Ørsted, the Danish global leader in offshore wind, has softened its stance on sourcing Chinese wind turbines and repeatedly signalled openness to the idea, drawing widespread attention across Europe’s wind industry. Multiple industry analysts argue this shift is far more than a simple procurement consideration—it serves as a wake-up call for Europe’s struggling domestic wind turbine manufacturing sector.
As Europe’s most prominent wind developer, Ørsted’s equipment purchasing strategy is widely viewed as an industry bellwether. Back in January, Danish media obtained an internal review document from the company revealing it was assessing the feasibility of deploying Chinese turbines as early as 2029. During public appearances in May and June, Ørsted’s CEO never ruled out the possibility entirely. He only stated there were no immediate plans to buy Chinese hardware, while confirming the firm would keep close track of Chinese turbine technology and market developments.
The root of Ørsted’s shifting stance lies in the growing comprehensive competitiveness of Chinese wind turbines, a view shared by leading industry analysts. Endri Lico, Principal Analyst at Wood Mackenzie, notes that European wind developers are increasingly turning to Chinese original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Chinese turbine makers hold major advantages thanks to fully developed domestic supply chains, ample production capacity and temporary overcapacity-driven benefits. Their products come with substantially lower manufacturing costs and far faster delivery schedules compared to Western counterparts. Additionally, Chinese firms iterate high-capacity turbine technology at a quicker pace and lead in unit power ratings, enabling overseas projects to cut costs and boost efficiency across the board.
Nevertheless, Ørsted remains cautious and hesitant to finalise any procurement deals outright. Per Hansen, Investment Economist at Nordic financial firm Nordnet, explains this wariness stems from the company’s unique ownership structure and risk management imperatives. Majority-owned by the Danish state, Ørsted is not a purely commercial enterprise, and its decisions must balance profitability, domestic manufacturing jobs and regional energy policies. Most of its flagship projects are located across Europe, requiring the firm to maintain partnerships with local supply chains. Furthermore, as a state-backed energy player, it must steer clear of public backlash and policy risks that could arise from hasty sourcing decisions, limiting its commercial evaluation to prudent boundaries.
According to Per Hansen, Ørsted’s open stance carries significant benchmark implications for the whole sector. He stresses that should the European industry frontrunner move forward with Chinese turbine orders, it would send a powerful signal: Europe’s domestic wind equipment competitiveness is in steady decline. Europe’s long-held dominance in wind technology and manufacturing is being rapidly eroded by China, weakening the continent’s global influence in high-end wind manufacturing. Uneven competitive conditions in international markets compound the pressure on Western manufacturers, which have long grappled with cost and capacity constraints.
Industry observers also suggest Ørsted’s softer rhetoric contains a strategic bargaining motive—to push European turbine suppliers to upgrade product quality and slash prices. Ultimately, the move aims to compel Europe’s domestic supply chain to accelerate cost reduction and rebuild its competitive edge.
