Technical and economic study of two repowered wind farms in Bustelo and San Xoán, 24.7 MW and 15.84 MW respectively

Filgueira, A.; Seijo, M.A.; Munoz, E Caldera; Castro, Luis M.; Piegari, Luigi

doi:10.1109/iccep.2009.5211998

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other repowering activities have been observed in a limited number of cases in the Netherlands and India (e.g., Grontmij; RWE Innogy; Ramesh), and analysis of the potential economics of repowering has been conducted in Spain (Filgueira et al 2009). However, repowering activities in these countries have not been widespread.…”

Section: History and Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, repowering has been viewed as a possible means of increasing project productivity, improving grid support and grid interactions, extending the use of existing infrastructure investments, more efficiently utilizing high-value resource areas, and in some cases (e.g., single turbines or a single linear array), enabling greater installed capacity in a given land area (White and Gipe 1993;Kharul 2008;Hulshorst 2008;Fairley 2009;Filgueira et al 2009;Wiser et al 2008). Repowering has also been cited as a means of reducing the visual impact or clutter of wind power projects because for a given capacity rating, it reduces the number of turbines in a specific location (Knight 2004;Wiser et al 2008;Filgueira et al 2009;Meyerhoff et al 2010).…”

Section: Critical Variables Influencing Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repowering has also been cited as a means of reducing the visual impact or clutter of wind power projects because for a given capacity rating, it reduces the number of turbines in a specific location (Knight 2004;Wiser et al 2008;Filgueira et al 2009;Meyerhoff et al 2010). At the same time, it has been observed to potentially increase visual and aesthetic impacts by introducing new machines that are significantly larger and taller than their predecessors (Meyerhoff et al 2010;Sperling et al 2010)…”

Section: Critical Variables Influencing Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has also been interest in repowering in India and other parts of the world (e.g., Kharul 2008;Goyal 2010;GlobalData 2012;Filgueira et al 2009). Based on the data reviewed, Denmark and Germany have generally been the most active repowering markets, followed by California.…”

Section: History and Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 This is a result of the rate at which wind power technology has improved. Even if existing equipment were refurbished, new turbines are often capable of generating much more energy than the existing equipment (Filgueira et al 2009;Knight 2004). Moreover, the replacement of smaller turbines could allow some increase in the potential generating capacity from a given land area; as a result, countries with relatively few high-value wind resource sites are likely to prefer full repowering at these sites when wind power-or climate-related policy provisions are under consideration.…”

Section: History and Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: History and Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%