This post was first published on the M.A. Vedøy AS LinkedIn company page. It expands on a discussion about Europe’s offshore wind strategy and its reliance on China, exploring the key challenges and strategic choices ahead.

The Offshore Wind Dilemma

Can Europe meet its offshore wind goals without relying on China? With global clean energy investment surpassing $2.1 trillion in 2024, Europe faces a critical challenge: funding shortfalls and supply chain constraints, while China dominates wind manufacturing with state-backed subsidies.

Europe’s offshore wind growth hinges on two conflicting priorities—rapid deployment and strategic autonomy. While China’s manufacturing scale and cost efficiencies could accelerate expansion, concerns over industrial dependency, geopolitical risks, and economic resilience cannot be ignored.

The OECD estimates that China accounted for over 60% of global government support for wind and solar manufacturing between 2015 and 2022, shaping the industry through subsidies rather than pure market forces. This raises a fundamental question:

Should Europe prioritize independence, or collaborate with China while managing risks?

The Offshore Wind Challenge in Europe

Offshore wind is at the heart of Europe’s plan to triple its green energy capacity by 2030, a crucial milestone for achieving net zero. However, European investment is slowing—down 10% in the EU and 68% in the UK—raising concerns over financing and supply chain resilience.

Meanwhile, China invested $818 billion in clean energy in 2024, surpassing Europe, the U.S., and the UK combined. This dominance is driven by:

• State-backed financing and production subsidies
• Rapid project deployment with fewer regulatory bottlenecks
• A vertically integrated supply chain that reduces costs and increases efficiency

In contrast, European wind manufacturers struggle with:

• Complex regulatory hurdles that delay projects
• Higher production costs due to labor and environmental regulations
• Fragmented industrial policies across member states

Recent developments highlight these competing priorities. Italy’s agreement with Chinese turbine manufacturer Ming Yang to establish local production sparked immediate concerns in Brussels over foreign subsidies. While such partnerships could accelerate Europe’s wind rollout, they also expose Europe’s vulnerability to external market pressures.

Three Strategic Paths for Europe’s Offshore Wind Future

As Europe navigates this crossroads, three broad strategies emerge—each with distinct implications for energy security and industrial resilience.

Option 1: Full Independence—Building Europe’s Own Supply Chain

Europe could invest heavily in domestic wind manufacturing, prioritizing local content rules, subsidies, and R&D. This would reduce dependence on China but would require significant upfront capital and could slow deployment due to higher costs.

Pros: Strengthens energy security and industrial competitiveness.
Cons: Higher costs, longer lead times, and potential supply chain bottlenecks.

Option 2: Strategic Collaboration—Leveraging China’s Strengths

By partnering with Chinese suppliers, Europe could benefit from lower costs and faster scaling. However, this approach risks over-reliance on a geopolitical competitor, with potential exposure to trade restrictions or policy shifts.

Pros: Faster deployment and cost reduction.
Cons: Increases long-term dependency and weakens Europe’s industrial base.

Option 3: A Dual Approach—Using China to Build European Capacity

A hybrid strategy could involve leveraging Chinese technology in the short term while gradually scaling European production. This would require carefully managed partnerships, strong governance, and clear industrial policy incentives.

Pros: Balances speed, cost, and independence.
Cons: Requires strict oversight and long-term policy alignment.

Strategic Pragmatism: Finding the Right Balance

With European investment lagging and China’s dominance growing, avoiding Chinese technology entirely is neither practical nor strategic. China’s scale, efficiency, and cost advantages are undeniable—but over-reliance could undermine Europe’s long-term energy security.

The best path forward? Strategic pragmatism.

• Leverage Chinese technology selectively to accelerate deployment.
• Strengthen Europe’s own supply chain through policy support and investment.
• Enforce strict governance on partnerships to avoid dependency risks.

This is not a binary choice between China and Europe—it is about shaping industrial policy to ensure long-term autonomy while maintaining affordability.

The key question remains:

Can Europe meet its offshore wind and climate targets without China—and if so, at what cost?

Would love to hear your thoughts—what do you see as the best path forward?