China Seizes Offshore Wind Market with Aggressive Undercutting, Yet No Checks Despite ‘National Security Threat’ Warnings

Europe Alarmed by Security Risks and Unfair Competition from Chinese Wind Firms
China Tightens Grip on Global Market with Price Competitiveness, Europe’s Share in Decline
Korea’s Nakwol Offshore Project Draws Security Red Flags over Illegal Chinese Vessel Deployment

Despite mounting warnings that Chinese offshore wind companies pose national security risks, effective safeguards remain absent. In Germany, the Defense Strategy Institute raised alarms that a firm founded by a former People’s Liberation Army officer could compromise the grid, yet no substantive measures have been enacted. In Korea, a $14.5 billion project led by a Chinese state-owned enterprise continues despite similar controversies. With Chinese players commanding more than half of the global wind turbine market through price undercutting, critics argue that national security concerns are being neutralized by economic imperatives.

Germany’s 270MW Project Draws Security Alarms from Beijing Links

According to Offshore Magazine on the 21st (local time), Germany’s Defense Strategy Institute (GIDS) issued a classified report in January warning that Chinese participation in critical offshore infrastructure could trigger severe security risks. Yet the German government has not suspended or restricted the project.

Specifically, Berlin has refrained from halting the “Waterkant Project” in the North Sea, even after GIDS’ warning. Earlier this month, the Economy Ministry unveiled a supply-chain diversification plan to cut reliance on China for critical offshore wind components by 2035. Measures include sourcing 30% of permanent magnets from non-Chinese suppliers by 2030 and 50% by 2035, while building strategic partnerships with allies such as Australia and Japan. However, no mention was made of halting Waterkant itself.

Proposals from GIDS to introduce exclusion clauses in procurement and offshore energy laws have not materialized into legislation, largely due to industry backlash. Energy giants like EnBW and RWE oppose a China ban, warning that Germany’s 2030 targets of 30GW offshore and 115GW onshore capacity will be unachievable without Chinese inputs. With China now controlling 65% of the global turbine market, Germany’s dilemma underscores how European concerns over Beijing’s advance have not translated into tangible curbs.

EU Moves to Block Beijing’s Clean Energy Takeover on Grounds of Unfair Trade

Berlin’s predicament reflects a broader European unease. The European Commission last year launched probes into Chinese turbine suppliers suspected of unfair competition via state subsidies. Investigations cover projects in Spain, Greece, France, Romania, and Bulgaria. Meanwhile, the UK, Poland, the Netherlands, and Lithuania have already imposed curbs, while Norway recently rejected Mingyang’s bid for an offshore wind tender.

Brussels also intends to scrutinize subsidies granted to Chinese wind suppliers as part of a broader strategy to shield European clean-tech firms. EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager drew parallels to solar power, noting that less than 3% of panels installed in Europe are domestically produced. “We cannot allow what happened with solar to repeat itself in electric vehicles, wind, and semiconductors,” she stressed.

NATO has likewise elevated the issue. At last December’s annual energy security roundtable, WindEurope CEO Giles Dickson urged stronger protection of Europe’s offshore wind infrastructure. “Modern turbines have 300 sensors. Their data must be stored and processed only in Europe and allied states,” he warned, citing cyber and data security vulnerabilities. NATO foreign ministers also accused Russia and China of destabilizing through sabotage, cyberattacks, and energy coercion.

Underlying Europe’s hesitation, however, is stark economic reality. Analysts project China will capture over 80% of new offshore wind installations in the Asia-Pacific over the next five years. Wood Mackenzie data show Mingyang now ranks as the world’s fifth-largest turbine manufacturer with 9% global share, while European firms’ combined share has dropped from 55% in 2018 to 42% in 2022. Chinese turbines, priced 50% lower and offered with deferred payment terms, are increasingly favored by German developers. Industry leaders argue that without Chinese inputs, Berlin’s offshore expansion goals are unattainable.

Chinese Contractor Caught Deploying Unauthorized Barge at Korea’s Nakwol Project

South Korea faces similar dilemmas. State-owned China Energy Engineering Corporation (CEEC) is the EPC contractor for the 365MW Nakwol Offshore Wind Project off Yeonggwang, Jeolla Province, under a $14.5 billion contract. Of nine offshore projects selected for government support last year and this year, eight will use foreign turbines, two of which are Chinese. Domestic turbine maker Unison has even formed a joint venture with Mingyang to develop a 10MW-class offshore turbine, with ambitions of securing over 25% market share.

Seoul’s energy targets are ambitious—18.3GW by 2030 and 40.7GW by 2038—but installed offshore capacity remains a mere 90MW. With construction costs now reaching $5 billion per gigawatt, achieving the 2030 goal would require more than $70 billion in private investment. Yet with procurement still cost-driven and no restrictions on Chinese suppliers, Beijing’s footprint is expected to expand. Industry insiders warn that this risks hollowing out Korea’s industrial ecosystem while entrenching reliance on China.

Security concerns are also mounting. Earlier this year, suspicions arose that CEEC had illegally deployed the massive Chinese crane barge “ShunYi 1600” at the Nakwol site. Measuring 123.6 meters long, 58 meters wide, and weighing nearly 30,000 tons, the vessel was engaged in turbine foundation installation. Under Korean law, foreign vessels cannot undertake cargo transport or construction work in domestic waters without clearance from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Yet CEEC reportedly circumvented rules by declaring the ship as “construction equipment.” The Mokpo Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Authority later confirmed the vessel had docked at a non-designated port, deemed the move illegal, and referred the case to the Coast Guard. Legal battles among stakeholders are now intensifying.