Is the Myth that Wind Power is Cheap Being Exposed?

In the UK there were no takers for Offshore Wind Power at £44/MWh.

The suppliers are suggesting a 70% increase in the strike price is required.

In the USA Wind Power Contracts are being cancelled/abandoned unless the price is very significantly increased.

All the Wind Turbine manufacturers are in trouble.

The workable strike price for new Offshore Wind is now similar to that for new Nuclear, noting that Nuclear does not require additional subsides to deal with intermittency. 

As the quantities of basic raw materials, concrete, steel, etc. for 3GW of nuclear appear to be less than required for 3GW of wind with a 30% capacity factor nuclear seems the sensible option. New design nuclear has a design life of 60-80 years rather than 20 – 30 years for wind (but no one really knows).

Why are we still wasting money on wind power?

Parents Reply Children
  • he consumer / taxpayer foots teh bill for environmental destruction too whilst the fossil fuel companies rake in their profits

  • well yes consumers will pay - after all, they want to use the else does 

    But note, even after the increase to about 7p per kWhr, it is still  a lot lower than the equivalent guaranteed prices already  agreed for Nuclear some years ago. Yes, wind is cheaper than nuclear,  but its far from free. In that sense the increase looks large partly because it is overdue.

    I do not think that there will be very many occasions the govt has to pay out to make up this strike price.


  • Meanwhile, the government is still obstructing onshore wind, even though it's cheaper than offshore.  Despite the latest planning changes, it's still more difficult to get planning for onshore wind than pretty much anything else you might want to build.