Andrew Montford: Another fairy tale about the levelised cost of renewables
By Paul Homewood

I recently described UK government’s latest estimates of levelised cost of renewables as “a fairy-tale”. Well, if Whitehall’s effort was Rumblestiltskin, then the equivalent document from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), which appeared yesterday, is Jack and the Beanstalk.
Take the operational costs of windfarms, for example. IRENA claims that it’s difficult get hold of hard data on the subject. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, absolute nonsense. Guys, allow me to introduce you to Companies House, where you will find the audited financial accounts for every UK offshore windfarm and at least half of the onshore ones. Hard data, freely available to download!
For offshore wind, having conveniently overlooked the hard data for another year, IRENA appear to be relying on a 2018 modelling study from the US and a remark in an investor presentation from Orsted (science!). They conclude that opex is in the range £50-100,000 per megawatt of capacity per year.
Figure 1 shows what they might have concluded, had they stumbled upon the cornucopia of data at Companies House.
The data is divided into cohorts depending on the water depth of the windfarm in question. IRENA does not even allude to opex costs increasing over windfarm lifetimes – a trend that is clear in the data. But whichever way you look at it, their values are around half of anything credible.
It’s a similar story on capacity factors. Figure 2 is IRENA’s graph:
Figure 2: IRENA’s capacity factor graph
A few recent UK offshore windfarms have averaged 46% capacity factor over their first few years, but there is a trend to declining output as time passes. This is clear in Figure 3, which again divides the fleet into cohorts, but this time by size of turbine.
Figure 3: UK offshore wind capacity factors
IRENA doesn’t allude this issue, so they appear to be assuming no decline in output over windfarm lifetimes, just as our Whitehall bureaucrats did. As a result, when they look at the effect of opex on overall costs, they conclude that ‘O&M costs per kWh have therefore been falling’, and suggesting that a figure of perhaps £13/MWh ($0.17/kwh) might be expected for European windfarms commissioned in the last five years.
Again, let’s see what effect using some real data has on that value, rather than basing it on throwaway remarks in an industry presentation. I’m not sure I detect anything resembling a decline, let alone anything resembling £13/MWh. It looks as though IRENA’s figures are out by a factor of three.
Figure 4: UK offshore wind – opex element of LCOE
Magic beans are probably the only way we are ever going to see costs this low.
Comments are closed.




PH you are being targeted by Outlook; same message as before “….unsafe link” ; one twist is that this time MS Defender message blocked the site – diid not take a screenshot and it did not appear second time.
The costs are pre-inflation numbers. What are the consults in 2001 in 2023 dollars?
I’m not disputing the con, but we should take the reduced purchasing value of a 2023 pound into account when comparing costs over a 20 year period.
My figures which are the original basis for Andrew Montford’s work are all in constant (inflation-adjusted) prices. See my papers at http://www.ref.org.uk.
Thanks for the clarification.
And how did you deal with exchange rates? Did you remove or standardise volatile inputs such as oil/fuel? How about any changes in taxes such as VAT or import tariffs? How have you standardised the definition of opex in the accounts? Do those definitions change over the period – accounting policies rarely stay static over a decade. How have you excluded one-offs relating to e.g. Covid? What are the various policies on capitalising and accruing? I’ve been doing this for 30 years. Accounts are really a very poor guide to actual costs. And the cohorts are arbitrary – the difference between the top of a range and the bottom of the next is zero, so why draw a distinction? You are creating differences via averages when the differences may not actually exist. Do any of the windfarms have opex as shown? Are the changes due to changes in the composition of the data sets? That’s the thing, the real data on opex are really very hard to find. Costs can be put in, taken out, shifted via management contracts and so on.
So, Phoenix44, every set of the hundreds of sets of accounts accessed by Professor Hughes was so manipulated that they were useless? – and despite the auditors being required to ensure a true and fair view? “Accounts are really a very poor guide to actual costs” Really?
I’m bound to ask: are the IRENA numbers the ones our incredibly honest and diligent MPs and Cabinet Ministers use when they are referring to how well wind is doing? /s
Perhaps the BBC’s ‘Verify’ could get onto this? Crunch the numbers and whatnot.
I’m sure they’d love to given how important the BBC says ‘climate change’ is.
Oh dear.
World’s Largest Offshore Wind Farm-Maker Crashes Most On Record After Catastrophic Results (31 Aug)
Sounds like Orsted was believing their own rosy numbers. Unfortunately the real world tends to come along and give you a teaching moment.
Absolutely, Bruce!
The suppliers are also deep in the doo doo
https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1831511/losses-continue-nordex-wind-turbine-maker-eyes-return-profit
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/17/from-ge-to-siemens-wind-energy-hopes-its-crisis-is-about-to-end.html (sustainable returns…? 😂)
https://www.evwind.es/2023/02/08/vestas-wind-loses-1572-million-in-2022/90118
Now here is an interesting challenge! Who can point toward any wind turbine supplier these days that is making a decent rate of return for its investors?
Oh! and BTW, as of today, China will no longer be subsidizing its wind turbine manufacturers https://www.caixinglobal.com/2023-08-29/in-depth-chinas-offshore-wind-sector-gears-up-for-life-after-subsidies-102097990.html
You may be interested in this article about US offshore wind farm PPAs being cancelled:
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/wind-power/offshore/rough-seas-ahead-as-multiple-offshore-wind-power-purchase-agreements-are-scrapped
I’m not so sure that you need to provide graphs and mathematics. Just look at our fuel prices, or pay your fuel bill.
Every idiot nation that has gone for “green” energy has energy prices way above the global average. We are killing our economy and, ultimately, ourselves.
Yes, I don’t really care about the operating cost of a windfarm, I care about how much I pay for electricity. One day I’ll persuade these analysts to do an idealised (i.e. cheapest) system (gas, coal) total costs versus the system we have now. That will really show how much we’ve overpaid over the last 20 years and how much we will pay in the future.
Now that Grant Shapps has been moved to Defence (gawd help us) I dread to think which wet green will replace him at Energy Security or Net Zero.
I got that Threepenny Opera feeling…
Mackie Messer sieht man nicht!
Escaping just before the AR5 CFD auction house of cards comes tumbling down next week.
Re my comment about Shapps as Defence Sec. Claire Coutinho has been tipped as taking over Energy. Seems appriate: she is currently Minister for children!
So supremely qualified to deal with Greens & enviros.
Ah, you mean the Greens in the SoS’s office, Joe. 😃
During yet more fruitless debate on Twitter a renewables puppet posted this.
Liquid air! No cost numbers but plenty of claims regarding output.
Thoughts?
PS strangely enough the person who posted this video neglected to say it’s over 5 years old!
Given I’ve not heard of a single real world application I suspect this technology has sunk without trace, though I’m willing to be shown otherwise.
Claimed 50-60% energy efficiency through the charge/discharge cycle, with costs $200 – $350 per kWh. Supposed to be “competitive with Li-Ion battery systems” but with potentially much longer storage periods.
Birminham Uni have built a pilot plant in the UK. Here is a useful presentation:
Click to access hies2017_highview.pdf
So, its technically feasible but as usual it looks really expensive.
@Cheshire Red, https://highviewpower.com/projects/#uk-projects
Massive upfront costs and a round trip efficiency around 50%
I believe you that you UK tax payers are donating towards Highviewpower’s expenses! Their web page doesn’t seem to reveal their profits and losses! Are there any other subscribers who know these?
I think they’ve entered into an agreement of sorts with Vattenfall, the wind energy firm. Their ‘solution’ doesn’t seem to be erm, setting the world on fire, though.
Renewables will never supply secure, reliable power or be cheaper or more efficient than fossil fuels or nuclear
If it weren’t for the ever increasing subsidies, levies, lucrative CfDs, constraint payments, there is no competent business case for them