2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review

Tegen, Suzanne; Hand, M.; Maples, B.; Lantz, Eric; Schwabe, Paul; Smith, Aaron

doi:10.2172/1219749

Cited by 53 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These are important variables that can significantly impact wind power costs by adding expenditures, delaying projects, or halting projects altogether. Nevertheless, their exclusion is consistent with past work conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) (Tegen et al 2012) and others in this space (BNEF 2012b, Lazard 2008, as LCOE is not traditionally defined as a measure of all societal costs and benefits associated with power generation resources.…”

Section: Key Inputs and Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…This report provides an update to the 2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review (Tegen et al 2012). However, it offers an abbreviated look at the 2011 wind LCOE, turbine costs, financing, and market that will be followed by a more comprehensive review in the next edition.…”

Section: Key Inputs and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review applies the same approach as the 2010 report (Tegen et al 2012). A number of data sources and models were used in NREL's estimation of the cost of wind energy.…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Principally, NREL's wind turbine design cost and scaling model (Fingersh et al 2006) is used to estimate the capital cost and AEP of a project based on turbine rated capacity, rotor diameter, hub height, and a representative wind resource. This model uses scaling relationships at the component level (e.g., blade, hub, generator, and tower) developed with curve-fit industry data, published scaling models, and turbine models developed through the WindPACT studies (e.g., Malcolm and Hansen 2006) that reflect component-specific and often nonlinear relationships between size and cost (see Appendix C in Tegen et al 2012). The use of this model provides additional component-level details for turbines (with user-defined parameters) and plants.…”

Section: Evaluating Market Conditions and Data For Projects That Havementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review

Tegen¹,

Lantz²,

Hand³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Key Inputs and Resultssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Key Inputs and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluating Market Conditions and Data For Projects That Havementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review

Tegen¹,

Lantz²,

Hand³

et al. 2013

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…5 Operating costs are considered to be equivalent for new greenfield and repowered facilities (both full and partial). Tegen et al (2012), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) The evaluation of investment options is based on a comparison of the net present value (NPV) of future after-tax cash flow. Specifically, the change in projected NPV for repowered facilities is compared with the change in projected NPV from future cash flows of an existing facility plus the NPV from a new adjacent greenfield plant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Wind Power Project Repowering: Financial Feasibility, Decision Drivers, and Supply Chain Effects

Lantz¹,

Leventhal²,

Baring-Gould³

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryAs wind power facilities age, project owners are faced with plant end-of-life decisions. This report is intended to inform policymakers and the business community regarding the history, opportunities, and challenges associated with plant end of life actions, in particular, repowering. Specifically, the report details the history of repowering, examines the plant age at which repowering becomes financially attractive, and estimates the incremental market investment and supply chain demand that might result from future U.S. repowering activities.Repowering as defined here includes two types of actions. Full repowering refers to the complete dismantling and replacement of turbine equipment at an existing project site. Partial repowering is defined as installing a new drivetrain and rotor on an existing tower and foundation. Partial repowering allows existing wind power projects to be updated with equipment that increases energy production, reduces machine loads, increases grid service capabilities, and improves project reliability at lower cost and with reduced permitting barriers relative to full repowering and greenfield projects.Repowering first emerged in the early 1990s in the California and Danish wind power markets and was followed by the Dutch and German markets in the 1990s and 2000s. Although repowering activity has occurred elsewhere, these locales remain the principal markets for repowering investments. Historically, repowering has been viewed as a means of increasing project productivity while offering an array of other potential attributes of interest. Fundamentally, however, profitability for a given project is the primary driver of repowering decisions. Given limited financing, the anticipated profitability at alternate greenfield sites is also relevant.Two distinct analyses were conducted to understand the plant age when repowering becomes viable. These analyses utilized NREL's System Advisor Model (SAM), a tool that enables the user to predict estimated cash flows from a variety of electric power generation technologies. Net present value calculations were utilized to enable comparisons across time.The first analysis involved creating "proto-typical" wind plants of four different vintages, with commissioning years of 1999, 2003, 2008, and 2012. Proto-typical plants are representative of the industry at the time of their construction and rely on market data from each of the commissioning years to derive installation and equipment costs, power purchase agreement revenue, net capacity factor, receipt of federal production tax credit payments, and operation and maintenance expenses. For each of these four plants, future investment decisions to repower, or build a nearby greenfield site, were evaluated for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030.The second analysis focused on three actual wind plants operating in the United States. These plants were chosen for varying vintages and geographical diversity and include a Northeast wind plant (15-20 years old), a Midwest wind plant (10-15 years old), an...

show abstract

Vibration-based damage detection in a wind turbine using 1 year of data

Oliveira

Magalhães

Cunha

et al. 2018

Struct Control Health Monit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary In the current state of development, it is very hard to remotely evaluate the actual condition of wind turbines structures. This makes it impossible for a wind farm owner to correctly deliberate about the need of retrofitting the current wind turbine structure, as well as to decide about the possible extension of its operating lifetime. Taking into account this problem, this paper introduces the main aspects in the development of a vibration‐based monitoring system for an onshore 2.0‐MW wind turbine based on the identification of the modal properties of the most important vibration modes. Initially, the wind turbine is introduced, as well as the implemented monitoring system. Then, the main steps of the monitoring system are briefly described. A detailed attention is given to the statistical procedure based on regression models used to minimize the influence of operational and environmental effects over the features used to detect structural changes in the wind turbine. Lastly, the suitability of the system to detect damages is thus assessed, through the analysis of three common damage scenarios: onshore foundation damage; damage by scour on an offshore foundation; and blade damage. It is concluded that the system is capable of detecting damage in onshore and offshore foundations, as well as in rotor blades. The most important contribution of the paper is the definition of monitoring framework for damage detection, its implementation, and validation with monitoring data collected during more than 1 year in a utility‐scale wind turbine.

show abstract

2010 Cost of Wind Energy Review

Cited by 53 publications

References 17 publications

2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review

2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review

Wind Power Project Repowering: Financial Feasibility, Decision Drivers, and Supply Chain Effects

Vibration-based damage detection in a wind turbine using 1 year of data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About