Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
84 73 93 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
46 27 65 -
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
60 40 79
All types combined: 70 (likely 61 to 78, medium confidence), from 29 claims: 16 factual claims, 7 predictions, 6 promises. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Ørsted's claims
“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)
Significant advances in offshore wind technology are currently resulting in markedly lower costs.
Resolved true The record shows it happened or was so.
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.
Evidence
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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.”
- 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. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_b046ab8249f0
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Ørsted? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.