Orsted favours investing more in Taiwan, South Korea over new markets in Asia, says exec
KUALA LUMPUR, June 16 (Reuters) - Orsted (ORSTED.CO), opens new tab, the world's biggest offshore wind developer, will increase investment in Taiwan and South Korea where it has already been awarded projects, instead of expanding to new markets in Asia, a senior company official told Reuters on Monday.
Rising costs, supply chain disruptions and loss of investor confidence in offshore wind have resulted in the Danish company losing around 80% of its market value from its 2021 peak.
"I think our main focus is now to double down on the key markets that we have chosen to win in," Per Mejnert Kristensen, Orsted's Asia-Pacific president told Reuters on the sidelines of the Energy Asia 2025 conference.
Orsted, the biggest offshore developer by capacity, withdrew, opens new tab its previously set 2030 target for installed renewable capacity of 35-38 gigawatts this year, and Chief Executive Rasmus Errboe faces the challenge of reviving investor confidence and meeting the new realities of the offshore wind industry.
The company operates 10 gigawatts (GW) of offshore capacity globally, including 0.9 GW in Taiwan. It also has prospective projects in South Korea and Australia in various stages of development.
"We know that we are in an environment that can change. We need to see clearly investable projects," Kristensen said, adding that he hoped other Asian countries emulate the Taiwan government's policies.
"They have very good wind conditions for offshore wind. They have relatively shallow water, so you can put fixed bottom offshore wind parks in the ocean. And then on the political side, they had very early and clear ambition, and then they managed to make some offshore wind frameworks that made the projects investable," he said.
As a result, international investors together with local partners in Taiwan could clearly see a pathway that would make it worthwhile to invest for the next 30-40-50 years, he said.
"While the political ambition is there (in some other countries), it's not all places where they've managed to translate that into commercially viable frameworks," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
‘I feel completely drained': young professionals swamped by ‘infinite workdays'
It is 10pm in Seoul, South Korea, but Hyun Jin Lee is not heading home. The recent college graduate – an employee in the IT industry – is at a mandatory team dinner. 'I end up working late almost every day,' laughs Lee. 'By the end of the day, I feel completely drained, like I've used up all my energy [and] I can't really do anything on weekdays after work.' She begins the workday at 9.30am and ends most days at 10pm, sometimes pushing to midnight. On a single workday, Lee receives about 200 messages. With constant meetings and collaborative work filling the day, evenings are often the only time Lee has to catch up on individual tasks. This is far from unusual, according to new research. Microsoft's 2025 work trend index report found that many workers are increasingly grappling with 'infinite workdays', which start before sunrise and stretch late into the night. They are interrupted by some 270 pinging notifications along the way, about one every two minutes. Many young professionals are struggling with this new reality. 'If I pushed myself [too] hard one day, I try to leave work early the next day to get some rest,' Lee said. 'There's usually this unspoken pressure not to work from home, even if it's allowed, but I do it anyway because I have so much work, [so] commuting feels like a waste of time, and I am just exhausted.' This traditional work culture is disillusioning gen Z as 94% of the generation are prioritizing work-life balance over climbing the corporate ladder, according to research by Deloitte. Sal, a New York-based compensation specialist who declined to provide his full name for privacy reasons, believes his generation is facing new hurdles in the workplace such as rising mental health concerns, and stagnant wage increases in the face of inflating living costs. Despite these challenges, Sal, 24, said he is still expected to conform to an outdated working structure, putting in long hours without the payoff older generations had. 'We're graduating with a high amount of debt [from university] and then working a job that is burning us out, and it's not even paying for this debt,' he said. 'A lot of people my age are job hopping because they're burnt out or cannot find longevity in their roles.' Sal's first year in his current role led him to seek therapy because the workload seemed to be a 'constant queue' and he felt perpetually anxious despite 'being in a spot that is better than most people in my generation'. He was diagnosed with a general anxiety disorder. Even in South Korea, a country known for its notoriously long working hours, gen Z is rejecting this lifestyle. 'Young people really value their free time after work, and prefer having enough rest, flexible work environmentsand more freedom,' said Lee. 'The younger generation believes working overtime, too, often can sometimes be seen as a sign of poor time management, so people don't think working long hours is always a good thing.' For some, long working hours are inevitable. Others are choosing to endure them temporarily, in the hope of buying back their time later. Jane, who also declined to disclose her surname, is working two full-time jobs with the goal of escaping corporate life in four years, when she turns 30. Based in Toronto, she splits her 70-hour workweek between a 9-to-5 marketing manager role and a 5-to-11 call service representative position. Both are remote. 'My first 9 to 5 internship experience in university was so horrible that it made me very anti-career and anti-work, to the point where I wouldn't do this until I was 65,' Jane said. 'The older management clearly expected employees to make work their entire life.' In Jane's previous marketing role with a different company, she drowned in infinite workdays which ultimately led her into a spiral of depression. The management team scheduled meetings off-the-clock, chastised employees who left on time, and expected workers to check messages 24/7, including on holidays like Christmas. 'I would just be very anxious all the time, and I would lose sleep over it,' Jane explained. 'I feel like getting sucked into work and over-obsessing while thinking that that's your life is definitely the wrong approach. Work-life balance is so important.' Jane experienced burnout numerous times since entering the workforce after college. However, she now sets firm working boundaries and communicates her bandwidth to her team. She refuses to work off-the-clock and prioritizes time with loved ones instead. 'What I've realized is that the only way to fix burnout is to leave the company, because if the environment makes you stressed, you cannot fully mentally protect yourself,' Jane said. 'I'm working to live, not living to work.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The West must rediscover its ruthless streak in business
The competition is brutal. Lots of companies are getting eliminated. And even the biggest players are struggling to make any money. It might sound like a description of a ruthlessly capitalist economy. But in fact, it is a pretty accurate summary of China's booming electric vehicle (EV) industry. In truth, the UK, along with the rest of the struggling developed economies, should learn a lesson from an unlikely place. What China shows us is that competition is what drives economic growth, and picking 'national champions' and propping up failing industries only destroys it. Sure, in almost every other respect we would not want to be run like China – but the West needs to rediscover its ruthless streak, because that is what works. The Chinese EV industry is the most intensely competitive market in the world. We may only be familiar with a handful of the big names such as BYD in this country, but there are now an estimated 130 different brands fighting it out for every sale in China. With a mixture of regional players and companies moving into the market from other industries – such as the phone manufacturer Xiaomi – China has more domestic carmakers than anywhere else in the world. The result? EVs are very cheap in China, with popular models such as BYD's Seagull selling for just 58,000 yuan (£6,000), an incredibly low price for a well-made new car. The overall market has boomed, with more than six million EVs sold last year. And it is characterised by rapid innovation, with companies constantly adding new features, and making huge breakthroughs in battery technology, such as BYD's five-minute charger. Lots of people are still kidding themselves that Chinese EVs are taking a larger and larger share of the Western market because they are being 'dumped' by the state. Actually it is because they make good cars at very competitive prices, and, not very surprisingly, customers like that. True, the Chinese government may be worried that the market is getting out of control. Last week, it issued a warning to 16 of the biggest companies, including BYD, Nio and SAIC (which owns the British brand MG) not to let price competition become so ferocious that they all end up destroying each other. No one really thinks that 100-plus car companies will survive, or that it would be healthy for them to do so. Plenty of them will go bust, and many more will be steered into mergers by government officials before they drown in red ink. Three or four giant conglomerates will emerge, much as they did in the emerging auto industries in the United States and Europe a hundred years ago. The important point, however, is this. China is allowing a Darwinian struggle for survival to decide who will be the winners and losers. We see that most dramatically in the emerging auto industry, which has emerged from nowhere to take on the giants of Japan, the US and Europe in little more than a decade. And yet we see much the same process in phone manufacturing where dozens of brands such as Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo and Vivo have emerged in a very short space of time; in airlines, where there are now dozens of domestic carriers, and the likes of China Eastern are emerging as major international players; or in televisions, where brands such as Hisense and Skyworth dominate the industry. The list goes on. At the macro level, China may be dominated by top-down state planning, with soft loans dished out to favoured entrepreneurs, and targets set for chosen industries. But at the micro level, it is also characterised by intense competition, with companies slugging it out ferociously for every sale. Sure, it will be a messy and ugly process. But we can be sure of one thing. The handful of auto companies that survive will be making great cars at rock bottom prices, and will be virtually impossible to compete with. The same will be true for phones, or consumer electronics, or almost any other industry. China may be notionally a Communist state. But it also believes that competition is what gets results. The contrast with the West is painful. Our political and industrial leaders are obsessed with endless rounds of consolidation, with creating 'national champions' and with forging partnerships with the government to 'pick the winners' in the 'industries of the future'. And we are spending more time and money on propping up declining industries, such as the recently renationalised British Steel, than we are on creating new industries. But with the sole exception of Airbus, just about every national champion that has been created in Europe over the past 50 years has turned into an expensive failure, while the record in the US since Joe Biden, the then president, launched his massively expensive programme of industrial subsidies is unlikely to prove any better. In almost every respect, we would not want to be like China. We would not want to copy its dominant one-party state; nor its lack of democracy; nor is mass surveillance of the population; nor its appalling record on human rights. And yet it does get one big thing right. As its booming, yet also brutally competitive EV industry has shown, it also believes in competition, and in forcing companies to compete for every sale. It is the only way to make sure that better products are made at a lower price, and in the end that is what succeeds. The West knew that 100 years ago, but has largely forgotten it since then. In reality, if the UK, the rest of Europe and the US are to have any chance of standing up to the growing economic might of China we need to rediscover the streak of ruthlessness that drives business. If we don't, EVs will just be the start – and we will keep on losing the lead in more major industries.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK could boost growth by radically reshaping the Treasury: Peacock
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - UK finance minister Rachel Reeves insists higher economic growth is her top priority, but the government's current plan to address the country's chronically low investment is unlikely to be ambitious enough. What may be needed is a structural rethink of the finance ministry itself. Reeves has adjusted her fiscal rules to allow for an extra 113 billion pounds of investment over five years, while remaining committed to ensuring debt falls as a proportion of national income within five years. In the UK government's latest spending plan unveiled last week, she started to allocate the extra capital to areas including defence, housing, transport infrastructure and a new nuclear power plant. Even so, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, an independent fiscal watchdog, UK capital spending will climb to a peak of 3.9% of GDP in 2027/2028 but then fall back in the following two years, continuing a limp public investment record stretching back to the global financial crisis. Reeves is searching for other growth levers, including deregulation and increased UK investment by British pension funds. Additionally, the government is seeking to streamline planning laws and taking steps – albeit small ones – to rebuild trade relations with the European Union. But the government is fundamentally hamstrung by its fiscal rules. Departments are currently required to go cap in hand to the finance ministry to learn what they can spend and then undergo frequent check-ins to see if the fiscal position has deteriorated, which could lead to spending cuts or tax rises. This is not a system that will produce a viable long-term growth strategy. The International Monetary Fund – not known for being a fan of unfettered state spending – said last month that the UK should consider taking a more pragmatic approach to avoid having to change policy too often. The IMF suggested minor breaches should not require instant corrective action and that assessment of the rules should be done no more than once a year. But something more radical is likely required for Britain to break out of the low growth, low productivity loop it has been trapped in for almost two decades. Over this period, debt as a proportion of GDP has almost tripled while the national tax take has held steady, suggesting that part of the problem might be with the way the finance ministry operates. The machinery of government needs recalibration to focus more systematically on productive investment that can ultimately help to drive debt down over time. Reeves is trying on this score. She has asked the OBR to assess the long-term impact of capital spending decisions to determine whether they could improve public finances. She is also changing the Treasury's "Green Book" rules that dictate approval of capital projects, shifting from a narrow cost-benefit analysis to an assessment of the impact on broader strategic goals such as lifting poorer regions of the UK. However, a fundamental issue remains. The Treasury still wields huge influence within the UK government, and when growth falls short, the impulse is typically to tighten the fiscal screws, thereby worsening growth prospects. The Institute for Government, a UK-based think tank, has argued that the economic heft of the prime minister's team needs strengthening as a counterbalance. EU nations – Germany, Spain and the Netherlands among others – have both a finance ministry and a separate, growth-focused economy ministry at the heart of government. Calls for a dramatic change in the Finance Ministry are growing. Maurice Glasman, who heads "Blue Labour", a campaign to reverse what it says is the Labour Party's abandonment of working-class communities, advocates abolishing the Treasury, scrapping fiscal rules and pursuing heavy infrastructure investment. While Glasman's prescription has little chance of being implemented in full, his ideas could gain influence within a government threatened by the rise of Nigel Farage's populist Reform UK party, which is targeting traditional Labour voters. Recent opinion polls have given Reform UK 27%-32% public support compared with 22%-24% for Labour. Ensuring public finances do not spiral out of control is, of course, critical for any government. And less oversight by the Treasury could result in wasted taxpayer money spent on unproductive investments that appeal to the political base. Moreover, the bond market has not reacted well to perceived UK fiscal imprudence in recent years, as demonstrated by the rapid demise of Liz Truss's premiership of 2022. But bond investors are apt to respond more positively to a long-term, investment-led approach to reducing public borrowing, even if it involves some upfront spending. It helps that the UK currently faces less political uncertainty than some of its peers and is in the middle of the pack in terms of developed market debt burdens. Reeves appears to understand that an investment-led structural reset is required to jump-start the UK growth engine. But to make that a reality, the first change may need to be rethinking the relationship between the Treasury and the prime minister's office. The opinions expressed here are those of Mike Peacock, the former head of communications at the Bank of England and a former senior editor at Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
