Wind Turbines’ “Colossal Market Failure”


Bloomberg reports that the wind energy market is in trouble. Turbine makers are struggling to make a profit. The big players, Vestas Wind Systems A/S, General Electric, and Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy SA, are having problems making a profit due to the high cost of raw materials and logistics costs [China owns the market].

[They aren’t making any profit, but they probably have a good ESG score.]

“What I’m seeing is a colossal market failure,” said Ben Backwell, chief executive officer of trade group Global Wind Energy Council, noting a mismatch between government targets for new wind power and what’s happening on the ground. “The risk is we’re not on track for net zero [emissions] — and the other risk is the supply chain contracts, instead of expanding,” reports Bloomberg.

A retreat from wind power will devastate the globalist plan of putting everyone on wind and solar power and get the temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030. [The goal is arbitrary and does not consider the standard of living.]

They also fail to compete with China and their slave labor.

Western turbine manufacturers say they’ll compete for fewer projects in fewer markets, raise prices, streamline their product lineups, and cut manufacturing costs. Even with artificially pumping up gas prices, they aren’t doing well.

“You absolutely need to see some of these profit pictures turn around for the decarbonization goals to be achievable,” said Aaron Barr, global head of onshore wind at consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Subsidies and the CCP Contribute to the Colossal Failure

When subsidies were reduced in the mid-2010s, governments started to pull back on expansive subsidies. Without welfare, these companies can’t make it.

The pandemic didn’t help. Bureaucracy also gets in the way.

A slowdown in U.S. turbine manufacturing risks further weakening the country’s energy independence. Already, it counts on Chinese manufacturers for much of its supply of solar panels — a reliance that has contributed to trade tensions between the countries.

Now, Chinese competitors see an opportunity in the wind market. Companies, including Xinjiang Goldwind Science & Technology Co., Envision Group, and Ming Yang Smart Energy Group Ltd., plan to invest in factories abroad to take market share.

Vestas had the world’s biggest turbine, and then the CCP Ming Yang came up with a bigger one.

The research from IntelStor’s Global Wind Energy Innovation Trends report found that from a high of 200 wind turbine manufacturers in the world, today there are just 37 — of which only 18 have a “track record for a positive return on capital for at least one of their products sold.” That is a colossal fail.

However, nearly all of the major OEMs (Original Equipment makers) have reported a fall in wind turbine values over the past 18 months, with the average selling price of onshore machines falling 20% and revenues down 30%.

This will have further effects down the supply chain, as the battle to make wind power competitive with other forms of generation, and the removal of subsidies, damages profitability.

Additionally, of the 1,200 turbine models offered for sale in the past 40 years, only 11.6% (around 140) have achieved a net positive return on capital.

Vestas briefly held bragging rights for the world’s biggest turbine when it announced a 15-megawatt structure. Still, in an example of China’s increasing muscle, it was quickly overtaken when Ming Yang introduced a 16-megawatt machine in August.

Siemens had a -4% profit in the second quarter.

GE expects to post a first-quarter negative operating margin of 16%, more than double what it sustained in both the prior-year period and last year’s fourth quarter.

That is a colossal loss. Turbine makers are raising prices to keep up with the increasing prices.

Environmentalists Are Beginning to Realize Turbines Are Not So Great for the Environment

People concerned with the environment are increasingly aware of the negative impacts of the giant machines and their vast land-use requirements on wetlands, birds, bats, beneficial insects, and other wildlife. They degrade, fragment, and destroy habitats, WindWatch reports.

According to WindWatch, considering these and other impacts, the construction of industrial wind energy facilities cannot be justified in rural and wild places.

The claim that they reduce pollution or greenhouse gases appears exaggerated. The wind is fickle. They also haven’t reduced the use of fossil fuels.

Their ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that may contribute to climate change or pollutants that can cause acid rain and health problems is doubtful, despite their tremendous size and sprawl.

Smaller turbines make a profit because the maintenance is not as expensive. It takes fifteen years on a twenty-five-year lifespan of a small wind turbine.

All in all, wind turbines continue to be a bad investment. If they succeed, we’d be happy, but so far, we better keep our fossil fuels.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tempus Fugit
Tempus Fugit
1 year ago

Just wait.. Governor Hair Gel of Kalifornia will mandate electric trucks to transport the windmills to new construction sights where electric cement trucks will be pouring fresh concrete in the foundation forms made from wood and rebar that were delivered by electric 18 wheelers. It’s all good folks.. Liberals have it figured out. He says 4 million jobs will be created as a result of the new climate laws he just signed.

1 year ago

Solar Panels are for more reliable than Windmills. But, neither are scalable for the Production of Energy in a modern economy. We need to be going Nuclear in a big way and make Nuclear Fusion a reality in the next 20 years.

Canadian Friend
Canadian Friend
1 year ago

2000 years from now historian will wonder why leftists did all the wrong things and brought Western Civilization to its destruction.

Just like we wonder now why Rome fell…

The Prisoner
The Prisoner
1 year ago

James McCanney is an anti-establishment scientist who has made his own independent discoveries. He has a big following among the scientifically literate independent crowd with his weekly show. For years he has explained in detail why the conventional wind turbines do not work. They are too expensive and heavy to make and ship. The wings are oriented improperly and a 3 wing system is additionally inefficient. The units require a motor to spin and do not produce net electricity in practice. Yes, when you see those units spinning at a constant low rate, a motor is driving that, trying to pick up a real wind. The things are ornaments for those getting big tax breaks. They need lots of maintenance. The units are productive only in a small range of wind velocities. And so on. James knows what he is talking about. There are wind turbine designs which are cheaper and more efficient. But the big powers did not create those systems, so they get no publicity.

Backwell is a CEO of some junk energy council which relies heavily on government money to exist. It sponsors fraudulent technology. He is illiterate of science, engineering and technology, has no idea about the emissions hoax, and is a mere cheerleader for his own pocketbook. Of course he misses that the product does not work. He wants money. But consider his ridiculous statement that the market failed. The market worked. The product is not feasible. It relies on huge subsidies, it does not produce net energy nor make money. He, the government and the junk science are what failed. Real markets operate more like nature. He operates like a freeloader.