Britain’s “flagship” floating wind project just sold for £1
Britain’s “flagship” floating wind project just sold for £1. In 2022, TwinHub was hailed as a ‘watershed moment’ for British floating wind
The 32 MW project became the first floating wind development in England to secure a government-backed Contract For Difference.
It received 15 years of government-backed support at a very generous £87 per MWh.
Developers said it would power 45,000 homes and help launch an entirely new British industry.
Four years later, though, inflation and soaring supply chain costs destroyed the original economics. Developer Hexicon wrote down the project by £10.5 million, the government-backed contract was terminated, and the company sold the entire project, including its assets and liabilities, for £1.
The “flagship” of Britain’s floating wind future was sold for the price of a supermarket trolley deposit.
source x.com/Electroversenet
What the critics of ‘renewables’ boondoggles have said:
Critics and skeptics of offshore (and especially floating) wind have framed the TwinHub saga as a clear illustration of the technology’s high costs, economic fragility, and over-reliance on subsidies.
Even with a pioneering, government-backed Contract for Difference (CfD) at a relatively generous strike price, the project could not withstand inflation and supply-chain pressures.
- Risks and frailties of experimental renewables: Commentators like Peter Clack called it a “collapse” that “highlights the risks and frailties of experimental renewables technology” and “exposes the limits of efforts to make renewable energy economically bulletproof.” Soaring inflation, supply-chain bottlenecks, and cost overruns overcame even the protected revenue stream from the CfD.
- Subsidy dependence and taxpayer exposure: Skeptics note that a project that needed (and received) substantial state-backed price support still proved commercially unviable. When the economics failed, the developer walked away for a nominal sum, leaving questions about the value of earlier public support and the realism of cost projections for floating wind more broadly. Some replies to critical posts explicitly asked “who paid for it?” and pointed to taxpayers.