Vestas in $1.2B deal to build huge wind power farm in Norway

Danish company Vestas Wind Systems A/S says it has been awarded a 1.1 billion euro ($1.2 billion) deal to supply 278 wind turbines for Norwegian power company Statkraft and its partners for a wind power project in central Norway.

Vestas said Tuesday that the turbines will have a combined capacity of over 1,000 megawatts and will be built on six on land around the Trondheim fjord. Statkraft described it as Europe's largest wind power project to date.

The wind farms are estimated to generate 3.4 terawatt hours of power annually once completed and commissioned in 2020.

Statkraft said the coastal area surrounding the Trondheim fjord provides "some of the best conditions for from wind in Europe."


Explore further

Norwegian energy groups to build new British wind farm

© 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Vestas in $1.2B deal to build huge wind power farm in Norway (2016, February 23) retrieved 19 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-02-vestas-12b-huge-power-farm.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
21 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 23, 2016
Add to this the other factors in our favor such as this:

http://www.utilit.../414372/

and it looks better and better for Humanity and the Earth, because of this:

http://www.cnn.co...dex.html

Feb 23, 2016
"Europe's largest wind power project"
Farewell natural landscapes; luckless birds and bats that will be slaughtered by wind blades in mid-flight or have their air sacs exploded due to lowers air pressure generated by wind turbines, dooming these endangered animals to a horrific death.
http://harvardmag...-bavaria

Feb 23, 2016
Willie, did you look up "Chernobyl Children"?

Feb 23, 2016
did you look up
https://www.googl...eath+kwh
https://www.googl...rds+bats
https://www.googl...ad+waste
https://www.googl...ic+waste
And an obvious rational conclusion is that, even including all incidents, nuclear power is more ecologically friendly, safer and better for the environment than wind/solar.


Feb 23, 2016
The same production from a nuclear plant would cost 10x that.

I wonder what they will do with all the billions and billions of dollars they will save.

Feb 23, 2016
And they do not have to worry about meltdowns, or toxic and radioactive nuclear waste which lasts forever in Human terms.

Feb 23, 2016
"Nuclear alone produces more power than hydro, wind, solar and geothermal combined, at an average cost of about 4¢/kWh."
"200,000 MW of wind and solar .. 400,000,000 tons of steel and concrete, and a whole lot of copper, silver, indium, tellurium and high-purity silica."
"Maintaining existing nuclear is also cheaper than installing new natural gas plants even with our amazingly low gas prices."
http://www.forbes...and-gas/

Feb 23, 2016
wants you to live next door to ..
off shore turbines ugly
http://s1.ibtimes...ergy.jpg

Feb 23, 2016
Hey, Willikins, the City of Palo Alto just bought power at 3.7cents! And it ain't nuke,so there is no intensely-radioactive waste to worry about forever. And the land it is on isn't radioactive.

Feb 23, 2016
GO, thanks for covering for my laziness.

Feb 23, 2016
GO, thanks for covering for my laziness.

Too bad he can't cover your ignorance. Did you notice the exorbitant subsidies.

Feb 23, 2016
"Did you notice the exorbitant subsidies."
-------------------------------------

Are you talking about the $8,300,000,000 in loan guarantees for the nukes at Vogtle?

Feb 24, 2016
power at 3.7cents!
Almost for free, intermittent energy, backed by fossil fuels.
even for free, is expensive.

Feb 24, 2016
And the land it is on isn't radioactive.
renewables: hexavalent chromium, selenium, gallium arsenide, brominated diphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls, trihalomethane (THM).
http://www.txses....end-life
https://toryardva...inogens/
http://solarindus...mer.html
http://www.dailyr...-4881760

Feb 24, 2016

You have no vision
Future generations will have vision: seas and oceans, mountains, hills, forests, steppes, savannas, grasslands, all the remaining natural places being covered by wind and solar farms; windmills and rooftops PV releasing chemicals and carcinogenics to everywhere; they will miss nuclear power, compact carbon-free ecologically friendly, which waste is safely confined in fewer locations.

Feb 24, 2016
Willie, where is the cheap nuke power?

WHERE??

Feb 24, 2016
" they will miss nuclear power, "
--------------------------------

Nope. Not at Fukushima. Not at Chernobyl. Not at Seabrook. Not at Rancho Seco. Not at Hanford.

Feb 24, 2016
cheap nuke power
"The average fuel cost at a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 0.76 cents / kWh."
"Because nuclear plants refuel every 18-24 months, they are not subject to fuel price volatility like natural gas and oil power plants."
"The average non-fuel O&M cost for a nuclear power plant in 2014 was 1.64 cents / kWh."
http://www.nei.or...fe-Cycle
http://www.world-...wer.aspx

Feb 24, 2016
Nope. Not at Fukushima.
"No one has died as a result of the Fukushima radiation leakage"
http://www.thegua...politics
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation"
" not have caused any increase in the cancer rate."
http://www.nytime...isk.html
"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable"
http://journal.av...over-it/
"No one has died from radiation at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex."
http://en.wikiped..._tsunami
" they will miss nuclear power, "

Feb 24, 2016
Do not load the cost of armed guards required for nuclear waste forever, just make him buy power from Votgle 3 or Hinckley C.

Voila, . . no more nukes.

Feb 24, 2016
10 - 11 cents Kwh.
What really matters are the final prices, and nuclear is relatively cheap, aside carbon-free and Eco-friendly, keeping most remaining natural landscapes untouched.
Germany: 15.22 ¢/kWh (wind/solar)
France: 8.97 ¢/kWh (nuclear)
http://www.statis...untries/
Don't matter whether wind/solar is 2¢/kWh or for free, because of intermittency it is needed to burn huge quantities of fossil fuels.

Feb 24, 2016
It is nice to see Willie acknowledge how alternative energy has replaced fossil and now nukes for power. In the "midwest", the nuke plants have to be subsidized, to keep on running. Taxpayers, ratepayers, have to give money to the power company which inflicted those costly nukes on them.

Feb 24, 2016
alternative energy has replaced fossil
Are you dreaming?
http://renewecono...5-v2.jpg
http://renewecono...nmix.jpg
oil, natural gas and coal, i.e., total fossil fuels remain almost the same, mainly lignite coal, proving that the German Energiewende, even after spending trillion euros, has not resulted in less dependence on the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity.
http://judithcurr...misstep/
http://dailycalle...issions/

Feb 24, 2016
Baghdad Bob had nothing on Wailin' Willie.

They are twins.

Feb 24, 2016
http://renewecono...5-v2.jpg
With nuclear phasing out process in Germany, the big loser is natural landmarks/wildlife's habitats.
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
http://assets.inh...x369.jpg
http://static01.n...arge.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02369/wind_2369276b.jpg
Hypocritical greenies:
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg
http://ngm.nation...2048.jpg

Feb 24, 2016
see Texas for a good example
Texas' energy mix, mostly natural gas, coal, gasoline, distillate oil, fossil fuels in general.
http://www.eia.go...m?sid=TX

Feb 24, 2016
Oops, I gave GO a one by mistake. Sorry.

In Europe, Willie, the "biggest loser" is around Chernobyl.

Ask me about Japan and the United States.

Feb 24, 2016
Oops, I gave GO a one by mistake. Sorry.

In Europe, Willie, the "biggest loser" is around Chernobyl.

Ask me about Japan and the United States.
Ever notice that no one ever asks you anything? Do you have any idea why this might be?

Feb 25, 2016
What really matters are the final prices,

Oh! Well! If that's all that really matters, let the government pay for all the infrastructure for the solar panels like they do for nuke plants.

So... cost of producing solar energy is...zero.

Cost of producing Nuclear is... well you still haven't given us a figure, but the fuel is 3 to 4 cents so that 3 to 4 more than zero.

Feb 25, 2016
infrastructure
Nuclear power requires less area thereby less infrastructure.
solar farm: 10 W/m2
nuclear: 1000 W/m2
"1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile"
"..it uses less land, significantly less concrete and steel, has a low emissions intensity, and generates less expensive electricity than solar and wind alternatives"
"nuclear is the most land efficient, energy-dense source of power, with the lowest use of building materials per unit of energy generated per year, and one of the least expensive in terms of levelized costs. "
http://thebreakth...otprints
"nuclear energy ..least carbon intensive .. surpassing even solar"
http://jmkorhonen...-energy/
"Solar.. up to 75 times the land area."
http://www.nei.or...t-and-Re

Feb 25, 2016
"Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." - Oscar Wilde
Mankind is inherently prejudiced and biased.
But if it were possible to put aside all myths, beliefs, fictional data, junk science/bogus-environmentalism, political/ideological inclinations, personal convictions, then it should be clear that nuclear power is the most valuable decarbonization method for the environment. Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Ecologically, it is worth the price.
http://www.world-...wer.aspx

Feb 25, 2016
When the wind blows at the disgusting leaking polluted nuclear site at Hanford, instead of producing power, it does this:

http://www.tri-ci...052.html

Wilie will help clean it up.


Feb 25, 2016
When the wind blows at the disgusting leaking polluted
"Two companies fined after death of wind turbine technician"
http://press.hse....hnician/

Feb 25, 2016
the cost of power from a nuke
9.6¢/kWh, maybe less than 2¢/kWh if it with same subsidies of wind/solar.
"In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants going online in 2019 to be $0.096/kWh before government subsidies"
https://en.wikipe...r_plants
http://www.eia.go...tion.pdf
Carbon-free, compact, ecologically friendly, it is worth the price.

Feb 26, 2016
gives a fair comparison
Not so fair comparison as nuclear is more compact, carbon-free, less deadly than fossil fuels and renewables per gigawatt produced, more ecologically friendly; nuclear is worth the price.
1/2 the price
in practice
Germany: 15.22 ¢/kWh (wind/solar)
France: 8.97 ¢/kWh (nuclear)
http://www.statis...untries/

So, farewell Peru's natural landscapes and welcome to intermittent energy backed by fossil fuels.
http://www.pv-mag...pack.jpg
http://www.costos...6960.jpg
http://www.dforce...3%BA.jpg
http://ntn24-img....3431.jpg

Feb 26, 2016
infrastructure
Nuclear power requires less area thereby less infrastructure.
solar farm: 10 W/m2
nuclear: 1000 W/m2
"1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile"


#1, Solar panels make a whole heck of a lot more power than 10W/m2.
#2, How do you place 10kW of a nuclear power plant on top of a residence to minimize transmission lines?


Feb 26, 2016
if you put the solar panels on your roof, or a parking lot, or a warehouse etc. etc.
on top of a residence to minimize transmission lines
Contradictory, solar farms X rooftop PV, "Economies of Scale" wins, natural landscapes/wildlife's habitats/Nature loses, green hypocrisy/vested interests win; mutually beneficial so fossil fuels win too.
http://news.natio...68.1.jpg
https://theblissp...ddpa.jpg

Feb 26, 2016
Everybody and everything lost in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

No other system we have does that. There is no reason to have these monsters at all, except for the Big Money Boys who push us into them.

Willie will feel better with rooftop PV. Not so much guilt.

Feb 26, 2016
There is an issue with symantics here. There's the cost of producing power and the price of selling power.

Most of Willie's links show the price of selling power which is not really related to the cost of producing the power. Sure it included the cost of production, but then it includes profit for companies, salaries, subsidies etc etc.

In Canada when the nuclear plant required 12.8 Billion dollar refit, the for-profit company running the nuclear plant doesn't pay that. That fee is paid by the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada. Considering the plant makes 5GW and will require another refit in the next 30 years (262800 hours). This cost will allow for about 1.3 million GWh over 30 years.

This subsidy of 12.8 Billion dollars equates to 1300 Billion kWh which is a FULL PENNY per kWh. This cost is never seen in the price of the electricity. It's borne by the taxpayers.

It just keeps the cost of nuclear artificially low. Solar never gets that advantage.


Feb 26, 2016
Everybody and everything lost in Chernobyl and Fukushima.
pathological scaremonger always caught in lies.
feel better with rooftop PV. Not so much guilt.
connected to the grid to compensate intermittency backed by fossil fuels, no guilt.

Feb 26, 2016
"nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies."
"Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)"
"Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)"
"Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)"
https://en.wikipe...ubsidies
http://www.iisd.o...dies.pdf
http://www.world-...sts.aspx

Feb 26, 2016
But "green roofs" would be more Eco-friendly than dark solar PV, creating a habitat for wildlife, providing a more aesthetically pleasing landscape, and helping to lower urban air temperatures and mitigate the heat island effect.
https://en.wikipe...een_roof
https://upload.wi...2013.jpg
http://news.xinhu..._11n.jpg
http://www.homede...%897.jpg
http://www.powerh...x356.jpg
Black objects absorb more sunlight and irradiate it as heat into environment; black PV means more heat, more air-conditioning.
http://sciencelin...key=1464

Feb 26, 2016
did not realize that much of the energy that falls on solar panels - is converted to electricity
rooftop PV efficiency around 20% thereby 80% waste heat in urban area. So "green roofs" would be better than dark PV in urban area in order to reduce heat island effect.
https://en.wikipe...ering%29

Feb 26, 2016
rooftop PV efficiency around 20% thereby 80% waste heat in urban area.

Ok...this argument is beyond stupid.

ALL energy that impacts us is eventually converted to heat. Whether we make use of 20% of it as electricity first or not makes no difference.

Feb 27, 2016
ALL energy that impacts us is eventually converted to heat.
White objects reflect most of the sunlight back to sky while black objects absorb most of the sunlight and irradiate it as heat into environment.
"In sunlight, dark clothes absorb more heat and light-coloured clothes reflect it better"
https://en.wikipe...i/Albedo
The difference is that most of the nuclear power plants are not placed in urban areas, no heat island effect in towns as rooftop PV does.

Feb 27, 2016
By blocking evaporation, solar panels affect local clime, air drier.
"This cooling was also associated with a 20 percent decrease in precipitation in the deserts. Other, slightly broader changes in precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a result in the regions surrounding the deserts."
https://www.washi...-little/


Feb 27, 2016
concern for the fish and the seals - as he has for the birds and the bats
Nuclear power is ever much more ecologically friendly.
"Technical solutions (such as fish screens and plume eliminators) can effectively mitigate many of these impacts"
"Technology-based solutions at a power plant's cooling water intake structure can be highly effective in protecting fish and can accommodate the ecological diversity of the various sites. As the EPA has pointed out previously, solutions like traveling screens, with a collection and return system, are comparable to cooling towers in protecting aquatic life in water bodies used for cooling power plants.""
http://www.world-...nts.aspx
"Fish screens are typically installed to protect endangered species of fishes"
https://en.wikipe...h_screen
Wind/solar kills more animals per gigawatt produced.

Feb 27, 2016
concern for the fish and the seals - as he has for the birds and the bats
Nuclear power is ever much more ecologically friendly.
Yes, specifically the ecology of graveyards


Feb 28, 2016
1975: Shimantan/Banqiao Dam Failure
Type of power: Hydroelectric
Human lives lost: 171,000
Cost: $8,700,000,000
What happened: Shimantan Dam in China's Henan province fails and releases 15.738 billion tons of water, causing widespread flooding that destroys 18 villages and 1500 homes and induces disease epidemics and famine.


Feb 28, 2016
"Here's your go-to source for debunking all the Fukushima fables"
http://www.eartht...a-fables
http://www.southe...t-coast/
http://www.deepse...isaster/

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more