Large wind turbines: the higher the better

F.J. Brughuis, Advanced Tower Systems BV

P.O. Box 286, 7500 AG Enschede, the Netherlands
tel. +31-53-4821420, fax. +31-53-4821401
e-mail f.brughuis@advancedtowers.com
www.advancedtowers.com

Summary
More energy can be generated at higher altitudes. However, transport problems will arise because of the required larger
tower diameters. ATS has developed a tower design of which the sections are vertically divided in three or more long,
slender segments. A larger tower requires a higher investment, but the payback period is shorter because of more energy
yield. Therefore, the Cost of Energy (CoE) of the wind turbine decreases significantly.

Keywords: wind turbines, towers, hybrid, precast concrete, payback period, Cost of Energy, hub height, cost-benefit
analysis.

1. Larger hub heights tower diameter; a diameter of 4 to 4.5m is usually the

The choice of the hub heights are sometimes upper limit that can be transported to inland locations.
determined by the possibilities of the site. Issues like Another limit is the costs; the actual steel prices are
logistics (infrastructure, cranes) and permits (visual such high that wall thicknesses of more than 30mm,
impact and air traffic) can limit the height. In other which means a huge amount of steel and welding,
cases, it is a matter of money; the extra investment in a become economically unattractive. Tubular steel towers
larger tower has to be compared to the benefit of the are usually applied for hub heights to a maximum of
increased energy production. The usual hub height is 100m.
around 1 to 1.2 times the rotor diameter.
In Germany, at inland sites, the trend is to choose the
hub height as high as possible. In the past the height
was limited by a maximum allowable tip height of
150m, which means a hub height of 100 to 110m for 2-
2.5MW machines. In recent projects you see more and
more site permits for larger hub heights, even up to
160m. Especially with the new renewable energy law
(EEG), it has become very interesting or even necessary
to choose a large hub height in order to proof that the
WT will achieve at least 60% of the reference energy
yield. Also in other countries, such as Spain, France,
Canada, the interest and the possibilities for larger hub
heights is increasing.
At a height of more than 100m the atmospheric layer
switches over from the Prandtl layer into the Ekman
layer. This layer is characterised by higher wind speeds
but also by more constant wind speeds, with a lower
Weibull factor and less turbulence, which is favourable
for the wind turbine. Positioning the rotor into this layer
results into more energy production and less fatigue
loads.

2. ATS hybrid tower

Most wind turbine towers are tubular steel
constructions. Because of the circular cross-section, the
resistance against bending is optimal in all directions.
However, large wind turbines require a stronger and Figure 1: 130m ATS hybrid tower
stiffer tower construction. Therefore, larger tower ATS Advanced Tower Systems has developed a
dimensions are needed, which conflict with transport concrete tower design, which can be installed in one
limits. The main restriction for transport over land is the

1/3
week. In this concept, the tower sections are vertically
divided into slender segments. The segments are made
of high-quality precast concrete. The so-called ATS
tower can be combined with a conventional tubular
steel tower sections on top (hybrid tower, see Figure 1).
The segments are easy to transport with normal trailers.
The number of segments can be minimised, which
means less transport and more efficient installation. As
an example, the concrete tower part of a 120m hybrid
tower design for a 2.5 MW machine is about 50m high
and consists of 12 prefabricated concrete segments:
three rings of four segments each. The extra investment
in this tower in comparison with a 100m tubular steel
tower is between €200K and €250K (including
foundation and installation costs).
The main advantages of the ATS tower are the transport
flexibility, short installation time, favourable strength
and dynamic behaviour and less maintenance costs.
Last year, a new factor has come up which makes the
use of alternative tower designs such as the ATS tower
more attractive: the steel prices. The steel prices have
been doubled in one year time. Therefore, concrete has
become even more economically attractive, especially
where much steel is needed for the strength and
stiffness.
3. The higher the better
Trend lines for steel tower prices and ATS hybrid tower
prices are estimated, based on market information and
own cost calculations, see below.
Comparison tower prices
including transport&installation costs
1600
1400
1200
Tower price [K€]
1000
800
600
400
200
0
60 80 100
Hub height [m]
steel tower prices in Europe
Steel tower prices in USA
Figure 2: Steel and hybrid tower prices (including
transport and installation)
The break-even of the hybrid versus steel is around 90
to 100m hub height. These lines are estimated for the
NW-European situation where the transport and
installation costs of steel towers are normally around 5-
6% of the total tower price. For countries like USA,
India, China and Australia, the transport and installation
costs are relatively higher; in some cases up to 20% of
the total tower price. This has to do with the long
distance from the tower factory to the site. Transport
problems of large steel towers are also the case for
mountain areas, see previous section. Because of its
proven and worldwide applied concrete technology, the
concrete segments of the ATS tower can be produced
near the site, saving considerable transport costs. For
these cases, the ATS tower concept is already
competitive at a hub height of 80m.
4. Cost-benefit analysis
Below a cost-benefit analysis is presented for a hub
height of 80m and higher. For this, the Wind Energy
Project Model of RETScreen International (ref. [8]) and
WasP analyses have been used. The RETScreen
software can be used to easily evaluate the energy
production, life-cycle costs and greenhouse gas
emissions reduction for wind energy projects.
Although the average wind speed is still increasing at
larger hub heights, even above 100m, the gradient is
decreasing. In other words, the energy output increment
per meter extra hub height is expected to decrease,
while the investment costs is increasing progressively.
Hence, there is a optimum at a certain hub height that
gives the most cost-efficient solution. Furthermore, the
wind distribution at heights above 100m, at the Ekman
layer, has a lower, and therefore more favourable
Weibull factor and with less turbulence (see section 1).
Uncertain factor here is the lack of wind speed
measurements at these heights (ref. [6]).
The payback period for the extra investment of a larger
hub height is calculated, using the trend lines and the
estimated extra energy production. The payback period
is calculated as follows:
Extra investment
PP=
Increased annual income
The payback period is calculated for each additional
meter hub height, starting at 80m hub height, up to
120 140 160
160m hub height. By doing so, the maximum hub
height that is the most economically attractive, can be
found. As a rule of thumb, often used by wind turbine
ATS hybrid tower prices
manufacturers, the payback period has to be not more
than seven years, to make the extra investment
acceptable. This has been calculated for two different
sites; an inland site (average wind speed 6.4 m/s, wind
shear factor of 0.33) and a coastal site (average wind
speed 8.3 m/s, wind shear factor of 0.22).
2/3

Payback period
10.0
9.0
8.0
payback period [years]
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
60 80
Steel towers, inland
Steel towers, coastal area
Figure 3: payback periods steel towers and hybrid
towers
This graph is based on the gradient of the graph in
Figure 2; the increment of the tower price. This
increment is multiplied with a factor 1.4, taking the
increment of the foundation costs and crane costs into
account. The average income is the expected increment
in energy production, multiplied with the feed-in tariff
of € 0.085 /kWh.
As result, from the payback period point of view, the
economically most attractive hub height for steel towers
turns out to be 90 to 100m. On the other hand, for the
ATS hybrid tower it is still economically attractive to
increase the hub height to more than 100m, with its
optimum at 130 to 140m. Off course these figures are
only indicative, because of the assumptions made and
the large spreading of costs and benefits. For each
project, the economical feasibility has to be checked.
When we compare the ATS tower solution with the
steel tower; the Cost of Energy of a turbine with the
ATS tower and a larger hub height turns out to be more
favourable than with a steel tower. For the inland site,
the CoE reduction is almost 10%, for the coastal site
about 5%, when the hub height is increased from 100m
to 120m (ref. [7]).
5. Conclusions
Large hub heights give a lower Cost of Energy, for
inland locations as well for coastal locations.
However, the tubular steel towers have reached their
limit concerning transportable dimensions for inland
locations. Alternative tower concepts have been
recently developed, amongst others the ATS hybrid
tower. Because of the segmented construction, the ATS
tower does not have transport limitations and can be
used for a wide range of turbine sizes and hub heights.
Technically the limit for the hub height is not found yet.
A probable limit is the largest available crane, but also
here the development of new, larger cranes will not
stop. The real limit lays at the economics; the costs per
meter extra hub height increases rapidly, while the
energy output increment per meter extra hub height
diminishes. Hence, there is an optimum which is, as an
indication, about 100m for steel towers and 140m for
the ATS hybrid towers. Because of the spreading in the
costs and benefits, this has to be checked for each
project.
100 120 140 160
6. References
Hub height [m]
ATS hybrid towers, inland [1] EWEA, Wind energy – The Facts, Brussels,
ATS hybrid towers, coastal area 2004
[2] Seidel, M., Auslegung von Hybridtürmen für
Windkraftanlagen;Beton- und Stahlbetonbau 97
(2002), Heft 11, S. 564-575
[3] Seidel, M., Entwicklung der Turmbauwerke fuer
die mulit-MW-Klasse, DEWEK, 2002.
[4] IPA Energy Consulting, An evaluation of
alternative/renewable energy schemes, 2003
[5] Milborrow, D., Size matters – getting bigger and
cheaper, WPM, January 2003
[6] Seifert, M., Windprognose für
großeWindenergieanlagen, Erneubare Energien,
7/2002.
[7] Brughuis, F., Improved Return On Investment
due to larger wind turbines, EWEC December
2004
[8] RETScreen International, Wind Energy Project
Model, Natural Resources Canada, CANMET
Energy Technology Centre – Varennes, Canada,
www.retscreen.net
3/3