Wind Power Has A Profitability Problem

[kryptqnick]

The USA is still very far from meaningfully moving toward renewable energy. Natural gas, petroleum, and coal account for 79% of all energy consumption in this country as of 2022. Then 8% is nuclear, and renewable energy is just 13%. Out of those 13%, wind is the largest (at 29%). I'm surprised that it's not solar, especially considering climate change and subsequently so much heat. Maybe it's something that could be developed better in the US to increase the share of renewable energy.
With wind, it seems that the demand is high, but there are supply chain issues. Perhaps it's not the right way for the US, or maybe scaling up can actually help reduce the cost. In any case, that doesn't mean that fighting climate change isn't important.

[Fortify]

Meanwhile, a very strange paradox has emerged in the US wind energy market:

The wind energy market is stuck in this very strange paradox right now. We have the best long-term climate policy certainty ever, across all the largest markets, but we’re struggling through a period where the whole industry, particularly the supply chain, has been hit by issues that have culminated in destroying profit margins and running many of the top OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] and their component vendors into negative profitability territory.

Negative profitability territory is a more politically correct designation for the billion-dollar losses that the US wind power giants have been suffering for several years, despite the political importance of the climate change agenda and generous government subsidies in the campaign to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

Against the backdrop of growing economic problems in the United States, this green environmental movement is becoming more and more like a large-scale scam to develop budget funds for an initially economically unviable idea.

Share your opinion on this matter.

It's a bit dumb to call the green movement a "scam" and shows how naive you are when it comes to future planning. Ultimately fossil fuels are finite and will eventually get more expensive to extract. Some companies that are pioneering green technologies will undoubtedly make poor financial decisions or be caught out in the shorter term, as it is still a relatively new area to be developing. Countries like Saudi Arabia both want to suppress these sort of competitors so will play games to knock out alternative energy sources, then jack up prices, but they'll also buy them up as they have massive amounts of investment funds to utilize. China is currently investing massively in this sort of energy independence, but you simply cannot rely on a single source and must aim for a large variety that will ultimately be supplemented by something like nuclear power too. Picking on wind farms as if they alone are the answer is an incredibly blinkered and false narrative to pedal. I see you moan about people creating new energy generation, without giving any alternative solutions yourself.

[uneng]

I suppose the main problem are the batteries, right? The off-grid system. It's indeed a big issue not only for wind power generation, but for every renewable sources of energy systems. The batteries are expensive and only last for few years. On the other hand, the on-grid system seems very profitable. You just have to make sure you can supply someone with the energy you are producing in real time.

And there is so much demand for energy. In many places there are blackouts and rationing due to energy shortage, so even the government needs this partnership with autonomous green energy providers in order to keep the population supplied.

Another issue I see with wind energy generation is that it's more restricted than solar one regards implementation. You have to be very careful where to implement it. If you aren't certain the area has continous flux of wind in large scale during the whole year, it's not a good idea.

[Casdinyard]

Meanwhile, a very strange paradox has emerged in the US wind energy market:

The wind energy market is stuck in this very strange paradox right now. We have the best long-term climate policy certainty ever, across all the largest markets, but we’re struggling through a period where the whole industry, particularly the supply chain, has been hit by issues that have culminated in destroying profit margins and running many of the top OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] and their component vendors into negative profitability territory.

Negative profitability territory is a more politically correct designation for the billion-dollar losses that the US wind power giants have been suffering for several years, despite the political importance of the climate change agenda and generous government subsidies in the campaign to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.

What I’m seeing is a colossal market failure.

Against the backdrop of growing economic problems in the United States, this green environmental movement is becoming more and more like a large-scale scam to develop budget funds for an initially economically unviable idea.

Share your opinion on this matter.

Isn't this kind of expected? Heard that it would take the US around a couple trillion dollars to convert every coal power plant into sustainable renewable energy sources (didn't say if it was strictly wind but it for sure doesn't) but after four years of negative profit they're bound to make x5 of that money they made. And while 5 years is definitely a massive risk to take isn't that like a better option to take than say, sticking with the current paradigm and inadvertently causing the planet's destruction?

Like at this point what does it matter if they lose money in the short-term, they're already billionaire conglomerates anyway, and if they can't make that much money to start off the journey there's always the top 10 richest people to support this, at this point I don't even care if they monopolize the renewable energy source industry, as long as it ensures that we're actually looking at a future that is not polluted I'll take those odds.