Five Chinese manufacturers (Goldwind, Envision, Windey, Mingyang, SANY) took the entire top five in 2025 capacity installations for the first time, with Goldwind alone installing 29.7 GW and the next four adding 21.8 GW, 19.8 GW, 18.6 GW and 15.1 GW respectively [S3]. Western OEMs remain dominant outside China, with Vestas at 12.9 GW, Nordex 7.7 GW, GE Vernova 5.8 GW, Siemens Gamesa 5.4 GW and Envision 4.2 GW for the international market [S3].
On a cumulative basis, Vestas passed 201 GW of total wind installations by the end of 2025, Goldwind 163 GW, Siemens Gamesa 148 GW, GE Vernova 125 GW and Envision 103 GW, making Envision the fifth manufacturer to cross the 100 GW milestone [S3]. Chinese OEM share of global wind installations rose from 30% in 2017 to about 70% in 2025, with the top five OEMs controlling just over 50% of global capacity and the top 15 holding 95% of the market [S5].
Installed Capacity Trajectory: From 3.1 GW to a Projected 111 GW
Global offshore wind capacity grew from 3.1 GW in 2010 to roughly 79.4 GW by the end of 2024 [S10]. Cumulative figures compiled by Polaris Market Research put the trajectory at 3.3 GW in 2011, 11.5 GW in 2015, 22.1 GW in 2018, 27.3 GW in 2019 and 32.5 GW in 2020 [S4]. The market is projected to reach 111.07 GW in 2026 and 291.63 GW by 2031 at a 21.30% CAGR [S8].
The U.S. Department of Energy reports that $2.1 billion was funded in 2023 into the domestic offshore wind industry to develop ports, vessels, supply chain and transmission, a one-year figure that underlines how far behind U.S. supply chain investment trails Asian and European deployments [S2]. China alone installed 127 GW of new wind capacity in 2025, equal to about 80% of the global 165+ GW additions, with installations ex-China continuing to fall year-on-year [S5].
Manufacturer Comparison: Chinese New-Build Leadership vs Western Offshore Backlog
The headline 2025 split is sharp: 18,291 units installed by Chinese manufacturers, equal to 67% of the global market share, and seven Chinese OEMs inside the top installers globally [S3]. WWEA's 2025 Annual Report pegs China's share of new wind turbine installations even higher at 77% in 2025, up from 72% in 2024, 65% in 2023 and 58% in 2022 [S7].
But the offshore-only picture is different. For offshore wind, Western OEMs historically dominate because the high-capacity, direct-drive and grid-forming requirements of large European and U.S. projects have been Vestas' (V236-15.0 MW) and Siemens Gamesa's (SG 14-222 DD) core market. Envision remains the only Chinese OEM in the international offshore top five, and the only Chinese supplier to consistently bid into European and Taiwanese offshore tenders. The 178 GW of wind capacity mechanically installed in 2025 represents a 40% year-on-year increase, and 28,395 new turbines went up worldwide, up 23% on the prior year [S3].
A useful comparison: a 100 m offshore blade takes roughly 2,700 man-hours to manufacture, with Western labour at about $50/hour versus $7/hour in China, and a China-to-Europe shipment adds about $20,000 on a $200,000/day vessel, less than 4% of the cost of making the blade [S5]. For offshore monopile and jacket foundations, the same cost gap does not exist, since fabrication is largely regional and the freight cost of a 1,000 t steel structure dwarfs the labour saving. That structural difference is why Chinese OEMs are still trying to crack the offshore segment while owning onshore.
Supply Chain Bottlenecks: Vessels, Foundations, Grid-Forming Controls
Offshore wind is far more capital-intensive than onshore: high capital outlay and longer development cycles, including supply chain logistics, maritime construction and grid connection, are still the main brakes on the segment [S4]. Wind turbine OEM margins averaged only 4.8% over the past decade for Vestas, with the broader market operating at a Herfindahl Hirschman Index of about 830 and a top-five share of just over 50% [S5].
Capacity additions ex-China have been falling even as global numbers rise, because the bottleneck has shifted from turbine supply to installation vessels, monopile foundries and high-voltage subsea cable [S5]. For 2026 deployments, the binding constraints are WTIV (wind turbine installation vessel) days, SOV (service operation vessel) availability, and HV subsea cable factory throughput, with three to four years of lead time still standard on 220 kV+ AC export cable. Project-level capex therefore benefits turbine OEMs with their own installation fleet, which is one reason Siemens Energy and Vestas have pushed turnkey service-and-warranty contracts, a model outside the typical Chinese OEM offshore playbook. Industrial automation suppliers like ABB and Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction are cited among the major players operating in the global offshore wind energy market, supplying converter stations, HVDC platforms and jacket foundations [S4].
Offshore Wind vs Onshore: Who It Is For, Who It Is Not
Offshore wind is a fit for coastal grids with high-capacity-factor targets (typically 45-55%, versus 25-35% onshore), deep-water access (fixed-bottom to roughly 60 m, floating beyond), and willingness to absorb a 2-3 year permitting and 4-7 year build cycle [S4]. It is not a fit for inland or shallow-continental-shelf markets, where onshore wind delivers lower LCOE, nor for markets without an installed vessel fleet or a regional cable factory. The 260 GW and 590 GW figures shown by Polaris Market Research for 2030 and 2040 represent aggressive, IRENA-aligned expansion scenarios rather than contracted capacity, so they should be read as policy targets, not procurement visibility [S4].
The main 2026 options for a developer sit in three buckets: (1) a 14-18 MW direct-drive turbine from a Western OEM (Vestas, Siemens Gamesa, GE Vernova), backed by a 10-15 year full-service agreement and preferred for European and U.S. project finance, (2) a 12-16 MW geared or direct-drive turbine from a Chinese OEM (Mingyang, Goldwind, Envision) at materially lower unit cost but with less offshore track record outside Asia, and (3) a floating substructure solution (semi-submersible, spar, TLP) for sites past roughly 60 m water depth, where the turbine OEM choice is separate from the floater design basis. Selection criteria typically weigh LCOE, AEP, vessel-availability, bankability, and whether the OEM can provide grid-forming inverter control for projects with low synchronous generation, a requirement that started appearing in European tenders in 2024-2025.
Investment, Standards and Sourcing
Bloomberg BNEF estimates more than USD 13.3 trillion will be spent on new production assets, with wind and solar expected to account for half of global electricity generation by 2050 [S4]. The market value of offshore wind was $42.3 billion in 2025, projected at $45.2 billion in 2026 and $93.5 billion by 2033 [S6]. The broader wind turbine market is sized at $118.2 billion in 2025 with a forecast 8.4% CAGR to $264.6 billion by 2035 [S9].
Procurement, installation and condition-monitoring decisions in offshore wind are now anchored to a clear standards stack: IEC 61400-1 and IEC 61400-3-1 for design of onshore and offshore wind turbines, IEC 61400-25 for SCADA communications, and IEC 61400-27 for electrical simulation models. Floating turbines fall under IEC 61400-3-2, a standalone floating-wind design standard that has matured over the past two design cycles. The maintenance-engineering view of wind-turbine drivetrain condition monitoring relies on vibration, oil-particle and acoustic-emission data, which is where the industrial-automation supply chain (pressure transmitters in hydraulic pitch systems, flow meters in cooling loops, and PLCs in nacelle controllers) attaches to the OEM market share question.
For the immediate next procurement window, three signals are worth tracking: (a) whether Chinese OEMs win a top-tier European offshore tender in the 2026 FID window, (b) whether floating-pilot projects (Hywind Tampen, WindFloat Atlantic follow-ons, and Asian demonstrators) reach FID with non-Chinese supply chain or pivot to Mingyang/Envision floating designs, and (c) the 2026 commissioning status of U.S. projects whose offtake contracts were renegotiated in 2024-2025, since that will set the effective U.S. offshore capacity for 2027-2028.
Spec-level background on the components involved: pressure transmitter, flow meter, and industrial valve.
This topic is covered further in Laser Screed Selection for Road Maintenance: 2026 Spec Map.