1) You appear to assume that offshore wind is the only energy source that has gone up significantly in price since the bars were charted. This is doubtful.
2) Your definition of “’true’ PPA price” is idiosyncratic, to say the least. For the actual buyers of this or any project, who are the only people signing a PPA, the subsidize…
1) You appear to assume that offshore wind is the only energy source that has gone up significantly in price since the bars were charted. This is doubtful.
2) Your definition of “’true’ PPA price” is idiosyncratic, to say the least. For the actual buyers of this or any project, who are the only people signing a PPA, the subsidized price is the true price and determines the rationality of the purchase. The margin between the subsidized and unsubsidized costs is of course covered by federal dollars, but whether a given subsidy is rational is a matter of energy policy (nukes, fossil fuels, and renewables are all subsidized); it’s not a factor for making decisions in the market as-is.
Followup:
1) You appear to assume that offshore wind is the only energy source that has gone up significantly in price since the bars were charted. This is doubtful.
2) Your definition of “’true’ PPA price” is idiosyncratic, to say the least. For the actual buyers of this or any project, who are the only people signing a PPA, the subsidized price is the true price and determines the rationality of the purchase. The margin between the subsidized and unsubsidized costs is of course covered by federal dollars, but whether a given subsidy is rational is a matter of energy policy (nukes, fossil fuels, and renewables are all subsidized); it’s not a factor for making decisions in the market as-is.
Respectfully,
Larry