Vestas says record powerful wind turbine in operation

Jan 30, 2014
A photo taken on June 29, 2012 shows a Vestas wind turbine near Baekmarksbro in Jutland

Danish wind technology giant Vestas said on Thursday that the world's most powerful wind turbine has begun operating, sweeping an area equivalent to three football fields.

A prototype for the group's first V164 8 offshore wind has successfully produced its first electricity, the Aarhus-based group said.

"We expect that it will reduce the cost of energy for our customers," spokesman Michael Zarin said.

"You can have fewer turbines to have the same amount of electricity. ... You can save a lot of the expense on things like the foundations, the cabling or the substation," he added.

The 8 megawatt turbine, which will be the flagship product for a joint venture between Vestas and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, has the capacity to produce electricity for 7,500 European households.

It's been installed on land at the Danish National Test Centre for Large Wind Turbines in Oesterild in northwestern Denmark. Vestas said serial production could begin in 2015 if there is enough demand.

The most powerful onshore wind turbine on the market is currently the 7.5 megawatt E-126 by Germany's Enercon, while the largest offshore turbines are the 6 megawatt models produced by Germany's Siemens and France's Alstom.

Competition in the sector is fierce: South Korea's Samsung Heavy Industries installed a 7 megawatt offshore wind prototype turbine in Scotland last year.

France's Areva and Spain's Gamesa said last week they were holding talks on combining their offshore wind turbine activities, and that they planned to accelerate development of an 8 megawatt turbine.

Explore further: Spain launches first offshore wind turbine

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Vestas Announces New 7 megawatt offshore wind turbine

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Vestas Chief Executive Officer Ditlev Engel announced in London their new V164 wind turbine, designed specifically for offshore wind power. Optimized for conditions in the North Sea, Vestas ...

Recommended for you

Turning bio-waste into hydrogen

23 hours ago

Whilst hydrogen cars look set to be the next big thing in an increasingly carbon footprint-aware society, sustainable methods to produce hydrogen are still in their early stages. The HYTIME project is working on a novel production ...

Economical and agile offshore construction ship

Jul 25, 2014

Siemens is currently installing the power supply and propulsion systems into a new multi-purpose offshore construction ship for Toisa Ltd. The ship, which is being built by the Korean company Hyundai Heavy ...

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Shootist
2 / 5 (12) Jan 30, 2014
Killing the birds with a soft swish swish swish.

The watermelons are such asshats.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2014
Killing the birds with a soft swish swish swish.

The watermelons are such asshats.


Tell you what, shooty~

Why don't you check your your fake righteous indignation, go find the relevant data that quantifies bird deaths per unit of generated power and compares those numbers for fossil-fuels-derived power and wind-derived.

Then you can rage appropriately.

The Shootist
2.1 / 5 (13) Jan 30, 2014
Killing the birds with a soft swish swish swish.

The watermelons are such asshats.


Then you can rage appropriately.



Last Friday Duke Energy Corp. pled guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other federally protected birds at two of its wind farms located outside Casper, Wyo., and agreed to pay a $1 million fine.

All 3000 watts . . .

Swish swish swish.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (9) Jan 30, 2014
More eagles are saved by closing down toxic coal and natural gas fracking operations. Of course Shootist only understands two-digit-IQ soundbytes
Cocoa
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
Last Friday Duke Energy Corp. pled guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other federally protected birds at two of its wind farms located outside Casper, Wyo., and agreed to pay a $1 million fine.


And in shootist's world - fossil fuels are benign - no environmental damage there right? So how much did BP have to pay for Deep Horizon shootist? I think the number was $4.5 Billion.

Check out the environmental damage of that oil disaster.

http://en.wikiped...il_spill

No fake outrage on that one shootist....
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
Killing the birds with a soft swish swish swish.

It's funny how few birds there are OFF SHORE.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2014
The whole energy picture is in great flux at the moment. People like shootist are the dinosaurs - without the creative brain cell to understand what is happening under our feet. Just compare these two articles. One detailing how the oil majors are really hitting a wall. Costs are increasing - but if the price of gasoline goes up - they give the advantage to renewables.

http://oilprice.c...sts.html

Great quote -
"There are a number of important benefits that we've seen from wind that can be true for solar as well — from cleaner air and water to more jobs and more economic investment."

RIP Shootist, and Rygg et al - who is the watermelon?
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2014
ooops - that quote was from this article - http://www.desmoi..._check=1
a_n_k_u_r
4 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
Are there technologies that reduce bird hits? May be the blades could be colored or made reflective or something to keep the birds away? I am sure there must be a combination that will result in minimum bird hits. How about ultrasound, or LEDs on the blades?
Whydening Gyre
2 / 5 (2) Feb 03, 2014
Are there technologies that reduce bird hits? May be the blades could be colored or made reflective or something to keep the birds away? I am sure there must be a combination that will result in minimum bird hits. How about ultrasound, or LEDs on the blades?

You mean like a deer whistle on your car when you live up north?
hangman04
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
:)) funny, Instead of trying to find solutions that would also address the "Bird Safety Regulations" they rant 24/7 and prefer to oppose a sustainable green tech with an overall positive impact. I smell fossil groupies ^^.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Birds aren't the problem....

People who know there is global warming but can't admit it to themselves because then they'd have to contend with unworkable policies like carbon taxes, cap and trade, solar and wind to power industry (chuckle) and a hundred other things that won't work are the "problem".

People who rail on about AGW but really could care less about the planet and only want more governmental control over the energy industry, subsidies for wind and solar power, and a hundred unworkable pet policies and are USING the reality of AGW as an excuse to push them instead of realistic and workable solutions like new nuclear are the "problem".

And the big problem is that that describes 90% of people who care or can do something about the "problem"....
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Funny thing is: In a number of countries those 'unworkable' theories are working rather well.

Weird, isn't it, how belief in what "can't be" is put on the garbage pile of history by actual fact?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Funny thing is: In a number of countries those 'unworkable' theories are working rather well.

Weird, isn't it, how belief in what "can't be" is put on the garbage pile of history by actual fact?


Yeah for something the size of Rhode Island maybe. You aren't REALLY comparing Denmark or other countries in Europe that are the size of a single State to the entire United States are you? Because if you are, that would be, well, really REALLY ignorant.

Oh, and I don't expect you to change your mind or see the real problem AA. You are FIRMLY in the camp I was alluding to. You and a rabid denialist are two sides of the same coin...ever made any progress with one of them? No? I don't expect to with you either...
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Moernmystic - you create such a strawman by constructing this AGW zealot - who is not concerned about the planet. Reality is of course always so much more complex. Are you aware of the complexity of subsidies regarding fossil fuels? Here is just article -

http://cleantechn...-levels/

People vary in their level of concern, level of commitment, and what they are able - or not able to do. Some live off the grid, in passive homes, grow their own food, and are totally vegan. Others take a different route - depending on many factors. Government control in our lives is an interesting topic. I live in a part of the world where you are forbidden from growing tomatoes in your front yard, and you will get fined if your grass is too long - insanity. But should we have no government - and allow BP to destroy the gulf of Mexico for profit? Finding the balance is contentious - but constructing straw men is not helpful.
Modernmystic
not rated yet Feb 05, 2014
Interesting that it's very difficult to find the cost of one of these....
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Moernmystic - you create such a strawman by constructing this AGW zealot - who is not concerned about the planet. Reality is of course always so much more complex.


Just as the reality about denialists is more complex? Why include the one and not the other? Is your identity tied up more in one side or the other ;)

I wish people WERE more complex in their motivations. A lot of people are driven by fear (myself included) to one degree or another. People's RATIONALIZATIONS are complex but the underlying stuff is usually emotive and usually related to fear. In virtually all their decisions worldview comes first then you use "facts" (and sometimes actual facts) to defend your view of the world and by extension yourself and your identity and ego. It's an old old story...
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
You aren't REALLY comparing Denmark or other countries in Europe that are the size of a single State to the entire United States are you?

I'm comparing a country like germany (which has a population of 80 million) with something like the US (which has about 4 times as much) - so we're talking same order of magnitude here.
Considering that germany is a pretty industrialized nation and all these things you decry as 'impossible' are actually working...well...I'd say you're living in a fantasy world.
Cocoa
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Just as the reality about denialists is more complex? Why include the one and not the other? Is your identity tied up more in one side or the other ;)


Because I was responding to your strawman - and therefore addressing that topic. Of course my identity is more tied up with one side - just as I suspect yours is. I am very concerned about what science is telling us about the climate - and also excited about the progress we are making in terms of developing technology, and structural changes that may move us forward.

I agree with your final paragraph - based on a complex view of peoples motivations - I am confused as to why you need to construct strawmen, and to be so emotive in so many of your responses.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
You aren't REALLY comparing Denmark or other countries in Europe that are the size of a single State to the entire United States are you?

I'm comparing a country like germany (which has a population of 80 million) with something like the US (which has about 4 times as much) - so we're talking same order of magnitude here.
Considering that germany is a pretty industrialized nation and all these things you decry as 'impossible' are actually working...well...I'd say you're living in a fantasy world.


Most wind turbines cost an average of 3.5 million dollars for 2 MW of generation...

Total capacity currently for the US is 1063 GW, which is 1,063,000 MW which adds up to a bill of $3,720,500,000,000, but you actually have to about double that because we all know the wind isn't blowing all the time so that comes to $7,441,000,000,000 :)

Who's living in a fantasy world??
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
I'm comparing a country like germany (which has a population of 80 million)
Germanys solution to resource shortages - Lebensraum.

"German 'Energy Revolution' Depends on Nuclear Imports... the country is now merely buying atomic energy from neighbors like the Czech Republic and France...The nuclear power plant in the Czech village of Temelin ..."The entire facility needs to be shut down immediately," says Rebecca Harms, a member of the European Parliament representing Germany's Green Party... due to high demand for electricity in Germany, the accident-prone Czech reactor is doing good business."

"Russian Federation is the country of origin for 31.9 % of natural gas imports... Increases in consumption in comparison with 2011 were recorded only in Estonia (+11.3 %), Poland (+6.2 %), Germany (+3.4 %) "

-We don't know yet whether this is a 'final' solution or not.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Germanys solution to resource shortages - Lebensraum.

You might want to update your knowledge about current affairs a bit (by about 60 years). There's plenty of space in the former east german parts. Some states are producing in excess of 40% of their energy wind (and before you bring up the myth about 'needing to import nuclear: 2013 was a record year for energy EXport. Numbers for 2014 aren't in yet.)
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
Here's Germany's energy sector breakdown according to Wikipedia:

Oil 34.6%
Bituminous coal 11.1%
Lignite 11.4%
Natural gas 21.7%
Nuclear power 11.0%
Hydro- and wind power 1.5%

Less than 1.5% from wind....a HUGE success....

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
You might want to update your knowledge about current affairs a bit (by about 60 years). There's plenty of space in the former east german parts. Some states are producing in excess of 40%
So hard to say what is Germany and what isn't. Is Silesia Germany ? Is east Prussia Germany? Is the Sudetenland Germany?

Even harder today with Germany running all of Europe (again). 'Und Morgan die ganze Welt.' Well Somebody's got to Run it yes? (They do. They have. They will. Always. Um Gottes willen.)
Maggnus
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
You mean like a deer whistle on your car when you live up north?
Lol I hope not, those things don't work at all!

There is a lot of research going on to try and find an answer to the problem of bird deaths by windmills over land (ha trollist, got you there!). There is some controversy about it, in that there are suggestions the number of bird deaths may be exaggerated, however on balance it does seem to be a problem, and there is an effort to identify why it is happening and what can be done to prevent it (see here for eg: http://www1.eere....et.pdf).
Cocoa
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Modernmystic - you correctly indicated previously that I have a bias in this debate - and spend time defending my world view - and protecting my ego. How is that you need to raise that issue - but then so clearly demonstrate your own bias. Your numbers from wiki are very out of date. Take a look at this article - to get perhaps a more up to date view (still biased I understand that)

http://www.permac...-germany

But the real point is 'so what?'

We are in the early days of an energy revolution. Of course the established machine of fossil fuels is providing the dominant chunk of our energy. That is changing. There are many reasons why this revolution is important - and possible. Looking at early adopters like Germany and Denmark is very informative - and gives us data to keep building on. Obviously it can be done - it is being done. Perhaps you should look at your own agenda.
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Modernmystic - could you give a link on your wiki reference. It seems very much in conflict with this wiki reference.

http://en.wikiped..._Germany

Here is a quote " with wind power producing about 8 percent of Germany's total electrical power."
Maggnus
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
Most wind turbines cost an average of 3.5 million dollars for 2 MW of generation...

Total capacity currently for the US is 1063 GW, which is 1,063,000 MW which adds up to a bill of $3,720,500,000,000, but you actually have to about double that because we all know the wind isn't blowing all the time so that comes to $7,441,000,000,000 :)

Who's living in a fantasy world??
Where are you getting this information? The average price seems ok to me, but you are not suggesting that the entire US power grid is being proposed to be replaced by wind power alone are you? Furthermore, are you considering economies of scale when you are tossing out these huge numbers?

Your arguments seem to be predicated on a single source without consideration of the many sources available. I think strawman might be appropriate here?
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014

But the real point is 'so what?'


My response is 7.4 trillion dollars is what. Wind power is tooooooo expensive when nuclear is safe, works, and is affordable.

Perhaps you should look at your own agenda.


I have and it's basically I'd like to get off fossil fuels because of AGW and I'd like a REALISTIC policy to do it so that it actually happens...

Where are you getting this information?


Wikipedia for the capacity and here for the average cost of a turbine

http://www.windus...nes-cost

the rest is simple math. Those are the facts with math applied.

but you are not suggesting that the entire US power grid is being proposed to be replaced by wind power alone are you?


OK, how much are you suggesting then? What percentage? 20% is too expensive...
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
I'm also not including the cost of land in those figures or the more expensive cost of turbines offshore.

I'm also being very conservative because onshore wind is actually normally at 24% capacity on average.

http://www.ewea.o...ics/faq/

So realistically if you wanted to do 20% of the grid off of wind you'd be looking at about 3 trillion dollars without land costs....
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
I have and it's basically I'd like to get off fossil fuels because of AGW and I'd like a REALISTIC policy to do it so that it actually happens...


Then I wonder why the extreme bias. I suspect you are not so in touch with your own bias as you suggest.

You quoted a figure of 1.5% of energy in Germany from hydro and wind. I challenged those numbers - and asked you for a source. Crickets chirping. Who has the bias.

I too support nuclear. Antialias does not. As the numbers unfold - I suspect that Antialias has the facts on his side.

Modernmystic - what is the cost of a Kwh of power generated from wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear? Current numbers please.

The cost of solar is falling - it is very realistic to think in terms of 2 cents per Kwh from solar - probably within 10 years. I believe it is very realistic to look at leaving fossils behind - using a combination of renewables.

Modernmystic
4 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
You quoted a figure of 1.5% of energy in Germany from hydro and wind. I challenged those numbers - and asked you for a source. Crickets chirping. Who has the bias.


You could look it up yourself, I said Wikipedia was the source:

http://en.wikiped...sumption

Modernmystic - what is the cost of a Kwh of power generated from wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear? Current numbers please.


Hard to say without the subsidies. The numbers are out there though if you look, they don't agree and there's no consensus.The cost of installation as I've shown however is astronomical.

The cost of solar is falling - it is very realistic to think in terms of 2 cents per Kwh from solar - probably within 10 years. I believe it is very realistic to look at leaving fossils behind - using a combination of renewables.


It's not very scalable however, as our society becomes more capable it requires more power. I'd like to see a source on the 2 cents.
Maggnus
1 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
the rest is simple math. Those are the facts with math applied.
So the short answer to my question is that you have not considered the economies of scale.
OK, how much are you suggesting then? What percentage? 20% is too expensive...

How much do you think it cost the US to put into place the interstate road system? Or the electrical system? Or to put lights into every city and town across the US?

Do you see the point I am getting at? I actually agree with your overall view of nuclear power, and I think the hysteria surrounding that type of power is, well, unnecessary. I even hope that Zephyr's cold fusion is real! But it has to be understood that there is, at this time, no one correct method, excepting that we must step away from a carbon based energy grid.

Your method of calculating the costs of wind power are flawed, and that does lead you into a strawman argument. I understand your underlying argument, I just don't think you are thinking it through.
Cocoa
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
You could look it up yourself, I said Wikipedia was the source:


Except that you did not indicate the exact source - and if you look at the wiki article I referenced above - you will see that there is a lot of contradiction of numbers. Your numbers were 5 years old - which is a lot of time in this fast moving world. Your article also said - "The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 25 percent in the first half of 2012."

So maybe you would want to look at your motivation for cherry picking.

Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Feb 05, 2014
It's not very scalable however, as our society becomes more capable it requires more power. I'd like to see a source on the 2 cents.


Solar totally is scalable. Again an indication of your bias - when you make such a false statement. India has a 4 GW solar plant in the works - the size of a good sized nuke - so of course it is scalable.

The 2 cents a KWh is of course speculative - but I believe a very realistic number some time down the road - yes 10 years is just a guess. Here is an example of the articles I read that give me the hope that this is coming. http://cleantechn...per-kwh/

The cost curves on both wind and solar have been headed down for 50 years - and are going to continue down. Maybe nukes will go down too - I hope so. I think that smart money is on the belief that solar still has a lot of room for more efficiencies, and new technologies that will continue to drive down the cost.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
It's not very scalable however, as our society becomes more capable it requires more power.

Did you check the power consumptions of the most industrialized nations? They're flattening out (and in some cases even dropping).

Wind is very scaleable - especially for any country that has a coast (which is most countries on this planet)

Hard to say without the subsidies.

I'll give you a hint:
Here's the numbers for germany including all costs the society has to bear (not just the nominal subsidies, but all the other costs that the taxpayer has to shell out, too...which are subsidies in all but name). All numbers in ct per kWh
Wind: 8.1
Hydro: 7.6
Coal (black): 14.8
Coal (brown): 15.6
Solar: 36.7
Nuclear: 42.2

With the susidies for nuclear, coal and hydro pretty level, while the subsides for the others are in steady decline.

(As for effectiveness: Renewables, to date, have gotten 1/4 of the subsides that nuclear has and produce already more energy per year)
hangman04
3 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
i recommend : http://www.destatis.de, relying on wiki too much might make some debates pointless.

Maybe for countries like US investing so much in renewable doesn't make any sense since they have raw material resources for fossil and nuclear, but for countries that rely on imports of raw mats (either is gas, coal etc), and have to pay sometimes 3x times the cost that the US industry pays, just because for ex Russia or China or another supplier wants to blackmail that country (captive buyers). So if you take this under consideration alternative is the only viable way from all points of view. Even Germany is faced with such a problem since it is dependent on the Russian gas.

Also many see the renewables as a cost that the society has to pay atm, and it may seem that is there is no point in supporting them as they are not sufficiently efficient compared to nuke and fossils. But maybe it should be seen as an investment that future generations will cash in cause sooner or later run out
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
Maybe for countries like US investing so much in renewable doesn't make any sense since they have raw material resources for fossil and nuclear

Even in that case it makes sense to switch over: The climate change some of these are aggravating only kicks the costs down the road (and you're asking the rest of the world to shoulder these costs as well).

The waste problems for nuclear also just kicks the cost down the road - and since these don't ever go away you're running into a cocaine problem sooner or later where the costs just keep piling up instead of being fixed compared to the kWhs generated (so over time nuclear gets ever more expensive even if fuel costs reamin constant, installations costs drop, and no accidents occur)

And as noted: if you look at the total tab most renewables already beat the old sources. That's real money you have at your disposal every year from then on...forever. And that without any chance of potentially dangerous dendencies on others.
hangman04
4 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
I know AA, my thoughts also head in that direction but since i am not living in the States i am usually careful with the hypothesis i formulate. The problem with the renewables is the green certificates scheme (form a subsidy). I think this is creating some problems and it increases the cost for end users.
My real concern about the future is not the fossil vs renewables debate, but labor intensive industries (especially coal) vs automatic / robotic industries. What solutions will society have for those people? And also, i presume, this is the main reason why change is taking so long....
Cocoa
5 / 5 (1) Feb 06, 2014
Antialias - why is your quoted price for solar so high (36 cents per Kwh)? I have seen a number of articles recently talking about PPA's here (the U.S.) being around 8 cents (that is after about 2 cents worth of subsidies). Here is an article that talks about 0.08 euro for rooftop, and 0.14 euro for commercial. Even the commercial would work out to be 18 cents.

Thanks.
Cocoa
not rated yet Feb 06, 2014
ooops - once again I forgot to link the article.

http://www.greent...han-Coal
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
The waste problems for nuclear also just kicks the cost down the road - and since these don't ever go away
Nuclear waste is in concentrated and localized form. Radioactive waste from burning coal is dispersed and unremediable. Nuclear waste can be and is being vitrified, and may be reusable some day.
BuddyEbsen
not rated yet Feb 26, 2014
Interesting that it's very difficult to find the cost of one of these....


Maybe because its a PROTOTYPE?