Orsted CEO says abandoning US wind projects a 'real option'
(www.offshore-mag.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (26)
sorted by:
They tell us that their solutions are sustainable and that they produce cheap electricity in a reliable way. I take that to mean that they can supply electricity at a price that will make them huge profits.
So why do they need more subsidies? Is it more expensive to make wind turbines than they are letting on?
Homework (for anyone sufficiently interested!):
A simple way to compare energy sources is their capacity factor. A capacity factor describes how intensely a fleet of generators is run. It is a ratio of a fleet's actual generation to its maximum potential generation (according to the Energy Information Agency, EIA). For example nuclear is 80-90%. Coal is 50-60%. Wind is 30-40%. Solar is about 20% Another measure on cost is what is called Levelized Cost. It takes into account all the costs (initial investment and running costs). Conventional coal is 94.8 $/MWh and offshore wind is 243.2. The EIA is a great source for some of the items you listed.
And does the Levelized Cost account for future degradation of the wind turbines, and absolute degradation of solar panels?
Levelized Cost takes into account the replacement costs of an energy source. I don't know how solar and wind get rated because their efficiencies have supposedly improved with time. I should look that up.