Essay by Eric Worrall
First published JoNova; Even in green energy subsidised Britain, developing renewables does not make economic sense.
Why wind farm developers are pulling out at the last minute
Published: June 10, 2025 2.41am AEST
Thomas York
Postgraduate Researcher in Human Geography, University of Leicester…
The government aims to generate at least 43GW of offshore wind power (current capacity is 14.7GW) and 95% of all energy from renewable sources by 2030.
These targets are now in jeopardy. The cancellation of Hornsea 4 follows a similar decision by Swedish developer Vattenfall, which stopped work on its 1.4GW Norfolk Boreas wind farm in 2023.
…
Building a wind turbine requires significant amounts of steel, copper and aluminium, all of which doubled or tripled in price between 2020 and 2023. Turbine manufacturers have raised prices in an effort to recover recent losses. This affects the profitability forecasts of wind energy developers like Ørsted and the viability of each of their projects.
…Rising costs mean that even one of the world’s biggest wind farms, Dogger Bank in the North Sea, will not be profitable for its developer, Equinor. As a prospect for generating financial returns, renewable energy still cannot compete with oil and gas.
This is the key argument of economic geographer Brett Christophers in his recent book The Price is Wrong. Christophers argues that, if national governments continue to rely so heavily on private sector investment to build renewable energy, decarbonisation is unlikely to proceed as fast as it needs to. It is simply not profitable enough.
Read more: https://theconversation.com/why-wind-farm-developers-are-pulling-out-at-the-last-minute-256842
…
The call for government funding magic sauce to fix the economic failures of green energy is hilarious. Government funding can’t fix a failure of this magnitude.
And the problem Thomas York is discussing is just the cost of the renewable generators and grid connections. When you factor in the cost of the days or weeks of battery backup which would be required to absorb overcapacity on good days, and feed the grid during prolonged wind droughts, there aren’t enough government printing presses in the world to produce that kind of money.
Wind outages can last more than a week. Britain went nine days without wind power in 2018;
Wind power outage in 2025;
Wind outages can stretch across vast geographical areas, for example the entire continent of Australia was without wind last year – and not for the first time.
A wind drought which covered much of Europe occurred late last year;
The sooner governments abandon this fantasy solution to the world’s energy needs, the better.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“renewable energy still cannot compete with oil and gas”
Another of these mournful articles in WUWT saying that development of wind and solar can’t possibly happen. That’s a theory. But a favorite saying here is that any theory fails when it comes against contrary real world facts. And the facts are that renewable energy is happening. It is being installed, and it generates. Here is a plot of global wind installation:
It’s all go. Solar even more so, and is likely to overtake wind about now:
How much of that installed capacity actually turns into delivered power when it’s needed, where it’s needed ?
How much KWh power does solar deliver at night ?
What percentage of solar and wind is stable enough to contribute to grid inertia and resilience, lest we get an even larger scale repeat of the Iberian blackout ?
I already know you’ll wave off all these questions as irrelevant.
Pracing about with “installed capacity” that will in all likelihood never operate at even half capacity (more probably closser to one quarter), and i wholy unable to satisfy peak demand when it happens is smoke, mirrors and waste.
Great questions J,
Ones that Nick is incapable of answering truthfully 🙂
Installed capacity when the output is often absolutely ZERO for solar, and often near ZERO for wind is a totally meaningless metric.
Nick’s paycheck is dependent on supporting the narrative, not on telling the truth.
Well the more wind you install the more opportunity you provide to ‘entrepreneurs’ to strip out the copper cabling in remote wind farms. Happened several times in the UK in recent months targetting up to 3 turbines in each.
A wind turbine cultist once provided some data for wind power in Germany for 2015 and 2016.
A friend of mine used that data to create this graph for wind. (5% time intervals)
As you can see, the output factor is about below about 30% for 80% of the time.
And below about 15-16% for 50% of the time.
The graph for solar is even funnier.
As expected.. ZERO for at least 50% of the time..
…. and below 20% of installed nameplate for about 80% of the time.
They really are WHY BOTHER forms of electricity supply.
Each has a capacity factor. But the point is that investment is proceeding. People are sinking real money in, and getting real returns. Despite these endless handwaving articles saying it is all impossible.
Sure, just as “investment” into Ponzi schemes also proceeds – from the wide-eyed believer, gullible and gaslit, into the pockets of the scoundrel.
The reality of the returns however I question. How many renewable projects have been stood up and succeeded without regulatory coercion ?
Ass far as I know, none. all of them are backed by mandates or subsidies.
The exact same number that are contributing to lower power bills from ‘cheap renewable’ electricity.
Yep.
As Warren Buffett observed –
“without all the subsidies and tax breaks, wind and solar make no financial sense”.
But what would Warren know about investing?
Using capacity figures is a deceptive means to make “renewable” energy look better than it actually is. At its core, the grid needs dispatchable generation, something wind and solar cannot be.
Exactly. Capacity factor and intermittency are really poor terms to describe the situation. The fact is that these sources have zero ability to respond to load demand and are most often unavailable when needed .
A peaking plant may be intermittent and have low capacity factor. The difference is that it can serve demand as needed. Huge.
Governments are sinking real money, they may be earning money, but nowhere near close to enough to create a profit. Those “real” returns are negative.
All the caterwauling and lies on the part of you cultists can’t cover up the fact that renewable is an ever growing failure.
Yes – each has a capacity factor
Solar is about 20% average year round, though only 7-9% during winter
Wind is about 35%
both of with are limited by resources ( wind and sun)
fossil fuels capacity factor is limited by demand. fossil fuels can produce 100% when demanded.
Solar and wind cant be depended on to produced 100% when needed. Huge difference
Wind power will never provide, enough power even in the UK with more wind than most countries, Far to expensive, and even more expensive to maintain and dispose of. An utter waste of money. Tidal power is the answer, this would provide british jobs and technology, instead we import most of our products from China, who use coal to generate their power. A pity you do not study the facts about wind power.
The last week in the UK Wind turbines produced less than 5% of our needs.
No, tidal power is not the answer as it is also very expensive with a very poor output no matter how many times you claim it is the solution to all the world’s problems. Try researching the trial operating in Scotland to see how poor it is. And if it was soooo great why has France only built the tidal plant at Rance??
The real returns presumably include a lot of subsidy, direct in the form of payments and indirect in not carrying the capital costs of back-up generation.
The coal fired output is rather different , despite having to throttle down when there is some wind and solar is being produced.
At 100% about 90% of the time (exceeding nameplate occasionally), and always above 60%
The only time fossil fuel plants go to zero, is when they are brought down for maintenance. And that occurs when scheduled.
Hey Nick when it comes to energy production growth which is greater?
2% growth of 80% of total energy production or
30% growth of 3% of total energy production
Nick also likes to pretend that government subsidies plus government mandates requiring the use of renewable energy means that renewable energy can compete and is becoming popular.
You’re not suggesting that Nick’s faith in the beneficence of w&s is based on religiosity?
Repeating a comment from another thread
This article has a better take on LCOE
A 2022 study by Robert Idel exposes LCOE’s flaws.
“
Economically, the fact that intermittent generation has no obligation to meet the demand can be seen as a hidden subsidy. One can even go one step further and argue that intermittent generation is of zero value if it cannot be made available to consumers who demand a steady electricity flow. To do that, however, supply and demand on the network must always be in balance. In effect, the ability to schedule other generators to continuously maintain that balance is necessary to give value to renewable output. The dispatchable generators thus raise the value of renewable generation, but the subsidy is “hidden” because the latter does not have to pay for it.”
This is the real problem. A gas, coal, nuke, or even a hydro dam are required to produce power when scheduled or not only lose the payment for the energy they were planned to produce but also be penalized for someone else having to make up the difference. non-dispatchable bulk power is counterproductive at grid scale.
But don’t worry if we spend an addition full multiple of a real powerplant on batteries it finally start working. Why are you complaining about your power bill?
It would take a lot more batteries than “A” power plant equivalent to make wind and solar “work” somewhat like real power plants, since they don’t provide power for long. As in more than even the richest country can afford to waste on them.
How much of that totally wasted capacity is available 90+% of the time??
Basically NONE !
Then there is no need for subsidies Nick. 😉
Or is that on the back of subsidies?
Taxpayer Subsidies is what Nick means when he says: “and getting real returns”
A typical argument here. Wind has fallen in a heap, and besides, it’s all subsidies.
That it is all subsidies is proven, even if your paycheck requires you to believe otherwise.
The biggest subsidy is that renewables dont cover the costs associated with the intermediacy.
It’s an argument that you’ve not refuted.
Modern governments can do and bring about almost anything they want. It does not show that what they are doing makes economic sense.
The story is the same with EVs, any modern government can force the adoption of EVs by taxing gas, raising licensing costs for ICE etc. It doesn’t mean that this is either economically sensible or beneficial for the planet. The same with heat pumps, they can tax gas boilers, impose quota limits on their production and installation, mandate heat pumps in all new build properties. Doesn’t show they make sense, either environmentally or financially.
Yes, wind is being installed. But what percentage of electricity supply is it delivering? What proportion of total global energy use is it delivering?
The program isn’t just to install more wind. The program is some kind of energy transition. I see no signs that any energy transition is happening or going to happen. And still fewer that any major economy has any chance of even replacing its electricity generation with wind and solar. Let alone all of them!
Any “energy transition” seems to be grinding to a halt, despite Nick’s happy talk.
Artificial Intelligence development is pushing countries back to using coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear in a big way.
Windmills and Industrial Solar are on a down-hill slide.
Here is an instructive example of how it actually works. The last 24 hours in Victoria. We still have brown coal generators, but they won’t be replaced. The wind blew, so coal wound down. But there was a wind calm last night, just after sundown (midwinter here). So coal ramped up as much as it could, which is not very far. Then they called on successively, hydro, battery and gas. Gas is expensive; the amount used was small. There was also some importing. That got through the peak.
But despite that the battery charge exceeded discharge, and exports way exceeded imports.
And a week ago Brown coal was providing 75% of Victoria electricity.
Without brown coal, Victoria could not function.
Victoria regularly functions with basically ZERO wind and solar… just… for now.
Time to build a new Brown Coal power stations…
… would last another 60+ years, FAR LONGER than any wind or solar ever will.
hi nick, you wrote above…”The wind blew, so coal wound down. But there was a wind calm last night, just after sundown (midwinter here). So coal ramped up as much as it could, which is not very far.”
that does not sound like efficient use of a valuable natural resource to me.
here in the u.s. our interstate highways are speed regulated with signs that read minimum speed x, maximum speed y.
should i drive at wide open throttle and when i reach the max of y, immediately lift my foot and return to an idle state, coast for some time until my speed returns to min x, and immediately go to w.o.t. again…repeat over and over again?
answer, of course not. fuel economy would be bad and wear and tear on the machinery would increase. how do you others justify that.
my entire life, and i would argue most of the industrial revolution era, has sought to produce the same or more with the same or less energy input. and then one day someone said it does not matter anymore.
of all of short comings of wind and solar, i this most dis tasteful.
how do you justify?
joe x
Since we need a fossil fuel infrastructure sufficiently large to carry 100% of the load when needed, and since the requirement that this fossil fuel power be available to take up that load on very short notice, so they have to be kept in warm or hot standby. As a result, there is no decrease in fossil fuel usage and costs.
In other word, the only change created by renewable energy, is a huge increase in cost and the enrichment of the frauds pushing the scam.
So, exports at negative pricing are a good thing?
Wind power in all of Britain at this moment in time is 2.45 GW.
Thank goodness British people don’t use air conditioning, or else the system would be under strain.
Nick’s graph shows wind power increasing.
China is responsible for about 70% of that increased capacity.
So why does China also need to install new coal powered stations at such a frantic pace?
Because China’s so-called increased capacity is a total head fake, a lie. Yes, they are that devious.
China is still growing rapidly, and needs more of everything.
But they are installing renewables faster than coal.
‘But they are installing renewables faster than coal.’
So how many coal powered stations did they open in 2023 or 2024?
Why do the Chinese keep that a secret?
Nick ‘China is still growing rapidly, and needs more of everything.’
Needs?
Why do growing economies *need* more fossil fuel plants?
Again.. only on a fake capacity basis..
Nick deliberately ignores the FACT that the capacity factor is 20% at best
… so COAL fire electricity sources are increasing much more rapidly.
Wind is a nothingburger.. a waste of money, and probably only there for fake and show virtue-seeking to charm the idiots in the Net-Zero countries.
Are they, or is that just the story they are trying to sell to the west?
Yet according to the latest Energy Institute ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’ coal still dominates China’s electricity sector providing 58% of electricity in 2024.
Coal also reached a record global level of demand at 165EJ centred on the Asia -Pacific region and 67% of that demand was in China.
So installation of unreliables in China does not say anything about the electricity it is producing. Maybe they are just building them to keep their ghost cities company.
What makes you think the Chinese are actually installing working wind mills? Have you ever heard of Potemkin Villages?.
The Chinese are trying to sell the monstrosities. Of course, they say” we eat our own dog food. But it is a lot cheaper to lie, to erect turbines without generators, to erect turbines and not connect them to the power grid, and to rely on coal, that is cheap, locally available, and works 24/7/365.
The Potemkin windmills seems possible, even likely, given the way China manipulates its image to the world (and to itself). As you observe, there is more than one way of pretending to skin a cat – turbines without generators, turbines without connections, turbines of only local potential, projects started and not finished, outright lies in official statistics, and so on. I would, however, be interested in whether you have any reliable evidence of such things. I know that ‘reliable’ in such a context is a slippery adjective.
“Those wind turbines will kick in…”
“Any moment now…”
A plot of the EI (ex-BP) data for the amount of electricity actually generated worldwide since 2010.
Notes
– The Y-axes ranges are the same, 11 PWh, to simplify checking which components actually “contributed” to the overall increase (from ~21.6 PWh in 2010 to ~31.25 PWh in 2024)
– The “minor grid” has a resolution of 100 TWh, which should make it easier to “read off” the start and end values directly from the graph (especially if you do the usual “right mouse click, select ‘Open Link in New Tab’, then use ‘Ctrl + mouse scroll-wheel‘ to zoom in and out” trick on the attached image file)
Maybe in 2026 or 2027 rather than “now” for actual generation, but the “whole picture” is slightly more complicated than that.
As usual, little Nickie only gives half the story. Yes, after huge subsidies and government mandates, there is a lot of wind and solar. But to go from that to a declaration that renewable energy is capable of competing in a free market is something so stupid that only a socialist or climate alarmist could say with a straight face.
reporting gross capacity with out adjusting for actual capacity factor is intentionally misleading
Intentional lying is a better term
You should take your response to “The Conversation”, Nick, since they are the ones who said “renewable energy still cannot compete with oil and gas”
And once again Nick demonstrates he doesn’t understand the wind/solar business model. These industries aren’t paid by the market they are paid by subsidies. The business model is to have the construction cost offset by grants and tax credits, and a guaranteed payout for the output regardless of market condition. It’s similar to the old defense procurement “cost plus” system. A payoff and money laundering scheme, not a viable business.
Thanks, you’ve posted my thoughts #!
Ruinables have always been dog crap for economies and electric grids. But now they’ve got cow poop added for extra Ruinability power. It seems now that the fit is hitting the shan, and the end of Ruinables is nigh. Can’t come soon enough.
The solution is obvious shut down all oil and gas, problem solved!
That is literally the only way Wind and Solar power have a chance to survive on their own.
No because then there would be nothing to keep the grid working, and nothing to restart it following the inevitable crash.
I have now been retired for 10 years so I have less inside info.
When something breaks, money has to be budgeted to fix it. If it costs more to fix than the value of the electricity produced, it does not get fixed.
Pictures of one nuke plant I worked at always had the solar panels in the foreground although the panels no longer produced power to the grid.
Lots of talk about adding wind and solar capacity, but never of it going away.
Government is not the answer it is the problem. Stop government interference in energy production and transmission and we will all have affordable, reliable, clean energy on demand. Plus our grid will not be at risk the way it is now with unreliable on again off again wind and solar.
If “developing” wind and solar ever made economic sense, government’s Godzilla-sized foot on the scale never would have been necessary.