Quite by chance I caught a revealing interview on BBC Radio 4’s PM programme earlier today. I set out a transcript below. Unfortunately the interviewee, Rod Wood, the MD of Community Wind Power, seemed to be on a mobile telephone and I struggled to catch every word clearly.

ED: Now, a green light for an offshore oil and gas development today, but it comes at the time we have another very significant energy story unfolding. Red lights flashing over wind energy projects in the UK. There are now several signs of problems. One, a Swedish developer, Vattenfall, put the breaks on a development in the North Sea in July, saying it was no longer viable. Two, the latest auction for contracts for state support for clean energy flopped. There were no bids from offshore wind developers. And then three, yesterday, one of our biggest onshore wind developers said it’s halting development of Sanquhar II in Dumfries & Galloway. Community Wind Power say the project would have powered 350,000 homes. Rod Wood is the company’s managing director. I asked why he’s now choosing not to invest in onshore wind, which we’re told is the cheapest and easiest form of green electricity.

RW: You’re right, onshore wind has been the cheapest, and I think will continue to be cheap alongside solar in the UK. The difficulty that we all know of late is the last few [two?] years is we have a huge increase in capital costs, we’ve seen inflation, obviously rampant inflation, and we’ve seen with turbines that the costs have increased over 60, 60+%. We’ve also seen a massive increase in financing costs, where mortgage increases, so financing costs for wind farms long-term for infrastructure, fifteen years, has increased from below 2% up to nearly 8%, so a four-fold increase there. We have a weak pound as well. All those things factored in together have signficantly increased our costs and we estimate them now to be around £80, just over £80 per megawatt hour, which is substantially more than they were, and of course the Government, as you’ll be aware, with this windfall tax they’ve introduced has determined somehow that anything over £75 is an extraordinary, er extraordinary price. So we have the sales tax applicable from £75, so actually they’re taxing £5 of cost.

ED: So, just tell me whether the economics of onshore wind, or wind in general, has been fundamentally transformed by the things you’ve described. We’re talking 8 pence per kilowatt hour, in human terms. The price at the moment – I don’t know what I’m paying, probably 30p or something per kilowatt hour? I mean, it should be surely possible to make money where we are.

RW: Well we don’t, unfortunately, sell you the electricity ourselves. We’re a generator, so we sell to the utilities and to corporate PPAs. So that’s where…there’s a differential obviously. There’s a cost in transferring the power from site in to your house, and that’s a big difference, obviously, and different companies evolve [?] that. From our perspective, clearly, Evan, the situation is the costs have increased. All costs…supermarket costs, everything has increased significantly.

ED: I want to just ask you about your view of whether the Government is interested in wind. This is the third blow – pardon the pun – to wind power. We’ve had Vattenfall abandoning one project they were going to invest in; we’ve had an auction for off-shore licences which didn’t get any takers; and I just wonder whether you’re worried that there isn’t the commitment to wind that we have had in the past?

RW: I think I agree with you. Positionally, they’ve already pinpointed renewables, wind and solar particularly. We have the windfall tax. If we were generating electricity from gas or from diesel generators, there’d be no windfall tax. So why are they attacking us when they should be looking at the wider community of generators in the UK? That’s the big issue, and why are they giving us a five year tax, when actually in Ireland or the EU the tax is finishing at the end of this year. Green electricity is the backbone and the foundation for new industries, data centres, AI, blockchain, pharma.

ED: I mean, it is very interesting. This obviously came in, this announcement comes in the week that we have a new licence for offshore drilling for oil and gas.

RW: Yeah, reading the press release, it’s quite interesting that they now talk about Net Zero and taking, looking at it in a pragmatic and proportionate, realistic response. I’m not quite sure what that means exactly. But I don’t think the climate will be looking at the UK in the future in that way, as sea levels rise and London, you know, and other coastal cities start to submerge. This is going to be the fourth, or was going to be the fourth largest wind farm in the UK, with 380 Megawatts in addition to the 30 that’s already there. We can’t make it work, so how can others?

ED: Have you actually, perchance, had conversations with the Opposition, the Labour Party, about whether they would be inclined to make the environment more friendly to your investments?

RW: We haven’t as yet, no. We’d certainly like to. We’d like to engage with them and other parties and explore, and explain how actually this industry can support all these other industries going forward. There’s massive opportunity there. John Coldwell … on the programme the other day, you know, let’s encourage green new companies, investments, coming in to this country and we can be great again, you know, with lower corporation tax rates as in Ireland, and actually drive the growth of the economy forward. But we need modern thinking, as they’re doing in the US and the EU and other places, and hopefully Labour will be considering that.

ED: Rod Wood there, who’s the Managing Director of Community Wind Power, pulling back on a scheme in the south of Scotland.

Conclusion

It was interesting to hear Evan Davis describe onshore wind only as the cheapest form of green electricity, and Mr Wood, after agreeing that it had been, going on to say (if I heard him correctly) that he thinks onshore wind will continue to be cheap (but he seemed to drop the claim going forward that it will be the cheapest). Indeed, it would be difficult for him to maintain the claim, given that he then launched into a long spiel about all the costs now hitting onshore wind energy.

He spent a long time bemoaning the windfall tax – on anything above £75 per megawatt hour. He seemed particularly aggrieved about this, despite the fact that this is at a level significantly higher than the price of recent CfD rounds (admittedly those contracts haven’t been taken up) that was used in some quarters to claim that wind energy was “nine times cheaper” than fossil fuels. He also suggested that if his company generated electricity using diesel or gas, then no windfall tax would apply. I would suggest that either he or the BBC is mistaken, for less than two months ago the BBC’s website featured an article about the windfall tax, more properly called the energy profits levy (or EPL) with the heading “What is the windfall tax on oil and gas companies and how much do they pay?” It stated that:

In the first six months of 2023, BP paid $970m (£755m) of tax in the UK – with about $460m (£358m) due to the EPL.

Shell initially said it did not expect to pay any windfall tax for 2022, as its North Sea investments meant it was not considered to have made any UK profits.

But on 2 February it announced that it would pay $134m (£108m) for 2022, and expected to pay more than $500m (£400m) for 2023.

Centrica said it was paying about £1bn in tax from its £3.3bn 2022 profits, which includes about £54m under the levy.

Much of the rest of the interview seemed to bemoan the return of long-term interest rates to what are historically normal levels, and that in turn carries the suggestion that renewable energy has only made the headway that it has thanks to unsustainably low interest rates over a remarkably long period of time.

The interview wound up with a reference to alarmism (apparently London and other UK coastal cities will be underwater if windfarm projects don’t proceed) and an implicit plea for subsidies (euphemistically described as “modern thinking, as they’re doing in the US and the EU and other places”) and preferential tax treatment (“let’s encourage green new companies, investments, coming in to this country and we can be great again, you know, with lower corporation tax rates as in Ireland”).

It all rang rather hollow, and one sentence (“We can’t make it work, so how can others?”) for me blew out of the water the claims that are constantly being made on behalf of wind energy. It looks as though Net Zero could be unravelling before our eyes.

31 Comments

  1. Thanks Mark, you sent me down a mini rabbit hole. 1827, A.K.A. The Good Old Days:

    The drift on Thursday was so violent that it was mid-day before the inhabitants of Sanquhar could venture to cross the threshold, even where they were in want of the necessaries of life. Of some houses only the chimney tops were visible.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Awful_phenomena_of_nature_–_snow_storms,_third_of_March_and_twenty-third_April,_1827

    ==

    A month ago:
    “Turbines approved despite council opposition”
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv23wz75xkxo

    Liked by 1 person

  2. The BBC has now followed up on that interview, with a report on its website with a rather misleading headline:

    “Sanquhar wind farm project delayed over new renewables tax”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-66939029

    Having listened to (and transcribed above) the interview with the MD of the wind farm company on BBC Radio 4’s flagship PM programme yesterday, I know that the main problem he discussed was rising costs for the windfarm industry, including rising financing costs, thanks to higher interest rates. Yes, he did have a go at the windfall tax, but that certainly didn’t sound as though it was the sole (or even the main) reason why Sanquhar II has been put on hold.

    The BBC seem to have extracted this statement:

    However, in a statement, it said: “The UK’s fourth largest onshore project with 44 turbines – 308MW of much needed green capacity – has ground to a halt as a consequence of the unfair “Windfall Tax” on new renewable power plants.”

    It goes on:

    The statement said costs now exceeded £500m.

    Very poor reporting. Which costs now exceed £500M? Windfall tax costs or the costs of the project generally? I think this one could do with a BBC fact checker’s involvement.

    Oh, yes, and the BBC undermines the claim made on PM that only renewable generators were hit by the windfall tax:

    The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, announced the Electricity Generation Levy, commonly known as a windfall tax, in November 1922. He set the rate at 45%, while those in the oil and gas sector pay a lower rate of 25% to 35%.

    Again, I suspect deliberately selective reporting. For a full understanding of the windfall tax and its implications we need to be told about how excess profits are defined and when the tax kicks in. The BBC doesn’t bother giving us those pesky details.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “Wind power industry drifts off course”

    https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/wind-power-industry-drifts-off-course-2023-09-28/

    A perfect storm of supply chain delays, design flaws and higher costs in the offshore wind industry has put dozens of projects at risk of not being delivered in time for countries to meet climate goals, industry executives, investors and analysts said.

    The race to reduce reliance on fossil fuels is putting pressure on manufacturers and supply chains to keep pace with demand for more clean energy, especially in the European Union which is finalising a legally binding goal to produce 42.5% of energy from renewables by 2030.

    Up from 32% now, the new target would require 420 gigawatts (GW) of wind energy including 103 GW offshore, more than double current capacity of 205 GW of which just 17 GW is offshore, according to industry group WindEurope.

    But so far this year, projects off Britain, the Netherlands and Norway have been delayed or shelved due to rising costs and supply chain constraints while Britain’s renewable energy auction this month failed to attract any bids from offshore wind developers, also because of high industry costs.

    “If this turns into a prolonged pause of projects then without a doubt a lot of the 2030 renewables goals will be under pressure,” said Jon Wallace, an investment manager at Jupiter Asset Management….

    …Over the last two decades, the industry has grown fast and cut technology costs to be on a par or even cheaper than fossil fuels in some parts of the world. But the race to develop ever bigger and more efficient turbines may have been too hasty, some executives and analysts said.

    Turbines have roughly doubled in size every decade with the largest ones operating in 2021 and 2022 coming with 110-metre blades and a capacity of 12 to 15 megawatts (MW). But the bigger they get the more susceptible they have become to faults, said Rob West, analyst at consultancy Thunder Said Energy.

    “Physics inherently punishes larger turbines. Larger blades will inherently deflect more, which means they need stiffer spar caps, shear webs and more expensive materials. They will also weigh more which pushes more stress and strain through the blade, root and nacelle during each rotation,” he said.

    In June, Siemens Gamesa said quality problems at its two most recent onshore wind turbines would cost 1.6 billion euros ($1.7 billion) to fix.

    Fraser McLachlan, chief executive of GCube Insurance, said the number of insurance claims from wind developers has fallen in the past year but the amounts and severity of claims has gone up significantly….

    Like

  4. Wind power costs at £80 per megawatt hour? Presumably this is just the wind turbine component and doesn’t include the costs of back-up power for an intermittent source and the costs of transmission.
    This article in the Guardian (much maligned on this site for valid reasons) might have appeared on Cliscep! The article addresses the challenges of expanding the UK transmission network “including hated pylons”, to accomodate the widely dispersed windfarms.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/sep/26/the-next-uk-net-zero-battleground-is-electricity-pylons

    “Local protests are up and running……Then consider the scale of what is being planned nationally. “In Great Britain, around four times as much new transmission network will be needed in the next seven years as was built since 1990,” said Nick Winser, the new electricity commissioner in his report to government last month.

    ………..the planning nightmare is having to pay renewable generators to stand idle because the system can’t handle their output; such “annual constraint costs” could rise from £500m-£1bn in 2022 to £2bn-£4bn a year by about 2030, warned Winser

    But, as with the government, streamlining planning approvals is seen as critical. It is the next net zero battleground.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Potentilla,

    The whole interview was a put-up-job by the BBC, so far as I can see. Soft questions, a sympathetic line, no questioning of the claims made about the windfall tax, no arguing about the £80 claim, no pointing out the strains on the National Grid and the extra costs that are never discussed when more and more wind farms are brought on-line, no pointing out the excess profits earned by windfarm companies – including Community Wind Power – under old CfDs, even at the end pushing the idea that Labour would be more sympathetic (it was close to just saying “vote Labour” if you want more wind farms). The follow-on article on the BBC website is little better.

    Like

  7. Mark,

    I also liked the bit where Wood suggested that UK cities would become submerged if we didn’t adopt modern thinking. As if the fate of UK cities could possibly have anything to do with what we do in the UK about global warming.

    Like

  8. Jaime, has the BBC named this weekend’s storm coming in from the East ? 60mph winds pushing in 6.0m waves on a 4.5m tide ! Happisburgh must be on the danger list with this one. We fisherman have been lamenting the lack of Easterly blows for the winter cod fishing this should give the season a good start .

    Liked by 1 person

  9. James, they’ve named it Babet. Don’t even ask me how they came up with that title. The Babet Beast from the East is due to hit here tomorrow.

    Like

  10. Storm Babet – in a bit of a quieter spell at the moment, probably much the same as Cumbria going by weather forecasts. Our village is in the amber warning area getting a bit of shelter from the Ochil hills, if Babet had come in from the South West would had been a different story. I’ve had a look round the house for damage 2 slates down in the gutter, pretty normal for an old house in the autumn/winter. The really heavy rain to come today through to tomorrow afternoon, with 3 hill burns (streams) running through the village and being infamous for washing away an ancient Scottish Princess could get quite tricky later. After all the warnings why was that woman down by the river in Brechin last night , it beggars belief why anybody could do it .

    Like

  11. JamesS,

    It’s obvious that in some areas Storm Babet is very serious (not too bad here in Cumbria 0 very windy (but no more than that) and dry so far. However, two people have now lost their lives, and I am sad about that and sorry for their families – my thoughts are with them.

    That doesn’t stop the BBC from seeking to push their agenda on the back of it:

    “Is Storm Babet linked to climate change?”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-67163882

    Despite concluding that:

    It’s too early to say exactly how much climate change has to do with the rainfall hitting north-east Scotland.

    The causes of storms are complex and are affected by many natural processes in the atmosphere. Stormy weather is, of course, relatively common in the UK.

    it doesn’t matter, they still have a headline that makes the connection in the minds of the public who don’t read any further.

    Like

  12. Remember this quote from the interview I transcribed above?

    We have the windfall tax. If we were generating electricity from gas or from diesel generators, there’d be no windfall tax.

    Hmm. How about this:

    “BP posts profits of $3.3bn as oil prices rise again”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67264120

    …In the past couple of years, higher oil and gas prices have fuelled rises in energy bills for households and businesses, which has resulted in the government implementing a windfall tax on oil giants including BP and Shell.

    A windfall tax is a one-off levy that targets companies who benefit from something they were not responsible for, in this case a sharp rise in oil prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The policy is currently in place until March 2028 and means the firms pay 35% on UK profits.

    Oil and gas firms operating in the North Sea are already taxed differently to other firms. They pay 30% corporation tax on their profits as well as a supplementary 10% rate. It means, with the windfall tax, firms have a total tax rate of 75%.

    Critics of the tax have argued such a high tax rate could hit investment in UK projects.

    BP said that in the first nine months of this year, it paid about $1.35bn in tax on its North Sea business, $620m of which was as a result of the windfall. In 2022, it paid $2.2bn in tax, of which $700m was a result of the policy.

    Like

  13. “Offshore’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” Problems
    The bloom is off the rose when it comes to offshore wind.”

    https://maritime-executive.com/magazine/offshore-s-blowin-in-the-wind-problems

    …The problem with offshore windmills is they’re expensive. According to the Energy Information Administration, offshore wind is the most expensive energy source in our repertoire, based on the levelized cost of energy calculations. The 2022 estimate for offshore wind, absent any government subsidies, is above $136 per megawatt-hour of electricity.

    Even after a healthy $31/MWh subsidy, offshore wind is 165 percent more expensive than a natural gas combined cycle plant and nearly 30 percent more expensive than ultra-supercritical coal and nuclear power. …

    …Six months after the lease spending spree, cracks in the industry’s foundation emerged. Last September, offshore wind developer Avangrid told financial analysts it would be seeking a “small adjustment” to its contract price with Connecticut. It also asked its utility customers in Massachusetts for a similar hike but was turned down.

    Suddenly, the term “unfinanceable” entered the industry’s lexicon. Contracted power prices generated insufficient revenue to finance projects in a high-interest-rate environment.

    A game of regulatory chicken began, leading to Avangrid terminating its contracts and paying its customers $48 million in penalties. Terminations were only possible once Massachusetts assured Avangrid and other developers they would be able to rebid in the 2024 offshore wind solicitation. Without such assurances, developers likely would have “walked away” from projects.

    Offshore wind problems were partially driven by the huge financial losses posted by wind turbine manufacturers. The major turbine suppliers confronted sharply higher prices for critical minerals needed in the manufacture of turbine nacelles and blades. Rising labor and transportation expenses, coupled with fixed-price contracts, forced manufacturers to raise prices on new contracts. Turbine manufacturers are still struggling, so component prices are heading higher, not lower.

    Avangrid led the wind developer parade in seeking higher power prices. The magnitude of developer problems emerged when Danish developer Ørsted announced a second impairment to its U.S. offshore wind portfolio this year. Previously, it suffered a $350 million impairment to a New Jersey project. Management recently told the financial community that, following a review of its U.S. offshore wind portfolio, it was worth $2.3 billion less.

    Management cited raw material costs, supply chain issues, higher interest rates and a lack of clarity over its ability to receive bonus clean energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act for its problems. The IRA, designed to foster development of a domestic supply chain, is a problem for offshore wind because its domestic supply chain is immature.

    The industry will need to import wind turbines and components from abroad for years, as well as rely on non-Jones Act-compliant vessels for construction support. Ørsted CEO Mads Nipper proposed offshore wind developers be granted a three-to-five year “grace period” during which they would be eligible for the 10 percent bonus tax credit while developing a domestic supply chain….

    Like

  17. Thanks Mike, The news keeps coming, thick and fast:

    “German government grants Siemens Energy a loan guarantee to help secure the company”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-12748299/German-government-grants-Siemens-Energy-loan-guarantee-help-secure-company.html

    The German government said Tuesday it is granting a 7.5 billion-euro ($8 billion) loan guarantee to energy technology company Siemens Energy as part of a 15 billion-euro package to help the firm, an important player in the transition to renewable energy sources.

    Siemens Energy sought help from the government as it struggles with problems at its Gamesa wind energy subsidiary, including quality issues with previously installed wind turbines….

    …The Economy Ministry said Tuesday that the government’s precondition for helping was “that all stakeholders participate appropriately in safeguarding the company.”

    It said the outcome was a package of 15 billion euros in guarantee lines, of which private banks would provide 12 billion euros and with Siemens Energy securing the rest in negotiations with “further stakeholders.” The government agreed to backstop the bank guarantees to the tune of 7.5 billion euros….

    Like

  18. “Price paid for offshore power to rise by 50%”

    The BBC understands the government now will raise the price it pays from £44 per MWh to as much as £70.

    I don’t see where it says these numbers are index-linked from 2012. Misinformation from the BBC, to judge by the ill-informed comments below the piece.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67430888

    [Having to comment in Reader view. Can’t comment on the normal site.]

    Like

  19. Yes, Jit, this is misinformation from the BBC. It’s “as much as £70” at 2012 prices, as was the £44 quoted. I don’t know precisely what effect inflation between 2012 and 2023 (or 2024) will have on those numbers, but it must take £70 to well north of £90, and possibly close to £100.

    So much for wind power being cheap. I just love this:

    …It is hoped more offshore wind capacity will lead to cheaper energy bills….

    It strikes me that “hope” isn’t a great energy strategy, especially as hard facts seem to be pointing in the opposite direction to the hope.

    Like

  20. Apparently it’s worse than the original report suggested. We’re now told:

    “Price paid for offshore power to rise by 66%”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67430888

    The price paid to generate electricity by offshore wind farms has been raised by 66% as the government tries to entice energy firms to invest.

    Its comes after an auction for offshore wind projects failed to attract any bids, with firms arguing the price set for electricity generated was too low.

    The government has lifted the price it pays from £44 per MWh to £73….

    That looks definitive -“the government has lifted…” (my bold). The BBC is still quoting 2012 prices though, thus misleading the public. The reality is that this now looks very much like £100 per Mwh in 2023/2024 prices.

    Like

  21. This is for the next auction round (I assume) but I expect it will open the floodgates for retrospective adjustments to the more recent CfD awards.
    Vindication for professors Hughes and Kelly, Andrew Montford and others who predicted this would happen.

    Like

  22. David Turver confirms the utterly grim news of the continued destruction of the British environment and economy even in the face of hard economic realities. The government is going to throw money at renewables until the cows come home (or they don’t, because they’ve all been culled because of their methane pollution). This absolutely confirms now that Net Zero is resistant to any arguments based on cost or practicality. The government will just print more money to fund its Net Zero fantasy or squeeze it from already hard pressed tax and bill payers, even as it pretends that it is ‘reducing energy bills for consumers’ and increasing the nation’s energy security. Reality is a brick, tossed casually through the Overton window, never to be seen again in the long grass outside the madhouse.

    https://davidturver.substack.com/p/government-increases-subsidies-offshore-wind

    Liked by 1 person

  23. “Cost of insuring offshore wind ‘doubled’ amid heavy losses: leading broker”

    https://www.energyportal.eu/cost-of-insuring-offshore-wind-doubled-amid-heavy-losses-leading-broker/

    …The surge in insurance costs for offshore wind farms can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the vulnerability of wind turbines to extreme weather events, such as storms and hurricanes, has resulted in an increased probability of damage and subsequent claims. Additionally, instances of engineering inadequacies have contributed to a higher risk assessment, leading to higher premiums. As insurers grapple with mounting losses, they are reevaluating their coverage for wind farms to ensure they can adequately manage future claims.

    The rising cost of insurance may have far-reaching implications for the renewable energy sector. Developers and operators of offshore wind projects will need to factor in higher insurance premiums when assessing the financial feasibility of new ventures. The increased costs could potentially impact the competitiveness of offshore wind compared to other sources of energy, potentially affecting investment and slowing down the transition to renewable energy….

    Like

  24. More on Community Wind Power:

    “Epic Fail”

    https://scotlandagainstspin.org/2024/01/epic-fail/

    It is very striking that none of the Energy Press has reported the resounding and richly deserved refusal of the very poor quality application for 40 x 200m and 5 x 179.5m high wind turbines at Faw Side, in the Ewes Valley, north of Langholm. Even the site’s own website is silent, still pretending that the application is live. Community Wind Power Ltd, a misnamed wind development company from Cheshire, well known for their approach to consultation and local interests, had put forward an application of breathtaking arrogance, size and dominance, and then tried to defend it using ‘disinterested’ consultants. On every material point they failed.

    This application was of overbearing appearance, with no saving graces, for the important Ewes Valley, north of Langholm. It was opposed by nearly every official consultee, two Councils, and a huge body of highly motivated, well organised and impressively knowledgeable local people, every one of whom could speak to predictable undesirable impacts. The application swallowed up the Eskdalemuir budget, sowing confusion and dissent. The MoD was firm in its opposition, expertly led by Senior Counsel. A firm Public Inquiry conclusion, and later, a clearly reluctant Ministers’ decision, saw it off….

    Like

  25. Regarding solar industry, from the US:

    https://www.solarinsure.com/the-complete-list-of-solar-bankruptcies-and-business-closures#list-of-major-solar-contractors-that-went-out-of-business-in-2023

    “However, 2023 has brought immense challenges, with higher interest rates, tighter financing, and adverse policy shifts in key states contributing to over 100 solar bankruptcies based on our industry data, a number unseen before in our almost 20 years in the solar sector.

    California was particularly hard hit due to new net metering rules under NEM 3.0 that radically reduced system economics.

    These adverse state policy impacts exacerbated financing shifts, triggering plummeting demand and an 80% decrease in rooftop solar installation volume. The California Solar & Storage Association reports that the fallout includes thousands of stalled projects, over 17,000 industry layoffs, and a wave of high-profile bankruptcies.

    While stronger players demonstrate some resilience, impacted homeowners and solar employees face prolonged uncertainty. The outright collapse of many once fast-growing solar firms provides a sobering case study on the potential unintended consequences of incentive transitions.”

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Thanks Mark. Unfortunately what’s in the wind is much heaver than straw.

    “Globally, 43 million tonnes of wind turbine blades and 60 to 78 million tonnes of photovoltaic solar panels must be decommissioned by 2050, according to respective studies by Cambridge University (see chart below) and the International Renewable Energy Agency. Meanwhile, the boom in electric vehicles is raising concerns about what will be done with the thousands of tonnes of spent batteries.

    While 85% to 95% of wind turbines are recyclable – the structure is made largely of steel, copper and concrete – wind turbine blades are made from composite materials such as fibreglass, which have no established recycling route and are energy-intensive to make, according to a study by Cambridge University.

    Almost all (90% to 100%) of wind turbine waste is still sent to landfill, according to Italian energy company Enel, or it is incinerated. Where solutions are being developed, they are not yet seen as mature enough, cost-competitive or widely available at industrial scale.”

    https://capitalmonitor.ai/factor/environmental/decommissioning-the-dark-heart-of-renewable-energy-finance/

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Thanks Ron – the examples of “saving the planet by trashing it” just keep mounting up. Greens, sadly, are green in only one very limited sense today – green as in naive.

    Like

  31. “Vestas trims full-year profit margin outlook as higher costs bite”

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/wind-turbine-maker-vestas-lowers-profit-margin-outlook-2024-08-12/

    Vestas (VWS.CO), opens new tab, the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, warned of a second quarter loss on Monday and trimmed its full-year profit margin and revenue outlook, sending the company’s shares down 5%.

    Vestas’ service business, usually a bright spot, would book a one-off 300 million euro ($327.63 million) second quarter hit, it said, affected by sustained inflation, increased repairs, upgrades and operational inefficiencies.

    The company said it now expects a full-year operating profit margin of 4-5% compared to previously 4-6%, and narrowed its full-year revenue outlook to 16.5 billion-17.5 billion euros from previously 16 billion-18 billion euros.

    “Vestas had set direction towards improvement and this type of setback was not what we expected so that is very negative,” Sydbank analyst Jacob Pedersen told Reuters.…

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.