[kragen]

you're confusing the northeast of brazil, which is what cesar was talking about, with the northeast of the usa

these are not just in different countries but in vastly different climates in different hemispheres

the exact page you linked in your comment literally answers your question: 'due to problems with supply chains, higher interest rates and a failure to obtain the amount of tax credits the company wanted. ... High inflation, supply chain disruptions and the rising cost of capital and building materials are making projects more expensive while developers are trying to get the first large U.S. offshore wind farms opened.'

maybe you should have read it

please don't post random bullshit without respect to whether it's true or not

[monero-xmr]

It’s strange because wind is supposedly overwhelmingly cheaper and better, yet even with tons of government subsidies and political will behind it, it still can’t be built. Wouldn’t something truly more cost effective be easy to build because it’s cheaper? Clearly something doesn’t add up.

[cesarb]

> It’s strange because wind is supposedly overwhelmingly cheaper and better

There's two kinds of wind power: onshore and offshore. Their costs are different, with onshore being cheaper. The ones in Brazil are all onshore, while the one in the article you linked to is offshore. In the USA, offshore is even more complicated because of the Jones Act (it needs specialized ships to transport and erect the structures, while onshore needs only common cranes).

[kragen]

obviously enough, numerous projects that are profitable when you can finance them at 1% become unprofitable when you have to finance them at 6%, particularly when you're competing with incumbent assets financed at 1%

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

feb 02022, 0.08% interest. since august, 5.33%

nothing is easy to build in the usa; it's halfway to being zimbabwe