[mousepad]

But is that b/c of govt. subsidies? If so, then it won't scale up well worldwide

Yeah, for every article claiming how great renewables are:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-so ... overnment/
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/200353/ ... uld-money/

You find one telling a different story
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/dis ... ind-energy
https://stopthesethings.com/2020/11/24/ ... taggering/
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/t ... d-insight/

Far from falling, the operating costs per MW of new capacity have increased significantly for both onshore and offshore wind farms over the last two decades. In addition, operating costs for existing wind farms tend to grow even more rapidly as they age. The increase for new capacity seems to be due to the shift to sites that are more remote or difficult to service. Much of the increase with age is due to the frequency of equipment failures and the need for preventative maintenance, both of which are strongly associated with the adoption of new generations of larger turbines – both onshore and offshore.

The solution is LESS.
Less consumption, less production of crap, less waste, less population, less destruction.

[kublikhan]

Yeah, for every article claiming how great renewables are:
You find one telling a different story

That's why its important to look at the quality of your source. If you are using sources that are biased against wind then of course they will give BS data. You should instead look at more neutral sources like the EIA or Denmark’s Energine.

Abstract
This paper draws on a survey of wind industry professionals to clarify trends in the operational expenditures (OpEx) of U.S. land-based wind power plants. We find that average all-in lifetime OpEx has declined from approximately $80/kW-yr (~$35/MWh) for projects built in the late 1990s to a level approaching $40/kW-yr (~$11/MWh) for projects built in 2018. Turbine operations and maintenance costs represent the single largest component of overall OpEx and the primary source of cost reductions.

We also use historical OpEx learning rates, showing a 9% OpEx reduction for each doubling of global wind capacity, to project a further $5–$8/kW-yr reduction from 2018 to 2040. These findings suggest that continued OpEx reductions may contribute 10% or more of the expected reductions in land-based wind’s levelized cost of energy. Moreover, these estimates understate the importance of OpEx owing to the multiplicative effects through which operational advancements influence not only operations and maintenance costs but also component reliability, performance, and plant-level availability—thereby also affecting levelized costs by enhancing annual energy production and plant lifetimes.

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information: Assessing Wind Power Operating Costs in the United States

Advances in turbine technology have improved reliability, reducing unscheduled downtime and cutting service costs. While offshore projects remain more expensive to operate, economies of scale will play an increasing role as arrays featuring hundreds of units become the norm.

There is a consensus that O&M costs are on a downward trend that is likely to continue and will contribute to further lower wind-energy generation costs, both onshore and offshore. The use of larger machines is one reason for this downward trend — as O&M costs benefit from economies of scale. At the same time, the reliability of wind turbines is improving. Both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance work is becoming less expensive as a result, with manufacturers offering more attractive guarantees at lower prices and with increasing confidence.

The principal costs are those for servicing the wind turbines and for unscheduled breakdowns. Downtime for the latter has been shrinking steadily over the years, to the point where several manufacturers offer 20-year service contracts, with guarantees of technical availability up to 97%.

The dataset derived from wind turbines commissioned between 1998 and 2005, drawn in red, shows O&M costs climbing from $30/kW/yr when the machines were new, to more than $65/kW/yr at age 11. After that, the costs fall, possibly due to major refurbishments being carried out in year 10. It must be emphasised that the number of samples in the datasets is quite small — mostly 10 or fewer.

There is a significant contrast with the behaviour of the younger turbines, commissioned in 2006-11 (blue). Not only do they have a lower starting point, around $24/kW/yr, but they rise much less, before falling back. This suggests that the improvements in turbine technology that have occurred since the turn of the century have led to significant improvements in reliability and, consequently, have cut O&M costs.

The future
In 2008 the US Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook put operation and maintenance costs at $29.5/kW/yr. By 2020 that figure had fallen to $26.2/kW/yr. Allowing for inflation, that represents a 26% drop over 12 years.

Both the Department of Energy and Denmark’s Energinet expect the downward trend to continue. Energinet suggests the cost of O&M will fall 10% by 2030, while the US figures suggest a fall of around 25%, although the expectations for onshore wind are more modest — round 8-10%. It is clear that the cost reductions will make a small but useful contribution to the steady reduction in the overall cost of energy.

[mousepad]

That's why it's important to look at the quality of your source. If you are using sources that are biased against wind then of course they will give BS data

And what about sources that are biased pro wind? Are those BS too, or only the ones biased against wind?
How do you tell the bias?

https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/t ... d-insight/
This was written by

Dr John Constable is Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation.

If anything I would claim it's biased pro wind, yet it's bashing wind.

I have no idea what the Manhatten institute is. Is it biased against wind? I couldn't find anything to indicate that. What about you?
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/dis ... ind-energy

The pro-wind articles I linked to were written by climate activist outlets and a college. So clearly a pro wind bias seems likely. Why should I trust it?
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-so ... overnment/

[Newfie]

Mouse pad wrote

The solution is LESS.
Less consumption, less production of crap, less waste, less population, less destruction.

There you go, the one true path. Clear and siple

[jato0072]

The solution is LESS. Less consumption, less production of crap, less waste, less population, less destruction.

While that slogan will never sell in a "democracy", rest assured "nature" will force humans do to exactly that.

[kublikhan]

And what about sources that are biased pro wind? Are those BS too, or only the ones biased against wind?
How do you tell the bias?

Sometimes groups are pretty upfront about their stances: Pro wind, anti wind, etc. You can do a quick check on the article's homepage to see if that's the case. Sometimes its right in the url. If you read enough articles on the subject you might also start to recognize the same group of bad actors that put out BS like the REF and Manhattan Institute. Failing all of that, just ask yourself: "Does this article sound like they have a serious axe to grind on issue X?" If so, there's a good chance it's BS. So what about sites that are pro wind, do we take them as gospel? No, double check them against other sources like the EIA , Energinet, etc.

This was written by Dr John Constable is Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation. If anything I would claim it's biased pro wind, yet it's bashing wind.

Sometimes people give their organizations deceptive names to hoodwink others. Ex: Renewable Energy Foundation. This is actually an anti-renewable energy group, not a renewable energy organization:

They are not a Foundation for Renewable Energy, as their name says and as any reasonable person would conclude from their name – they actually exist to undermine Renewable Energy – in that respect their name is a deceit."

Other critics such as Maria McCaffery, chief executive of RenewableUK, a trade body that represents more than 600 wind and marine energy firms, says the Renewable Energy Foundation's true purpose is diametrically opposed to the interests of the wind energy industry. "It is an anti-wind lobbying organisation," she told BusinessGreen. "I'd like to know where the renewable energy part of their remit is. They don't foster or promote or develop, they just try to undermine the case for wind energy all the time."

In 2011 it was revealed that it had been in discussion in April 2008 with the Charities Commission about its possibly overly political nature.

Renewable Energy Foundation

While the name of the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) suggests it is a charity dedicated to promoting low-carbon electricity, it appears to spend most of its time campaigning against onshore wind. When it was founded in 2004, with the TV personality Noel Edmonds as its chair, the organisation was clear it wanted to fight against the “grotesque political push” for onshore renewable energy in the UK. Many in the energy sector believe the charity to be full of anti-wind lobbyists.

The REF has strong links to a group accused of climate science scepticism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, started by the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, who has denied global heating is a problem.

While the REF has been relatively quiet in recent years, growing pressure on the government to support wind energy to help solve the energy crisis seems to have led to it becoming more active again. In recent weeks, the charity has provided anti-onshore wind research to the Telegraph and Daily Mail. Colin Davie, a trustee of the REF, has appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to oppose onshore wind.

Charity linked to UK anti-onshore wind campaigns active again

I have no idea what the Manhatten institute is. Is it biased against wind? I couldn't find anything to indicate that. What about you?

Same deal with the Manhattan Institute. They are an organization that promotes the development of fossil fuels while bashing renewable energy:

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, originally known as the International Center for Economic Policy Studies, was founded in 1978 by Antony Fisher and William Casey and in recent years has promoted climate science contrarianism while defending policies supporting the development of fossil fuels.

Media Matters reports that Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Robert Bryce regularly authors op-eds for mainstream and conservative publications advocating against renewable energy while promoting fossil fuel use. With reference to climate change, Bryce has said: “I don’t know who’s right. And I don’t really care.”

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

The fossil fuel industry has long been a source of talking points and “studies” aimed at spreading doubt about climate change, and over the past few years, it has broadened its scope to undermine support for clean energy, as well. Often, this criticism is published in the form of articles in major media outlets—penned by employees of think tanks who don’t disclose their groups’ industry funding. Researchers found that only 6 percent of the stories disclosed the funding when they cited “experts” from those think tanks. Typically, the stories referred to the groups as “free-market” or “libertarian,” without mentioning the dirty-energy support.

Among the most frequent op-ed contributors is Robert Bryce, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, a think tank that has made promoting fossil fuels and downplaying climate change a central focus—and that has received $1.21 million in funding from the likes of ExxonMobil and Claude R. Lambe, a Koch-owned charitable organization. Bryce is quite deft at mowing down clean energy, which is probably why he’s become a regular in the op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, on TV, and speaking at events.

Major News Outlets Give Fossil-Fuel-Funded Think Tanks a Free Platform

The pro-wind articles I linked to were written by climate activist outlets and a college. So clearly a pro wind bias seems likely. Why should I trust it?

Don't take it as gospel. Double check it with what the EIA or other government bodies are saying, such as the one I liked to earlier.

[mousepad]

Renewable Energy Foundation. This is actually an anti-renewable energy group, not a renewable energy organization

Just because the article is bad news doesn't mean it's wrong nor that it's biased. And even if it's biased that still doesn't mean it's wrong.
You will note the critics you posted are all renewable energy companies that have an interest in hype and promote renewables as much as possible.

There have been critics of REF's agenda, in particular Juliet Davenport, chief executive of green energy provider Good Energy, and Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity,

Double check it with what the EIA or other government bodies are saying, such as the one I liked to earlier.

when I go to check the media bias of the EIA I get this
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/us-depar ... e-science/

For Example, under the Biden Administration, they promote pro-climate science information such as this Powering a clean, electrified future

Again, bias doesn't mean wrong. It mostly means assuming overly optimistic future looking numbers.

The REF articel claims to base their findings on the accounting of actual projects

How do we know this? Because one of us, Gordon Hughes, has compiled data from audited accounts on the capital and operating costs of 350 onshore and offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom,

Now, they don't show the numbers, but do you think they are lying?

Whereas your articles have an awful lot of future assumption that are unverifiable and probably too optimistic.

economies of scale will play an increasing role

costs are on a downward trend that is likely to continue

Energinet suggests the cost of O&M will fall 10% by 2030

So, what should I believe now? Your "unbiased" article from the EIA that it's all great with tons of rosy future assumption? Or an article based on actual data (although unverifiable) showing not so rosy news? And on top of that the problem of storage and intermittency is not addressed in both articles, which only makes the calculation worse for renewables.

I think I stick with the middle ground. Renewables is not the panacea you would like us to believe, yet it probably is an important source of energy once we power down to a society of LESS.

[AdamB]

I think I stick with the middle ground. Renewables is not the panacea you would like us to believe, yet it probably is an important source of energy once we power down to a society of LESS.

No allowance for just a more expensive energy future, with plenty of nukes thrown into the mix? Less comes about through conservation and substitution, nukes being the substitution, conservation being the result of the higher required prices. But both of these conditions operating not necessarily requiring a world of "less".

[mousepad]

I think I stick with the middle ground. Renewables is not the panacea you would like us to believe, yet it probably is an important source of energy once we power down to a society of LESS.

No allowance for just a more expensive energy future, with plenty of nukes thrown into the mix? Less comes about through conservation and substitution, nukes being the substitution, conservation being the result of the higher required prices. But both of these conditions operating not necessarily requiring a world of "less".

I think nuclear is the wrong choice in general, but I understand I'm not going to have a say in that.
So even if society decides for nukes, it probably doesn't work out to be as smooth as the proponents claim it to be.
I think LESS is a better plan, and most importantly we don't even have to do anything about it, it will implement itself. Easy. And I like easy.

[mousepad]

No allowance for just a more expensive energy future,.

What you mean? That's exactly what I'm saying. More expensive = LESS. Which I fully support.
But pro reneweables claim smooth sailing and BAU into a blissfull future of rainbows and roses, if only the evil fossil industry were not scheming and sabotaging their ways.

[AdamB]

No allowance for just a more expensive energy future,.

What you mean? That's exactly what I'm saying. More expensive = LESS. Which I fully support.

More expensive doesn't necessarily equal LESS. No requirement for that at all within the scope of a supply/demand/price curve.

In 2015 Brent was $52.32/bbl for the year. In 2018, the last peak oil (which means MORE volume than 2018) the annual average price was $71.34 per barrel. More volumes at a HIGHER price, globally. Since 2018, volumes have gone up and down because of Covid and all the resulting supply chain issues and wars, but we are within a million barrels a day or so in terms of volume of that 2018 high, and prices are now $100+. And we're all still happily soaking the stuff up.

The market sends signals on what it thinks the supply/demand balance is, and there are macroeconomic rules that should generally apply, but there is also the signal noise (something the economists don't talk about because it becomes very engineering-centric) and sussing it all out is quite interesting at times.

But no, there is not a requirement that conservation because of a higher price and per capita decrease in consumption means a total decrease in consumption....changes in population alone can negate that idea.

But pro reneweables claim smooth sailing and BAU into a blissfull future of rainbows and roses, if only the evil fossil industry were not scheming and sabotaging their ways.

I'm just pro energy because I like modern conveniences. The ridiculous politics of the issue are mind numbingly silly nowadays. As VT has on occasionally pointed out correctly, Biden came raging into office all negative fossil fuels. But because idiot politicians don't understand energy use and markets any more than Happy McPeaksters do, it is NO surprise that they then completely reverse themselves when predictable supply issues crop up (I was wondering about those refineries coming off line more than a year ago were going to do) and then the war blows up the problem far beyond its normal economic effect, Biden's economic recovery screaming out of Trump's recession skyrockets demand at the same time and suddenly its just the usual anti Big Oil routine that Carter tried out.

[mousepad]

But no, there is not a requirement that conservation because of a higher price and per capita decrease in consumption means a total decrease in consumption....changes in population alone can negate that idea.

Yes, I agree. There's no requirement.

[vtsnowedin]

More expensive doesn't necessarily equal LESS. No requirement for that at all within the scope of a supply/demand/price curve.

Well as people have a pretty fixed amount of annual income spending more on energy will require them to spend LESS on other things.
Going forward I expect anything that can be considered a discretionary expense like eating out or Christmas shopping to drop in price to match the dollars actually available after the food and energy bills are paid. Even those essentials like clothing will take a hit as most Americans already have closets full and can lay off buying for quite a while by just wearing out what they already have.

[AdamB]

More expensive doesn't necessarily equal LESS. No requirement for that at all within the scope of a supply/demand/price curve.

Well as people have a pretty fixed amount of annual income spending more on energy will require them to spend LESS on other things.

Conservation and substitution. I buy chicken instead of steak. Generic instead of name brands. Etc etc. I'm pretty sure folks know these concepts so well, they do it instinctively, each under their own given circumstances, even if they don't know the names of the economic concepts in action.

Going forward I expect anything that can be considered a discretionary expense like eating out or Christmas shopping to drop in price to match the dollars actually available after the food and energy bills are paid.

We are halfway to an official recession. You are describing something that happens in all recessions. Prioritization drives choices, economists attach names to the whys. Same effect probably happens to individuals under other changes in circumstances as well. Loss of job, markets take a turn, you name it.

[kublikhan]

Just because the article is bad news doesn't mean it's wrong nor that it's biased. And even if it's biased that still doesn't mean it's wrong.

I didn't say bad news equals wrong. Go back and read my first post on this topic. I was correcting the wrong information you posted on wind O&M costs. Wind O&M costs have been falling, not rising.

You will note the critics you posted are all renewable energy companies that have an interest in hype and promote renewables as much as possible.

The critic quotes I used were on the biases of the REF and Manhattan Institute. And despite the critics pro wind agenda, they are very qualified to know who their rivals in the anti-wind lobby are. The actual data I quoted was from the US department of energy.

when I go to check the media bias of the EIA I get this
For Example, under the Biden Administration, they promote pro-climate science information such as this Powering a clean, electrified future

They also say this:

These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles.

Contrast that with the Manhattan Institute:

Overall, we rate the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research Right Biased based on editorial and policy positions that routinely favor a conservative perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency with funding, use of poor sources, and a failed fact check.

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Manhattan Institute is not 1 but 2 notches lower than the department of energy on factual reporting. I'm not saying the DOE is completely without bias. I don't take anything I read for granted. But some sources, such as the US DOE, have proven to have a much higher track record of at least getting the facts right compared to sources like the REF and Manhattan Institute.

The REF articel claims to base their findings on the accounting of actual projects. Now, they don't show the numbers, but do you think they are lying?

Yes I do. Let's take a look at some of their claims:

1. The actual costs of onshore and offshore wind generation have not fallen significantly over the last two decades and there is little prospect that they will fall in the next five or even ten years.

2. While some of the components which feed into the calculation of costs have fallen, the overall costs have not.

4. Far from falling, the operating costs per MW of new capacity have increased significantly for both onshore and offshore wind farms over the last two decades.

I call BS. Let's look at relatively neutral sources to counter these, such as the DOE and Nature:

From 2013 to 2018, costs for solar fell 50%, costs for wind fell 27%

Average U.S. construction costs for solar and wind generation continue to fall

We find that average all-in lifetime OpEx has declined from approximately $80/kW-yr (~$35/MWh) for projects built in the late 1990s to a level approaching $40/kW-yr (~$11/MWh) for projects built in 2018. Turbine operations and maintenance costs represent the single largest component of overall OpEx and the primary source of cost reductions.

Assessing wind power operating costs in the United States: Results from a survey of wind industry experts

Abstract
Wind energy has experienced accelerated cost reduction over the past five years—far greater than predicted in a 2015 expert elicitation. We show that experts in 2020 expect future onshore and offshore wind costs to decline 37–49% by 2050, resulting in costs 50% lower than predicted in 2015. This is due to cost reductions witnessed over the past five years and expected continued advancements. If realized, these costs might allow wind to play a larger role in energy supply than previously anticipated.

Main
Wind power deployment has expanded rapidly and wind energy is now among the lowest-cost means of electricity supply and energy-sector decarbonization in many regions. Initially these cost reductions materialized in onshore wind, but industry maturation and cost declines have accelerated for offshore wind over the past five years.

Cost reductions, meanwhile, increased demand for offshore wind, leading to further industrialization of not only turbines but also foundations, installation and other balance-of-station elements. As experience was gained and project risks were better understood, cost contingencies narrowed. Additionally, technical advancements allowed turbines to grow more rapidly than experts predicted. Increased turbine capacity can reduce CapEx and OpEx because fewer turbines must be installed and operated for a given amount of power production.

Realized 2014–2019 LCOE values depicted in Fig. 1 reflect a global learning rate in which LCOE declines by 35–46% for each doubling of cumulative capacity. This is two to four times greater than the long-term historical trend. The realized costs in Fig. 1 imply a global learning rate from 2014 to 2019 of 14–33% on the basis of growth in cumulative offshore wind capacity.

Nature: Expert elicitation survey predicts 37% to 49% declines in wind energy costs by 2050

Executive Summary
Since 2015, maturing technology, rapidly evolving supply chains, increased competition, and experience from utility-scale installations have driven costs down and broadened the deployment of offshore wind energy across the globe.

Offshore Wind Energy Cost and Price Trends
Offshore wind LCOE has declined by 28-51% between 2014 and 2020.

Offshore Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition

Claims disproven.

So, what should I believe now? Your "unbiased" article from the EIA that it's all great with tons of rosy future assumption? Or an article based on actual data (although unverifiable) showing not so rosy news?

Both articles make claims about the future. I'm not asking you to believe either set of claims. I am asking you to look at the verifiable data on the past. Data which shows the REF article to be BS.

I think I stick with the middle ground. Renewables is not the panacea you would like us to believe, yet it probably is an important source of energy once we power down to a society of LESS.

Just because I call BS when someone posts lies on renewable energy does not mean I believe renewables to be a panacea. I have posted the opposite many times.

[vtsnowedin]

Just because I call BS when someone posts lies on renewable energy does not mean I believe renewables to be a panacea. I have posted the opposite many times.

Hear hear for having an open mind and looking at both sides of the issue. There is way too little of that going on here or in the rest of the "social media" .

[mousepad]

Claims disproven.

You are linking to a lot of articles with estimates and assumptions. You're also quick to shoot the messenger.

The most important sentence in the REI article is this, in my opinion.

data from audited accounts on the capital and operating costs of 350 onshore and offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom

The problem of course, the data doesn't' seem to be available. Are they flat out lying with the numbers? Are they cherry picking? We don't know.

I then look at the daddy of all reports, Lazard, which pretty much shows what your are claiming.
https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/laz ... on-140.pdf

The problem I'm having is that the report is sprinkled with this kind of statements:

Other factors would also have a potentially significant effect on the results contained herein, but have not been examined in the scope of this current analysis. These additional factors, among others, could include: capacity value vs. energy value; network upgrades, transmission, congestion or other integration-related costs; significant permitting or other development costs, unless otherwise noted; and costs of complying with various environmental regulations

and also the 4 pages of "key assumptions" they show (page 16-19).

Same with your other heavy hitter "Assessing Wind Power Operating Costs in the United States"
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1544993

It's entirely based on survey and full of estimates

Recent All-in OpEx Estimates

Recent Estimates of OpEx Components

etc. etc.

Also if we look at Table 1 on Page 6 we see a summary of the OpEX for various years and regions.
There's no true trend that can be discerned. Yet it strikes me as interesting that the IEA estimates in fact increased from 2014 to 2020, exactly what the REI article claims. Now there's not enough data points and data certainty here, I agree. Yet it's interesting.

I think what we need is ACTUAL data. Profit/loss and balance sheets of operating wind farms. Blindly believing in some article just because it's government or your favorite university ain't good enough. Estimates and assumptions aint' good enough either.

Do you think profit/loss and balance is available from traded companies? I'm not deep enough into any of this to know.

I'm not here to proof my point, I'm here to learn and understand, so I'm certainly willing to agree with you if you can provide the data to backup your claims.

I understand you motion the Manhattan article away because you don't like its message nor its messenger.
But can we take a look at it please? I'm struggling myself. For example on page 14 we've got this

EIA estimated the real LCOE for offshore wind facilities beginning service in 2025 as between $102.68/MWh and $155.55/MWh, with an average price of $122.25/MWh (2019$).(note 62)

They reference to note 62, the Levelized Costs of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020.
First I wasn't able to find the 2020 report, only the 2022.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf
Nevertheless I wasn't able to find their claimed number in it. Are you able to point out what they did here? Did they cook the number? Did they pick the wrong one? Maybe you can help. I think it's important to exactly pinpoint where they lied, because then we can invalidate their whole article.

[kublikhan]

Also if we look at Table 1 on Page 6 we see a summary of the OpEX for various years and regions.
There's no true trend that can be discerned. Yet it strikes me as interesting that the IEA estimates in fact increased from 2014 to 2020, exactly what the REI article claims. Now there's not enough data points and data certainty here, I agree. Yet it's interesting.

If you look at figure 7 on page 18 you can see a clear downward trend in OpEx over time.

The IEA says the same thing:

Low-carbon generation is becoming cost competitive
The key insight from this 2020 edition is that the levelised costs of electricity generation of low carbon generation technologies are falling and are increasingly below the costs of conventional fossil fuel generation. Renewable energy costs have continued to decrease in recent years. In particular, this report shows that onshore wind is expected to have, on average, the lowest levelised costs of electricity generation in 2025. Offshore wind is experiencing a major cost decrease compared to the previous edition.

Conclusions
The increasing competitiveness of low-carbon technologies for electricity generation remains the key insight of this report.

Onshore Wind O&M costs in USD/MWh[page 63]
United States: 9-26, 18 average
All countries(>=1MW): 4-29, 17 average

Projected Costs of Generating Electricity

I think what we need is ACTUAL data. Profit/loss and balance sheets of operating wind farms. Blindly believing in some article just because it's government or your favorite university ain't good enough. Estimates and assumptions aint' good enough either.

Do you think profit/loss and balance is available from traded companies? I'm not deep enough into any of this to know.

I'm not here to proof my point, I'm here to learn and understand, so I'm certainly willing to agree with you if you can provide the data to backup your claims.

The IEA releases reports with some data like that. Although some of the source data is often stuffed into excel spreadsheets you have to download separately, but links are provided. You might want to take a look at this one for example:

Overview
The International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme (IEA Wind TCP) Task 26—The Cost of Wind Energy represents an international collaboration dedicated to exploring the past, present, and future cost of wind energy. This report discusses trends from 2008 through 2016 that affected the cost of land-based wind energy in each country. The cost of wind energy during this period is compared with the market value of wind energy in the respective electricity market for each country. These project-level data illustrate how wind turbine technology, wind project investment and operation costs, wind plant energy production, and wind project financing costs vary with the specific wind turbine technology installed in a given year. These trends illustrate how wind turbine and wind plant technology have changed from 2008 to 2016 along with the corresponding changes to wind plant cost and performance.

Wind Energy Project Trends in Denmark Since 2008
As for the investment cost of land-based wind turbines, following a period of cost decline between 2008 and 2011 and a consequent stabilization period from 2013 to 2014, the cost decreased substantially in 2015 and 2016. The capital cost of turbines is now at a record-low capacity-weighted average of 1,153 €/kW ($1,275/kW). The average fixed O&M cost has been stable at around 40 €/kW/yr ($44/kW/yr) with a reduction in 2016, down to 33 €/kW/yr ($37/kW/yr). Besides, data for O&M indicate a large span across different projects. Interviews with banks and developers (Ea Energy Analyses 2017) suggest a trend toward reduced cost of financing for land-based wind in Denmark. Weighted average cost of capital has been going down from 2013 to 2016 compared to 2008‒2012. The main driver for this reduction is a substantially lower cost of debt, as well as lower cost of equity, while the debt -equity ratio seems to have been stable during the entire period.

Germany Summary
The levelized costs of land-based wind energy in Germany decreased significantly between 2008 and 2016, from 95 €/MWh ($105/MWh) in 2008 to 60 €/MWh ($67/MWh) in 2016. This equals a reduction of 39%. The main drivers identified for this LCOE reduction are increased energy production and decreased WACC and OpEx. The market value of land-based wind energy in Germany is significantly lower than the average annual electricity price. Value of land-based wind as well as average electricity prices decreased between 2012 and 2016, therefore the need for subsidy remains until market values and costs meet.

Norway Summary
LCOE for wind energy decreased substantially in Norway from 2008 to 2016, from 56 €/MWh ($62/MWh) in 2008 to 32 €/MWh ($35/MWh) in 2016, a reduction of around 40%. The main drivers identified for this LCOE reduction are increased net energy production and decreased WACC and OpEx. The market value of wind power in Norway is near the average annual electricity price, due to low wind power penetration and the flexibility of the Norwegian hydropower system. Wind power production also benefits from higher wintertime production when power prices tend to be higher. The cost of wind energy in Norway is quickly approaching average power prices despite these
having declined in recent years. This, along with expectations for larger and lower specific power turbines in the near term, suggest that wind power in Norway is very near grid parity already. This implies that significant deployments are plausible even after the end of the electricity certificate scheme in 2021.

US Summary
Since 2008, the calculated subsidy-free LCOE for U.S. wind energy projects has shown a 45% reduction from 73 €/MWh ($81/MWh) to 40 €/MWh ($44/MWh) in 2016. Improvement in wind project capacity factors from 33% to an estimated 43% is the primary driver for LCOE reduction. Reduction in average wind project investment costs from 1,955 €/kW ($2,162/kW) to 1,434 €/kW ($1,586/kW) is the second largest driver for LCOE reduction. Reduction in O&M costs from 47 €/kW/yr ($52/kW/yr) to 39 €/kW/yr ($44/kW/yr) is the third driver, accounting for a 2 €/MWh ($2/MWh). Lower O&M expenditures over time are supported by larger turbine sizes, a growing and maturing wind sector, and increased competition among O&M service providers.

IEA Wind TCP Task 26

I wasn't able to find their claimed number in it. Are you able to point out what they did here? Did they cook the number? Did they pick the wrong one? Maybe you can help. I think it's important to exactly pinpoint where they lied, because then we can invalidate their whole article.

I don't have the 2020 report either, but the figure was probably accurate at the time of publication(jan 2020). Offshore wind really is more much expensive than onshore wind. However the costs are also coming down fast. A more recent report from the EIA(aug 2021) has the range between $71 and $96, for an average price of $83.5. That is about the same figure Lazard gives for offshore wind.

Executive Summary
Since 2015, maturing technology, rapidly evolving supply chains, increased competition, and experience from utility-scale installations have driven costs down and broadened the deployment of offshore wind energy across the globe.

Offshore Wind Energy Cost and Price Trends
Offshore wind LCOE has declined by 28-51% between 2014 and 2020. The levelized procurement price of U.S. offshore wind energy projects ranges between $96/MWh and $71/MWh for projects commencing commercial operations between 2022 and 2025. These prices from power purchase agreements and offshore renewable energy certificates are based on a total of 5.5 GW of signed agreements.

Offshore Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition

[kublikhan]

The most important sentence in the REI article is this, in my opinion.
data from audited accounts on the capital and operating costs of 350 onshore and offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom

Yeah he made the same kind of claims in his 2012 report. Yet when people looked at the actual wind farm data it was revealed Huges report was BS.

I wrote a few weeks ago about the surprising assertion from the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) that the performance of wind farms declines rapidly with age.

After meeting REF in early 2013, DECC Chief Scientist David MacKay responded to the study, eventually publicly saying that Hughes’ work had serious statistical flaws.

Hughes’ study contained no assessment of the performance of specific wind farms. All the data was merged into one large statistical series. On the basis of my assessment of actual production data from the earliest farms I want to suggest that the empirical evidence strongly suggests that Professor Hughes greatly exaggerates the rate of performance decline. None of the 14 wind farms shows ageing effects more than a small fraction of the figures he quotes.

Method
I have two sources of data. First — with many thanks to Peter Edwards — I have the yearly output figures from Delabole from 1992 until the farm was ‘repowered’ with new, much larger, turbines in mid 2010 after nearly twenty years of production.

Second, I have the numbers from Ofgem’s database on the output of renewable generators. These numbers only go back to April 2002.

We also have information on the average performance of UK onshore commercial wind turbines. DECC publishes a yearly estimate of the ‘load factor’ of existing wind farms.

Chart 3 shows that the 14 oldest wind farms have load factors slightly below the UK average for the years 2001 to 2011. But there is no evidence of any widening of the differences. And, most importantly, the absolute level of output of these geriatric turbines is very much higher than Professor Hughes said.

Wind energy myths debunked

It was the proud boast of an econometrician I knew that he could ‘prove’ anything using statistics. He would have loved Gordon Hughes’ 2012 paper on the effect of age on the output of wind turbines.

Econometrician Hughes never seemed to talk to any operators of wind farms, who would have corrected his wild statistics. Nor did his paper actually provide us with the output figures from any individual turbines. Nevertheless, this didn’t stop his extraordinary analysis from getting substantial coverage. Yesterday Professor David MacKay, chief scientist at DECC, weighed in against Hughes’ conclusions.

Wind turbines probably do deteriorate over time. They are very complicated mechanical devices undergoing huge mechanical stresses. But the decline is small, fairly predictable and nothing like as sharp as Professor Hughes says. Hughes’ work demeans his profession.

Another nail in the coffin of econometrics: Gordon Hughes and the abuse of statistics

Just as you are aware that the pro wind lobby has an interest to hype wind as much as possible, you should also be aware that the anti wind lobby has an interest to bash wind as much as possible. And their "data from 350 wind farms" can be manipulated to say whatever they want to say. Especially when you can't even see the data. You have to take it on faith. From someone who has in the past tried the same tricks and was called out as posting BS. I don't think Huges or the REF deserve the benefit of the doubt you are giving them.

[C8]

Its really hard to tell which organizations are less biased these days. It used to be that govt. agencies were safe sources of info but in the past 15 or so years they have become captured by ideologues. The whole Covid mess really opened my eyes to how unscientific researchers have become- really just politicians in lab coats. Universities have become completely woke and intolerant of any dissention from faculty. It's like Mao's Cultural Revolution.

So I just rely on what I see in the world and logic. Wearing cloth masks just seemed pointless and that's what infection rates later confirmed. When BLM riots were praised as not being spreader events I knew the fix was in.

I will embrace wind and solar when I see them fully powering the factories that make them.

I will fear climate change and rising oceans when I see powerful rich liberals, like Obama, not buying gigantic seaside homes.