I think problem in wind energy is the same as in nuclear energy. Most cost reductions are from vertical scaling (i.e. bigger blades). Just like in nuclear you will go on with vertical scaling up untill the point logistics get so massively complicated that it gets close to unbuildable. We are hitting the S-curve on vertical scaling (especially on land). I would say: one advantage of offshore wind is that you can keep on vertically scaling for longer, due to logistics (you can't transport truly MASSIVE blades on land, but you can over sea). Also: interest rates arent that low anymore – that's a major source of cost. https://decorrespondent.nl/15355/kernenergie-niet-nodig-niet-slim-en-niet-te-betalen/a95a368a-57e8-0a02-3771-a37846ed2fba This is quite different from solar energy.
Some more notes: Netherlands is also paying for the connection to the grid (which is different in UK I think?). This is quite expensive for offshore infrastructure. It's also a bit of a mess, because the users of Dutch wind energy are also foreign, while grid cost are payed by domestic users.
Dutch power prices are extremely low during large part of the summer due to massive solar roof expansion. It's quite difficult to make money for wind developers with low or negative prices during much of the summer. Wind is negatively correlated with solar energy (more in winter than in summer), so the business case might improve if heating demand gets electrified.
I think we should be bullish on solar energy, but the fact is that the Northern-Europeean countries without hydro are not very well suited to the cheapest technologies with most energy demand in the winter. Countries like Spain or states like Texas are.
All very interesting points, and agreed on the unique problems with solar in northern Europe.
I don't think the nuclear skepticism is justified, though. The current cost of nuclear are high mostly because we accepted extremely gold-plated standards (ALARA) that make it de facto illegal for nuclear to be cost competitive (ALARA obliges power plant developers to do every possible radiation mitigation investment that doesn't drive them bankrupt). When the French built 40 nuclear plants in the 1980s (pre-ALARA), they did so for the cost of a gas plant today ($1000/KW), with a tiny fraction of the future operating costs. Nuclear has the added advantage of not being intermittent, of course.
The economic case for intermittent power would be much stronger if we had cost-effective ways of using excess capacity to make useful things during periods of low demand, such as batteries, chemical synthesis, data analysis, or CO2 removal. Most processes are optimized for continuous operation so we can't just put a smelter next to a wind turbine.
It's not really a "wind energy" problem - it's a generalized cost of energy problem.
Comparing the cost of NEW wind energy to the cost of legacy gas generation is an apples to oranges comparison.
New CCG gas plants in the UK are estimated at £115 per MW LCOE - which is £20 MORE expensive than fixed bottom offshore. The UK newest nuclear plant is going to be at least £200 per MW.
The mega-trend is that wind has become significantly cheaper per MW over the last twenty five years. Turbines have become substantially less material-intensive per MW, and capacity factors have increased from 30% to 48%. Non-turbine costs have also decreased due to scale economies in maintenance fleets and better operating experience.
The last three years cost escalations are due to increased labor and materials costs - driven by cost increases in energy inputs and general inflation, as well as much increased interest rates.
We're not going to see £40 per MW offshore wind anytime soon. But we're not going to see £50 per MW gas generation either.
The regulation around building new nuclear and gas are very gold-plated. European countries (France) delivered new nuclear for $77/MWh in the pre-ALARA age. It seems a bit unfair to take a kind of generation, consciously make it expensive, and then to argue that it's not competitive due to high costs.
This is not even getting into the comparisons with solar and onshore wind (which are unfavorable for offshore), and into the problems with intermittency.
I don't see the alternative to Wind for Europe. Overbuilding solar to such a degree that you still produce enough energy in the Winter is completely unrealistic any time soon, and battery storage doesn't store energy long enough to use excess generation from the summer in the winter. Coal and Nuclear energy work as a base load but become way too expensive if you are turning them off for most of the year due to high solar generation, there isn't a lot of untapped potential for Hydropower, and we want to reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels, because we would be dependent on at least one of Russia, the US and the Gulf, and all of them are at best unreliable allies that are willing to coerce us with this dependence and at worst actively hostile to us.
Wind energy is relatively complimentary to solar and I don't see any alternative for Europe for electricity generation in the winter that doesn't have worse problems.
Really smart analysis of the CfD trap. The Britain example showing £91/MWh locked in till the 2040s is wild when gas generation is already cheaper right now. I worked in energy policy for abit and this exact issue came up, how governments lock themselves into tech at peak prices instead of waiting for the learning curve. Those failed Dutch tenders tell the real story about market sentiment.
As a Finn, this is hard to understand. We have the cheapest energy in Europe, averaging 4 c / kwh. Wind power is built without any subsidies, and it's profitable
We're getting a lot of investments to district heating water boilers and other technologies which make use of the almost free electricity when it's windy
Obviously they go up. It's quite rare since we're well connected to other countries electric grids. When it's calm here, it's probably windy somewhere else. Also hydro plants thrive on these prices.
We're currently experiencing a windless period, and it's -20 celcius, so lots of need for heating. All ok. Energy price has been 30 c/kwh avg for the past week, but soon it will be almost free again.
The main point is that now it is not time for decarbonization, but for electrification. Instead of figthing over the electricity sources, first we need more EVs. They are manageable demand, and make room for the instalation of renewables without conflict with other sources.
And these are back of the envelope computations, on where electical peaks appear. Among the disadadvantages of wind, one is that it is less predictable.
I don't know the details of the Dutch policy. Generally, it is my impression that it is useful to have wind as a back-up, in particular in areas where the sun doesn't shine much in the Winter. I would have thought that Denmark's energy situation is strengthened by wind power - while they of course should scale up solar.
Again, not arguing that the extent of investments make sense. But better to have some wind power, than none?
I think problem in wind energy is the same as in nuclear energy. Most cost reductions are from vertical scaling (i.e. bigger blades). Just like in nuclear you will go on with vertical scaling up untill the point logistics get so massively complicated that it gets close to unbuildable. We are hitting the S-curve on vertical scaling (especially on land). I would say: one advantage of offshore wind is that you can keep on vertically scaling for longer, due to logistics (you can't transport truly MASSIVE blades on land, but you can over sea). Also: interest rates arent that low anymore – that's a major source of cost. https://decorrespondent.nl/15355/kernenergie-niet-nodig-niet-slim-en-niet-te-betalen/a95a368a-57e8-0a02-3771-a37846ed2fba This is quite different from solar energy.
Some more notes: Netherlands is also paying for the connection to the grid (which is different in UK I think?). This is quite expensive for offshore infrastructure. It's also a bit of a mess, because the users of Dutch wind energy are also foreign, while grid cost are payed by domestic users.
Dutch power prices are extremely low during large part of the summer due to massive solar roof expansion. It's quite difficult to make money for wind developers with low or negative prices during much of the summer. Wind is negatively correlated with solar energy (more in winter than in summer), so the business case might improve if heating demand gets electrified.
I think we should be bullish on solar energy, but the fact is that the Northern-Europeean countries without hydro are not very well suited to the cheapest technologies with most energy demand in the winter. Countries like Spain or states like Texas are.
All very interesting points, and agreed on the unique problems with solar in northern Europe.
I don't think the nuclear skepticism is justified, though. The current cost of nuclear are high mostly because we accepted extremely gold-plated standards (ALARA) that make it de facto illegal for nuclear to be cost competitive (ALARA obliges power plant developers to do every possible radiation mitigation investment that doesn't drive them bankrupt). When the French built 40 nuclear plants in the 1980s (pre-ALARA), they did so for the cost of a gas plant today ($1000/KW), with a tiny fraction of the future operating costs. Nuclear has the added advantage of not being intermittent, of course.
The economic case for intermittent power would be much stronger if we had cost-effective ways of using excess capacity to make useful things during periods of low demand, such as batteries, chemical synthesis, data analysis, or CO2 removal. Most processes are optimized for continuous operation so we can't just put a smelter next to a wind turbine.
In 2017, when the green blob started reporting that offshore wind could be delivered at £40 or so, we said it was nonsense.
https://thegwpf.org/publications/forget-the-spin-offshore-wind-costs-are-not-falling/
We said it again in 2021
https://thegwpf.org/publications/cheap-offshore-wind-power-claims-are-false-data-reveals/
For this we were demonised and excluded from polite society. But we were telling the truth, and the green blob was lying.
It's not really a "wind energy" problem - it's a generalized cost of energy problem.
Comparing the cost of NEW wind energy to the cost of legacy gas generation is an apples to oranges comparison.
New CCG gas plants in the UK are estimated at £115 per MW LCOE - which is £20 MORE expensive than fixed bottom offshore. The UK newest nuclear plant is going to be at least £200 per MW.
The mega-trend is that wind has become significantly cheaper per MW over the last twenty five years. Turbines have become substantially less material-intensive per MW, and capacity factors have increased from 30% to 48%. Non-turbine costs have also decreased due to scale economies in maintenance fleets and better operating experience.
The last three years cost escalations are due to increased labor and materials costs - driven by cost increases in energy inputs and general inflation, as well as much increased interest rates.
We're not going to see £40 per MW offshore wind anytime soon. But we're not going to see £50 per MW gas generation either.
The regulation around building new nuclear and gas are very gold-plated. European countries (France) delivered new nuclear for $77/MWh in the pre-ALARA age. It seems a bit unfair to take a kind of generation, consciously make it expensive, and then to argue that it's not competitive due to high costs.
This is not even getting into the comparisons with solar and onshore wind (which are unfavorable for offshore), and into the problems with intermittency.
I don't see the alternative to Wind for Europe. Overbuilding solar to such a degree that you still produce enough energy in the Winter is completely unrealistic any time soon, and battery storage doesn't store energy long enough to use excess generation from the summer in the winter. Coal and Nuclear energy work as a base load but become way too expensive if you are turning them off for most of the year due to high solar generation, there isn't a lot of untapped potential for Hydropower, and we want to reduce our dependency on imported fossil fuels, because we would be dependent on at least one of Russia, the US and the Gulf, and all of them are at best unreliable allies that are willing to coerce us with this dependence and at worst actively hostile to us.
Wind energy is relatively complimentary to solar and I don't see any alternative for Europe for electricity generation in the winter that doesn't have worse problems.
Really smart analysis of the CfD trap. The Britain example showing £91/MWh locked in till the 2040s is wild when gas generation is already cheaper right now. I worked in energy policy for abit and this exact issue came up, how governments lock themselves into tech at peak prices instead of waiting for the learning curve. Those failed Dutch tenders tell the real story about market sentiment.
As a Finn, this is hard to understand. We have the cheapest energy in Europe, averaging 4 c / kwh. Wind power is built without any subsidies, and it's profitable
We're getting a lot of investments to district heating water boilers and other technologies which make use of the almost free electricity when it's windy
What happens to electricity prices in Finland during a dunkelflaute?
Obviously they go up. It's quite rare since we're well connected to other countries electric grids. When it's calm here, it's probably windy somewhere else. Also hydro plants thrive on these prices.
We're currently experiencing a windless period, and it's -20 celcius, so lots of need for heating. All ok. Energy price has been 30 c/kwh avg for the past week, but soon it will be almost free again.
January was 15 c / kwh
December 4.5 c / kwh
November 6 c / kwh
Summer 3 c / kwh
The main point is that now it is not time for decarbonization, but for electrification. Instead of figthing over the electricity sources, first we need more EVs. They are manageable demand, and make room for the instalation of renewables without conflict with other sources.
This is a reference:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-09079-0
And these are back of the envelope computations, on where electical peaks appear. Among the disadadvantages of wind, one is that it is less predictable.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/jJap6KhzFe3mgh32M/electric-vehicles-and-renewable-electricity
I don't know the details of the Dutch policy. Generally, it is my impression that it is useful to have wind as a back-up, in particular in areas where the sun doesn't shine much in the Winter. I would have thought that Denmark's energy situation is strengthened by wind power - while they of course should scale up solar.
Again, not arguing that the extent of investments make sense. But better to have some wind power, than none?