The Siemens Gamesa 5.X platform builds on successful partnerships

Andreas Schmid, Director of Infrastructure for Prime Capital, talks to us here about why the company opted for the Siemens Gamesa 5.X, some of the improvements that can be made, and what more can be done to grow a strong partnership.

What led Prime Capital to choose the Siemens Gamesa 5.X in its recent projects?

AS: The 170m rotor version and the rated capacity provided a competitive edge on the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCoE) of the project. This means we can meet the capacity of the project with fewer turbines, so the turbine was therefore the most economic choice. In turn, fewer turbines mean a more efficient use of land, and less environmental impact. So, it’s not just about power production, but also an optimal use of the land.

I would also say that it helped to have Siemens Gamesa’s established service network in Sweden. And beyond that we have a long-term relationship with Siemens Gamesa, which allows us to sign agreements on largely agreed formats, even if certain aspects develop over time.

What do you rely on as a developer in selecting a wind turbine when you can’t actually see a finished version? What are the key metrics you look at when you’re choosing the best one?

AS: A key aspect is to consider if what we’re looking at is a platform evolvement or a totally new platform. Usually, an evolved turbine based on an established platform is preferable to a totally new one. Transferring known technology elements from earlier turbines is helpful in the evaluation, as you know there are already tested elements, such as the yaw system. Here we see the 5.X as a mix of known and new elements. This is important as we must aim for the highest availability of a turbine, so it does not need much down time.

Another relevant aspect is if the manufacturer is willing to commit to the development of the platform over time. Siemens Gamesa has a good history on providing upgrades. We also look at the experience of a manufacturer to complete a type certification process in time and to warrant the product, which is important to meet insurance requirements.

In terms of metrics we’re looking at site suitability, energy production, development potential (higher ratings, upgrades etc.)

How far do you think wind turbines can grow in size if the Siemens Gamesa is already capable of producing a nominal capacity of 6.6MW?

AS: On the one hand, I continue to be amazed by the engineering answers found to this question, on the other hand, Enercon had shown with their 7.5 MW E-126 in 2011 that there is no factual limit yet. But for us, the nameplate capacity is less of a concern, but there are also challenges of transporting the new rotor blade dimensions onshore. Despite this, there may be further potential for OEMs to reach up to a 200m rotor size. Clearly the location is important, too, as there will still be a need for smaller turbines in challenging locations, so some variety is needed. We are seeing more acceptance of larger machines in places like the UK, Denmark or Germany, but in other places it will also be hard due to permits.

What else do you demand from a partner besides a competitive turbine?

How do you see Prime’s relationship with Siemens Gamesa developing?

AS: We have three large projects with Siemens Gamesa and are looking at plans for further substantial pipeline, so we are growing a better understanding of each other’s organizations. We are developing well within the project execution teams in terms of communication and cooperation and we want to have continuous collaboration with construction and execution. We must maintain a proactive approach and speak openly.

Prime Capital has led the way in the financing of these deals and also driving an increasingly important Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) market. How do you see financing for wind projects developing over time? And will corporations continue to snap them up?