The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The worry, maybe, is about the supply of turbines - and the reality is that at least 50% of the jobs in the industry are non-offshore-able O&M jobs, which by definition cannot be sent elsewhere, and a good chunk of the rest are in the manufacture and transport of heavy pieces of equipment, again something that is hard to do from very far away.
The rest is more high-tech stuff where I expect European industry to still have an edge.
And as European wind moves offshore, this is even more true. I don't see Chinese manufacturers having any chunk of the European offshore market for many years to come.
a good chunk of the rest are in the manufacture and transport of heavy pieces of equipment, again something that is hard to do from very far away.
I'm inclined to agree, to a point. The counterpoint that I'd make if trying to argue the opposite is that Gamesa is now exporting tower components from China to other locations globally, including North America. As these are arguably the heaviest single components, it puts a whole in crude version of the transportation cost argument.
But, as you say, there's also a moving division of labor at work here. European manufacturers have the much higher value added components in the nacelle, but even here there's some indication that the Chinese are trying to use their, albeit temporary, overwhelming monopoly in rare earths to force production of some components into China with export controls.
On the whole, I'm quite optimistic about the European industry, but I also know that there are relatively simple arguments that can be made to the contrary. It's explaining the details that makes combating these a hard tasks. Serious people don't do details. When facts get in the way of their economic theory, the facts must be wrong.
And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
The transportation cost advantage still has to be leveraged by effective policy that provides long term assurance of the demand for productive capacity over the financed life of the plant.
And the most effective policy for providing that assurance is a well designed feed-in tariff policy, since as installation crosses the hurdle into the range where the merit order effect is reducing the average cost of kWh, that provides added political interests in favor of keeping the policy in place.
I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by ARGeezer - Oct 24 17 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 23 63 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 22 5 comments
by ATinNM - Oct 19 53 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 19 119 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 11 38 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 8 126 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 6 167 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 2417 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 2363 comments
by ARGeezer - Oct 225 comments
by ATinNM - Oct 1953 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 19119 comments
by gmoke - Oct 15
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 1138 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 8126 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 6167 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Oct 135 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 286 comments
by IdiotSavant - Sep 2810 comments