ClaimsØrsted

“Significant advances are being seen within offshore wind power technology at the moment, resulting in markedly lower costs.”

DONG Energy 2017 DONG Energy Annual report 2016 Summary (DONG Energy) archived copy

Factual Technology

Significant advances in offshore wind technology are currently resulting in markedly lower costs.

Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

What would count as true or false

True if, as of 2017, industry or independent sources (e.g. auction results, IRENA/IEA/BNEF LCOE data) show offshore wind costs had fallen markedly in the preceding few years (roughly 2014–2017) and that this was linked at least in part to technology advances such as larger turbines or better foundations. Mostly true if costs fell markedly but the drop is credited mainly to non-technology factors (scale, financing, competition), with technology a smaller contributor. Mixed if costs fell only modestly, or if technology advances are documented but the cost decline is weak. Mostly false if costs were roughly flat in that period. False if offshore wind costs were stable or rising around 2017.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 UK CfD auction sees renewables set record-low strike price - pv magazine Global pv magazine · 11 September 2017

    “This strike price – achieved by Denmark’s Dong Energy and Spain’s EDP – is 50% below the guaranteed development price for offshore wind set just two years ago, and is far cheaper than the £92.50/MWh agreed between the government and EDF for the nuclear power station at Hinkley Point.”
  2. E2 Investigation into the 2017 auction for low-carbon electricity generation contracts (Summary) National Audit Office · 16 May 2018

    “These strike prices were lower than those awarded in the 2015 auction, in which offshore wind projects received strike prices ranging between £114/MWh and £120/MWh (2012 prices), and were lower than the government had expected for the 2017 auction.”
  3. E3 Cost reductions for offshore wind: Signs of progress, expectations for more Utility Dive · 7 December 2016

    “Most importantly, turbine size: bigger generators, taller towers, and longer blades. Offshore projects in planning today expect to use turbines in the 6-8 MW range.”
  4. E4 IEA Wind IEA Wind Technology Collaboration Programme · 2017

    “Offshore wind energy costs have also significantly decreased during the last few years. In Germany and the Netherlands, offshore bids were awarded at a zero premium, while a Contract for Differences auction round in the United Kingdom included two offshore wind farms with record strike prices as low as 76 USD/MWh.”

Reasoning

Independent sources show offshore wind costs fell markedly around 2015–2017: the 2017 UK CfD strike prices were about 50% below the level set two years earlier (E1) and below the £114–120/MWh awarded in 2015 (E2). IEA Wind's 2017 report also says offshore wind costs decreased significantly in recent years, citing zero-premium bids in Germany and the Netherlands (E4). Berkeley Lab analysis names turbine size (bigger generators, taller towers, longer blades) as the most important cost-reduction driver, though it also cites shallow water, low interest rates and competition (E3). This meets the criterion that the cost decline was linked at least in part to technology advances.

Cite this claim

Ørsted, “Significant advances in offshore wind technology are currently resulting in markedly lower costs.” (said 2017). Verdict: resolved true. Reliability API, claim c_b046ab8249f0, method 0.1.0+7831dd9d, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b046ab8249f0

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Ørsted, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Ørsted

  1. Mostly true Factual 13 August 2026
    “The increase was primarily driven by earnings from the construction agreement for Hornsea 3.”

    Ørsted's Q2 2026 offshore EBITDA increase (DKK 4.4 billion vs DKK 4.0 billion) was primarily driven by earnings from the Hornsea 3 construction agreement.

  2. Resolved true Factual 13 August 2026
    “EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees in our offshore business amounted to DKK 11.9 billion in the first half of 2026, compared with DKK 10.3 billion last year, primarily driven by…”

    Ørsted's offshore EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees was DKK 11.9 billion in H1 2026 versus DKK 10.3 billion in H1 2025, primarily driven by higher wind speeds and higher prices.

  3. Resolved true Factual 6 May 2026
    “Net profit for the period totalled DKK 2.6 billion. This was affected by non-cash tax effects and impairments due to the higher long-dated US interest rates.”

    Ørsted's net profit for Q1 2026 was DKK 2.6 billion, affected by non-cash tax effects and impairments due to higher long-dated US interest rates.

  4. Resolved true Factual 7 June 2023
    “At present, Ørsted operates 15.5 GW of renewable energy assets, while 4.9 GW are under construction across technologies.”

    Ørsted currently operates 15.5 GW of renewable energy assets, with 4.9 GW under construction.

  5. Resolved true Factual 7 June 2023
    “was the first energy company in the world to have its science-based net-zero emissions target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)”

    Ørsted was the first energy company in the world to have its science-based net-zero emissions target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.