Front Page  »  

Offshore wind energy industry facing economic crisis

July 23, 2023

Floating windmill designs

By KAREN VELIE

Amid soaring costs, wind energy companies canceled two offshore projects in the United States and a third in Britain even as the demand for renewable energy soars.

Iberdrola canceled a contract to sell power from a planned wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts while Orsted lost a bid to provide offshore wind power to Rhode Island because of rising costs. In Britain, Vattenfall backed out of plans for an offshore wind farm because of inflation.

Rising equipment and labor costs along with high interest rates have led to a crisis in an industry that already touts higher energy costs than traditional power plants.

“Costs of capital (the ‘fuel’ of renewable energy) and price inflation on turbines, cables etc have gone up sharply,” said Mads Nipper, chief executive officer at Orsted, in a post on LinkedIn. “This means that price of renewable energy regrettably must come up temporarily after years of steep decline.”

California plans to rely on offshore wind energy to achieve its renewable energy goals. The off-shore wind farms are projected to generate 2,000 to 5,000 megawatts of energy by 2030 and 25,000 megawatts by 2045.

Last year, the federal government auctioned off three offshore wind energy sites located between 20 and 30 miles off the coast near Morro Bay.While these projects could move ahead, it is likely the cost of energy the wind farms generate will soar in price.

Sign up for breaking news, alerts and updates with Cal Coast News Top Stories.


Loading...
Subjects:
Related:


18 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Obviously every “study” is going to show offshore wind power as favorable, I wonder why it is rarely cited how unsuccessful Europe’s wind power program has been, based on actual instead of speculative data…. will things really be done that much differently here?


18

I’m totally for solar and wind power in conjunction with us still using fossil fuels. What i’m opposed against is the typical Government remedy to anything is to jump head long into it without weighing the risk factors and real costs. Ocean wind turbines not the best in my view if you ever lived by the ocean you would know how corrosive just the salt air is on things let alone something actually in the ocean. The Government always stands on the cliff and just jumps in the water not ever knowing how deep it is and if it’s safe Everything uses fossil fuels so you can’t just say one day you can use say a gas stove or water heater anymore because the cost and logic out ways the solution


21

“ jump head long into it without weighing the risk factors and real costs. “


Some citizens choose to not participate in the decision making process, the public notices, the meetings and all the processes that happen leading up to today.


“how corrosive just the salt air is on things let alone something actually in the ocean”


Every day we read about oil rigs and floating platforms that just dissolve and disappear /s


“Floating platforms have been bulwarks of the oil and gas industries for decades. If we can use a floating platform to drill from the ocean surface down through kilometers of bedrock, how hard could it be to mount a wind turbine or other marine energy converter on a floating platform and transmit electricity back to the mainland on cables?” https://pmiind.com/pros-cons-floating-platforms-marine-renewable-energy/


-29

Another false narrative attempt by the news. Oil and natural gas will run out! In the meantime Saudi Arabia has a stranglehold on the market deciding prices and our lives. Remember when gas was $7 at the start of the war in Ukraine? Our own reserves helped relieve that. Those reserves are now at a 40 year low…

Anyone complaining about this project has a very narrow perspective and deserves to be dismissed wholeheartedly. Solar and wind are our future; if we want one!


-41

The cost increase will be shared with the national grid customers but still a very bad investment. Cheaply built above ground homes may be a thing of the past because partially underground homes are less energy dependent. Digging in may become a requirement if we are truly interested in energy savings and cost.


-11

this has been the truth for over 10 thousand years of society. wells, underground housing, crypts, tombs. to build into a hill or below is incredibly efficient. idk why we don’t. why aren’t homes part of nature?


-2

We are finding that these wind farms at sea are disrupting radar for air and sea traffic… this could be a national security issue if we can’t sea where when or what type of sea craft is off our shores… is it an enemy submarine?… we won’t know if we keep building these farms at sea…. they are inefficient and costly and when adding in this new discovery for radar interruption the only thing I can see what has so many folks insistent on going forward with this is personal greed….


20

Mechanical wind-powered electrical generators are not cost-effective because they require constant maintenance. Esp, those exposed to salt air. Wind-powered electrical generators cannot exist without huge government subsidies.


21

This is ridiculous. The state is shutting down all traditional energy sources while natural sources progress at a pace a snail would be ashamed of, and we are going to end up rubbing sticks together for heat and light.


34

“The state is shutting down all traditional energy sources”


Bullshit of the first order..


-23

The permitting process is insurmountable. Smart business people know when the deck is stacked. At this moment the feds and state have stacked the deck. If you don’t think so then go ahead and get any fossil fuel or nuclear driven plant built.


4

No problem in Ca, the elected officials will let the energy companies pass the cost on to the customers.


44

Agreed, first PG&E wanted to shut down Diablo and the cost to do so was passed on to the ratepayers with government approval, now they want to keep it open with a whole new set of costs, again passed on to the ratepayers, again with full government approval


15

Well who should pay the costs? Companies exist to make profit. Our elected officials have created this by forcing the shutdown at Diablo before changing their minds. Additionally, our state has outlawed most fossil fuels (coal) power plants that could/should have been built over the last 30 years to keep pace with demand. We vote ’em in, we bear the consequences.


17

Energy sources, especially oil and gas, are subsidized through the tax code. Check out Cunningham Legal for the tax dodge.

The cost of solar is going down and efficiency is really going up. Today, most solar panels are between 17% and 20% efficient. Some newer affordable panels are now near 31%, and cost are going down. We should expect the same for wind.

Summary. solar and wind, in combination with traditional power sources, are the future. From a particular viewpoint, solar and wind are ways of extending oil and gas, since they are produced, installed and maintained by oil and gas resources.


-49

Obviously you left out the subsidies for solar and wind.


16

Are we now supposed to pretend that fossil fuels, nuclear, etc., have not ALWAYS been highly subsidized? What would one call the billions we would pay to keep Diablo limping along on those earthquake faults?


-9