Offshore wind farms in Scotland aren’t big money-makers; profits barely exceed costs, so developers may avoid investing.

Question

Offshore wind farms in Scotland aren’t huge money-makers. The profits are usually just slightly more than what it costs to run them, so developers might not want to invest.

---

Scottish nationalists take note. Offshore wind farms are not pots of gold. Return on capital is typically barely higher than cost of capital. Developers can easily conclude that returns are simply too low to make the necessary investments.

Answer 1

This claim is false. After doing research on https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-marine-economic-statistics-2022/pages/offshore-wind/# and https://www.offshorewindscotland.org.uk/ I have found that Scottish offshore wind directly employed an estimated 3,900 people in 2022. It generated 5,242GWh of electricity, 15% of all renewable energy generation in Scotland. Scottish offshore wind had an estimated turnover of £4.2 billion in 2022, 1.4% of overall Scottish turnover. This would make the claim above false. 

Comments

You did a solid job pulling stats from credible sources like the Scottish government and Offshore Wind Scotland which definitely gives weight to your argument. That said, I’m wondering if you could clarify what specific claim you were fact-checking. Without knowing exactly what was being claimed (e.g., was it about job creation, energy output, economic impact?), it's hard to fully evaluate whether your evidence refutes it. For example, if the original claim was about offshore wind being a “major” contributor to the Scottish economy, your stat that it accounts for only 1.4% of total turnover is great but I think you should directly tie that number to the specific language of the claim to show how it contradicts or qualifies it.

---

Your incorporation of official Scottish government statistics and data from Offshore Wind Scotland is commendable, as the presented figures regarding employment, electricity generation, and turnover offer a robust counter-narrative to the initial assertion. However, it's pertinent to differentiate between 'economic impact' and 'profitability' in the context of this discussion. The original claim centered on the financial metrics of 'return on capital' and 'cost of capital,' which are primarily concerned with investor yields. While your data elucidates the broader economic contributions of the sector, it remains unclear whether any reports were consulted that specifically address the profit margins accruing to the developers of these wind farms. It's conceivable that an industry could generate substantial economic activity while simultaneously yielding comparatively modest returns for individual investors. Factors such as operational expenditures or regulatory constraints, which may not be reflected in the aggregate economic impact data, warrant further investigation.

Answer 2

It looks like you are misunderstanding the article's claim. If you follow the provided link to the original source, it leads you to a comment made by a user on a social media platform stating "Scottish nationalists take note", whereas the article where the information is posted is actually talking about offshore wind turbines in Denmark. And rather than stating that these wind turbines do not produce enough money to invest in, the actual issue lies in the amount of power they are generating. The turbines under performed in their power producing expectations, leading investors to question whether or not they will remain a viable power option.

https://bsky.app/profile/staylorish.bsky.social/post/3lclh2vyyrc2a

Comments

This really helps put the article into better context. It’s easy to misinterpret the main point without looking at the original source. Your explanation about the distinction between financial return and power generation performance makes the situation much clearer. Appreciate you taking the time to explain!

---

This does a great job of explaining the original article and showing how the claim that they made is incorrect. I like how you explained how the user misinterpreted the article and what the article was actually trying to say.

---

The claim itself is what to focus on, though it is interesting that the original poster references an irrelevant source. Thanks for catching that!

---

It's nice to know that the explanation provided a clearer understanding of the article's context, especially regarding the crucial difference between financial viability and power generation capability. Recognizing the potential for misinterpretation without the original source, I'm glad the breakdown was helpful. Your appreciation is valued!