Intersolar Europe restart 2021: solar power is becoming increasingly popular in Poland

The Netherlands grid crisis exposes how rapid renewable energy growth is straining transmission capacity. Solar, wind, and electric vehicle demand are overloading networks, forcing officials to urge reduced peak-time power use and accelerate national grid modernization plans.

Main Points

The Netherlands grid crisis refers to national electricity congestion caused by surging renewable energy generation and rising consumer demand.

✅ Grid congestion from rapid solar and wind expansion

✅ Strained transmission and distribution capacity

✅ National investment in smart grid upgrades

The Dutch government is urging households to reduce electricity consumption between 16:00 and 21:00 — a signal that the country’s once-stable power grid is under serious stress. The call comes amid an accelerating shift to wind and solar power that is overwhelming transmission infrastructure and creating “grid congestion” across regions, as seen in Nordic grid constraints this year.

In a government television campaign, a narrator warns: “When everyone uses electricity at the same time, our power grid can become overloaded. That could lead to failures — so please try to use less electricity between 4 pm and 9 pm.” The plea reflects a system where supply occasionally outpaces the grid’s ability to distribute it, with some regions abroad issuing summer blackout warnings already.

According to Dutch energy firm Eneco’s CEO, Kys-Jan Lamo, the root of the problem lies in the mismatch between modern renewable generation and a grid built for centralized fossil fuel plants. He notes that 70% of Eneco’s output already comes from solar and wind, and this “grid congestion is like traffic on the power lines.” Lamo explains:

“The grid congestion is caused by too much demand in some areas of the network, or by too much supply being pushed into the grid beyond what the network can carry.”

He adds that many of the transmission lines in residential areas are narrow — a legacy of when fewer and larger power plants fed electricity through major feeder lines, underscoring grid vulnerabilities seen elsewhere today. Under the new model, renewable generation occurs everywhere: “This means that electricity is now fed into the grid even in peripheral areas with relatively fine lines — and those lines cannot always cope.”

Experts warn that resolving these issues will demand years of planning and immense investment in smarter grid infrastructure over the coming years. Damien Ernst, an electrical engineering professor at Liège University and respected voice on European grids, states that the Netherlands is experiencing a “grid crisis” brought on by “insufficient investment in distribution and transmission networks.” He emphasizes that the speed of renewable deployment has outpaced the grid’s capacity to absorb it.

Eneco operates a “virtual power plant” control system — described by Lamo as “the brain we run” — that dynamically balances supply and demand. During periods of oversupply, the system can curtail wind turbines or shut down solar panels. Conversely, during peak demand, the system can throttle back electricity provision to participating customers in exchange for lower tariffs. However, these techniques only mitigate strain — they cannot replace the need for physical upgrades or bolster resilience to extreme weather outages alone.

The bottleneck has begun limiting new connections: “Consumers often want to install heat pumps or charge electric vehicles, but they increasingly find it difficult to get the necessary network capacity,” Lamo warns. Businesses too are struggling. “Companies often want to expand operations, but cannot get additional capacity from grid operators. Even new housing developments are affected, since there’s insufficient infrastructure to connect whole communities.”

Currently, thousands of businesses are queuing for network access. TenneT, the national grid operator, estimates that 8,000 firms await initial connection approval, and another 12,000 seek to increase their capacity allocations. Stakeholders warn that unresolved congestion risks choking economic growth.

According to Kys-Jan Lamo: “Looking back, almost all of this could have been prevented.” He acknowledges that post-2015 climate commitments placed heavy emphasis on adding generation and on grid modernization costs more broadly, but “we somewhat underestimated the impact on grid capacity.”

In response, the government has introduced a national “Grid Congestion Action Plan,” aiming to accelerate approvals for infrastructure expansions and to refine regulations to promote smarter grid use. At the same time, feed-in incentives for solar power are being scaled back in some regions, and certain areas may even impose charges to integrate new solar systems into the grid.

The scale of what’s needed is vast. TenneT has proposed adding roughly 100,000 km of new power lines by 2050 and investing in doubling or tripling existing capacity in many areas. However, permit processes can take eight years before construction begins, and many projects require an additional two years to complete. As Lamo points out, “the pace of energy transition far exceeds the grid’s existing capacity — and every new connection request simply extends waiting lists.”

Unless grid expansion keeps up, and as climate pressures intensify, the very clean energy future the Netherlands is striving for may remain constrained by the physics of distribution.

Related Articles

• Electricity Forum World News

EV Battery Manufacturing Emissions debunk viral claims with lifecycle analysis, showing lithium-ion production CO2 depends on grid mix and is offset by zero tailpipe emissions and renewable-energy charging over typical vehicle miles.

Key Points

EV lithium-ion pack production varies by grid mix; ~1-2 years of driving, then offset by zero tailpipe emissions.

✅ Battery CO2 depends on electricity mix and factory efficiency.

✅ 75 kWh pack ~4.5-7.5 t CO2; not equal to 8 years of driving.

✅ Lifecycle analysis: EVs cut GHG vs gas, especially with renewables.

Electric vehicles are touted as an environmentally friendly alternative to gasoline powered cars, but one Facebook post claims that the benefits are overblown, despite fact-checks of charging math to the contrary, and the vehicles are much more harmful to the planet than people assume.

A cartoon posted to Facebook on April 29, amid signs the EV era is arriving in many markets, shows a car in one panel with "diesel" written on the side and the driver thinking "I feel so dirty." In another panel, a car has "electric" written on its side with the driver thinking "I feel so clean."

However, the electric vehicle is shown connected to what appears to be a factory that’s blowing dark smoke into the air.

Below the cartoon is a caption that claims "manufacturing the battery for one electric car produces the same amount of CO2 as running a petrol car for eight years."

This isn’t a new line of criticism against electric vehicles, and reflects ongoing opinion on the EV revolution in the media. Similar Facebook posts have taken aim at the carbon dioxide produced in the manufacturing of electric cars — specifically the batteries — to make the case that zero emissions vehicles aren’t necessarily clean.

Full electric vehicles require a large lithium-ion battery to store energy and power the motor that propels the car, according to Insider. The lithium-ion battery packs in an electric car are chemically similar to the ones found in cell phones and laptops.

Because they require a mix of metals that need to be extracted and refined, lithium-ion batteries take more energy to produce than the common lead-acid batteries used in gasoline cars to help start the engine.

How much CO2 is emitted in the production depends on where the lithium-ion battery is made — or specifically, how the electricity powering the factory is generated, and national electricity profiles such as Canada's 2019 mix help illustrate regional differences — according to Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist and director of climate and energy at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research think tank.

Producing a 75 kilowatt-hour battery for a Tesla Model 3, considered on the larger end of batteries for electric vehicles, would result in the emission of 4,500 kilograms of CO2 if it was made at Tesla's battery factory in Nevada. That’s the emissions equivalent to driving a gas-powered sedan for 1.4 years, at a yearly average distance of 12,000 miles, Hausfather said.

If the battery were made in Asia, manufacturing it would produce 7,500 kg of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of driving a gasoline-powered sedan for 2.4 years — but still nowhere near the eight years claimed in the Facebook post. Hausfather said the larger emission amount in Asia can be attributed to its "higher carbon electricity mix." The continent relies more on coal for energy production, while Tesla’s Nevada factory uses some solar energy. 

"More than half the emissions associated with manufacturing the battery are associated with electricity use," Hausfather said in an email to PolitiFact. "So, as the electricity grid decarbonizes, emissions associated with battery production will decline. The same is not true for sedan tailpipe emissions."

The Facebook post does not mention the electricity needs and CO2 impact of factories that build gasoline or diesel cars and their components. 

Another thing the Facebook post omits is that the CO2 emitted in the production of the battery can be offset over a short time in an electric car by the lack of tailpipe emissions when it’s in operation. 

The Union of Concerned Scientists found in a 2015 report that taking into account electricity sources for charging, which have become greener in all states since then, an electric vehicle ends up reducing greenhouse gas emissions by about 50% compared with a similar size gas-powered car.

A midsize vehicle completely negates the carbon dioxide its production emits by the time it travels 4,900 miles, according to the report. For full size cars, it takes 19,000 miles of driving.

The U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy also looked at the life cycle of electric vehicles — which includes a car’s production, use and disposal — and concluded they produce less greenhouse gases and smog than gasoline-powered vehicles, a conclusion consistent with independent analyses from consumer and energy groups.

The agency also found drivers could further lower CO2 emissions by charging with power generated by a renewable energy source, and drivers can also save money in the long run with EV ownership. 

Our ruling
A cartoon shared on Facebook claims the carbon dioxide emitted from the production of one electric car battery is the equivalent to driving a gas-powered vehicle for eight years.

The production of lithium-ion batteries for electric cars emits a significant amount of carbon dioxide, but nowhere near the level claimed in the cartoon. The emissions from battery production are equivalent to driving a gasoline car for one or two years, depending on where it’s produced, and those emissions are effectively offset over time by the lack of tailpipe emissions when the car is on the road. 

We rate this claim Mostly False.    

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Offshore Wind Amendments streamline offshore energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, enabling green hydrogen, submerged land licences, regional assessments, MPAs standards, while raising fisheries compensation, navigation, and Indigenous consultation considerations.

Key Points

Reforms assign offshore wind to joint regulators, enable seabed licensing, and address fisheries and Indigenous issues.

✅ Assigns wind oversight to Canada-NS and Canada-NL offshore regulators

✅ Introduces single submerged land licence and regional assessments

✅ Addresses fisheries, navigation, MPAs, and Indigenous consultation

Canada's offshore accords with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are being updated to promote development of offshore wind farms, but it's not clear yet whether any compensation will be paid to fishermen displaced by wind farms.

Amendments introduced Tuesday in Ottawa by the federal government assign regulatory authority for wind power to jointly managed offshore boards — now renamed the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator.

Previously the boards regulated only offshore oil and gas projects.

The industry association promoting offshore wind development, Marine Renewables Canada, called the changes a crucial step.

"The tabling of the accord act amendments marks the beginning of, really, a new industry, one that can play a significant role in our clean energy future," said  Lisen Bassett, a spokesperson for Marine Renewables Canada. 

Nova Scotia's lone member of the federal cabinet, Immigration Minister Sean Fraser, also talked up prospects at a news conference in Ottawa.

'We have lots of water'

"The potential that we have, particularly when it comes to offshore wind and hydrogen is extraordinary," said Fraser.

"There are real projects, like Vineyard Wind, with real investors talking about real jobs."

Sharing the stage with assembled Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador was Nova Scotia Environment Minister Tim Halman, representing a Progressive Conservative government in Halifax.

"If you've ever visited us or Newfoundland, you know we have lots of water, you know we have lots of wind, and we're gearing up to take advantage of those natural resources in a clean, sustainable way. We're paving the way for projects such as offshore wind, tidal energy in Nova Scotia, and green hydrogen production," said Halman.

Before a call for bids is issued, authorities will identify areas suitable for development, conservation or fishing.

The legislation does not outline compensation to fishermen excluded from offshore areas because of wind farm approvals.

Regional assessments

Federal officials said potential conflicts can be addressed in regional assessments underway in both provinces.

Minister of Natural Resources of Canada Jonathan Wilkinson said fisheries and navigation issues will have to be dealt with.

"Those are things that will have to be addressed in the context of each potential project. But the idea is obviously to ensure that those impacts are not significant," Wilkinson said.

Speaking after the event, Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, chair of what is still called the Canada Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, said what compensation — if any — will be paid to fishermen has yet to be determined.

"It is a question that we're asking as well. Governments are setting the policy and what terms and conditions would be associated with a sea bed licence. That is a question governments are working on and what compensation would look like for fishers."

Scott Tessier, who chairs  the Newfoundland Board, added "the experience has been the same next door in Nova Scotia, the petroleum sector and the fishing sector have an excellent history of cooperation and communication and I don't expect it look any different for offshore renewable energy projects."

Nova Scotia in a hurry to get going

The legislation says the offshore regulator would promote compensation schemes developed by industry and fishing groups linked to fishing gear.

Nova Scotia is in a hurry to get going.

The Houston government has set a target of issuing five gigawatts of licences for offshore wind by 2030, with leasing starting in 2025, reflecting momentum in the U.S. offshore wind market as well. It is intended largely for green hydrogen production. That's almost twice the province's peak electricity demand in winter, which is 2.2 gigawatts.

The amendments will streamline seabed approvals by creating a single "submerged land" licence, echoing B.C.'s streamlined process for clean energy projects, instead of the exploration, significant discovery and production licences used for petroleum development.

Federal and provincial ministers will issue calls for bids and approve licences, akin to BOEM lease requests seen in the U.S. market.

The amendments will ensure Marine Protected Area's  (MPAs) standards apply in all offshore areas governed by the regulations.

Marine protected areas

Wilkinson suggested, but declined, three times to explicitly state that offshore wind farms would be excluded from within Marine Protected Areas.

After this story was initially published on Tuesday, Natural Resources Canada sent CBC a statement indicating offshore wind farms may be permitted inside MPAs.

Spokesperson Barre Campbell noted that all MPAs established in Canada after April 25, 2019, will be subject to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans new standards that prohibit key industrial activities, including oil and gas exploration, development and production.

"Offshore renewable energy activities and infrastructure are not key industrial activities," Campbell said in a statement.

"Other activities may be prohibited, however, if they are not consistent with the conservation objectives that are established by the relevant department that has or that will establish a marine protected area."

Federal impact assessment process

The new federal impact assessment process will apply in offshore energy development, and recent legal rulings such as the Cornwall wind farm decision highlight how courts can influence project timelines.

For petroleum projects, future significant discovery licences will be limited to 25 years replacing the current indefinite term.

Existing significant discovery licences have been an ongoing exception and are not subject to the 25-year limit. Both offshore energy regulators will be given the authority to fulfil the Crown's duty to consult with Indigenous peoples

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

O2 Tidal Turbine delivers tidal energy in Orkney, Scotland, supplying grid-connected renewable power via EMEC and enabling green hydrogen production, providing clean electricity with predictable generation from strong coastal currents.

Key Points

A 2 MW, grid-connected tidal device in Orkney that delivers clean power and enables EMEC green hydrogen production.

✅ 2 MW capacity; powers ~2,000 UK homes via EMEC grid

✅ Predictable renewable output from strong coastal currents

✅ Enables onshore electrolyzer to produce green hydrogen

“The world’s most powerful” tidal turbine has been hooked up to the onshore electricity grid in Orkney, a northerly archipelago in Scotland, and is ready to provide homes with clean, green electricity, even as a major UK offshore windfarm begins supplying power this week.

The tidal turbine, known as the O2, was developed by Scottish engineering firm Orbital Marine Power. On July 28, they announced O2 “commenced grid connected power generation” at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney, meaning it's all set up and providing energy to the local power grid, similar to another Scottish tidal project that recently powered nearly 4,000 homes.

The 74-meter-long (242-foot) turbine is said to be “the world’s most powerful” tidal turbine. It will lay in the waters off Orkney for the next 15 years with the capacity to meet the annual electricity demand of around 2,000 UK homes. The 2MW turbine is also set to power the EMEC’s land-based electrolyzer that will generate green hydrogen (hydrogen made without fossil fuels) that can also be used as a clean energy source, in a UK energy system that recently set a wind generation record for output.

“Our vision is that this project is the trigger to the harnessing of tidal stream resources around the world and, alongside investment in UK offshore wind, to play a role in tackling climate change whilst creating a new, low-carbon industrial sector,” Orbital CEO, Andrew Scott, said in a press release.

Tidal energy is harnessed by converting energy from the natural rise and fall of ocean tides and currents. The O2 turbine consists of two submerged blades with a 20-meter (65-foot) diameter attached to a turbine that will move with the shifting currents of Orkney’s coast to generate electricity. Electricity is then transferred from the turbine along the seabed via cables towards the local onshore electricity network, a setup also being used by a Nova Scotia tidal project to supply the grid today.

This method of harnessing energy is not just desirable because it doesn't release carbon emissions, but it’s more predictable than other renewable energy sources, such as solar or Scotland's wind farms that can be influenced by weather conditions. Tidal energy production is still in its infancy and there are relatively few large-scale tidal power plants in the world, but many argue that some parts of the world could potentially draw huge benefits from this innovative form of hydropower, especially coastal regions with strong currents such as the northern stretches of the UK and the Bay of Fundy in Atlantic Canada.

The largest tidal power operation in the world is the Sihwa Lake project on the west coast of South Korea, which harnesses enough power to support the domestic needs of a city with a population of 500,000 people. However, once fully operational, the MeyGen tidal power project in northern Scotland hopes to snatch its title.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV charging anxiety reflects concerns beyond range anxiety, focusing on charging infrastructure, fast chargers, and network reliability during road trips, from Tesla Superchargers to Electrify America stations across highways in the United States.

Key Points

EV charging anxiety is worry about finding reliable fast chargers on public networks, not just limited range.

✅ Non-Tesla networks vary in uptime and plug-and-charge reliability.

✅ Charging deserts complicate route planning on long highway stretches.

✅ Sync stops: align rest breaks with fast chargers to save time.

With electric cars, people often talk about "range anxiety," and how cars with bigger batteries and longer driving ranges will alleviate that. I just drove an electric car from New York City to Atlanta, a distance of about 950 miles, and it taught me something important. The problem really isn't range anxiety. It's anxiety around finding a convenient and working chargers on America's still-challenged EV charging networks today.

Back in 2019, I drove a Tesla Model S Long Range from New York City to Atlanta. It was a mostly uneventful trip, thanks to Tesla's nicely organized and well maintained network of fast chargers that can fill the batteries with an 80% charge in a half hour or less. Since then, I've wanted to try that trip again with an electric car that wasn't a Tesla, one that wouldn't have Tesla's unified charging network to rely on.
I got my chance with a Mercedes-Benz EQS 450+, a car that is as close to a direct competitor to the Tesla Model S as any. And while I made it to Atlanta without major incident, I encountered glitchy chargers, called the charging network's customer service twice, and experienced some serious charging anxiety during a long stretch of the Carolinas.

Long range
The EPA estimated range for the Tesla I drove in 2019 was 370 miles, and Tesla's latest models can go even further.

The EQS 450+ is officially estimated to go 350 miles on a charge, but I beat that handily without even trying. When I got into the car, its internal displays showed a range estimate of 446 miles. On my trip, the car couldn't stretch its legs quite that far, because I was driving almost entirely on highways at fairly high speeds, but by my calculations, I could have gone between 370 and 390 miles on a charge.

I was going to drive over the George Washington Bridge then down through New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia then North Carolina and South Carolina. I figured three charging stops would be needed and, strictly speaking, that was correct. The driving route laid out by the car's navigation system included three charging stops, but the on-board computers tended push things to the limit. At each stop, the battery would be drained to a little over 10% or so. (I learned later this is a setting I could adjust to be more conservative if I'd wanted.)

But I've driven enough electric cars to have some concerns. I use public chargers fairly often, and I know they're imperfect, and we need to fix these problems to build confidence. Sometimes they aren't working as well as they should. Sometimes they're just plain broken. And even if the car's navigation system is telling you that a charger is "available," that can change at any moment. Someone else can pull into the charging spot just a few seconds before you get there.
I've learned to be flexible and not push things to the limit.

On the first day, when I planned to drive from New York to Richmond, Virginia, no charging stop was called for until Spotsylvania, Virginia, a distance of nearly 300 miles. By that point, I had 16% charge left in the car's batteries which, by the car's own calculation, would have taken me another 60 miles.

As I sat and worked inside the Spotsylvania Town Centre mall I realized I'd been dumb. I had already stopped twice, at rest stops in New Jersey and Delaware. The Delaware stop, at the Biden Welcome Center, had EV fast chargers, as the American EV boom accelerates nationwide. I could have used one even though the car's navigation didn't suggest it.

Stopping without charging was a lost opportunity and it cost me time. If I'm going to stop to recharge myself why not recharge the car, too?
But that's the thing, though. A car can be designed to go 350 miles or more before needing to park whereas human beings are not. Elementary school math will tell you that at highway speeds, that's nearly six hours of driving all at once. We need bathrooms, beverages, food, and to just get out and move around once in a while. Sure, it's physically possible to sit in a car for longer than that in one go, but most people in need of speed will take an airplane, and a driver of an EQS, with a starting price just north of $100,000, can almost certainly afford the ticket.

I stopped for a charge in Virginia but realized I could have stopped sooner. I encountered a lot of other electric cars on the trip, including this Hyundai Ioniq 5 charging next to the Mercedes.

I vowed not to make that strategic error again. I was going to take back control. On the second day, I decided, I would choose when I needed to stop, and would look for conveniently located fast chargers so both the EQS and I could get refreshed at once. The EQS's navigation screen pinpointed available charging locations and their maximum charging speeds, so, if I saw an available charger, I could poke on the icon with my finger and add it onto my route.

For my first stop after leaving Richmond, I pulled into a rest stop in Hillsborough, North Carolina. It was only about 160 miles south from my hotel and I still had half of a full charge.

I sipped coffee and answered some emails while I waited at a counter. I figured I would take as long as I wanted and leave when I was ready with whatever additional electricity the car had gained in that time. In all, I was there about 45 minutes, but at least 15 minutes of that was used trying to get the charger to work. One of the chargers was simply not working at all, and, at another one, a call to Electrify America customer service -- the EV charging company owned by Volkswagen that, by coincidence, operated all the chargers I used on the trip -- I got a successful charging session going at last. (It was unclear what the issue was.)

That was the last and only time I successfully matched my own need to stop with the car's. I left with my battery 91% charged and 358 miles of range showing on the display. I would only need to stop once more on way to Atlanta and not for a long time.

Charging deserts
Then I began to notice something. As I drove through North Carolina and then South Carolina, the little markers on the map screen indicating available chargers became fewer and fewer. During some fairly long stretches there were none showing at all, highlighting how better grid coordination could improve coverage.

It wasn't an immediate concern, though. The EQS's navigation wasn't calling for me to a charge up again until I'd nearly reached the Georgia border. By that point I would have about 11% of my battery charge remaining. But I was getting nervous. Given how far it was between chargers my whole plan of "recharging the car when I recharge myself" had already fallen apart, the much-touted electric-car revolution notwithstanding. I had to leave the highway once to find a gas station to use the restroom and buy an iced tea. A while later, I stopped for lunch, a big plate of "Lexington Style BBQ" with black eyed peas and collard greens in Lexington, North Carolina. None of that involved charging because there no chargers around.

Fortunately, a charger came into sight on my map while I still had 31% charge remaining. I decided I would protect myself by stopping early. After another call to Electrify America customer service, I was able to get a nice, high-powered charging session on the second charger I tried. After about an hour I was off again with a nearly full battery.

I drove the last 150 miles to Atlanta, crossing the state line through gorgeous wetlands and stopping at the Georgia Welcome Center, with hardly a thought about batteries or charging or range.

But I was driving $105,000 Mercedes. What if I'd been driving something that cost less and that, while still going farther than a human would want to drive at a stretch, wouldn't go far enough to make that trip as easily, a real concern for those deciding if it's time to buy an electric car today. Obviously, people do it. One thing that surprised me on this trip, compared to the one in 2019, was the variety of fully electric vehicles I saw driving the same highways. There were Chevrolet Bolts, Audi E-Trons, Porsche Taycans, Hyundai Ioniqs, Kia EV6s and at least one other Mercedes EQS.

Americans are taking their electric cars out onto the highways, as the age of electric cars gathers pace nationwide. But it's still not as easy as it ought to be.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

World Bank Offshore Wind Investment drives renewables and clean energy in developing countries, funding floating turbines and shallow-water foundations to replace fossil fuels, expand grids, and scale climate finance across Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

Key Points

A World Bank program funding offshore wind to speed clean power, cut fossil fuels, and expand grids in emerging markets.

✅ US$80bn to 565 onshore wind projects since 1995

✅ Pilot funds offshore wind in Asia, Africa, Latin America

✅ Floating turbines and shallow-water foundations enable deep resources

Europe and the United States now accept onshore wind power as the cheapest way to generate electricity, and U.S. lessons from the U.K. are informing policy discussions. But this novel technology still needs subsidising before some developing countries will embrace it. Enter the World Bank.

A total of US$80 billion in subsidies from the Bank has gone over 25 years to 565 developing world onshore wind projects, to persuade governments to invest in renewables rather than rely on fossil fuels.

Central and Latin American countries have received the lions share of this investment, but the Asia Pacific region and Eastern Europe have also seen dozens of Bank-funded developments. Now the fastest-growing market is in Africa and the Middle East, where West African hydropower support can complement variable wind resources.

But while continuing to campaign for more onshore wind farms, the World Bank in 2019 started encouraging target countries to embrace offshore wind as well. This uses two approaches: turbines in shallow water, which are fixed to the seabed, and also a newer technology, involving floating turbines anchored by cables at greater depth.

The extraordinary potential for offshore wind, which is being commercially developed very fast in Europe, including the UK's offshore expansion, China and the U.S. offshore wind sector today as well, is now seen by the Bank as important for countries like Vietnam which could harness enough offshore wind power to provide all its electricity needs.

Other countries it has identified with enormous potential for offshore wind include Brazil, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, South Africa and Sri Lanka, all of them countries that need to keep building more power stations to connect every citizen to the national grid.

The Bank began investing in wind power in 1995, with its spending reaching billions of dollars annually in 2011. The biggest single recipient has been Brazil, receiving US$24.2 bn up to the end of 2018, 30 per cent of the total the Bank has invested worldwide.

Many private companies have partnered with the Bank to build the wind farms. The biggest single beneficiary is Enel, the Italian energy giant, which has received US$6.1 bn to complete projects in Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Romania, Morocco, Bulgaria, Peru, and Russia.

Among the countries now benefitting from the Banks continuing onshore wind programme are Egypt, Morocco, Senegal, Jordan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.

Offshore wind now costs less than nuclear power, and global costs have fallen enough to compete in most countries with fossil fuels. Currently the fastest-growing industry in the world, it continued to grow despite Covid-19 across most markets.

Persistent coal demand

Particularly in Asia, some countries are continuing to burn large quantities of coal and are considering investing in yet more fossil fuel generation unless they can be persuaded that renewables are a better option, with an offshore wind $1 trillion outlook underscoring the scale.

Last year the World Bank began a pilot scheme to explore funding investment in offshore wind in these countries. Launching the scheme Riccardo Puliti, a senior director at the Bank, said: Offshore wind is a clean, reliable and secure source of energy with massive potential to transform the energy mix in countries that have great wind resources.

We have seen it work in Europe we can now make use of global experience to scale up offshore wind projects in emerging markets.

Using data from the Global Wind Atlas, the Bank calculated that developing countries with shallow waters like India, Turkey and Sri Lanka had huge potential with fixed turbines, while others the Philippines and South Africa, for example would need floating foundations to reach greater depths, up to 1,000 metres.

For countries like Vietnam, with a mix of shallow and deep water, wind power could solve their entire electricity needs. In theory offshore wind power could produce ten times the amount of electricity that the country currently gets from all its current power stations, the Bank says.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News