Connect with us

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Orsted Investor Call Insights, GE Vernova Prepares for Lift-off

The latest episode of the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast tackles the major offshore wind project cancellations on the U.S. East Coast. Ørsted recently halted development of its Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects off New Jersey. The decision highlights ongoing challenges in the American offshore wind market like permit delays, supply chain issues, and lack of specialized vessels. Rosemary, Joel, Phil, and Allen analyze Ørsted’s financial position, problems with U.S. inter-agency coordination, and impacts on future offshore wind PPAs. GE Vernova’s reduced losses in wind energy put it on course for a 2024 stand-alone company but there are risks ahead. Our Wind Farm of the Week is Grand Bend Wind Farm in Canada.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

Pardalote Consulting – https://www.pardaloteconsulting.com
Weather Guard Lightning Tech – www.weatherguardwind.com
Intelstor – https://www.intelstor.com

Uptime 190

Allen Hall: The Nuremberg Technotrain, the rave, seven hour rave train that runs through Germany. Come on. Can you imagine being in that train?

Rosemary Barnes: I’ve been to some German raves. You have been to a rave in Berlin? Is that true? Yeah. I’ve been to like special underground clubs. Wouldn’t you, if you were in Berlin and had the opportunity?

Of course you would. Come on.

Allen Hall: No, I am not going. To a rave in Berlin. That’s not in my top 10. Sorry.

Rosemary Barnes: I went to this one with my little sister when she lived in Germany, which was probably like 15 years ago, or maybe even more. And yeah, it was in some disused industrial building, like an old factory or something.

And they had this artwork made out of just like scrap. Random scrap, and one of them was sitting on the bar, and then every, half hour or whatever, they would just turn it on and would just breathe out this big fireball, just, everyone would just get out of the way of this sculpture breathing out a fireball and just keep on dancing.

Allen Hall: Rosemary, I, this is so out of character. I can’t believe you’re within a hundred meters of a rave. That’s insane.

Rosemary Barnes: Probably these days it might be more likely to go to a Taylor Swift concert than a than a rave, but purely for if there was a seating option. I enjoy a seated option at a music event these days.

Allen Hall: I had no idea. When I brought it up, I was like, there’s nobody who’s been to a German rave. Oh yeah. I’ve been to the German rave all the time.

Rosemary Barnes: You are crazy. If you’re going to go to Berlin and not go see any electronic music, it’s very good. There’s a good, a very good electronic music thing.

If I was in New Orleans, I would go see some jazz, you’ve just, you’ve got to go see the cool thing where you go. Invite me along to some events and I’ll tell you what the cool thing is happening in that city and yeah, help you to get a little bit of cultural experience.

Allen Hall: Orsted held an investor conference call November 1st and Phil, there’s so much discussion within that investor call. They eventually had to stop it. That investor call went about 90 minutes. Usually those calls go one hour and that’s it. And the Q and A sessions are pretty short. So it’s usually about 40 minutes of presentation material and 20 minutes of Q and A from investors.

But this one was like the opposite. It was about 20, 25 minutes of PowerPoint presentation followed by an hour. Ish of big name banks and investment firms asking very pointed questions of Orsted. And this all revolves around Orsted ceasing operations at 2 in New Jersey. This is a big deal because it creates what they call an impairment.

And Phil, you’re going to have to explain what exactly what an impairment is, but They’re talking about an impairment of roughly 28 billion crowns Danish currency, which is roughly 4 billion US dollars. A few months, a even about a month ago, they thought that was only gonna be about 2 billion. So they’ve essentially doubled that forecast in a matter of a month.

And I know, going from two to 4 billion, two and four are small numbers, but when you put the B behind it, it really matters. That’s a lot of money. And the reason they’re having this issue is that when they ceased Operation Ocean Wind 1 in particular, they had put a lot of money in it. They have a lot of orders in for wind turbines and cables and everything else.

Stopping that creates penalties, essentially, for stopping them. And New Jersey, the state of New Jersey is going to have some penalties apply, and we can talk through that as we go along. But, Phil, first off, why the stoppage at Oceanwind

Phil Totaro: 1? Orsted felt that the project was not, uh, financially viable. One might question why the timing of it, because…

After so much deliberation so many months worth of, getting the government to agree to, certain, the release of those tax incentives that they were supposed to be getting in the first place. Getting the supply chain contracts in place, as you indicated it’s an interesting timing to pull the plug right at this moment.

And it’s caused a lot of ire. Amongst the folks in New Jersey, particularly those within the government, there are certainly some people who are, mostly on the lookout for whales and whatnot that are happy about the fact that it’s being canceled. But in the meantime, Orsted’s actually at least done the.

The fiscally responsible thing, by not pursuing an untenable project, however I’m, I’m scratching my head as to how they reconcile, alright, you’ve signed supply chain contracts, but you’re saying that the supply chain is the issue. If the supply chain’s not meeting their obligations under those contracts, then how is Orsted eating all of those contracts in the first place?

And why are they liable? Why are they, taking the impairments are one thing, but the write down is another. They have a $530 million US dollar write down as a result of just in, in the most recent quarterly report. Anyway the question is, yes, they’ve sunk a lot of money into this.

But the, it’s better to not build a financially untenable project, but I’m curious as to how they let it go this far and why I can’t seem to reconcile how they aren’t putting the onus on the supply chain companies if they’re the ones who are faltering. And are creating a situation where it’s untenable for them to build the project, then why aren’t the supply chain companies seeing, half their market cap drop?

Why

Allen Hall: worst it? Yeah, and Joel I think from what I’ve seen, they are obligated to make those purchases to buy for ocean wind, it’s GE turbines or Haliad X turbines. And the discussion. From Orsted was, although the gross termination fees for all the supply chain, uh, effort is about 18 billion crowns, which is a little over 2 billion that they may be able to repurpose those turbines over in the UK, essentially take the electronics out, convert them from 60 Hertz to 50 Hertz.

And move them somewhere else. So they were hoping to either reuse or sell or something. The turbines and the cables and all the things that they had on order. Does that make a little bit of sense, Joel, if contractually? Because I think Phil is right, like why not just cancel the contracts? But it seems like in Ocean Wind 1 they’re going to end up taking all the equipment.

Joel Saxum: Yeah, so they’ll, the contracts, smart contracts or any contract of that size to mobilize a supplier, you have to give them some kind of guarantee and promise, right? Like nobody, if I’m not, you’re not going to order say you’re an oil field company. You’re not going to go and order 200 pickups from a GM dealer.

And then you’re just going to go okay, cool. Whenever you figure it out we’ll have the trucks ready for you. They’re gonna say hey, we need some prepayment or some guarantee up front. And this is all specialized equipment, right? So if they’re going to do, or if Orsted’s gonna get a contract in place to build these GE turbines or to build, 120 miles of cable they’re gonna have to have had, get some, give a little bit of promise up front.

Now, The level of that promise, I’m not in GE’s commercial team. I don’t know what that is. I would imagine that they’ve had milestones being final investment decision. All of a sudden they owe a little bit more to get these guys moving. Because it’s not that simple, right? It’s not an easy thing to go make all these specialized cable and make all these specialized turbines.

So they will have had to put some kind of promise down or some kind of guarantee of the sorts to the turbine manufacturers or the other sub components out there. And like you said, if they’re building stuff other where other places, there’s also revolution wind and some other things happening there.

So they’ve got some projects that are going on in different theaters in the world and on different leases and things like that, that they can repurpose those contracts for. However it’s, it’s not ideal, right? It’s not ideal for anybody in that supply chain. Phil said why haven’t we seen the other people dive, the GEs of the world and whatnot that are supplying those turbines.

They have some some guarantees, but on the other side of it, some of the other supply companies aren’t publicly traded. So we don’t really know what goes on inside of them. Let me go through the list

Allen Hall: of sites here and then what the equipment is. Ocean wind one and two were Heliad X turbines.

This is the, when we got into the patent dispute about Siemens Gamesa, everybody remember that and the settlement there, right? So ocean wind one, and I think two were involved in that, uh, rev revolution wind, which is down in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Those are Siemens Gamesa turbines, and that project is still a go.

Sunrise 1 and 2, that’s an Orsted and Eversource combo for those projects. And those are supposed to be Siemens Gamesa turbines. And, last one is Skipjack. Which gets mentioned in the Orsted discussion here, that’s happening down in Maryland. Actually, the turbines are off the coast of Delaware, but the power is going to Maryland.

Those are also GE Halliade, or supposed to be GE Halliade. But that whole project’s on pause. They’re not spinning in another nickel on that project. So you have Ocean Wind 1 and 2 that are stopped. Skipjack, which is in pause. Sunrise, which can’t offload anything at the point, at this point. A revolution, which the one that’s progressing South Fork’s another one that actually is progressing.

So in the bigger scheme of things, the big gigawatt projects are all stopped. That’s what it looks like right now. Doesn’t seem to matter who the wind turbine manufacturer is, even though it seems like GE is part of the problem here. You’re right. No one on the GE side has said anything about this.

Does that make sense, Phil?

Phil Totaro: Vestas put out a statement saying that they weren’t going to be impacted by Orsted’s decisions. There you go. There you go. There, there are definitely ways you could repurpose some of the contracts, yes. The question is, Skipjack was the other one that sounded like, you mentioned it’s paused, but it sounds like that one is likely to be cancelled as well.

Again, I don’t know if they’re going to sit here and cite These supply chain issues, these magical supply chain issues, which, okay, if this, if the contracts have already been struck and in order to qualify for ITC credit, you have to put at least, I think it’s 5 percent down on, what is likely to be more than a billion dollar contract in the first place, then.

That’s, that’s something they’re probably not going to be able to claw back, but just like building the project in the first place versus not building it you’re not obligated necessarily to spend money that you haven’t already spent. You may cancel a contract and face penalties for cancelling the contract, but ultimately it’s less money than an unviable project.

So I’m still there’s something that we’re all missing as a result of this whole thing. What we can say about it is that it’s clear that the U. S. in general has not Really done enough and it’s interesting in the context of hey, let’s get four more lease areas set up in the Gulf of Mexico Which, we just had an auction down there and it was a flop.

The U. S. hasn’t really done enough to create an environment in which everybody’s ready to invest and, more importantly, everyone’s ready to recognize the fluctuations in price that happen with, throughout the rest of the energy sector. So here’s what I don’t necessarily understand, we’re having these huge discussions where, contracts get cancelled on offshore wind, you’re seeing, in New York, what was going to be 10.

6 gigawatts get built is now going to be 6. 4 if that and, when oil and, or petroleum prices fluctuate, nobody goes running down the streets, with their hair on fire, screaming that it’s, a huge problem. I’m, again, I don’t, I, we go back to why didn’t New York renegotiate?

That would have at least kept the ball rolling on these projects being built. Why is the governor of New Jersey now demanding an extra 300 million on top of the, cancellation fee that, that Orsted’s gonna have to pay for Ocean Wind 1 and 2? Because he’s feeling aggrieved at that whole process of them, getting the state legislators on board with giving Orsted those tax credits that they were supposed to get in the first place.

And so now he, he wants an extra 300 million on top of it. That, that must be nice. So I just, if I’m an investor right now looking at the U. S. market, I’m looking elsewhere. That is this, the message that the federal government and some of these state governments are sending to the industry as a whole right

Joel Saxum: now.

I want to, I feel I want to go to that, what Murphy said that the governor of New Jersey there today’s decision by Orsted to abandon its commitments to New Jersey is outrageous and calls into question the company’s credibility and competence. Those are strong words from a, from a. An elected official.

Allen Hall: Let’s ask an impartial party here. Is Ørsted, Rosemary, is Ørsted incompetent? I don’t

Rosemary Barnes: have any reason to say that they are, I don’t think. I think this all sounds pretty rational. From, I can understand why all players involved have acted the way that they have. But yeah, I don’t think that there’s a whole lot of eyes on, 10 years in the future.

I think everybody is. Responding to, short term financial problems and not worrying about long term relationships that they’re going to, yeah, they’re going to need in a decade time. I think that, yeah, it’s time for a few people to, take a step back, take a deep breath and just think, is it worth winning this battle or, have we got some longer strategic war that we’re going to need to.

Have certain partners for and maybe, yeah, best not to just blow up everything all over the place because you couldn’t actually can. Will New York

Allen Hall: and New Jersey need Orsted and Equinor in the next 10 years to build out some offshore and maybe even some onshore wind?

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, I think that the way that New York is behaving now is suggesting to me that they think that they can do without any wind energy at all.

And if they do think that, then I’d like to know what their plan is because, they’ve already ruled out a few things. And you can’t, you don’t need every single energy generation technology available to, make a reliable grid, make a clean grid, to make a cheap grid. But the more of the, main players that you rule out, the harder it becomes to make it cheap, clean, reliable, you’re going to start missing on some of those metrics and.

I, yeah, growing up would say what compromises am I willing to make? Am I willing to pay twice as much for my electricity just to make a point about the wind industry? Would we rather go back to nuclear? Would we rather go back to fossil fuels? I’m not saying the answer is definitely wind and I wouldn’t like to see the wind industry become like, Yeah, like the nuclear industry where every single project runs over budget by a hundred or two hundred percent and over schedule by a similar amount I don’t want to see that for the wind industry, I want us to , I want us to grow up a bit as well and start thinking about how can we learn from the mistakes of these projects. And if it means you’ve gotta put in place hedges for some of your major costs for the future, then you do that to make sure that yeah, that you are gonna be able to supply projects that you’ve committed to.

I just think it’s bad. Looks all around. And yeah, like I said, I think that, if you continue down this path, then we’re going to end up really similar to what the nuclear industry is like, and I’ve got nothing against nuclear, but you, anyone that’s looking rationally at the situation would have to say that, nuclear power in the Western world, at least, is not, a shining example of technology development done well.

It’s a lot of expensive projects that make ridiculous promises and then fail to deliver and leave the, public on the… on the hook for paying increasing bills. And there’s no reason why wind energy needs to go down that way, but it is starting to look like that, to be honest.

Allen Hall: Hey, Uptime listeners.

We know how difficult it is to keep track of the wind industry. That’s why we read PES Wind Magazine. PES Wind doesn’t summarize the news, it digs into the tough issues, and PES Wind is written by the experts, so you can get the in depth info you need. Check out the wind industry’s leading trade publication, PES Wind at PESWind.

com.

Joel Saxum: So following on with what Rosemary said, I want to just, I want to give a voice to, or at least shine light on what may be happening in conversations that aren’t a part of this podcast, right? We’re all wind industry supporters. The people that listen to the podcast, for the most part, all wind industry supporters.

So we want things to succeed. We want things to do well. And we’re looking at what happened here? How can this happen? Why are these people acting this way? What could we have done to fix this? But on the other side of things, like reading an article today about the people that actually were happy that this failed.

There was a ton of of people that have been trying to fight big wind up and down the east coast that we filed lawsuits, and we did this, and, there’s this lawsuit, and that lawsuit, and this group, and that agency, and these different things. I don’t know if those actually have a play in, the decision making that Orr said had, if they’re actually…

thEy seem pretty frivolous for the most part, but what this does, I think, is it gives a voice to the other side. So the other side saying, and like I said, I’m switching hats here just to give a voice to their side, saying this makes anti wind people a little bit more happy because they can say hey, this is a subsidy propped up ITC, PTC IRA bill industry that can’t weather the storm, like Phil was saying, of fluctuating prices and, fluctuating prices in the market, whether it’s interest rates, fluctuating price of capital, fluctuating price of commodities, of people, of steel, of whatever that may be, like the hydrocarbon industry does because Hydrocarbon industry is also famous for taking massive profits when things are good.

Whereas the wind industry has come in and they run at such a close, skin of the teeth margin to try to get by, because it is expensive for a renewable energy transition. And the grander scheme of things, I think, like the other, like I said, the opposing side of this is, yes we beat this, but in the…

They’re not seeing the larger the renewable energy transition goals that, you may need some government support, you may need some help along the way to get this industry in here that doesn’t run at these massive margins. Nobody wants to see, wind come in on build offshore and when times are good they’re just reaping profits and everybody else is having to pay them like they, like the oil and gas companies do at certain points in time.

The industry is, it’s not apples to apples when it comes to the operating model. And because of that the, the extra fluctuation in prices has really hurt it. And so while I see that this could be the, a victory for anti win people, I think in the grand scheme of things, like Rosemary is saying as well, you’re not thinking about the long run.

You’re not thinking about, what happens if we don’t actually make this transition and the implications of that.

Allen Hall: Yeah, and I do think there is some mixed signals at the moment, and New Jersey and New York are really quietly trying to bury Ørsted, and here’s why I say that. Ørsted’s saying that Sunrise One, which is a big project when it got rejected for a rate increase.

Remember, a few months ago, weeks ago now, they were asking for, to raise the PPA price that they agreed upon because of interest rates. And New York said no and rejected it. In the recent third auction that New York just held, they were paying more, higher PPA prices than what Orsted was asking for.

So Orsted’s a little confused by that wait a minute, we offered you less, three, yeah, I think Equinor’s in that same boat. Yeah, equinor is still saying Sunrise One is still possible because of some tax implications here they’re gonna bring the cable. Land through a brownfield, and that allows them another 10 percent ITC bonus because of that and, but in order to, there’s a new rebid, right?

So New York decided to do a quick rebid, which is supposed to happen like Q4, Q1, right, 2024. bUt Orsted and Equinor are prohibited from bidding in this thing. So the companies that could bid, that are ready to go, that have bite auction sites, right, they have the leases, are at the moment prohibited.

Now you’re not going to read that everywhere in the press, which is weird, right? But if you listen to the Orsted investor call, they clearly say it, that they’re having a problem because they want to re bid SunriseOne. But they can’t, they also mentioned during that call that they had used Sunrise 2 during that third auction that they had put a bid in, in that third auction, and it was rejected.

So Sunrise 1 is rejected and now it’s tied up, Sunrise 2, basically the same plot of the bite got rejected by New York. So if I’m Orsted, I’m thinking New York has it out for me, they don’t want any, anything to do with Orsted, it seems so And you could say, I think Ecuador is thinking the same thing because they’re in the same boat.

That is a problem. And back to Rosemary’s point, are they, is this something at a higher level that is really going to hurt them in the long run? Because the reason that Orsted’s saying all this thing in ocean wind turned to a problem for New Jersey is because of delays. Permit delays, supply chain delays, that eventually rolled into the availability of a jackup vessel.

Now Phil, before we get into Jones Act, because this is where this is going, they had an opportunity for a jackup vessel to do these projects. If it got pushed out too late, which is what was about to happen, that jackup vessel was gone. And so they had to sign in another one, which would happen years later that vessel become available again.

And at that point, the cost of the project would explode. Therefore, ocean wind 1 and 2 were stopped because of this jacket vessel problem. Now, if that is a driving factor, What is being done to address the lack of ships? Anything?

Phil Totaro: There’s plenty of ships if you want to get ’em in China, but if you wanna comply with the Jones Act, then you gotta have a US flagged vessel, don’t you?

Yeah. I think one of

Joel Saxum: the problems here is that there’s, and this is a federal to state to community, whatever government agency you wanna talk about in the United States for sure is inter-agency communication and inter-agency Strategic planning is. It’s like absent. It’s like we have slack. We all work remote and we can communicate all day long with each other fantastically.

I don’t think the U. S. government has a slack system because they don’t communicate with each other, right? They have this, they have the Biden administration setting these goals. They’re not to get this goal. Let’s go right down to the foundation of the goal of 30 by 2030, 30 gigawatts offshore wind by 2030.

To get this, you need to have all the pieces playing together. There needs to be a web of people interconnected, working and pulling and rowing boats in the same direction, trying to get the same things done. There’s simply not. That’s the reality of it. The communi You can say all you want at the top, but if that doesn’t get communicated down with plans and interconnected communication and action, it’s not gonna happen.

As we’ve been watching these things, we talked on the show three or four months ago about problems with getting ports just getting a port facility, getting a quayside built. And there was like, what, seven or eight or nine agencies involved in this decision up in, I think that was in Massachusetts or something, right?

That’s one single little port, right? That’s one little port. That’s one tiny part of this thing. We just got, Alan and I did an interview with a gentleman today and we, and very smart man. From Norton Rose Fulbight David Burton talking about… All this tax equity investing and all these different things.

This is the IRA bill that partially props up offshore wind in the United States. However, there’s guidance that hasn’t even been let out to the public and might come end of this year, might come in six months, might come in nine months. That’s still hanging out there and this bill was passed 14 months ago to get to, to spur on this, all of this innovation and all of this build out of.

Onshore wind, offshore wind, the green energy transition, all of the above. But all of those things still aren’t even settled. So if you can’t get your ducks in a row and the people in one room to communicate an action plan it’s pretty basic business, in my mind. Most of them live in the same city. Go to one Starbucks and figure it out.

Yeah,

Allen Hall: permitting it is a big issue. I think Orsted’s trying to get away from blaming governments and the words that Mads Knipper talked about the governor and the state of New Jersey was, Hey, we’ve tried to work in good faith and I understand they’re upset, but we were trying our best and we think they did a good job.

So he’s trying to mend the fences, but New Jersey is not, it’s not going to play that way and is really attacking them.

Phil Totaro: And I think this goes back to the point you made before about how it feels like both New York and New Jersey are maybe a little bit fatootzed at, the whole process that this is, had to go through.

They, these are both states that are highly dependent on coal and natural gas in the first place. And it feels like they’re trying to compel Orsted, and Equinor for that matter, to just sell the lease areas to somebody else and have somebody else step in and build. Like they’d be okay if somebody else built.

Potentially, particularly like an American company, although there’s not that many of those lying around who are going to spend the cash on building an offshore wind project, which is why we got all the Europeans to buy the leases in the first place. So I don’t. I don’t know what the answer is here.

I just wanted

Rosemary Barnes: to ask a question. I’ve been reading this book how big things get done. Have you guys read that? It’s by a Danish guy, Bent Fluebjerg. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So there’s this table I keep on coming back to in the back. It’s got all of these large scale projects and it’s split them into project type and then calculated the main cost overrun by looking at, a large number of projects in each one.

And yeah, so at the top is nuclear storage, Olympic games, nuclear power, the most cost overrun on average. So that’s, yeah, 238 percent average cost overrun for nuclear storage and 120 percent overrun for nuclear power. And then at the bottom is solar power with 1 percent mean cost overrun, energy transmission, 8 percent and wind power with 13%.

So it’s third from the bottom. It’s not, everybody is tearing their hair out over how could this happen that, a project costs more than you thought it would and you want to renegotiate, but it’s not as if that’s maybe it’s unheard of in renewable energy, costs have just been decreasing so fast and it’s very easy to promise a price and then live up to it because your costs are probably going to be lower by the time that you go to build it than when you promised it.

So now wind isn’t like that at the moment costs are going up very similar to what a lot of other industries, a lot of other kinds of technology have had to face. My question is, do you think that wind power is, becoming more of a, just a normal kind of project that does sometimes have cost overruns depending on what’s happening in the broader economic climate.

Yeah. People just need to shift their thinking.

Joel Saxum: Yeah I think one of the differences there between wind, say, a wind project and a hydroelectric dam or something of that sort. Is those projects are very much the ones that have the high cost overruns. They’re very much have uncontrolled costs in them.

So uncontrolled costs being things that maybe not uncontrolled, but loosely controlled a lot of trucking, a lot of earthwork, a lot of dirt work, a lot of fuel, a lot of those things. So if you’re building a dam, you’ve got people out there in excavators digging, you’re paying by the hour for them while you may have been bid, but those things are easier to have an overrun.

Whereas if you’re building a wind farm, basically you have. Fixed, you should have fixed costs. You have equipment, limited amount of civil work, and then materials. So I think it’s the projects that have heavier civil work or heavier like concrete usage or things like that where there’s a little bit more loosely controlled that have that higher overrun whereas wind is, wind and solar are pretty much you gotta buy the materials and getting the stuff installed is usually pretty, pretty small portion of the cost compared to the materials.

Phil Totaro: In the state of New York, one of their major utilities, Central Hudson, has asked for a, and apparently is going to be approved, for a 30 per month, per customer, rate increase to pay for, amongst other things, natural gas, and natural gas treatment. Thank you. Some additional transmission. And, is anybody having a gigantic debate over that?

No. That rate increase is pretty much gonna get rubber stamped, if it hasn’t been already. They asked for this rate increase back in July, I think, and the early indication was in the early part of September, that this was gonna get approved. so You don’t see, again, you don’t see people tearing their hair out, as Rosemary said earlier, about the fact that they’re having to pay 30 per month more, it’s spread out over a number of years but it’s still, 30 a month more for

Joel Saxum: gas.

I would say if I was to make the shortest answer, that’s because. When you’re talking energy created by hydrocarbons, you’re not talking about a bipartisan political issue. When it comes to wind, it’s a bipartisan political issue and more of the arguments are political over technical and that’s the problem.

And when you’re talking hydrocarbons, people aren’t going to fight that as much because it fits the regime of conservative versus liberal. And we should talk

Allen Hall: about the leadership at Orested for a minute and what the investment community response to these latest announcements was in that call.

There were a lot of concern investment groups. In fact, one of them uh, was offering advice, which I’ve never heard of in an investor call saying, we don’t know how pre consulting, which you never want from investors, right? What that investor was asking was. We don’t know how to value you. We know you have a lot of value, but we don’t see it.

And our clients are wondering what we should do. On top of it, we don’t feel like there’s a plan. Everything’s in fluctuation, and we don’t know where you are headed or how you’re going to manage these things. So we’re uncomfortable providing guidance. And when Orsted said they didn’t need any equity The market obviously doesn’t believe them and when Orsted said they’re going to pay their dividend like they planned to pay it, the markets don’t believe them.

So there’s a leadership issue in terms of trust. Whether they’ve earned it or it’s unearned just because of the situation they’re in, I don’t know. But one of the items that popped up, and I think it was a really good question, was Why did Orsted pay New Jersey a hundred million dollars in escrow saying they were going to complete Ocean Wind 1 and then literally a week or two later said they weren’t?

And that money gets tied up. I think they paid, I think that money’s in a bank account somewhere. Along with 200 million dollars that’s in escrow for supply chain development. That’s where the 300 million dollars is coming from is that New Jersey, I think right now, has 300 million dollars sitting in an account in escrow that Orsted can’t, That’s a real leadership question, right?

That 100 million is a lot of money. And you can’t change your mind, you should have made the decision before writing that check. Phil, am I missing something here? It just seems like the investment community is really concerned about the outcome of this.

Phil Totaro: Yeah as I mentioned at the top of this, there’s a difference between the impairments that they have and the write down, the 530 million write down.

That’s 300 million as part of that write down because it’s cash that they’ve spent or is otherwise tied up, as you mentioned, and they can’t get it back. At the end of the day, I think that’s the real question that investors have, is why did you guys sign such strange contracts, such, contracts with language that tied you up in a way that was going to be financially disastrous if you do exactly this.

If you decide to pull the plug on the project, you are still locked in to, having spent and committed this this money. And that’s why I say, for the governor of New Jersey to come out and say the things that he did and then say that, Okay we’ll take this 300 million, but they were, he was literally expecting more it’s almost hey, we spent a lot of time on helping you guys get your act together with all these tax issues and the permitting, et cetera so you should further compensate us for that.

I’ve never necessarily seen, maybe that happens in, I don’t want to pick on any countries, but, Kazakhstan or some place like that where, it’s like you want to go in and build a project and then decide you don’t maybe they’ll keep your deposit. But such inflammatory language in the US from, a democratic governor who again is supposedly supportive of wind energy.

And more importantly, the union jobs that it’s going to create. Why burn the bridge?

Allen Hall: I think Orsted is not really in financial trouble. I do think long term they’re going to be viable. Come on. They’re, they’ll be fine. They’ll be fine. Ecuador will be fine. New York? New Jersey? Probably not so fine.

I think they’re the ones in the long term that are going to get hurt by this because what are they going to do? As Phil was talking about, they’re going to raise gas prices in New York. I think that will continue. They don’t have any way to control it, really, and if they’re serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

They’re stuck, right? They’re stuck doing more expensive projects than offshore

Joel Saxum: wind. And if you’re the next people that come in, or the next company or group of companies that come in to try to develop the same space that Ocean Winds 1 and 2 occupied, and or any of these other offshore wind leases have been pulled, what are they going to do?

Phil and Rosemary, we said it earlier in the episode, the PPA prices are going to go up because they’re going to insulate themselves against risk. So the prices of energy coming from the offshore wind resource are only going to get higher on the east coast because of all of this fallout. And when it comes to Orsted, they’re…

Building offshore wind off the coast of Denmark for Ørsted, Ørsted and Lego, that’s the two big Danish companies everybody knows, right? It’s a bit easier, because you just call the Crown Prince and you get it done. Or even if you’re going into some of the other places Ørsted’s at, Taiwan, other places it’s just easier to get that, that, those assets built.

And then you come over here and it’s every time you turn, it’s like a Jean Claude Van Damme movie, every time you turn you’re getting hit from every angle and you gotta fight all these people off. Doing backflip kicks and all these things to try to save yourself. And it’s you know what, we guys, we’ve had enough.

We’re not playing this game. You know what I mean? We’re not taking all these black guys. We’ll just go elsewhere and take our capital, invest it in places that want to have

Rosemary Barnes: us. I do think it’s like pretty, pretty short term, pretty alpha male. Yeah, I’m winning this negotiation, but my city won’t have any electricity in 10 years.

Kind of. It might be really good for a politician to win their next election, but definitely don’t see it as having the city, the state, sorry, the state’s long term interests at, at heart.

Phil Totaro: Lightning is an act of God, but lightning damage is not. Actually, it’s very predictable WeatherGuard.

It dramatically improves the effectiveness of the factory LPS so you can stop worrying about lightning damage.

Allen Hall: Visit weatherguardwind. com

Phil Totaro: to learn more, read a case study, and schedule a call today.

Allen Hall: Moving on to better news, G. E. Vernova published some numbers, some their fiscal numbers. Remember that G.

E. Vernova is going to split off into a separate company come Q2 of 2024. So there is a big push to right that ship and become profitable. So the recent numbers which are published at the end of the third quarter indicate that the renewables portion of G. E. Vernova, so there’s two pieces of renewable and then there’s power, which is the gas turbine division for the most part.

thE renewables division, the wind turbine part is still losing money at about a 200 to 300 million dollar per quarter clip. It’s better. It was 900 million dollars a year ago. Also. It’s less, but they still haven’t got cashflow positive. And they’ve released some numbers also on sales and the traffic that way, and the order book, it looks positive, like they are really making progress on getting more orders in, getting things financially for the future set up, but as of right now, it still looks close.

It’s going to be really close by Q2 of 2024. They’ll probably be just break even. And Phil I think this is a problem for Vernova because once they separate into essentially GE Aerospace, because healthcare has been divided off already, so GE Aerospace splits from GE Electricity, Power, Vernova there’s no piggy bank.

GE Aerospace is profitable. GE Vernova is slightly profitable when combined, but there’s, if something were to happen, like a huge cancellation by Orsted. That’s a problem. And I, I don’t know how they start to navigate this unless they stock up on lawyers and get really tight on reading contracts and making sure they’re not going to get caught up in an Orsted like situation over the next couple

Phil Totaro: of years.

Yeah, but keep in mind as well, Alan, with the numbers you mentioned, they also came out and said that their offshore wind division is losing about a billion a year and will do for the next couple of years. That was before. This announcement from Orsted about the cancellation of these projects, so that could make things a little worse The other thing to keep in mind remember when we talked probably about five or six months ago about the fact that they brought new leadership into GE, Vernova and Renewable Energy, now Vernova the reality of that is they were talking about already being profitable by the third quarter of this year.

That’s obviously not happened, but, as you said, they are trending in the right direction. The offshore wind segment of the business is not helping. At this point, and the question is how much more of a drag is that really going to end up being they’ve had some sales in Europe with the Haliot X, they’ve had some firm orders in the U.

S. and also not firm orders yet in, in the U. S. The Brazilian market is still yet to take off, which one wonders if they’re going to even play a part down there because they already pulled out their onshore wind business. Where? Yeah, the question is, where are they going to sell these turbines?

They will get some more sales in Europe, but how much market share can they really also? Expect with Siemens Gamesa is self imploding now, and, it looks like Vestas may dominate with some of the Chinese companies also coming into the fray. I don’t know, this is very, it’s still a tenuous time.

Again, I will agree with the notion that GE, Vernova is looking better than they were. But they’re not quite out of the woods yet.

Joel Saxum: Okay. So one of the things I think GE needs to be aware of right now, if I’m sitting in that boardroom almost every morning, I’m probably reviewing what’s happening with Siemens Gamesa because it with Siemens Gamesa is massive problems.

And if the four and a half, five and a half billion dollar or billion euro right down that they’re going to have, if something like that is to happen to GE, because we already seen, and then I’m not saying this is happening to GE right now, but we’ve seen a lot of issues with their Cypress platform. in, in being installed in Europe with blades breaking off and things happening.

So if GE splitting off, like you said, the piggy bank goes away when you remove them from aerospace. So now they’re going to be having to stand alone on them on themselves. And if they had to end up having an issue with some kind of warranty claim or something of this sort, that could be a big problem for them.

So on the heels of that, okay, GE is also LM wind power. They own them. So that will be a part. That’s a part of the GE Vernova basically family as well. And we believe, through some really good investigation, slash the easiest investigation of Project Danish of all time in the state of Colorado that they may be building a new LM LM wind power blade factory.

I think it was in Pueblo if if I’m correct. GE Vernova investing in, taking advantage of some of this IRA bill tax credits to build a manufacturing plant here in the states. For some of their new platforms. They’re going to have order book start to climb to be able to keep that factory gin in as well.

So again, I just go back to it’s good that they’re trending in the positive direction. However, for any Western OEM right now, the ice is pretty dang thin. So keep keep watching out. Alan and I were doing a little bit of lightning research from a Halloween storm that rolled across Michigan and on to Lake Huron and then looking to see what would happen to the turbines if there were some on the coast and he said, Hey, take a peek at this.

Let me see if there’s any wind farms here. And one of the wind farms that was right in the middle of this area that got affected by the storm was the Grand Bend. Wind farm owned by Northland Power in Canada. So the project is located right on the eastern shore of Lake Huron. So they’re going to get some interesting phenomenon there weather wise.

And operations and maintenance, of course, the people that are on that wind farm, they know the issues that they’ve got. It’s a 50 50 partnership. Developed with a few First Nations groups within Canada. And I’m going to get these… Probably pretty wrong, but I’m going to say Kewanongnong and Amjiwanong First Nations groups.

It has a 20 year power purchase agreement with the Ontario Power Authority, 40 turbines and will power about 29, 000 homes. So Grand Bend Wind Farm in Western Ontario. You are our Wind Farmer

Allen Hall: of the Week. That’s going to do it for this week’s Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. Thanks for listening.

Please give us a 5 star rating on your podcast platform and subscribe in the show notes below to Uptime Tech News, our weekly newsletter. And check out Rosemary’s YouTube channel, Engineering with Rosie. And we’ll see you here next week on the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast.

Orsted Investor Call Insights, GE Vernova Prepares for Lift-off

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Marinus Link Approval, Ørsted Strategic Pivot

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Marinus Link Approval, Ørsted Strategic Pivot

Allen discusses Australia’s ‘Marinus Link’ power grid connection, a $990 million wind and battery project by Acciona, and the Bank of Ireland’s major green investment in East Anglia Three. Plus Ørsted’s strategic changes and Germany’s initiative to reduce dependency on Chinese permanent magnets.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on FacebookYouTubeTwitterLinkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

Good day, this is your friend with a look at the winds of change sweeping across our world. From the waters around Australia to the boardrooms of Europe, the clean energy revolution is picking up speed. These aren’t just stories about wind turbines and power cables. They’re stories about nations and companies making billion dollar bets on a cleaner tomorrow.

There’s good news from Down Under today. Australia and Tasmania are officially connecting their power grids with a massive underwater cable project called the Marinus Link.

The project just got final approval from shareholders including the Commonwealth of Australia, the State of Tasmania, and the State of Victoria. Construction begins in twenty twenty six, with completion set for twenty thirty.

This isn’t just any cable. When finished, it will help deliver clean renewable energy from Tasmania to millions of homes on the mainland. The project promises to reduce electricity prices for consumers across the region.

Stephanie McGregor, the project’s chief executive, says this will change the course of a nation. She’s right. When you connect clean energy sources across vast distances, everyone wins.

The Marinus Link will cement Australia’s position as a leader in the global energy transition. But this is just the beginning of our story from the land Down Under.

Here’s a story about big money backing clean energy. Spanish renewable developer Acciona is moving forward with a nine hundred ninety million dollar wind and battery project in central Victoria, Australia.

The Tall Tree project will include fifty three wind turbines and a massive battery storage system. Construction starts in twenty twenty seven, with operations beginning in twenty twenty nine.

But here’s what makes this special. The project has been carefully designed to protect local wildlife. Acciona surveyed eighty two threatened plant species and fifty six animal species near the site. They’ve already reduced the project footprint by more than twenty four square kilometers to protect high value vegetation areas.

This massive investment will create construction jobs and long term maintenance positions in the region. It will also provide clean electricity to power hundreds of thousands of homes while reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

When companies invest nearly a billion dollars in clean energy, they’re betting on a cleaner future. And Australia isn’t the only place where that smart money is flowing.

The Bank of Ireland is making headlines today with its largest green investment ever. The bank has committed eighty million pounds to East Anglia Three, an offshore wind farm that will become the world’s second largest when it begins operating next year.

Located seventy miles off England’s east coast, East Anglia Three will generate enough clean electricity to power more than one point three million homes.

John Feeney, chief executive of the bank’s corporate division, calls this exactly the kind of transformative investment that drives innovation and accelerates the energy transition.

This follows the bank’s earlier ninety eight million pound commitment to Inch Cape wind farm off Scotland’s coast. The Bank of Ireland has set a target of thirty billion euros in sustainability related lending by twenty thirty. They’ve already reached fifteen billion in the first quarter of this year.

When major financial institutions back clean energy this aggressively, they’re signaling where the smart money is going. But what happens when even the biggest players need to adjust their sails?

Denmark’s Orsted is recalibrating its strategy amid changing market conditions. The company is considering raising up to five billion euros to strengthen its financial position while scaling back some expansion plans.

Orsted has reduced its twenty thirty installation targets from fifty gigawatts to between thirty five to thirty eight gigawatts. But don’t mistake this for retreat. The company is focusing on high margin, high quality projects while maintaining its leadership in offshore wind.

The company’s Revolution Wind project in Rhode Island and Sunrise Wind in New York remain on track for completion in twenty twenty six and twenty twenty seven. These projects will deliver clean electricity to millions of Americans.

CEO Rasmus Errboe is implementing aggressive cost cutting measures, including reducing fixed costs by one billion Danish kroner by twenty twenty six. The company plans to divest one hundred fifteen billion kroner worth of assets to free capital for core projects.

Sometimes the smartest strategy is knowing when to consolidate and focus on what you do best. For Orsted, that’s building the world’s most efficient offshore wind farms. And speaking of strategic thinking, Europe is planning ahead for energy independence.

Germany is leading a European push to reduce dependence on Chinese permanent magnets. The German wind industry has proposed that Europe source thirty percent of its permanent magnets from non Chinese suppliers by twenty thirty, rising to fifty percent by twenty thirty five.

Currently, more than ninety percent of these vital rare earth magnets come from China. The German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy is backing this diversification effort, working with industry associations to identify alternative suppliers.

The roadmap calls for turbine manufacturers to establish contacts with new suppliers by mid twenty twenty five, with production facilities potentially operational by twenty twenty nine.

Karina Wurtz, Managing Director of the Offshore Wind Energy Foundation, calls this a strong signal toward a new industrial policy that addresses geopolitical risks.

This isn’t just about reducing dependence on one country. It’s about building resilient supply chains that ensure the continued growth of clean energy. When an industry plans this thoughtfully for its future, that future looks very bright indeed.

You see, the news stories this week tell us something important. From Australia’s underwater cables to Germany’s supply chain strategy, the world is building the infrastructure for a clean energy future. Billions of dollars are flowing toward wind power. Major banks are making their largest green investments ever. Even when companies face challenges, they’re doubling down on what works.

The wind energy industry isn’t just growing. It’s maturing. It’s getting smarter about where to invest and how to build sustainably. And that means the winds of change aren’t just blowing… they’re here to stay.

And now you know… the rest of the story.

https://weatherguardwind.com/marinus-link-orsted/

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Joint Statement from ACP, ACORE, and AEU on DOE Grid Reliability and Security Protocol Rehearing Request

Published

on

Joint Statement from ACP, ACORE, and AEU on DOE Grid Reliability and Security Protocol Rehearing Request

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 6, 2025 – The American Clean Power Association (ACP), American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), and Advanced Energy United, released the following statement after submitting a joint rehearing request to urge the Department of Energy (DOE) to reevaluate their recent protocol issued with the stated goal of identifying risk in grid reliability and security:

“As demand for energy surges, grid reliability must rely on sound modeling, reasonable forecasts, and unbiased analysis of all technologies. Instead, DOE’s protocol relies on inaccurate and inconsistent assumptions that undercut the credibility of certain technologies in favor of others.

“Americans deserve to have confidence that the government is taking advantage of ready-to-deploy and affordable resources to support communities across the country. Clean energy technologies are the fastest growing sources of American-made energy that are ready to keep prices down and meet demand.

“Providing a roadmap that offers a clear-eyed view of risk is critical to meeting soaring demand across the country. The Department of Energy report missed the opportunity to present all the viable types of energy needed to address reliability and keep energy affordable. We urge DOE to reevaluate and enable those charged with securing and future-proofing our grid to meet the moment with every available resource.” 

###

ABOUT ACORE

For over 20 years, the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has been the nation’s leading voice on the issues most essential to clean energy expansion. ACORE unites finance, policy, and technology to accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. For more information, please visit http://www.acore.org.

Media Contacts:
Stephanie Genco
Senior Vice President, Communications
American Council on Renewable Energy
genco@acore.org

The post Joint Statement from ACP, ACORE, and AEU on DOE Grid Reliability and Security Protocol Rehearing Request appeared first on ACORE.

https://acore.org/news/joint-statement-from-acp-acore-and-aeu-on-doe-grid-reliability-and-security-protocol-rehearing-request/

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

5 Ways To Finance Your Solar Panels In Australia

Published

on

While it’s widely known that solar power can dramatically cut your long-term electricity costs, the initial investment in a home solar panel system can be a major barrier for Australians.  

A high-quality residential system, such as a 6.6kW setup, can easily exceed $6,000, and for most households, that’s not spare change. 

However, luckily, in Australia, there’s a smart way to bridge this financial gap. That’s by choosing solar financing options! 

Unlike traditional forms of debt, solar financing can actually pay for itself over time, making the installation process easy and affordable for all groups of people.  

Moreover, by structuring the system properly, a well-sized and efficient solar system can generate significant savings on your energy bill. But not all financing options are created equal.  

The difference between a solar system that boosts your savings and one that drains your wallet often comes down to the financing terms you choose. 

Therefore, at Cyanergy, we’re here to walk you through 5 of the most effective ways to finance your solar panels in Australia. This will help you take control of your energy future, without creating any financial stress.

How Much Does a Fully Installed Solar System Cost in Australia?

In Australia, the cost of a fully installed residential solar system in 2025 generally ranges between $3,500 and $10,000, depending on system size, component quality, and your geographical location. 

However, on average, the cost is $10,000, and people paid from $7,000 to $20,000 for their 10 kW systems 

So, what causes the price differentiation of solar panels? 

  1. The quality of panels and inverter brands, such as SunPower, Q Cells, or Fronius, may come at a higher cost.
  2. Installer rates and reputation matter for cost variation.
  3. Location is a factor, as urban areas often get more competitive quotes than regional or remote areas.
  4. The type of roof and its installation complexity may increase the cost.
  5. Optional battery storage adds $7,000–$15,000, depending on capacity. 

5 Common Methods For Solar Financing for Australians in 2025

Common Methods For Solar Financing

Solar panel financing helps homeowners get the benefits of solar without paying the full cost up front. Instead, you pay in installments through loans, leases, or other payment plans, making solar more affordable over time. 

Don’t worry! It’s not just another debt; it’s a smart way to take control of your energy bills because a well-financed solar system can save you more money than the amount you spend on the investment.  

So, when you want lower power bills and enjoy more energy independence, going solar makes sense.  

But as soon as you start looking into the numbers, it can feel overwhelming. A quality solar system isn’t cheap. And for many Aussie families, it’s a big financial decision.  

Then come all the financial terms, such as zero-interest, buy now, pay later (BNPL), green loans, and solar leasing, which also leave residents even more perplexed. 

Find them confusing, too?  

So, let’s break down 5 ways to finance your solar panels in Australia to help you make the smartest, stress-free decision for your home and your wallet. 

1. Cash Payment

Investing in a solar power system can be highly profitable if you are debt-free and have available cash. Solar systems offer tax-free returns that surpass the current interest rates offered by banks or the government.   

For those who consume a significant amount of electricity during the day, a 6.6kW system costs $6,500. Typically, it recoups its cost within approximately five years, resulting in a 12% annual return.   

Even if you are away during the day, the returns may not be as impressive, but still exceed bank interest rates.  

Cash option is the Best For: 

  • Homeowners with upfront capital. 
  • Those who are cash-rich and debt-free. 
  • Residents seeking maximum long-term savings. 

How It Works: 

Paying for your solar system outright is the simplest and often most cost-effective way to finance your panels. Here, you pay the full amount upfront, and from that point onward, all the energy savings go directly into your pocket. 

Pros of Cash Payment Method: 

  • No interest or monthly repayment hassles.
  • Full ownership from day one of panel installation.
  • Maximizes return on investment.
  • Eligible for federal and state incentives. 
     

Cons of Cash Payment Method: 

2. Green Loans and Solar Loans

Green loans are personal loans offered by financial institutions that prioritize environmental and community support. They come with low-interest rates and are ideal for financing solar panels, energy-efficient windows, heat pumps, and air conditioning.    

These loans have flexible repayment periods ranging from 1 to 7 years and typically involve minimal setup fees, low ongoing fees, and no early repayment penalties.  

These loans are suitable for: 

  • Homeowners who want ownership but prefer not to pay up front.
  • Borrowers with good credit history. 

How It Works: 

Many Australian banks and credit unions offer green loans specifically for energy-efficient home upgrades, including solar systems.  

For example, if you borrow $5,000 over five years at a 5% interest rate, your monthly repayments would be around $94. Your electricity bill may be reduced by $100 or more monthly, potentially offsetting the cost entirely. 

Pros of Green Loans & Solar Loans: 

  • Lower interest rates than personal loans.
  • Flexible repayment terms of typically 1–7 years. 
  • Allows you to own the system.
  • It can be used for batteries and other energy upgrades. 
     

Cons of Green Loans & Solar Loans: 

  • Requires a good credit rating.
  • Still involves debt and interest, even though the rate is relatively low. 

Green Loans and Solar Loans

3. Solar Leasing and Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)

  • System of Solar Leasing in Australia 

Solar leasing is a payment plan where residential and commercial customers in Australia make monthly payments to a solar supplier for a solar PV system installed on their property.  

Under a solar leasing plan, the system is leased directly from the solar company, and the customer repays the system’s cost over a period of five to ten years. However, interest is charged during the repayment period.   

This results in a slightly higher overall cost compared to the upfront payment.  

  • How Does Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) Work?  

A power purchase agreement (PPA) is a financing option where a company owns and maintains a solar system installed on a homeowner’s property. The homeowner only purchases the energy generated by the system.  

PPAs are gaining popularity due to their low, upfront costs, with homeowners paying a predetermined rate based on the solar energy generated on their property.  

The rates are typically fixed for the duration of the agreement, which can range from 15 to 20 years. 

Works Best For: 

  • Households without upfront capital.
  • Those who want to avoid maintenance responsibility.
  • Renters or tenants. 

Pros of Solar Leasing and PPA: 

  • Little to no upfront cost. 
  • Lower energy bills from day one.
  • The provider covers all the maintenance and repairs. 
     

Cons of Solar Leasing and PPA: 

  • You don’t own the system.
  • Long-term contract commitments
  • Lower total savings compared to owning.  

4. Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) for Solar

BNPL options enable you to spread your solar panel payments over time without incurring interest, typically over 6 to 60 months.  

With some companies, you can get up to $30,000 for solar or battery storage systems, with repayment plans ranging from 6 months to 5 years. 

How BNPL Works? 

Here, the customer chooses a solar system. Then, the BNPL provider pays the solar company upfront. The customer then repays the BNPL provider in installments. 

However, ensure you understand the repayment terms thoroughly. Some BNPL offers can become costly if you miss payments or don’t clear the balance within the interest-free period. 

Perfect Options for: 

  • Budget-conscious homeowners.
  • People looking for short-term finance without interest. 

Pros of BNPL: 

  • Interest-free periods depending on conditions.
  • Quick approval and no deposit are required.

Cons of BNPL: 

  • Admin fees, late payment or other additional hidden fees may apply.
  • After the interest-free period, higher rates may kick in. 
  • Limited availability in some regions.  

5. Government Rebates, Incentives, and Feed-In Tariffs

The Australian Government offers a range of financial incentives that can significantly reduce the cost of going solar. These financing methods reduce your out-of-pocket expenses, making solar energy more affordable. 

Best For: 

  • All homeowners and small businesses 

Some of the Best Rebates and Incentives for Solar Energy in Australia 

  1. Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES)

This federal scheme provides STCs (Small-scale Technology Certificates), which are essentially rebates applied at the point of sale. Most installers factor this into their quote. Depending on your location and system size, STCs can save you $2,000 to $4,000 upfront. 

  1. State-Based Rebates and Incentives

Several states offer additional rebates or loans to their residents. For example: 

  • New South Wales: Solar for Low Income Households trial and interest-free loans.
  1. Feed-In Tariffs (FiTs)

When your solar system produces more electricity than you use, the excess is fed back into the grid. Your electricity retailer pays you a feed-in tariff, typically 5- 15c per kWh. These ongoing savings can help you repay your loan or lease more quickly. 

Pros of Solar Rebates: 

  • Reduces the initial cost of installing a solar panel.
  • Long-term energy bill savings.
  • Incentives are available to most Australians.

Cons of rebates and incentives: 

  • Government policies and rates can change.
  • FiTs vary greatly by retailer and location. 

Differences Between Solar Financing Options

Solar Leasing VS Buying: Which is more beneficial for you? 

Well, both leasing and buying solar panels allow homeowners to benefit from utility savings and reduce their environmental impact. However, deciding between leasing and owning solar panels is a crucial consideration, and it depends on your specific situation. 

For instance, leasing solar panels provides a more accessible option for customers who may not have the necessary upfront funds to purchase them.  

The homeowner does not own the panels through leasing, as a third party owns them. That means the leasing company owns the equipment.  

On the other hand, purchasing solar panels requires an upfront investment. Additional credits or reimbursements may be available based on state or manufacturer incentives at the time of purchase.  

However, you can also seek free quotes from Cyanergy for accurate pricing information. 

Which Option is Right for You?

Choosing an appropriate financing method can save you thousands of dollars annually on your energy bills. The choice ultimately depends on your financial position, property ownership status, and long-term goals.  

So, here we’ve done a quick comparison of different types of financing options to make your selection process easier:

Financing Option Upfront Cost Ownership Monthly Repayments Long-Term Repayments Potential Risk Level
Cash Payment High Yes None Highest Low
Green/Solar Loan Low to Medium Yes Yes High Medium
Solar Lease & PPA Low No Yes Medium Medium
BNPL Low Yes Yes Medium to High Medium
Government Incentives & FiTs Not Required Yes No High Low

Wrap Up

Over the decades, people have been using solar power to illuminate their homes, reducing their reliance on fossil fuels and shielding themselves from rising electricity prices. 

Even though solar power ensures your energy freedom and lowers your energy bills, the way you pay for it matters a lot.  

Remember, selecting a specific finance option can make solar an affordable and worthwhile investment, but choosing the wrong one can turn savings into more stress. 

So here’s what you can do next!  

Review your budget and power bills. Determine whether you can pay cash or require a loan. Avoid rushing into lucrative but deceptive offers. Always compare full quotes with repayment details before agreeing to anything. 

Ready to make the switch?  

Contact Cyangery today and begin your journey with Solar Energy. We are here to find you the best deals on solar packages in Australia. 

Your Solution Is Just a Click Away

The post 5 Ways To Finance Your Solar Panels In Australia appeared first on Cyanergy.

5 Ways To Finance Your Solar Panels In Australia

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com