UK’s biggest wind farm project to cost $37.5 billion

Posted: December 3, 2015 by oldbrew in Big Green, wind
Tags: ,

Dogger Bank here we come [image credit: Siemens]

Dogger Bank here we come [image credit: Siemens]

Not only that – this report states the UK wind energy sector has ‘a development pipeline valued at $182bn’. Eye-watering figures.

As the threat of falling behind on 2020 carbon reduction targets looms for some European countries, investment in renewable power projects will be the big winner in the race to catch up, with nuclear power projects losing their number-one slot.

This is according to a new report, ‘Project Insight: Power Generation Construction Projects in Europe’, from analysis firm Timetric’s Construction Analysis Centre (CIC).  The report found that investment in renewable projects is expected to increase significantly in the next five years, with wind power attracting the highest investment.

Wind power projects being developed in 13 European countries are currently valued at almost $300bn, according to the report. The UK is Europe’s leader in wind investment due to its focus on offshore wind projects, with a development pipeline valued at $182bn.

Germany is in second place, but a somewhat distant second, with a project pipeline valued at $37.9bn. Germany’s most costly project is worth just $2.7bn, while the UK’s top project, the Crown Round III Offshore Wind Farm Development [mainly at Dogger Bank], is valued at $37.5bn.

Full report from Power Engineering International

  1. oldbrew says:

    Round 3 has nine zones but the three biggest (nos. 3,4 and 5) are in the Dogger Bank area.


  2. Will Janoschka says:

    How much ‘global warming’ do wind farms cause?

  3. Jerry says:

    I don’t have an answer for Will Janoschka’s question, but do have information for the fabrication of solar panels. A few years ago, I took notes from an article (maybe in Scientific American?) describing three gaseous byproducts of solar panel manufacturing. The three gases were hexafluorothane (C2H6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluorine (SF6).
    These gases have stronger greenhouse gas (GHG) effects than CO2 by factors of 12,000; 17,000; and 23,000, respectively.
    Further, their atmospheric residency periods were listed as 10,000 years; 550-740 years; and 800-3,200 years, respectively. I seem to remember all three are much longer than the residency time for CO2, but do not recall the latter. Does anyone remember what it is?

  4. £37bn is enough money to buy about 18 GWe of nuclear power reactors from Russia or South Korea.

    Compare that available, on-demand electrical power of 18GW to the intermittent, sometimes-available, often unreliable 4.58 GW peak of the defence radar obscuring Dogger Bank Wind Farm which serves as a maritime navigation hazard; not just through the towers but the increased incidence of fog.

    [reply] it’s 37bn dollars not pounds – but still a huge sum

  5. Password protected says:

    It would be a lot cheaper to invest in some research that shows low CO2 sensitivity. Problem solved.

  6. Hi from Oz. Jerry, i think WUWT had a recent article that estimated CO2 residency at 40 years.

  7. oldmanK says:

    Jerry asked “Further, their atmospheric residency periods were listed as 10,000 years; 550-740 years; and 800-3,200 years, respectively. I seem to remember all three are much longer than the residency time for CO2, but do not recall the latter. Does anyone remember what it is?”

    Depends on how many trees you have taking it up. But what destroys or absorbs the other gases you mentioned?

  8. oldbrew says:

    ‘Keith Anderson, chief executive of ScottishPower Renewables, said: “The more offshore wind capacity we have in the UK, the more secure our energy supplies will be.” ‘

    Secure when the wind is blowing, perhaps. And the rest of the time?

  9. JohnR says:

    “And the rest of the time”
    That’s what demand-side regulation is for. No electricity=no power=lights/tv/washers off.
    And several GW of diesel plant start…

  10. A C Osborn says:

    I wonder if they will find the Investors they will need for this, with so much uncertainty over future subsidies and the need to keep the lights on?

  11. oldbrew says:

    There will be other offshore wind developments in Scotland at about the same time as ‘Round III’ (see above), ‘expected to yield a combined generating capacity of 6.4GW.’

    ‘The capital cost of offshore wind farms has increased significantly for recent projects. The cost of building a windfarm at 2009 estimates was £3 million per MW excluding cabling and grid connections. The aim is to reduce this to around £2.5 million per MW. So, if the market grows as anticipated, the cost of building a 100 turbine, 500MW windfarm would be around £1.3 billion.’—Scottish-Enterprise.pdf

    NB actual output is usually about 20-30% of capacity.

    A few more scenic bays and seascapes will be disfigured for decades at least.

  12. J Martin says:

    Interesting numbers on solar panels from Jerry. Multipy the multi thousand co2 effect by the residency time add the three results then compare to co2 saved over the lifetime of the solar panel. I wonder what the result would be, perhaps that solar panels increase global warming rather than decrease it. Does anyone know how much co2 a1m square solar panel saves, and how much of the gasses listed in solar panel production are used per square metre of panel.

  13. oldbrew says:

    Want Insane Power Prices & Mass Blackouts? Then Wind Power’s your ‘Answer’

    Wind at the press of a button doesn’t exist. Shouldn’t need saying but government spenders of billions don’t get it.

  14. Fanakapan says:

    Couple of points for consideration,

    Offshore wind is ‘Insanely’ expensive, and in an environment where the G is looking for every penny to save, and where it has already demonstrated that it will stop providing uneconomic payback on fantasy projects, Its unlikely that these projects will succeed in getting funding ?
    Ask yourselves this, if you were a fellow with lotsa money looking for returns, would you invest in projects that are not economically viable in the absence of either government or consumer largesse, and where both sources appear to have been tapped out ?

    With this Paris malarkey going on there has been a veritable blizzard of PR type stuff attempting to demonstrate that the ‘Renewables’ wagon is still in good order, couple that with the fact that the directors of the outfits that are promoting offshore nonsense, will be drawing pay on the back of their visions, and will try to do so for as long as possible, even as the concept dissolves into fantasy.

    At this point the likelihood of any of these offshore projects getting going would probably be best judged by the odds one might be able get at ones favourite bookmaker 🙂