APR 15

Adding to the financial difficulties of General Electric, whose stock dropped 15% last week on poorer-than-expected revenues, apparently they're having a heck of a time actually delivering the turbines they sell. The turbines aren't technically late, but as the waiting lists get longer and longer, wind projects might be postponed as folks wait to see who can deliver first.

{digg}http://digg.com/environment/GE_Has_Sold_12_B_of_Wind_Turbines_that_they_Don_t_Have{/digg}Wind turbines are not a simple thing to construct, and as technology (and subsidies) have advanced, wind power has suddenly become a very attractive option for a lot of utilities. This is, of course, fantastic for the environment. But much-increased demand combined with no simple way to produce more has resulted in a big lot of deep pockets waiting long waits for their turbines.

Looks like GE is going to have to start holding back on taking orders as the waiting list grows. It's apparently a lower margin business than GE is used to, but that doesn't mean they're getting out of it any time soon. GE's wind turbine business has grown 40% in the last year, this quarter, they delivered 569 wind turbines to buyers, mostly in Europe.

So far, wind power is the only renewable energy source that can (in certain areas) actually be cheaper than fossil fuels. So let's keep hoping GE and their competitors, who have also been having trouble keeping up with demand, can ramp up production soon.

Via CNet

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Nuclear
written by pyewacket, April 15, 2008

Nuclear power can also be cheaper than fossil fuels. It should be considered a renewable energy source for all intensive purposes.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Nuclear is renewable?
written by SolarDave, April 15, 2008

Uranium is needed to manufacture nuclear power. Isn't it mined? If so, how does it qualify for renewable?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by EV, April 15, 2008

You can make more Uranium out of Thorium and other material in a Breeder Reactor. Then there is the recycling of existing fuel.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Nuclear costs
written by Dave Cowen, April 15, 2008

Nuclear fuel is not the simple solution that we like to tote. Once you factor in the multi-billion dollar costs of construction of each reactor the costs of the energy from it go up significantly. So much so that governments build reactors, not energy companies. So energy companies don't factor in the cost of construction to the cost of energy. But even ignoring this, what about the cost of keeping the fuel contained for 100,000 years. Yes, there is fuel recycling, but at some point something needs to be stored. We know that there are not permanent storage solutions. Concrete cracks from the radiation and the spent fuel must be resealed or it will leak. 100,000 years. Almost anything is cheaper than the ongoing maintenance of fuel storage for 100,000 years! And lastly, for some years now we have been mining less uranium than we have been using in reactors. At some point the extra fuel from the Russian nuclear missiles will be gone, and you will find that the price of uranium (which has already gone up dramatically over the past few years) will skyrocket.

Once the true costs of nuclear are factored in, it is hard to justify their existence at this time.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Bob Wallace, April 15, 2008

Interesting observation....

Private/non-governmental money is streaming into wind power.

Nano Solar has presold its first year or two's product. Demand for PV solar has exceeded supply for a while to the extent that it has caused price increases.

No one seems to be spending private money to build new nuclear.

Makes one go Hummmmmmmmmmm..........

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Others RE's can cheaper than fossil fuel
written by Tom Konrad, April 15, 2008

Althouh nuclear is NOT renewable (gag), there are other renewable energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels to produce, given available local resources.

1. Solar thermal for process heat, and some other applications, such as swimming pool heating.
2. Landfill gas.
3. Geothermal, given a good qaulity resource.
4. Cofiring woodchips in coal plants is typically comparable in price to burning coal, although finding available supply can be dificult.

Most of these are below the radar, because they tend to be distributed and rely on free local supplies of feedstock, so their potential contributions to the energy mix (except solar thermal, which actually produced more (thermal equivalent) gigawatts than wind last year worldwide leads to their low profile. The low profile of solar thermal hot water uses stems from the fact that it's low tech and more prevalent in the 3rd world.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

"intensive purposes?"
written by glenn, April 15, 2008

did you mean "intents and purposes"???

maybe its a mute pount.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

"mute point?"
written by jrod, April 16, 2008

you mean moot point?

;)

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Unfair comparision
written by pyewacket, April 16, 2008

First, SolarDave, existing Uranium can be collected and recycled for longer than we will have a sun.
Second, Tom Konrad, it was never said to be renewable, just "considered". Just like it is considered you can read, but you can't.
Lastly, Dave Cowen is right on many aspects, but what is the cost and maintenance of hundreds (thousands?) of wind turbines to do the job of one reactor? Nuclear power has a bad reputation and some issues, but it shouldn't be tabled because it is unappealing.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Where's the data
written by Where's the data, April 16, 2008

You say that GE is 'apparently having a hard time delivering the turbines they sell'. Can you site even one example?

In fact, GE is selling all of their capacity and delivering all of the turbines they have on time! They are selling turbines 2-3 years out because their is strong demand from their customers and that is the only way that their customers can lock in supply.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

GE China?
written by Uncle B, May 16, 2008

If GE can't I'm sure China can!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Wind Turbines
written by KT, May 18, 2008

Wind Power is free and clean, Some Turbines Produce enough power to supply 500 households when in full production.
This industry looks to be the future, for our children. You can use Mother Nature if she will let you, but if you abuse her she will abuse you, with that being said yes to wind power no to fossil fuels and Nuclear Plants, Hey maybe we should leave a place to stay for our Children and there Children.
Peace
KT

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Nuclear power has lot of potential
written by Elementary science, May 26, 2009

Every source we know today has one or more problems, and the debate is never ending. In my opinion, nuclear power is an option with lot of potential. Countries like France generate over 75% from nuclear plants. It has got a bad name historically, but who is to say that with better funding and R&D, we can't have smaller, more efficient and safer nuclear reactors and storage systems. What everyone talks about is possibly a 30 year old view.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment