Guardian: Offshore Wind Fail – The UK Government Must Make Cheap Renewables More Affordable

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Peta of newark; “The economics do not stand up” for investing in the cheapest form of energy?

‘Biggest clean energy disaster in years’: UK auction secures no offshore windfarms

Lack of interest was widely expected after government failed to heed warnings about soaring costs

Jillian Ambrose Energy correspondentSat 9 Sep 2023 01.20 AEST

Lack of interest was widely expected after government failed to heed warnings about soaring costs

No new offshore windfarms will go ahead in the UK after the latest government auction, in what critics have called the biggest clean energy policy failure in almost a decade.

None of the companies hoping to build big offshore windfarms in UK waters took part in the government’s annual auction, which awards contracts to generate renewable electricity for 15 years at a set price.

The companies had warned ministers repeatedly that the auction price was set too low for offshore windfarms to take part after costs in the sector soared by about 40% because of inflation across their supply chains.

Up to 5 gigawatts of offshore wind was eligible to compete, which could have powered nearly 8m homes a year. That would have saved consumers £2bn a year compared with the cost of using electricity generated in a gas power plant, according to the industry group Renewable UK.

The industry warnings intensified after Vattenfall said in July that it would cease working on the multibillion-pound Norfolk Boreas windfarm because rising costs meant it was no longer profitable.

Keith Anderson, the chief executive of ScottishPower, said: “This is a multibillion-pound lost opportunity to deliver low-cost energy for consumers and a wake-up call for government.

“We all want the same thing – to get more secure, low-cost green offshore wind built in our waters,” Anderson said. “But the economics simply did not stand up this time around.”

Read more:

Isn’t the cost of building the plant part of the cost of supplying energy produced by that plant?

If the plant is too expensive to build, how can it’s energy product possibly be described as cheap?

If the Norfolk Boreas wind farm is too expensive to complete, how can it also be described as a potential supplier of the cheapest form of energy?

At least this hilarious debacle has exposed the fiction of cheap renewables. This is why the UK is desperately contemplating energy rationing grid protection measures – Britain can’t afford to build the “cheapest form of energy”.

The drop in British renewable investment appears to be part of a worldwide collapse in interest. A recent wind auction in the Gulf of Mexico only attracted lacklustre interest. A few days ago WUWT reported on a drop in support for wind in New Jersey. Back in June, WUWT also reported a “profound slowdown” in renewable investment in Australia.

Renewables – the energy source so cheap, nobody can afford to build them.

For more information on why renewables are impractical and unaffordable click here.

5 34 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Real Engineer
September 10, 2023 2:06 am

Be the first to publish a cost/benefit analysis – story tip

Reply to  The Real Engineer
September 10, 2023 3:50 am

Anytime the concept of a new energy source that will lead to millions of new jobs in the energy sector is discussed, remember that adding people to the project increases costs and decreases efficiency. If you increase costs while decreasing efficiency, you’re not in the cheap energy game.

paul courtney
Reply to  The Real Engineer
September 10, 2023 4:14 am

Mr. Engineer: I think a guy named Istvan has done it, look up his book blowing smoke or something.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
September 10, 2023 7:59 pm

I don’t believe a Cost/Benefit analysis is possible. If there weren’t any subsidies to mine, there would be No Cost Benefit

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
September 10, 2023 8:02 pm

Even subsidy mining is insufficient to offset the costs associated with Offshore Wind.

Rod Evans
September 10, 2023 2:29 am

You have to smile when you read something the Guardian writes about renewable energy being so cheap no one can afford to build it.
Will they ever get beyond their ‘dreams’
Also, I particularly like the concept of making a government responsible for ensuring cheap energy is affordable….. do these Guardian types have any idea how ridiculous they actually are?

Reply to  Rod Evans
September 10, 2023 4:17 am

The Guardian is now beyond parody.

Reply to  Graemethecat
September 10, 2023 4:35 am

I’ll have you know they take themselves extremely seriously and with no hint of irony. The Graun was 100% for the strictest lockdown possible

“UK lockdown must not be lifted until Covid-19 transmission is understood, say scientists” etc.

And now it abhors the social damage done by…. the lockdown the Guardian demanded.

Younger children most affected by Covid lockdowns
Children in most deprived areas suffered greatest loss … 
How lockdown may have provided ‘cover’ for deadly child abuse

‘A sacrificed generation’: psychological scars of …
Covid-19 policies risk leaving psychological and socioeconomic scars on millions of young people across Europe, with far-reaching consequences for them and society, a wide-ranging Guardian project has revealed.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing (h/t K Starmer)

So, when the Graun claims Climate Breakdown Has Begun, only a complete numpty is going to swallow that.

Reply to  strativarius
September 11, 2023 12:17 pm


A word I have never heard used. I intend to steal it.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 10, 2023 6:39 am

Yeah. It should be the responsibility of the business to bring costs down to match market prices, not the other way round. The governments have thrown billions in subsidies at renewables in an effort to keep them competitive and it just isn’t working; time for governments to step back and let them sink or swim on their own. If the steel or coal industries had received the level of subsidies the government has already given to renewables, we’d still actually have a steel and coal industry!

Reply to  Richard Page
September 10, 2023 8:19 am

The free market is far superior to government for creating workable and affordable solutions.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  andersm0
September 10, 2023 10:19 am

The real question: Can government even create ‘workable and affordable solutions’?

Reply to  Gregory Woods
September 10, 2023 4:05 pm

I guess they could, but it would be totally by accident.
All of the incentives push government employees towards unworkable solutions.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Richard Page
September 10, 2023 8:30 am

Subsidy farmers don’t farm wind, solar, or corn. Just subsidies.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Richard Page
September 10, 2023 10:10 am

Governments might have thrown billions in subsidies for unreliables but the IEA wants them to commit to tripling global renewable capacity by 2030 ahead of COP 28.

“the single most important lever to bring about the reduction in CO2 emissions needed by 2030 is to triple global installed capacity of renewable power by the end of the decade” (July 2023)

Reply to  Richard Page
September 11, 2023 11:57 am

And then, ironically, the cost of the wind turbines would be more manageable and someone would have bid on the lease!

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 10, 2023 8:25 am

I don’t understand, for years the Guardian and others told me that wind and solar power are not just renewable, but free!


Reply to  Rod Evans
September 10, 2023 9:17 am

These are the same people who believe that having government take money from the people who earned it, in order to buy the votes of the people who would rather not work, is the best way to improve the economy.

September 10, 2023 2:30 am

It was only ever a matter of time before the true economics of renewable energy hit home. As things stand the environmental lobby will simply claim that onshore wind will solve the problem. It won’t, of course, but it’s pointless attempting to point that out to the zealots who believe in this stuff, even if the maths involved in the economics could be done by a 10 year-old.

People will look back in around 50 to 100 years and wonder how this sort of thing can be allowed to happen. I wouldn’t have believed it myself were I not living through such nonsensical times, It really is extraordinary how otherwise ‘intelligent’ people just can’t see this. I’ve tried reasonable argument but to no avail. The common pattern is that all of these people are on the left politically, which is very revealing; and I’m talking here about graduates from the very top universities. It really is unbelievable.

Reply to  MarkW2
September 10, 2023 3:18 am

As I have noted here previously, there are 3 fundamentals that will ultimately kill the ruinables industry.


Reply to  SteveG
September 10, 2023 4:18 am


Reply to  Graemethecat
September 10, 2023 5:28 am

Thermodynamis is part of Physics.

Reply to  chascuk
September 10, 2023 1:16 pm

…and part of Chemistry.

Reply to  Graemethecat
September 10, 2023 4:12 pm

No one mentions electrical engineering

Reply to  SteveG
September 10, 2023 4:49 am

Even so, it took quite a few decades before the Soviet Union fell over. Renewables could possibly might may have a couple more decades to run before it hits the fan…

The new idea I spotted recently is, rather than ban gas boilers outright, tax them instead….

Richard Page
Reply to  strativarius
September 10, 2023 6:46 am

Oh, tax both the fuel and the mechanism? Well, I guess governments managed it with ICE cars, so what could possibly go wrong?

Richard Page
Reply to  SteveG
September 10, 2023 6:43 am

I suggest that there is only 1 fundamental factor that will kill the ruinables industry:
Reality, as opposed to the Fantasy world these renewable advocates have been living in!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Richard Page
September 10, 2023 10:17 am

Don’t forget that most oil companies have unreliables divisions. Well why shouldn’t they harvest the subsidies too?

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 11, 2023 5:13 am

Well when governments are throwing taxpayers money around like confetti, it would be rude not to grab some, wouldn’t it?

Reply to  SteveG
September 10, 2023 9:23 am


Reply to  MarkW2
September 10, 2023 9:21 am

It was only a few years ago, that the same people were claiming that offshore wind would solve the problems being had by onshore wind.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  MarkW2
September 10, 2023 10:06 am

“People will look back in around 50 to 100 years and wonder how this sort of thing can be allowed to happen.”


We humans have a history of listening to the wrong people and blindly follow them down a path to self-destruction. We only realize the mistake after all the damage is done. For starters, think Nazi Germany and Mao Tse Tung in China and his Great Leap Forward. In both cases, countless millions died. Issues that are supposed to be scientific, like climate change and wind, solar and hydrogen energy, are no different.

My theory is that this happens for two reasons:

(1) Because the narratives being sold to the masses provide confirmation for their existing belief systems, and/or the narratives appeal to them emotionally. Those who know how to manipulate the masses are well aware of this. The manipulators know how to get into the heads of the masses and tell them exactly what they want to hear. Today’s renewables and climate change activists are quite good at playing with emotions, especially with the ones we call fear and hate.

(2) With issues like renewables and climate alarmism, the masses’ lack of literacy in science (and physics in particular), engineering and economics enable the creation of a religion where fossil fuels are evil and demonic while wind turbines, solar panels and hydrogen are holy and saintly. Of course, this lack of literacy extends to the politicians and the mass media which includes them as members of the Holy Church of Climate and Green Energy with the Right Reverend Al Gore presiding (he attended divinity school at Vanderbilt).

Just my two cents worth for whatever it adds to the discussion.

Eric Vieira
September 10, 2023 2:30 am

What reason could lie behind governments spending insane amounts of money for a technology that doesn’t fill the minimum requirements of stable economic power production? What if the goal is getting all governments into debt entrapment ? Then BlackRock, Vanguard or State Street can really run the world, since they can buy up all the conventional energy sources while they’re officially undesired and cheap. Due to ESG, others can’t even get a credit to do this, and the big three are the only ones with financial resources who can bid. This is called manipulation of market demand.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
September 10, 2023 5:47 am

The companies you mention are mostly investing OPM – Other People’s Money – Vanguard is a non profit company – it’s how they keep low fees – the problem is the management in some cases is trying to be political and follow ESG when their goal is supposed to be maximum return on investment. They are voting for board members when the actual owners of the shares might not want their shares voted for ESG. Larry Fink is a fink…..don’t give him money to invest.

Reply to  antigtiff
September 10, 2023 4:18 pm

have you even looked into Vanguard PE or have the basic understanding to do so. You wouldnt say its non profit company or that they arent looking at the return on investment- maximum is an illusion unless you dont care about risk
Its clear to me you have zero understanding of sophisticated financial markets, much like the zombies and their wind power

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 10, 2023 2:41 am

Are the wings coming off the windmills?

Rod Evans
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 10, 2023 3:35 am

Like the Windmills of their Minds. Wheels within a wheel….

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 10, 2023 3:57 am


September 10, 2023 3:14 am

The Guardian – LOL!

Sorry, that is all I can contribute regarding anything from that alleged source of………..

Bill Toland
Reply to  SteveG
September 10, 2023 3:27 am

I still read the Guardian from time to time because I want to know what the British left is saying now. In the last few years, the Guardian has become increasingly unhinged from reality as the above article demonstrates. The terrifying thing is that the British Labour party (probably the next government) seems to regard the Guardian as their bible. We are all doomed.

Reply to  Bill Toland
September 10, 2023 4:51 am

It’s as well to know what garbage is being spouted by the house rag of the BBC.

Then there’s the guffaw factor…

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
September 10, 2023 10:21 am

Yep lots of laughs reading the Grauniad these days. Pity because it was once a decent newspaper.

Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 10, 2023 4:21 pm

Yes. Occasional in depth article , hard to find amoung the screamers and their opinions.
It seems to have copied Murdoch in that his money making style was to turn his papers into ‘screamers’ – his own words apparently- for the down market readers

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 10, 2023 11:39 am

Winston Churchill said that you should always read a newspaper which did NOT agree with your politics and policies so that you could better understand the opposition. I try to do likewise – but I draw the line at the Guardian except in extremis.

September 10, 2023 3:39 am

And there was a story in the Daily Telegraph reporting that the CEO of Gridserve (EV Charging Point Operator) was considering using local, diesel powered charging points. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Reply to  Bil
September 10, 2023 4:49 am
Reply to  1saveenergy
September 10, 2023 4:52 am

It’s just slightly less left than the Guardian and Parliament

September 10, 2023 3:39 am

The cheapest anything has no soaring costs

Ben Vorlich
September 10, 2023 3:46 am

Story tip

Electric cars powered up by generators as grid delays slow charging point rollout
Gridserve explores alternatives amid long delays connecting to the electricity grid

Even when connected they’ll have to hope the wind is blowing just 0.72GW today, interconnectors way more than wind+solar

Mark BLR
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 11, 2023 4:06 am

… the wind is blowing just 0.72GW today …

It’s been a while since I updated my “BM Reports + ESO, 30-minute time resolution” graph.

The ~17.5 GW peak in “Total Wind” on the 19th of August is 5/8ths (62.5%) of the total “Nominal / Nameplate Capacity” of all wind turbines connected to the GB grid.

Note that the highest 30-minute average for “Total Wind” was 21.93 GW, just over 78% of “Capacity”, in January this year. Coping with a “fleet” of generators that can swing from 80% to 1% of notional output depending on the weather must be tricky for ESO to manage …

Question for anyone located in southern England : Did it just “cloud over” in your neck of the woods yesterday (Sunday the 10th of September, “Solar” peaked just below 5 GW)) compared to the previous 7 days (“Solar” peaking just below 10 GW), or did it actually “rain” ?

September 10, 2023 3:52 am

Of course, it’s only a matter of time, before the gov’t ‘U turns’ and accedes to the higher costs.

‘Wind and solar at all costs, we must protect our global position’. The electorate will stand the cost. 🙄

September 10, 2023 4:26 am

Adam Smith always wins.

Reply to  buckeyebob
September 10, 2023 4:29 pm

Really ? The richest states in US are the most democratic voting.
Virtually all western countries are described as mixed economys – both private and government

See the latest string of disasters in US, Biden is aking congress for $18 bill in funding for recovery after fires, floods, storms.
It seems they dont have insurance or even state underwritten insurance, Oh dear

Even US farmers rely on federally funded/subsidised crop insurance against weather

Reply to  Duker
September 10, 2023 10:41 pm

Democrat, certainly not democratic.

September 10, 2023 5:14 am

It’s a national intelligence test that’s not optional.

September 10, 2023 5:19 am

So the UK must be further strained financially in order to help save the lowest cost producer? Is this Orwellian energy policy of the lobbyists?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 11, 2023 1:37 am

Not forgetting that Sunak has just pledged another 1.6 billion to fight global climate change. It must give him a warm, fuzzy feeling to p*ss away taxpayers’ money (current and future – it’s not as if we don’t have a national debt…)

September 10, 2023 5:30 am

Harris Kupperman has been noting that OSV (Offshore Service Vessel) pricing has been at high levels and increasing.
OSVs are what you need to build oceanic oil rigs as well as these offshore wind turbines. Note that Norway and the UK are now exploring the North Sea again for fossil fuels…
This is a significant part of the reason why “cheapest” offshore wind energy is too expensive to build. The other part is that you need a lot of concrete, transmission line extensions etc to actually garner the electricity from a completed offshore wind turbine – and you need to build hundreds of them in any given wind farm. Or in other words – materials costs are very high. Couple materials costs with the OSV cost per turbine, not hard to see why expenses are soaring.
“OSV owners could see some of the highest day rates in history if they are willing to exercise capital discipline and avoid overbuilding, says Tidewater’s Quintin Kneen”

Dave Andrews
Reply to  c1ue
September 10, 2023 10:27 am

Wind Europe warned 18 months ago that there would be a shortage of the three different types of vessels needed to construct offshore wind farms that would pose “risk for project execution worldwide”

Richard Page
Reply to  c1ue
September 10, 2023 3:01 pm

I wondered about that. If the costs are going up to hire the OSV’s but demand for offshore wind is still there would it be cheaper for a large-scale installation company to buy their own? Obviously not if nobodies done it – it’s easier and better to get government to raise subsidies.

Reply to  Richard Page
September 11, 2023 5:53 am

Short answer is: probably not.
The situation is exactly analogous to oil/natural gas drilling rigs: while an oil company could operate their own, in practice it is far more capital efficient to just rent them when desired.
Yes, it introduces a lot more variability to cost – but this variability is shared by the entire industry as opposed to the massive capital risk of owning one. Plus there is expertise needed to operate them which again is quite expensive to retain in house.
The problem with offshore wind and OSVs is that the relative cost of construction vs. value generated is a lot smaller than OSV spend vs. a fossil fuel offshore well drilling. It is very analogous to a single fossil fuel electricity generation plant vs literally hundreds of wind turbines – you build the plant once at a single location but the wind farm requires a different construction site for each turbine.

Peta of Newark
September 10, 2023 5:32 am

Headline:“‘The transition to net zero has turned into a quasi-religious debate’

Quote:“”‘The Bank (of England) can do nothing about climate change’For King, Sunak’s decision as Chancellor to add considerations about climate change to the Bank’s mandate “makes absolutely no sense” and has distracted policymakers from their core job of keeping inflation in check.

It’s an interview with Mervyn King (now Lord King, could we squeeze in ‘Earl’ that that’s all the bases covered?)

He’s especially raving about the miniscule amount that UK people are saving (for their retirement)
= more obvious than an obvious thing – They can’t save anything because of all the tax, arbitrary & capricious ULEZ charges, parking charges and rampant inflation, notably thanks to the total bodge made of Brexit.
Basically because we put a drunkard into #10 Downing St

everything is wrong in this country right now. everything

September 10, 2023 5:42 am

This is why China has spies in the UK Parliament–they need to watch for questioning of green fails and other signs of wakefulness.

September 10, 2023 7:20 am

The UK Government Must Make Cheap Renewables More Affordable

The only way government can do this is directly via higher taxes or indirectly via inflation from money creation.

Andy Pattullo
September 10, 2023 7:29 am

Wind energy is free the same way gravity is free but you will spend your whole life expending costly resources trying to control either one for your own benefit.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
September 10, 2023 8:30 am

ALL raw resources are free, and also unusable in that raw form. Oil, coal, timber, wind, solar. It’s converting them to usable resources that costs money.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
September 11, 2023 1:38 am

Yes, Nick keeps reminding us that once the windmills are built the ‘fuel’ is free.

Loren Wilson
September 10, 2023 7:30 am

5 GW to support 8 million homes = 625 watts. If this is nameplate capacity, then the average for offshore wind is 40%, so 625 watts per household becomes 250 watts. I used an average of 3700 watts last month. Granted, I am pushing an air conditioner and I have an electric clothes dryer. Gas water heater and stove. Either the British are very economical in their use of electricity or this is the definition of energy poverty.

Reply to  Loren Wilson
September 10, 2023 10:50 am

Ofgem estimates the typical household in Britain uses 2,900 kWh of electricity and 12,000 kWh of gas in a year. Total UK electricity consumption is about 300 TWh per year.

Don’t know what the typical peak usage household draw is. Must be a lot more than 250 or even 625 watts though. Just turn on one burner on your electric hob to cook dinner and you’d be over that. Or turn on the electric water heater, or boil a kettle.

There must be a basic problem about peak usage, never mind total power use. What happens if all 8 million of those homes turn on their heat pumps at once, and all start charging their EVs. and then start cooking their dinners. On a cold dark calm day in early January!

This is obvious I keep thinking we must have left out a few zeros somewhere. Have we? Surely we must have?

Incidentally the Ofgem numbers show why moving everyone to heat pumps and EVs is going to produce blackouts. That is 12,000 kWh extra to find just from heating and hot water, and that is before you start charging your EV.

September 10, 2023 7:30 am

This is what the Guardian says:

That [the auction] rate works out at about £60 per MWh in 2023 prices. Given the current wholesale market price for electricity is higher than £80 per MWh, the government had significant leeway to offer a more generous level and still get electricity cheaper than today’s wholesale cost.

This is the first auction where the bidders knew they would have to deliver on the prices if they won. Previously they could bid whatever they wanted, get the contract, then not activate, and sell at the highest price of the market. Which was set by the highest cost supplier, so wind got the price set by spot gas.

The effect of this was a concealed high price for wind, while pretending that the contract price showed wind was cheap. Notice also that the high prices did not take account of the costs of actually using the wind supply, that is, the transmission costs, the cost of running gas for when it fails to deliver, the costs of paying the operators not to generate when there is a huge surplus. These payments are caused by the fact that the supply from wind is not only intermittent, its highs and lows don’t match demand. So you are likely to encounter peak generation at a time when you are at a low of demand. Hence, pay them not to generate.

With the current auction, this had become clear, so the government had no alternative but to go to binding contractual prices. At this point the pretence of cheap wind evaporated.

The Guardian makes the point that current wholesale is about 80.00 per MWh. Which it is. Over the last decade its varied betwen 500 and about 15. So the Guardian is now implying that the solution to the no-bid is to set the price somewhere under 80, but higher than the 60 of the last auction. This, the claim is, would still be a savings over running gas.

Well no. Because the problem with wind is that even if you get the generation cost down below gas, this does not deal with the fact that the cost of using the wind supply is far higher, because intermittency, and the need to run a parallel gas generating system for calms.

The great wind mania is running into the ground. Not just in the UK, either. Its relied on dishonesty about costs – the kind of thing that would get management and a finance chief of a listed company fired and jailed for accounting fraud. But as the real picture emerges people are going to have to stop all this, and then either the true effect of wind on prices will appear, impossible to conceal, and it will provoke a consumer and voter revolt. Or the fairy story of lower costs will be taken at face value and enforced, in which case the operators will walk. As Vattenfall has done, and as has happened at the last auction.

Not just in the UK, either. Its dead, Jim.

Richard Page
Reply to  michel
September 10, 2023 3:07 pm

We’ll see. If Labour get in at the next election, maybe a year away, they might do it anyway and we’ll see consumer prices go even higher, or a lower price cap imposed which might squeeze more electricity companies out of the game. It’s not going to be pleasant.

September 10, 2023 8:10 am

Cheap renewables is a contradiction in terms.

Harry Passfield
September 10, 2023 11:30 am

“The UK Government Must Make Cheap Renewables More Affordable”Translation: The tax-payer must be made to pay more for their electricity so that wind grifters can live in luxury.

It doesnot add up
September 10, 2023 12:48 pm

Here is a mouseover map showing all the AR5 CFDs awarded, colour coded by technology and sized by size of location marker, with details of start date, actual capacity, and 2012 strike price for each project in the mouseover panels

Here’s a static image version:

It doesnot add up
Reply to  It doesnot add up
September 10, 2023 5:05 pm

Here’s a version that includes data on prices indexed to 2023 and practical output estimates taking account of typical capacity factors. The low factors for solar reveal the small contribution to expect.

Reply to  It doesnot add up
September 12, 2023 1:29 am

Worth remembering, especially for non-Brits, is that the whole of the UK is north of Winnipeg. And the remote islands, to the north are north of Chuchill (where the polar bears ‘play’). Solar in the UK is a subsidy-drain – a tax, in English.


September 10, 2023 3:02 pm

I think the only proper action is to mandate that fossil fuel and nuclear companies be forced to build plants so that they are the ones to lose money.

September 10, 2023 5:01 pm

Is so funny, the windfarm financiers dont think the latest proposals can give a regular monthly income stream with any certainty

The income stream is a proxy for the power generated – a known unreliability

Surely theres a mutual income averaging scheme all the offshore wind farms can join in, where those who’s generation/income is low that month can be topped up with income from those above average…… Pigs can fly

September 10, 2023 10:32 pm

They can’t afford to build the “cheap” form of energy – post-modern economics or post-modern finance.

September 11, 2023 7:36 am


The US government has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.

The UK government has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 26,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years, 

The continent-based European big wind companies have only one third of the capacity per year for building 56,000 MW offshore by 2030, or 8,000 MW/y. These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because the Biden “Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are about much higher than in the UK

1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put 1,400 MW on hold in 2023 (will re-evaluate its entire 4,200 MW zone), because Vattenfall spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.,revealed%20in%20its%20interim%20report.

About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were rewarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
Zero MW of offshore wind bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023

2) OERSTED, Denmark, is looking forward to a $2.6 billion loss on its three US East Cost offshore wind systems, mainly due to high inflation, high interest rates, supply chain constrains and disruptions, and not being awarded additional federal and state tax credits. Oersted, etc., urges Biden to ignore the domestic content requirements of the Inflation Reduction Act, so 100% of the wind turbines will be very expensively built in Europe, with US subsidies.

3) EU big wind conglomerates want, on average, 40% more, because turnkey capital costs (foundations, turbines, cabling to shore) have gone to at least $5,500/kW and interest rates to 6.25%

UK and New York State bureaucrats are grossly uninformed regarding market conditions, as usual. They have zero business sense.

New York State bureaucrats calculated their estimates of offshore wind contract prices, but when the owners saw those numbers, they said, we need up to 66% more, for OUR spreadsheets to make business sense. See Item 4 and note

Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, original price $110.37/MWh, needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, original price $118.38/MWh, needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, original price $107.50/MWh, needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, original price $118.00/MWh, needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase

Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm

IRENA, a European Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
IRENA, a government-controlled, offshore wind rah-rah site, that cannot be trusted

NOTE: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the “Inflation-Reduction-Act”, has increased by 57% since 2021. Increased costs of materials, energy, components, labor, and supply chain disruptions and constraints (shortage of specialized ships) explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”, per Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF. 

September 11, 2023 12:05 pm

“We all want the same thing – to get more secure, low-cost green offshore wind built in our waters,”

Like hell we do.!!

September 11, 2023 12:14 pm

This reminds me of the old dictum about “Army volunteers”:

“I need several volunteers for a dangerous mission… You, and you, and You!”

That’s what will be required to find investors in this Unicorn charade.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights