the five economies must invest €80bn a year for the rest of the decade.

So, they've doubled investment in the past two years, but one analyst at Citi saying it will go slightly down means doom. Doom!


Shareholders are aware that the requirements are daunting. In the three years since the Brussels summit, the stock market ratings of European energy companies have wilted as the scale of the investment challenge has become apparent.

(...)

Ultimately, however, the only way that the industry will stand any chance at all of attracting the capital it needs is if governments make commitments to guarantee investors' returns. Nick Luff, finance director of Centrica, the owner of British Gas, argues: "If you put the right framework around them, these assets are very suitable for pension funds and other long-term investors."

Every European country has a subsidy system such as feed-in tariffs, which offer set prices for electricity generated from renewables, paid for by a premium added on to customers' bills. If investment is to grow, those subsidies will have to increase too. That means higher profits for companies

And as we know, higher profits are a bad thing. So, there is all that's needed to make the investments, including the holy grail, higher profits, but let's do concern trolling anyway...


Every European country has a subsidy system such as feed-in tariffs, which offer set prices for electricity generated from renewables, paid for by a premium added on to customers' bills. If investment is to grow, those subsidies will have to increase too. That means higher profits for companies and higher prices for consumers.

Hitting European consumers with higher energy bills, at a time when their resources are already about to be squeezed by the increased taxes needed to bolster governments' finances, could be a significant additional drag on economic growth. It is also likely to become an increasingly contentious political issue.

  1. as I've said many times, there is also a downward effect on prices of wind, so the "premium" is not that high and can even be negative.
  2. There is no reason for the premium to increase going forward; indeed as we see it goes down in most countries


Energy bills have already proved a flashpoint in a number of European countries. Pierre Gadonneix lost his job as chief executive of EDF of France last year after arguing, to the fury of President Nicolas Sarkozy, that prices would have to rise to fund investment. The severity of that treatment may be unusual but energy companies in Britain and Germany are familiar with newspaper headlines blasting them for high bills and excessive profits.

Actually, EDF wants price increases to invest in nukes, or to pass on wholesale price increases caued by higher gas prices - not because of renewable tariffs - these are billed separately already. Way to mix and muddle the issue...

Barf.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:02:39 PM EST
Must be nice to have a job where you get to make shit up, then publi-shit as a prime editorial from the seriousnessers.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:13:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You need to write an op-ed.

En un viejo pas ineficiente, algo as como Espaa entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 12:49:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Looks like EU and US wind energy capacity expansion in 2009 is comparable after all... a 10 GW all draw!

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:09:05 PM EST
Europe is ahead. Why do you want to call it a draw? We kicked their ass. Unquestionably. Despite the naysayers. Europe is not doomed.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It will be really weird if what I suspect is possible for China plays out. 12 gigs there I've heard. But no one knows. And stats there are notoriously "weird." Still, means China is in another world measured by capacity growth.

What does such strong growth mean with a capacity factor under 20%?

Still, one MUST respect the potential investment available there even if it willbe some time before standard performance is
met.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin

by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:59:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
:-)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 04:16:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the world of sport you are only as good as your last game.  The fact that you may have won the league 10 years in a row is irrelevant if you lost (or in this case drew) the last one.  However I will give the last word to DoDo since the EU was marginally ahead.  But losing to China?  Shit!  They weren't even in the first division last year.

I suppose its nearly time for me to do my annual Rugby Diary on the 6 Nations detailing how Ireland is going to kick the French Ass for cheating us out of the world cup and Gouging Stephen Ferris' eyes twice in one match.  What is it about the French not being able to keep their hands to themselves and their fingers out of other people's eyes?

notes from no w here

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 12:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't be modest: 'we' beat 'them' by 231 MW, nyah nyah nyah...

Seriously, both showed better than expected numbers. Now we'll await the numbers from China.

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

by DoDo on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But US stats include GE 1.5, like including GM in the Dow

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 04:03:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That wasn't a long wait: GWEC release.

  • They say China more than doubled installed capacity, adding 13 GW for a 25.1 GW total (undoubtedly they overtook Germany in January).
  • India continued at its leisure pace, but was fifth to join the 10GW+ club too.
  • Canada added almost 1GW. The remaining two of the 1GW+ club, Australia and Japan, progressed more slowly -- though Rudd-land's lag behind Canada is from the previous years.
  • Like Denmark, New Zealand (the major country with the best wind resource in the world) waked from politically-induced standstill and reached 0.5GW.
  • The African Mediterranean countries and Latin America continue to emerge, but none reached 1GW yet.

Altogether 17 countries in the 1GW+ club.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 05:15:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and world totals: 157.9 GW cumulative (still almost half of it in the EU), 37.5 GW newly installed.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 05:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That round 13,000MW number for China smells fishy...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 07:50:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It could be PR, but it could be simple loss of bureaucratic oversight. But Crazy Horse said best, we'll see what they generate actually.

Regarding bureaucratic oversight, I note that at least a few years ago, as I discovered when I wanted to do some stats of my own and fed wind farm lists into a spreadsheet, it was the more precise numbers (to the kW, but even those to the MW) released by the big national wind associations that were ridiculous. On one hand, the database maintainers were incapable of correct addition and multiplication resp. feeding into a spreadsheet to do the math (BWEA's still isn't...), on the other hand, delayed or PR-motivated premature project completion announcements from developers led to corrections. So it was always give or take 5%.

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

by DoDo on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 08:06:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As late as last summer, roughly 25% of Chinese wind turbines were still awaiting grid connection, a significant problem there.  With such explosive growth, it would not be hard to imagine that there remain a significant number unconnected.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anas Nin
by Crazy Horse on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 01:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Modesty is my middle name...

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 12:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Another record year for the European wind industry
50% growth (0.5 GW new) on the long sluggish Swedish market;

And more is in the works, despite a strange public debate where Sweden would somehow be less able to handle variations in wind then nuclear plants going on- and off-line.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 05:54:49 PM EST
The wind in Sweden is very variable because the Norwegians keep moving their mountains...

notes from no w here
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Feb 4th, 2010 at 12:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]