The UK’s latest offshore wind auction awarded 8.4 GW, making it the biggest offshore wind auction in Europe to date. Strong competition led to competitive average prices of £91.20/MWh in England and Wales and £89.49/MWh in Scotland. These results reinforce offshore wind’s role as the most competitive large-scale clean electricity generation technology.
The UK’s latest offshore wind allocation round (AR7) awarded 8.2 GW of bottom-fixed and almost 200 MW of floating offshore wind projects, making it the biggest offshore wind auction in Europe to date. The awarded capacity will power the equivalent of almost 10 million homes.
AR7 was one of the most competitive offshore auctions ever held in Europe. A record 19 projects with a total potential capacity of 24 GW were eligible to bid. This healthy competition resulted in strike prices for fixed-bottom projects of £91.20/MWh in England and Wales, and £89.49/MWh in Scotland.
With these results offshore wind once again proved to be one of the best value options for European households and industry. The AR7 prices are around 40% lower than building and operating new gas plants in the UK (£147/MWh) and almost 30% lower than building and operating new nuclear plants in the UK (£124/MWh). The power generated by the 8.4 GW of new offshore wind farms will save billpayers nearly £1.7 billion a year compared to the alternative cost of gas.
Europe needs to follow the UK example
Other European Governments should follow the UK example. Last year, the European wind industry proposed a New Offshore Wind Deal to speed up and de-risk the build-out of homegrown and competitive offshore wind energy. It calls on European Governments to coordinate an annual build out of 15 GW per year from 2031 to 2040, with 10 GW per year resulting from CfD auctions. In return, the industry pledged large private investments and further cost reductions.
The upcoming North Seas Summit in Hamburg is a unique opportunity to cement commitments from Government, Industry and TSOs to bring this forward, building on the success of AR 7 in the UK.
Biggest offshore wind project in U.S. to resume construction after judge lifts Trump suspension
Jan 16, 2026
Key Points
Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind will resume construction after a federal judge on Friday temporarily lifted the Trump administration’s suspension of the project.
This is the largest offshore wind project under construction in the U.S. Dominion Energy is the owner and developer.
Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind will resume construction, after a federal judge Friday temporarily lifted the Trump administration’s suspension of the project.
It is the largest offshore wind project under construction in the U.S. Shares of Dominion Energy, the owner and developer, rose about 1% on the news.
The Department of Interior in December halted construction of five wind farms off the East Coast, including Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, claiming national security concerns.
Judge Jamar Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Dominion’s request for a preliminary injunction Friday. Dominion called the Trump suspension “arbitrary and illegal” in its lawsuit.
“Our team will now focus on safely restarting work to ensure CVOW begins delivery of critical energy in just weeks,” a Dominion spokesperson told CNBC in a statement Friday.
Germany said on Thursday it had reached an agreement with the European Commission on a plan to build new power stations, adding it would tender 12 gigawatts (GW) worth of capacity in 2026, with a focus on gas-fired sites.
You only posted a small part of the story. Here is the rest of the story:
All stations need to be able to run on hydrogen by 2045
State aid still needs to be approved by Brussels
BERLIN/FRANKFURT, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Germany said on Thursday it had reached an agreement with the European Commission on a plan to build new power stations, adding it would tender 12 gigawatts (GW) worth of capacity in 2026, with a focus on gas-fired sites.
This is a major step on Germany’s path to ensure security of supply in light of the country’s ongoing phase-out of coal-fired power capacity.
“With the short-term tenders … we are also laying the foundation for a secure electricity supply in Germany in the future and thus for the competitiveness of our industry,” Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said.
Most of the new capacity, 10 GW, must be able to generate electricity over a longer period of time to ensure steady supply, Germany’s economy ministry said, adding that this included but was not limited to gas-fired power stations.
The new power stations, which are expected to enter service in 2031, will be able to run on hydrogen by 2045 at the latest, in line with Germany’s goal of becoming climate neutral that year, the ministry said.
State aid procedures related to the plan have not been completed yet, Berlin said, adding that the strategy would still have to be finally approved by the European Commission.
A good friend German ex-lover of mine, an engineer who loved his time in the Wehrmacht back in the 70’s, recently told me to rethink my anger over German irrationality about nuclear power stations: “Yes, it is stupid irrational policy, but the root of the stupidity lies in our awareness that if Hitler had been only marginally less idiotic, and the Russians and Atlantic powers had been delayed just a bit longer, German cities likely would have been nuc’d, and that crazy fact makes for crazy thinking.
Makes for interesting historical thought experiments, but I wouldn’t put a lot of weight behind it. The obvious consideration is that the Japanese didn’t go down that path of crazy thinking.
So Germany is going to be adding 12 GW of nat gas power plants for base-load. Clearly they think it is a necessary addition.
They will be burning natural gas for many years until they are converted to burn hydrogen. They switchover may not occur because of (a) a change of plans (b) lack of sufficient hydrogen (c) the cost of what hydrogen will be available and (d) the cost to convert. IIRC, the problem of metal embrittlement will require large-scale replacements for hydrogen usage. To store or transport or use hydrogen at high pressures or elevated temperatures requires specialized metallurgy (read expensive).
The reality is that fossil fuels still provide the over 80% of energy used by humanity, as they have for years.
The reality is the trillions spent on the transition. Looking at this dual power plant proposal…
Question: Is it more expensive to make a gas power plant that runs on hydrogen and natural gas rather than just natural gas?
Answer: Yes, building and operating a gas power plant to use hydrogen blended with natural gas (or pure hydrogen) is significantly more expensive due to higher capital costs for equipment upgrades (to prevent metal embrittlement), increased infrastructure for storage/transport, and substantially higher fuel costs, as hydrogen is currently much pricier than natural gas, even when blended, potentially doubling fuel costs. While costs for hydrogen production are falling, it requires major investments in technology and infrastructure to compete economically with conventional gas plants.
We disagree on that point, but at any rate renewables are not what the Germans want. Their proposal was for baseload power. It is not for more solar or wind. IIRC, their last auction for offshore wind last summer did not receive any bids.
But wait, I can hear jaagu saying, you can combine intermittent sources with battery storage. But for some reason the Germans are not proposing 800 acres of trailers filled with batteries. Hmm, must be some (economic) reason for that.
So, the Germans need to sell the EU powers-that-be on building a bunch more fossil fuel plants even though Germany doesn’t have any natural gas (which is good for US exports of LNG). My guess is the Germans think it will be an easier proposition to sell if they say the plants will be converted to hydrogen in 10 or 15 years. Of course there is no “hydrogen economy” at present, and somebody else will be in office by then.
Leap, why do you think the Germans want to build a bunch of fossil fuel plants?
Respectfully, we are not supposed to be making up garbage to discuss with other people.
In 2024, renewable energy sources supplied nearly 60%of Germany’s electricity , a new record, with wind and solar being the dominant contributors, reaching about 31.8% and over 14% respectively, pushing fossil fuels down and marking a significant milestone in the country’s energy transition. This figure represents a rise from 2023, when renewables made up around 56% of the power mix, with Germany steadily increasing its reliance on clean energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass to meet climate goals.
A large majority of Germans, often over 80%, support expanding renewable energy, seeing it as crucial for the energy transition (Energiewende), though concerns about costs and fair burden-sharing exist, with high acceptance for solar and wind, especially locally, but less so for transmission lines. Surveys from late 2024/early 2025 show strong backing (around 80-81%) for the overall transition, with many finding it “very important,” despite political debate and economic challenges, according to Clean Energy Wire, Clean Energy Wire, and Clean Energy Wire.
True; let me make my statement clearer – renewables are not what the Germans want/need in this case, or else they would not be planning on adding many GW of fossil fueled power plants.
Why do you think the Germans want to build these fossil fuel plants?
As far as Germany’s total energy mix, the IEA tells us that it is 16% coal, 34% oil and 28% natural gas. That adds up to 78% fossil fuels to keep their society running.
Yes, Germany is aggressively planning and implementing more renewables, with legally binding targets to reach 80% renewable electricity by 2030 and achieve net-zero by 2045, focusing heavily on expanding wind and solar, integrating battery storage, and phasing out coal, though recent government discussions have centered on adjusting implementation speed for cost efficiency. The country is seeing rapid growth, especially in rooftop solar, and has ambitious goals for offshore wind, onshore wind, and hydrogen, despite debates about the pace of the build-out.
Yes, Germany is using less fossil fuel overall, especially coal, with renewables increasingly dominating electricity, but challenges remain as gas use fluctuates with demand, and oil still drives transport, with the country slowly cutting total energy use amid economic shifts, though less efficiently than renewable expansion. Coal power generation has fallen significantly, replaced by wind and solar, but gas fills gaps, while reducing overall primary energy demand remains a slow process, notes the Clean Energy Wire.
That’s true but inching down as renewables are taken up.
German infrastructure needs replacement.
I am realizing you are innocent and naive. The IEA, CATO Institute, tobacco, arms, colas, alcohol, lottery, and a lot of others are marketing at you.
Bob, none of them are honest.
Culturally they are allowed to lie in the pursuit of people to soak and swindle.
I thought you would have known marketing is always lying in America. They only want your faithful spending.
It’s not the 78 figure, It’s the story they fed you. Lies. Of course because that’s their job. Germany has made deals w trump but fossil fuels are shrinking in use in Germany
