ThomasThere is a lot of excitement for #offshore #wind but it still needs innovation to become cost competitive.
Willett Kempton@thomas The cleanedge graph is based on already-built projects. Current planning is for 2027-8 builds, already at $65/MWh (2021$). Still onshore #wind & utility-scale #solar are lower cost, but offshore is the only low-cost #renewable in quantity for #coastal states. So, in many coastal regions, it already is cost-competitive with market power (see graph ES-1). (And #offshorewind is still doing very rapid innovation, BTW.) Full report in “procurement options” at https://sites.udel.edu/ceoe-siow/publications/
Publications
What is the Special Initiative on Offshore Wind? The Special Initiative on Offshore Wind (SIOW) is an independent organization, that generates fact-based research and convenes multi-sector collaboration to provide expertise, analysis, information sharing, and strategic partnerships with industry, advocacy, and government. We do this with the goal of driving the responsible and sustainable deployment of […]
@willett nice. I agree. Offshore has great potential. California just opened up its coast for wind. But the sea floor is going to make solid offshore wind very expensive, so floating solar could be very important to its development.
Bryce@thomas need to consider Cost of storage with wind and solar. That adds around $0.2-0.5 per kWh to wind and solar.
@thomas the disclaimer states that in the graph! Also not that this is for new development. #nuclear is expensive new (I posted recently about it!) without innovation. However, already built nuclear plants are VERY cheap. On the order of <$0.1/kWh making them substantially better than wind and solar (strong argument to keep existing nuclear online). That’s not even accounting for storage of #wind and #solar.
@coffeemayonnaise lol I was just reading your nuclear post and linked study.
@coffeemayonnaise my post is about offshore wind.
Reading your post on nuclear didn't make me optimistic because the savings assume the nuclear industry will change its behavior.
Battery costs are declining quickly. The supply chain costs are temporary.
I don't support shuttering existing nuclear. But for me to think it will grow, I have to see progress on time and cost.
@thomas yeah def needs a change of approach. I love solar don’t get me wrong! The other day I computed the effective 2022 power from my go me 4kW panels (Los Angeles) and they produce 16% of the power they could produce this yeah if the sun shined 24/7. kind of blew me away.
Paul Eastwood@thomas offshore wind is cheaper than onshore and solar in the UK. Adoption rates will presumably brings offshore costs down in the US.
@pauleastwood very cool.
Are those years at the top? I am not sure I understand your chart though. Is it saying that in '26/'27 offshore is expected to be £37.35 £/MWh? I would like to see more information.
I am in California where they just opened the north coast for Offshore wind. Our sea floor is... not as fun.
@thomas yes, sorry, not an easy table to follow without some explanation. Here's a good article that should help. The columns are years when the contracts are expected to start operating. The plants haven't yet been built.
@thomas and here are the full details to accompany the data. The table is from 'Auction results'.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/contracts-for-difference-cfd-allocation-round-4
@pauleastwood Thank you.
Do you know/think those prices also reflecting subsidies for building Offshore wind?
@thomas depends on the market price for electricity. If this is lower than the prices set at auction (those in the table) then the generators receive a top-up to the market price. If the market price is higher, the generators pay back the difference. With the current high prices for electricity in the UK, the generators would not receive a subsidy if they were operating today.
The system is a little complicated but nicely explained in the article I linked to.