Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

GSR 2015

221 02 RENEWABLES 2015 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT 127 European manufacturers testing new turbines include Areva (France), Vestas (Denmark), and Siemens (Germany), from David Appleyard, “A Window on the Future of Offshore Wind Turbines,” Renewable Energy World, 21 June 2013, http://www. renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/06/a-window- on-the-future-of-offshore-wind-turbines; Eize de Vries, “Offshore Wind Turbine Vendors Unveil Next-Generation Wind Power Machines,” Renewable Energy World, 10 December 2013, http:// www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/ offshore-wind-turbines-are-getting-bigger-all-the-time. Vestas V164 8 MW turbine, from EurObserv’ER, op. cit. note 1, p. 12. Areva and Gamesa are partnering to develop another 8 MW turbine, and several 6–7 MW machines are ready for sale, including 7 MW Samsung S7.0 171 with the world’s longest blades (85 metres), from EurObserv’ER, op. cit. note 1, p. 12. 128 Corbetta, op. cit. note 30; Steve Sawyer, Foreword in Shukla, Reynolds, and Jones, op. cit. note 66, p. 4. 129 EWEA, The European Offshore Wind Industry – Key Trends and Statistics 2014, op. cit. note 25, pp. 3, 18. 130 Ibid., p. 3. 131 Corbetta, op. cit. note 30. See, for example, Darius Snieckus, “Gicon Cleared for Baltic Pilot of SOF Floating Wind Turbine,” Recharge News, 10 April 2015, http://www.rechargenews.com/ wind/1396770/gicon-cleared-for-baltic-pilot-of-sof-floating- wind-turbine; Richard A. Kessler, “Danish Developer Alpha Wind Energy (AWE) Has Submitted Lease Requests to the US Interior Department (DOI) for Two Proposed 51-Turbine, 408 MW Floating Wind Projects in Federal Waters Off Oahu, Hawaii,” Recharge News, 20 March 2015, http://www.rechargenews.com/ wind/1395004/danes-propose-816mw-of-wind-floaters-off-hawaii. 132 Offshore wind power costs rose 41% per MWh from the second quarter of 2009 till the first quarter of 2014, as projects moved to deeper water farther from shore, from FS-UNEP Centre and BNEF, op. cit. note 94, p. 37. See also Aris Karcanias and Athanasia Arapogianni, Innovative Financing of Offshore Wind (London: FTI Consulting, April 2014). Better, cheaper, safer from Shukla, Reynolds, and Jones, op. cit. note 66, p. 23; Steve Sawyer, Foreword in idem., p. 4. 133 Shukla, Reynolds, and Jones, op. cit. note 66, p. 35. For vessels, see also Eize de Vries, “XXL Monopiles Create Vessel Design Hurdle,” Wind Power Offshore: Vessels and Access, Special Report, May 2014, pp. 5–6, http://offlinehbpl.hbpl. co.uk/NewsAttachments/NOW/0514VesAccoff1.pdf; Shaun Campbell, “Onus on Suppliers to Raise Their Game,” Wind Power Offshore: Vessels and Access, Special Report, May 2014, p. 3, http://offlinehbpl.hbpl.co.uk/NewsAttachments/ NOW/0514VesAccoff1.pdf. See also Tildy Bayar, “Subsea Cables Bring Offshore Wind Power to the People,” Renewable Energy World, 19 December 2013, http://www. renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/12/ subsea-cables-bring-offshore-wind-power-to-the-people. 134 EurObserv’ER, op. cit. note 1, p. 12. 135 Offshore costs 50% higher from Shukla, Reynolds, and Jones, op. cit. note 66, p. 20; 50–60% from Sawyer, op. cit. note 15. Considering all locations with offshore development under way, costs likely range from 50–150% more for offshore, depending on the resource, regulatory market (e.g., permitting and environmental requirements), distance from shore, depth, etc. Note that Japan’s FIT payment for offshore wind is about 1.6 times higher than that for onshore wind, all from Sawyer, op. cit. note 15. The increased costs associated with offshore construction and turbine servicing, associated risks, and other factors increase the rate of return that investors expect (from average onshore of 7-9% in developed markets to about 12%), from Jesse Broehl, “Vestas, Mitsubishi Settle on Offshore Turbine Design,” Renewable Energy World, 26 February 2015, http:// www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2015/02/vestas- mitsubishi-settle-on-offshore-turbine-design. Ranges for U.K. and Germany from Shukla, Reynolds, and Jones, op. cit. note 66, p. 20. The low price in Denmark is due in large part to technological developments combined with a successful tendering process, from Jesper Caruso, “Denmark Gets Cheaper Power from Offshore Wind Turbines,” Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Building, 27 February 2015, http://www.kebmin.dk/en/news/denmark-gets- cheaper-power-from-offshore-wind-turbines; in addition, Denmark has strong winds relatively close to shore and in relatively shallow waters, from Sawyer, op. cit. note 11. 136 Corbetta, op. cit. note 30; Sawyer, op. cit. note 11. Note that the offshore target of £100/MWh by 2020 was put forward by the U.K. Department of Energy and Climate Change a few years ago, per The Crown Estate, Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Pathways Study (London: May 2012). The U.K. government has a target of USD 148/MWh (£100/MWh) by 2020, from The Crown Estate, op. cit. note 95. 137 “Joint Declaration for a United Industry,” from Darius Snieckus, “Three Wise Men with the Knowledge to Cut Costs,” in EWEA Offshore, Copenhagen 2015, pp. 14–15, http://www.ewea. org/offshore2015/wp-content/uploads/EWEA-Offshore-2015- Day1.pdf; Darius Snieckus, “In Depth: European Offshore Wind—Counting the Cost,” Recharge News, 4 February 2015, http://www.rechargenews.com/incoming/1389620/ in-depth-european-offshore-wind-counting-the-cost. 138 Gsänger and Pitteloud, 2015 Small Wind World Report, op. cit. note 71. In the U.K. there are about 15 small and medium (up to 225 kW) wind turbine manufacturers, from RenewableUK, Small and Medium Wind Strategy (London: November 2014), p. 7, http://www.renewableuk.com/en/publications/index.cfm/ Small-and-Medium-Wind-Strategy-report-2014. 139 U.S. DOE, EERE, op. cit. note 77, pp. iii–v. 140 Ibid., p. 6. 141 “Appointment of Liquidators,” The Gazette, Official Public Record, 15 April 2014, https://www.thegazette.co.uk/ notice/2113192; Paul Gipe, “Quiet Revolution Goes Quiet: Maker of QR5 VAWT Files for Bankruptcy,” wind-works. org, 7 May 2014, http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index. php?id=43&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3103&cHash=b. 142 U.S. DOE, EERE, op. cit. note 77, p. v. 143 Table 2 derived from the sources outlined in this endnote. Note that IRENA data are exclusive of subsidies, based on an assumed 7.5% weighted average cost of capital (WACC) for OECD countries and China, and WACC of 10% for the rest of the world, and derived from actual project data for over 9000 utility-scale projects, with O&M costs sourced from International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Assumptions for the calculations of levelised cost of electricity not derived from project data are defined in IRENA, 2014 Renewable Power generation Costs Report (Bonn: January 2015), Table 1.1, http://www.irena.org/menu/index. aspx?mnu=Subcat&PriMenuID=36&CatID=141&SubcatID=494. Note that this table was updated to the extent possible. For updated information and statistics, sources are provided below by sector and technology; for all other information, please see Table 2 and the relevant Endnote in GSR 2014. POWER SECTOR - Biomass power: Bioenergy levelised costs of energy for power generation vary widely with costs of biomass feedstock, complexity of technologies, and a variety of other factors (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, etc.) that also apply to other technologies. Updates from IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014 (Bonn: January 2015), http://www. irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_RE_Power_ Costs_2014_report.pdf. Geothermal: Updates from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) and The Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Sustainable Energy in America 2014 Factbook (London: February 2014), http://www.bcse.org/factbook/ pdfs/2014%20Sustainable%20Energy%20in%20America%20 Factbook.pdf. Hydropower: Note that hydro facilities that are designed to provide system balancing (rather than baseload) have lower capacity factors and therefore higher generation costs per kWh, on average, but provide additional value. Updates from Michael Taylor, IRENA, personal communication with REN21, January 2015. Ocean Energy: Note that this is based on a very small number of pilot and demonstration installations to date. Updates from Ocean Energy – Technology Readiness, Patents, Deployment Status and Outlook, May 2015, http://www.irena. org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_Ocean_Energy_ report_2014.pdf. Solar PV: Note that values outside of these ranges are possible for exceptional sites (higher) or where siting is suboptimal (lower); adding tracking systems can raise capacity factors significantly. Updates from IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014, op. cit. this note. CSP: Not updated for GSR 2015. See Table 2 and relevant Endnote in GSR 2014. Wind power: Updates from IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014, op. cit. this note, pp. 31, 37; small-scale wind from World Wind Energy Association, 2015 Small Wind World Report (Bonn: 2015), http://small-wind.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/ Summary_SWWR2015_online.pdf. HEATING AND COOLING SECTOR - Biomass heat: Cost variations among heat plants are wide for reasons similar to those listed above. Data not updated for GSR 2015. See Table 2 and BACK including 7 MW Samsung S7.0171 with the world’s longest blades

Pages Overview