Cost Of Wind Power Turbines Is Skyrocketing (TreeHugger.com)

[Dogmudgeon]

The explanation is that as demand increases, so does price.

I wonder if the same principle holds true for other goods and services.

Increase of 74% for Land-Based, and 48% for Offshore Wind Turbines

For years we've heard about how a shortage of silicon kept solar panel prices higher than they would otherwise be. Just as we're expecting supply to improve in that field, we learn that wind turbines are getting more expensive. Not just a little, but a lot:

"The price of offshore turbines rose 48 percent to 2.23 million euros ($3.45 million) per megawatt in the past three years, according to BTM Consult APS, a Danish wind power consultant. By comparison, land-based rotors cost 1.38 million euros per megawatt after rising 74 percent in the same period."

...

(http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/wind-turbine-costs-increased-offshore-power.php">More at TreeHugger.com)

--p!

[DCKit]

1. Aside from GE (already in the business) who else has the capability...

and capacity to enter the market? Sounds like a hell of an opportunity.

[kristopher]

2. Go to North American Windpower website and take a look.

There aren't many; Vestas is a big player and a robust newby is Clipper Wind.

There are also startup operations in Japan (Mitsubishi) and India; with China out front by a mile. It takes time to build manufacturing capacity. If Dems can get control of the government, by end of the first term we should see a huge difference as they institute long term policies that investors can count on.

[Finishline42]

3. Weight and size are forcing the move to the US for mfg

Kristopher, here's an article in Modern Machine shop about a plant in Cincinnati that is taking the rough castings for turbines and doing the machining required. The rotor hubs weigh 20 tons. I think that the cost to transport windmill components is what will force mfg to establish plants in the US.

http://www.mmsonline.com/articles/060802.html

I agree that a long term commitment by the govt is required. Why not add 20% funding to every windfarm project in exchange for 20% of the power produced? Surely their's enough govt offices to use all that would be produced?

Is Clipper Wind somehow an offshoot of GE?

Nordex is coming to the US > http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52638

Nordex AG plans to spend approximately US $100 million to establish its own U.S. production facilities for wind turbines and rotor blades. The first U.S. produced 2.5-megawatt (MW) wind turbines could enter the U.S. market as early as 2009.

"Four years ago, Europe constituted over 70 percent of the market. Looking forward, we expect Europe, Asia and the United States to each account for one third of demand. Over the next few years, we want to generate around 20 percent of our sales in North America."

-- Thomas Richterich, CEO, Nordex AG

The investment program has a goal of establishing an annual production capacity of 750 MW of turbines and blades by 2012. Starting in 2010, Nordex plans to invest two thirds of the total investment sum in rotor blade production.

[kristopher]

4. Absolutely correct.

They are even strategically locating them where large resources are available to be tapped into.

No Clipper isn't a part of GE, they are their own entity which is built around a patented gearing system they have. I recently spoke to someone at the company and they are sold out three years ahead -a pretty common story.

Some policy programs they can institute would be:
1) View arguments should not be a consideration in the Environmental Impact Assessments. There is a strong legal basis for the position and the urgency of the climate problem requires this as a small sacrifice.
2) Extremely rapid tax depreciation schedules for wind turbine plants, solar panel manufacturing plants, battery manufacturing plants and all associated and needed equipment.
3) Preferred very low interest financing directly through the Federal and state governments.
4) Guaranteed 12 year extension of the Production Price Credit; a production based subsidy of about $.02 a kWh generated.

They also need massive investment in the rail systems and 'heavy' investment in the electrical grid.

That's my Santa Wish List.

[bhikkhu]

5. The cost of energy inputs is the cost of oil

For the most part. So as the cost of oil increases, so does the cost of every alternative to oil.

"The Law of Receding Horizons", in a nutshell.

Not that it should prove a serious impediment to wind or solar power, just that as cheap energy gets more expensive, energy production becomes more expensive. We will adapt, and a motive for conservation and less carbon emissions is welcome.

[kristopher]

7. I think more of the wind turbine increase is just supply/demand.

It takes years to get turbines. They are climbing all over themselves trying to build a network of suppliers and the assembly plants, but it takes time. In that time, of course, you are right, the final product will accumulate additional inflation from fuel.

[losthills]

6. So what?

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Funny you should say that.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80244/">Who else is asking 'So What?'

My point: progress is seldom cheap or easy.

--p!

[phantom power]

9. I don't know. So what if the cost of nuclear plants doubles?

[losthills]

10. The cost of milk is increasing too.

The cost of everything is increasing along with the price of oil.

[phantom power]

11. I agree, that's exactly the point...

I guess what I'm getting at (and others, I assume) is that among the possible arguments for or against energy sources, saying "look -- the cost of X is skyrocketing!" is not a very useful argument, because the cost of everything is skyrocketing.

I'm pretty sure the subtext of this post was to point out that recent arguments regarding the increasing costs of nuclear plants means little, unless you also take into account the increasing cost of all the other possibilities.