Blackmail for wind farm subsidies

The new economic and financial environment has proven devastating for the beneficiaries in the wind energy sector, companies that had promised cheap electricity from the wind until recently. This is what happens when you start believing your own illusions, which do not hold up against the laws of physics and the normalization of financing costs, which can no longer be "suppressed" by central banks.

The Danish company Oersted A/S recently reported disastrous results as it was forced to write down the value of two major projects on the East Coast of the United States. The initial estimate was $2.5 billion, and in the final report, it was "updated" to about $4 billion. The company's stock plummeted in Copenhagen to a six-year low, with a decline of over 53% in the last year (see the chart). From its peak in January 2021, Oersted A/S shares have fallen by nearly 80% by the end of last week.

To avoid abandoning the two projects, the company asked the American government for more subsidies and the acceptance of a much higher price for the electricity generated in the wind parks built off the eastern coast of the United States.

This is further evidence, if any were needed, that green energy is nothing more than an extremely expensive farce that cannot function without subsidies, and the promise of low prices was nothing but a deliberate lie.

The case of Oersted is all the more relevant as the former Danish state-owned oil and gas company, reinvented and renamed a few years ago, is the largest developer of offshore wind parks in the world.

In light of the Danish company's decision, The Wall Street Journal wrote, "The wind farm revolution in America has failed."

"Significant adverse developments, from supply chain issues to rising interest rates, have prompted us to make this decision," said Mads Nipper, CEO of Oersted, to Bloomberg. Nipper recently told Bloomberg analysts that "an increase in electricity prices is inevitable," and when asked by how much, he replied, "I cannot be very specific, but it needs to have two significant figures."

"The crisis is spreading globally," says the American news agency, which reports a 98% drop in the third-quarter 2023 profit of China's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Xinjiang Goldwind Science.

Even off the coast of the UK, a wind project developed by the Swedish company Vattenfall, owned by the Swedish government, was recently halted. "The Boreas project would have had an installed capacity of 1.4 GW, enough to power 1.5 million households," writes The Telegraph.

What's wrong with this statement? First, it creates the illusion that the power for those 1.5 million households can be provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, which is, of course, false.

Second, Vattenfall won the contract, benefiting from massive subsidies from the British government just last year.

But why do we still need subsidies after more than two decades of promises that wind energy would become very cheap, and the efficiency of wind turbines would increase with technological advances?

The British government has held auctions for wind projects, but no one has shown up because the subsidies and electricity prices are considered far too low, as reported by The Telegraph.

The non-governmental organization Net Zero Watch has called on the government not to give in to the blackmail of companies in the wind energy sector because the negative effects will be massive, both for individual consumers and companies.

In an article in The Telegraph about the wind industry, there was also an extremely worrying piece of information. "In an attempt to reduce costs, some developers are anchoring turbines using cheaper foundations on the seabed," writes the British newspaper, based on statements from an executive in the sector, who also emphasized that "everyone is going for the largest turbines, the cheapest foundations, and everyone has opted for cabling solutions that mean that, if there is a defect, you could lose the wind farm."

Is this the responsibility for the "green future"?

Even the Germans seem to no longer care about their reputation as top engineers, as the giant Siemens Energy has major quality problems with the wind turbines it manufactures. The company's shares recently plunged due to reduced revenue estimates and rapidly increasing costs in the wind turbine division.

In the context of the disaster in the wind industry, an energy sector specialist emphasized on his Twitter account that "the era of sailing has ended for a very simple reason: the second law of thermodynamics," because "controlled and high-density energy is much more useful than the uncontrolled and dispersed energy of the wind, which is, in turn, determined by solar heat."

A recent Wall Street Journal editorial suggests that we are heading for a bailout of green energy in the near future and writes about developers demanding authorities to accept electricity prices even more than 60% higher than initially agreed.

The financial newspaper emphasizes the bitter irony of the situation: government programs that force the transition have led to a strong increase in prices for raw materials and materials needed for the production of wind and solar power plants, and now governments are being asked to accept higher prices for electricity.

"The climate lobby claims that wind and solar energy are cheaper than those produced from hydrocarbons, but this is true only if there are generous subsidies and almost zero interest rates," WSJ further highlights.

The irony doesn't stop here and becomes even more bitter. Micron Technology, one of the world's leading memory chip manufacturers, presented plans to build factories in New York based on subsidies that can reach up to $5.5 billion.

The only problem is that the electricity requirement is equivalent to the combined consumption of the states of New Hampshire and Vermont, and WSJ questions where this energy will come from.

"We are dedicated to green energy," proclaims the tweet from Oersted A/S, where we are also asked to "participate in creating a world that operates only on green energy." Unfortunately, "their world" operates on subsidies and other social assistance programs, and the world's largest wind park developer seems to pursue only profits guaranteed by the state, as befits any corporation in a fascist order.

The gap between what the Danish company says and does reflects only empty promises without scientific and technical basis, which have proven to be blatant lies accepted only on the criteria of green ideology by a public and authorities largely at the limit of functional illiteracy.