IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v153y2020ics0040162519313691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wind turbine technology battles: Gearbox versus direct drive - opening up the black box of technology characteristics

Author

Listed:
  • van de Kaa, Geerten
  • van Ek, Martijn
  • Kamp, Linda M.
  • Rezaei, Jafar

Abstract

This paper studies the battle between two types of wind turbines, the gearbox wind turbine and the direct drive wind turbine. Applicable determinants that affect technological dominance for the wind turbine drive trains case are identified. By applying the Best-Worst Method, the relative importance to the determinants to understand which of the two wind turbine drive train types has the highest chance of achieving success are allocated. The results show that energy cost and reliability are the most important determinants, and that at this moment both drive train types still have the potential to become dominant. A contribution is made to the literature on dominant designs by focusing on the energy sector; a sector that has only scarcely been studied before with respect to design dominance. Furthermore, weights for factors for the technology dominance for the case of technology battles for wind turbine technology were established.

Suggested Citation

  • van de Kaa, Geerten & van Ek, Martijn & Kamp, Linda M. & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Wind turbine technology battles: Gearbox versus direct drive - opening up the black box of technology characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:153:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519313691
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119933
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162519313691
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119933?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Khazam, Jonathan & Mowery, David, 1994. "The commercialization of RISC: Strategies for the creation of dominant designs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 89-102, January.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    3. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    4. Utterback, James M & Abernathy, William J, 1975. "A dynamic model of process and product innovation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 3(6), pages 639-656, December.
    5. Garud, Raghu & Karnoe, Peter, 2003. "Bricolage versus breakthrough: distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 277-300, February.
    6. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    7. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    8. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    9. Clayton M. Christensen & Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1998. "Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(12-Part-2), pages 207-220, December.
    10. Peter Karnøe & Raghu Garud, 2012. "Path Creation: Co-creation of Heterogeneous Resources in the Emergence of the Danish Wind Turbine Cluster," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 733-752, February.
    11. Gipe, Paul, 1991. "Wind energy comes of age California and Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(8), pages 756-767, October.
    12. Funk, Jefrey L, 1998. "Competition between regional standards and the success and failure of firms in the world-wide mobile communication market," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4-5), pages 419-441, May.
    13. Li, H. & Chen, Z., 2009. "Design optimization and site matching of direct-drive permanent magnet wind power generator systems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1175-1184.
    14. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    15. Jeffrey L. Funk, 1998. "The Competition between Regional Standards and the Success and Failure of Firms in the World-Wide Mobile Communication Market," Kobe Economic & Business Review, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, vol. 42, pages 137-161, February.
    16. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    17. Kamp, Linda M. & Smits, Ruud E. H. M. & Andriesse, Cornelis D., 2004. "Notions on learning applied to wind turbine development in the Netherlands and Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(14), pages 1625-1637, September.
    18. van de Kaa, Geerten & Rezaei, Jafar & Kamp, Linda & de Winter, Allard, 2014. "Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 662-670.
    19. McKenna, R. & Ostman v.d. Leye, P. & Fichtner, W., 2016. "Key challenges and prospects for large wind turbines," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1212-1221.
    20. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    21. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    22. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1993. "Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 351-369, July.
    23. Steven Klepper & Kenneth L. Simons, 2000. "Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 997-1016, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sergiienko, N.Y. & da Silva, L.S.P. & Bachynski-Polić, E.E. & Cazzolato, B.S. & Arjomandi, M. & Ding, B., 2022. "Review of scaling laws applied to floating offshore wind turbines," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. Silke van der Burg & Maarten F. M. Jurg & Flore M. Tadema & Linda M. Kamp & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Dominant Designs for Wings of Airborne Wind Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-11, October.
    3. Rybak, Aurelia & Rybak, Aleksandra & Kolev, Spas D., 2024. "Development of wind energy and access to REE. The case of Poland," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Silke van der Burg & Maarten F. M. Jurg & Flore M. Tadema & Linda M. Kamp & Geerten van de Kaa, 2022. "Dominant Designs for Wings of Airborne Wind Energy Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-11, October.
    3. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    4. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    5. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    6. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    7. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    8. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    9. G. Kaa & M. J. Greeven, 2017. "Mobile telecommunication standardization in Japan, China, the United States, and Europe: a comparison of regulatory and industrial regimes," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 181-192, May.
    10. Cecere, Grazia & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Battaglia, Riccardo David, 2015. "Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 162-175.
    11. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    12. Hoogerbrugge, Coen & van de Kaa, Geerten & Chappin, Emile, 2023. "Adoption of quality standards for corporate greenhouse gas inventories: The importance of other stakeholders," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    13. Camerani, Roberto & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Fontana, Roberto, 2020. "It's never too late (to enter)… till it is! Firms’ entry and exit in the digital audio player industry," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Geerten van de Kaa & Lieke van den Eijnden & Neelke Doorn, 2020. "Filtering Out Standard Success Criteria in the Case of Multi-Mode Standardization: Responsible Waste Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-10, February.
    15. van de Kaa, Geerten & Greeven, Mark, 2017. "LED standardization in China and South East Asia: Stakeholders, infrastructure and institutional regimes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 863-870.
    16. Harborne, Paul & Hendry, Chris, 2009. "Pathways to commercial wind power in the US, Europe and Japan: The role of demonstration projects and field trials in the innovation process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 3580-3595, September.
    17. de Vries, H.J. & de Ruijter, J.P.M. & Argam, N., 2009. "Dominant Design or Multiple Designs: The Flash Memory Card Case," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-032-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    18. van de Kaa, Geerten & Papachristos, George & de Bruijn, Hans, 2019. "The governance of platform development processes: A metaphor and a simulation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 190-203.
    19. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    20. Uwe Cantner & Simone Vannuccini, 2012. "A New View of General Purpose Technologies," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-054, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:153:y:2020:i:c:s0040162519313691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.