Tacoma utilities boss to take job in D.C.

California Wildfire Smoke Impact on Solar reduces photovoltaic output, as particulate pollution, soot, and haze dim sunlight and foul panels, cutting utility-scale generation and grid reliability across CAISO during peak demand and heatwaves.

Key Points

How smoke and soot cut solar irradiance and foul panels, slashing PV generation and straining CAISO grid operations.

✅ Smoke blocks sunlight; soot deposition reduces panel efficiency.

✅ CAISO reported ~30% drop versus July during peak smoke.

✅ Longer fire seasons threaten solar reliability and capacity planning.

Smoke from California’s unprecedented wildfires was so bad that it cut a significant chunk of solar power production in the state, even as U.S. solar generation rose in 2022 nationwide. Solar power generation dropped off by nearly a third in early September as wildfires darkened the skies with smoke, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Those fires create thick smoke, laden with particles that block sunlight both when they’re in the air and when they settle onto solar panels. In the first two weeks of September, soot and smoke caused solar-powered electricity generation to fall 30 percent compared to the July average, according to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which oversees nearly all utility-scale solar energy in California, where wind and solar curtailments have been rising amid grid constraints. It was a 13.4 percent decrease from the same period last year, even though solar capacity in the state has grown about 5 percent since September 2019.

California depends on solar installations for nearly 20 percent of its electricity generation, and has more solar capacity than the next five US states trailing it combined as it works to manage its solar boom sustainably. It will need even more renewable power to meet its goal of 100 percent clean electricity generation by 2045, building on a recent near-100% renewable milestone that underscored the transition. The state’s emphasis on solar power is part of its long-term efforts to avoid more devastating effects of climate change. But in the short term, California’s renewables are already grappling with rising temperatures.

Two records were smashed early this September that contributed to the loss of solar power. California surpassed 2 million acres burned in a single fire season for the first time (1.7 million more acres have burned since then). And on September 15th, small particle pollution reached the highest levels recorded since 2000, according to the California Air Resources Board. Winds that stoked the flames also drove pollution from the largest fires in Northern California to Southern California, where there are more solar farms.

Smaller residential and commercial solar systems were affected, too, and solar panels during grid blackouts typically shut off for safety, although smoke was the primary issue here. “A lot of my systems were producing zero power,” Steve Pariani, founder of the solar installation company Solar Pro Energy Systems, told the San Mateo Daily Journal in September.

As the planet heats up, California’s fire seasons have grown longer, and blazes are tearing through more land than ever before, while grid operators are also seeing rising curtailments as they integrate more renewables. For both utilities and smaller solar efforts, wildfire smoke will continue to darken solar energy’s otherwise bright future, even as it becomes the No. 3 renewable source in the U.S. by generation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

British Columbia Bomb Cyclone disrupts coastal travel with severe wind gusts, heavy rainfall, widespread power outages, ferry cancellations, flooding, and landslides across Vancouver Island, straining emergency services and transport networks during the early holiday season.

Key Points

A rapidly intensifying storm hitting B.C.'s coast, causing damaging winds, heavy rain, power outages, and ferry delays.

✅ Wind gusts over 100 km/h and well above normal rainfall

✅ Power outages, flooded roads, and downed trees across the coast

✅ Ferry cancellations isolating communities and delaying supplies

A powerful storm, dubbed a "bomb cyclone," recently struck the British Columbia coast, wreaking havoc across the region. This intense weather system led to widespread disruptions, including power outages affecting tens of thousands of residents and the cancellation of ferry services, crucial for travel between coastal communities. The bomb cyclone is characterized by a rapid drop in pressure, resulting in extremely strong winds and heavy rainfall. These conditions caused significant damage, particularly along the coast and on Vancouver Island, where flooding and landslides led to fallen trees blocking roads, further complicating recovery efforts.

The storm's ferocity was especially felt in coastal areas, where wind gusts reached over 100 km/h, and rainfall totals were well above normal. The Vancouver region, already susceptible to storms during the winter months, faced dangerous conditions as power lines were downed, and transportation networks struggled to stay operational. Emergency services were stretched thin, responding to multiple weather-related incidents, including fallen trees, damaged infrastructure, and local flooding.

The ferry cancellations further isolated communities, especially those dependent on these services for essential supplies and travel. With many ferry routes out of service, residents had to rely on alternative transportation methods, which were often limited. The storm's timing, close to the start of the holiday season, also created additional challenges for those trying to make travel arrangements for family visits and other festive activities.

As cleanup efforts got underway, authorities warned that recovery would take time, particularly due to the volume of downed trees and debris. Crews worked to restore power and clear roads, while local governments urged people to stay indoors and avoid unnecessary travel, and BC Hydro's winter payment plan provided billing relief during outages. For those without power, the storm brought cold temperatures, and record electricity demand in 2021 showed how cold snaps strain the grid, making it crucial for families to find warmth and supplies.

In the aftermath of the bomb cyclone, experts highlighted the increasing frequency of such extreme weather events, driven in part by climate change and prolonged drought across the province. With the potential for more intense storms in the future, the region must be better prepared for these rapid weather shifts. Authorities are now focused on bolstering infrastructure to withstand such events, as all-time high demand has strained the grid recently, and improving early warning systems to give communities more time to prepare.

In the coming weeks, as British Columbia continues to recover, lessons learned from this storm will inform future responses to similar weather systems. For now, residents are advised to remain vigilant and prepared for any additional weather challenges, with recent blizzard and extreme cold in Alberta illustrating how conditions can deteriorate quickly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Renewable Power Overtakes Fossil Fuels, reflecting a greener energy mix as wind, solar, and hydro expand, cutting CO2 emissions and curbing coal while negative prices rise amid pandemic-driven demand drops.

Key Points

A milestone as renewables surpass fossil power in the EU, driven by wind, solar, hydro growth and pandemic demand.

✅ 40% renewables vs 34% fossil in H1 across 27 EU states

✅ Wind, solar, hydro rose; coal generation fell 32% year-on-year

✅ Lower demand, carbon prices, grid priority boosted clean output

Renewable power for the first time contributed a bigger share in the European generation mix than fossil fuels, as described in Europe's green surge as the fallout from the pandemic cut energy demand.

About 40 percent of the electricity in the first half in the 27 EU countries came from renewable sources, exceeding the global renewables share reported elsewhere, compared with 34 percent from plants burning fossil fuels, according to environmental group Ember in London. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector fell 23 percent.

The rise is significant and encouraging for law makers as Europe prepares to spend billions of euros to recover from the virus, with wind power investments underscoring the momentum, and set the bloc on track to neutralize its carbon footprint by the middle of the century.

“This marks a symbolic moment ​in the transition of Europe’s electricity sector,” said Dave Jones, an electricity analyst at Ember. “For countries like Poland and Czech Republic grappling with how to get off coal, there is now a clear way out.”

While power demand slumped, output from wind and solar farms increased, reflecting global wind and solar gains, because more plants came online in breezy and sunny weather. At the same time, wet conditions boosted hydro power in Iberia and the Nordic markets.

Those conditions helped renewables become a rare bright spot throughout the economic tumult this year. In many areas, renewable sources of electricity have priority to the grid, meaning they could keep growing even as demand shrank and other power plants were turned off.

Electricity demand in the EU fell 7 percent overall. Fossil-fuel power generation plunged 18 percent in the first half compared with a year earlier. Renewable generation grew by 11 percent, according to Ember.

Coal was by far the biggest loser in 2020. It’s one of the most-polluting sources of power and its share is slumping in Europe as the price of carbon increases, with renewables surpassing coal in the US illustrating the broader shift, and governments move to cut emissions. Power from coal fell 32 percent across the EU.

Despite the economics, the decision to shut off coal for good will come down to political agreements between producers and governments, while reducing reliance on Russian energy reshapes policy debates.

One consequence of the jump in renewables is that negative prices have increased, as solar is reshaping prices in Northern Europe in similar ways. On particularly windy or sunny days when there isn’t much demand, the grid can be flooded with power. That’s leading wind farms to be shut off and customers to be paid to consume electricity.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Offshore wind power accelerates low-carbon electrification, leveraging floating turbines, high capacity factors, HVDC transmission, and hydrogen production to decarbonize grids, cut CO2, and deliver competitive, reliable renewable energy near demand centers.

Key Points

Offshore wind power uses offshore turbines to deliver low-carbon electricity with high capacity factors and falling costs.

✅ Sea-based wind farms with 40-50% capacity factors

✅ Floating turbines unlock deep-water, far-shore resources

✅ Enables hydrogen production and strengthens grid reliability

The need for affordable low-carbon technologies is greater than ever

Global energy-related CO2 emissions reached a historic high in 2018, driven by an increase in coal use in the power sector. Despite impressive gains for renewables, fossil fuels still account for nearly two-thirds of electricity generation, the same share as 20 years ago. There are signs of a shift, with increasing pledges to decarbonise economies and tackle air pollution, and with World Bank support helping developing countries scale wind, but action needs to accelerate to meet sustainable energy goals. As electrification of the global energy system continues, the need for clean and affordable low-carbon technologies to produce this electricity is more pressing than ever. This World Energy Outlook special report offers a deep dive on a technology that today has a total capacity of 23 GW (80% of it in Europe) and accounts for only 0.3% of global electricity generation, but has the potential to become a mainstay of the world's power supply. The report provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the global outlook for offshore wind, its contributions to electricity systems and its role in clean energy transitions.

The offshore wind market has been gaining momentum

The global offshore wind market grew nearly 30% per year between 2010 and 2018, benefitting from rapid technology improvements. Over the next five years, about 150 new offshore wind projects are scheduled to be completed around the world, pointing to an increasing role for offshore wind in power supplies. Europe has fostered the technology's development, led by the UK offshore wind sector alongside Germany and Denmark. The United Kingdom and Germany currently have the largest offshore wind capacity in operation, while Denmark produced 15% of its electricity from offshore wind in 2018. China added more capacity than any other country in 2018.

The untapped potential of offshore wind is vast

The best offshore wind sites could supply more than the total amount of electricity consumed worldwide today. And that would involve tapping only the sites close to shores. The IEA initiated a new geospatial analysis for this report to assess offshore wind technical potential country by country. The analysis was based on the latest global weather data on wind speed and quality while factoring in the newest turbine designs. Offshore wind's technical potential is 36 000 TWh per year for installations in water less than 60 metres deep and within 60 km from shore. Global electricity demand is currently 23 000 TWh. Moving further from shore and into deeper waters, floating turbines could unlock enough potential to meet the world's total electricity demand 11 times over in 2040. Our new geospatial analysis indicates that offshore wind alone could meet several times electricity demand in a number of countries, including in Europe, the United States and Japan. The industry is adapting various floating foundation technologies that have already been proven in the oil and gas sector. The first projects are under development and look to prove the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of floating offshore wind technologies.

Offshore wind's attributes are very promising for power systems

New offshore wind projects have capacity factors of 40-50%, as larger turbines and other technology improvements are helping to make the most of available wind resources. At these levels, offshore wind matches the capacity factors of gas- and coal-fired power plants in some regions – though offshore wind is not available at all times. Its capacity factors exceed those of onshore wind and are about double those of solar PV. Offshore wind output varies according to the strength of the wind, but its hourly variability is lower than that of solar PV. Offshore wind typically fluctuates within a narrower band, up to 20% from hour to hour, than solar PV, which varies up to 40%.

Offshore wind's high capacity factors and lower variability make its system value comparable to baseload technologies, placing it in a category of its own – a variable baseload technology. Offshore wind can generate electricity during all hours of the day and tends to produce more electricity in winter months in Europe, the United States and China, as well as during the monsoon season in India. These characteristics mean that offshore wind's system value is generally higher than that of its onshore counterpart and more stable over time than that of solar PV. Offshore wind also contributes to electricity security, with its high availability and seasonality patterns it is able to make a stronger contribution to system needs than other variable renewables. In doing so, offshore wind contributes to reducing CO2 and air pollutant emissions while also lowering the need for investment in dispatchable power plants. Offshore wind also has the advantage of avoiding many land use and social acceptance issues that other variable renewables are facing.

Offshore wind is on track to be a competitive source of electricity

Offshore wind is set to be competitive with fossil fuels within the next decade, as well as with other renewables including solar PV. The cost of offshore wind is declining and is set to fall further. Financing costs account for 35% to 50% of overall generation cost, and supportive policy frameworks are now enabling projects to secure low cost financing in Europe, with zero-subsidy tenders being awarded. Technology costs are also falling. The levelised cost of electricity produced by offshore wind is projected to decline by nearly 60% by 2040. Combined with its relatively high value to the system, this will make offshore wind one of the most competitive sources of electricity. In Europe, recent auctions indicate that offshore wind will soon beat new natural gas-fired capacity on cost and be on a par with solar PV and onshore wind. In China, offshore wind is set to become competitive with new coal-fired capacity around 2030 and be on par with solar PV and onshore wind. In the United States, recent project proposals indicate that offshore wind will soon be an affordable option, even as the 1 GW timeline continues to evolve, with potential to serve demand centres along the country's east coast.

Innovation is delivering deep cost reductions in offshore wind, and transmission costs will become increasingly important. The average upfront cost to build a 1 gigawatt offshore wind project, including transmission, was over $4 billion in 2018, but the cost is set to drop by more than 40% over the next decade. This overall decline is driven by a 60% reduction in the costs of turbines, foundations and their installation. Transmission accounts for around one-quarter of total offshore wind costs today, but its share in total costs is set to increase to about one-half as new projects move further from shore. Innovation in transmission, for example through work to expand the limits of direct current technologies, will be essential to support new projects without raising their overall costs.

Offshore wind is set to become a $1 trillion business

Offshore wind power capacity is set to increase by at least 15-fold worldwide by 2040, becoming a $1 trillion business. Under current investment plans and policies, the global offshore wind market is set to expand by 13% per year, reflecting its growth despite Covid-19 in recent years, passing 20 GW of additions per year by 2030. This will require capital spending of $840 billion over the next two decades, almost matching that for natural gas-fired or coal-fired capacity. Achieving global climate and sustainability goals would require faster growth: capacity additions would need to approach 40 GW per year in the 2030s, pushing cumulative investment to over $1.2 trillion. 

The promising outlook for offshore wind is underpinned by policy support in an increasing number of regions. Several European North Seas countries – including the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark – have policy targets supporting offshore wind. Although a relative newcomer to the technology, China is quickly building up its offshore wind industry, aiming to develop a project pipeline of 10 GW by 2020. In the United States, state-level targets and federal incentives are set to kick-start the U.S. offshore wind surge in the coming years. Additionally, policy targets are in place and projects under development in Korea, Japan, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam.

 The synergies between offshore wind and offshore oil and gas activities provide new market opportunities. Since offshore energy operations share technologies and elements of their supply chains, oil and gas companies started investing in offshore wind projects many years ago. We estimate that about 40% of the full lifetime costs of an offshore wind project, including construction and maintenance, have significant synergies with the offshore oil and gas sector. That translates into a market opportunity of $400 billion or more in Europe and China over the next two decades. The construction of foundations and subsea structures offers potential crossover business, as do practices related to the maintenance and inspection of platforms. In addition to these opportunities, offshore oil and gas platforms require electricity that is often supplied by gas turbines or diesel engines, but that could be provided by nearby wind farms, thereby reducing CO2 emissions, air pollutants and costs.

Offshore wind can accelerate clean energy transitions

Offshore wind can help drive energy transitions by decarbonising electricity and by producing low-carbon fuels. Over the next two decades, its expansion could avoid between 5 billion and 7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions from the power sector globally, while also reducing air pollution and enhancing energy security by reducing reliance on imported fuels. The European Union is poised to continue leading the wind energy at sea in Europe industry in support of its climate goals: its offshore wind capacity is set to increase by at least fourfold by 2030. This growth puts offshore wind on track to become the European Union's largest source of electricity in the 2040s. Beyond electricity, offshore wind's high capacity factors and falling costs makes it a good match to produce low-carbon hydrogen, a versatile product that could help decarbonise the buildings sector and some of the hardest to abate activities in industry and transport. For example, a 1 gigawatt offshore wind project could produce enough low-carbon hydrogen to heat about 250 000 homes. Rising demand for low-carbon hydrogen could also dramatically increase the market potential for offshore wind. Europe is looking to develop offshore "hubs" for producing electricity and clean hydrogen from offshore wind.

It's not all smooth sailing

Offshore wind faces several challenges that could slow its growth in established and emerging markets, but policy makers and regulators can clear the path ahead. Developing efficient supply chains is crucial for the offshore wind industry to deliver low-cost projects. Doing so is likely to call for multibillion-dollar investments in ever-larger support vessels and construction equipment. Such investment is especially difficult in the face of uncertainty. Governments can facilitate investment of this kind by establishing a long-term vision for offshore wind and by drawing on U.K. policy lessons to define the measures to be taken to help make that vision a reality. Long-term clarity would also enable effective system integration of offshore wind, including system planning to ensure reliability during periods of low wind availability.

The success of offshore wind depends on developing onshore grid infrastructure. Whether the responsibility for developing offshore transmission lies with project developers or transmission system operators, regulations should encourage efficient planning and design practices that support the long-term vision for offshore wind. Those regulations should recognise that the development of onshore grid infrastructure is essential to the efficient integration of power production from offshore wind. Without appropriate grid reinforcements and expansion, there is a risk of large amounts of offshore wind power going unused, and opportunities for further expansion could be stifled. Development could also be slowed by marine planning practices, regulations for awarding development rights and public acceptance issues.

The future of offshore wind looks bright but hinges on the right policies

The outlook for offshore wind is very positive as efforts to decarbonise and reduce local pollution accelerate. While offshore wind provides just 0.3% of global electricity supply today, it has vast potential around the world and an important role to play in the broader energy system. Offshore wind can drive down CO2 emissions and air pollutants from electricity generation. It can also do so in other sectors through the production of clean hydrogen and related fuels. The high system value of offshore wind offers advantages that make a strong case for its role alongside other renewables and low-carbon technologies. Government policies will continue to play a critical role in the future of offshore wind and  the overall pace of clean energy transitions around the world.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

UK Clean Energy Supply Chain Delays are slowing decarbonization as transformer lead times, grid infrastructure bottlenecks, and battery storage contractors raise costs and risk 2030 targets despite manufacturing expansions by Siemens Energy and GE Vernova.

Key Points

Labor and equipment bottlenecks delay transformers and grid upgrades, risking the UK's 2030 clean power target.

✅ Transformer lead times doubled or tripled, raising project costs

✅ Grid infrastructure and battery storage contractors in short supply

✅ Firms expand capacity cautiously amid uncertain demand signals

The United Kingdom's ambitious plans to transition to clean energy are encountering significant obstacles due to prolonged delays in obtaining essential equipment such as transformers and other electrical components. These supply chain challenges are impeding the nation's progress toward decarbonizing its power sector by 2030, even as wind leads the power mix in key periods.

Supply Chain Challenges

The global surge in demand for renewable energy infrastructure, including large-scale storage solutions, has led to extended lead times for critical components. For example, Statera Energy's storage plant in Thurrock experienced a 16-month delay for transformers from Siemens Energy. Such delays threaten the UK's goal to decarbonize power supplies by 2030.

Economic Implications

These supply chain constraints have doubled or tripled lead times over the past decade, resulting in increased costs and straining the energy transition as wind became the main source of UK electricity in a recent milestone. Despite efforts to expand manufacturing capacity by companies like GE Vernova, Hitachi Energy, and Siemens Energy, the sector remains cautious about overinvesting without predictable demand, and setbacks at Hinkley Point C have reinforced concerns about delivery risks.

Workforce and Manufacturing Capacity

Additionally, there is a limited number of companies capable of constructing and maintaining battery sites, adding to the challenges. These issues underscore the necessity for new factories and a trained workforce to support the electrification plans and meet the 2030 targets.

Government Initiatives

In response to these challenges, the UK government is exploring various strategies to bolster domestic manufacturing capabilities and streamline supply chains while supporting grid reform efforts underway to improve system resilience. Investments in infrastructure and workforce development are being considered to mitigate the impact of global supply chain disruptions and advance the UK's green industrial revolution for next-generation reactors.

The UK's energy transition is at a critical juncture, with supply chain delays posing substantial risks to achieving decarbonization goals, including the planned end of coal power after 142 years for the UK. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated efforts between the government, industry stakeholders, and international partners to ensure a sustainable and timely shift to clean energy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News