> GE wouldn't downsize.

"GE’s renewables segment is going to generate between $15 billion and $16 billion in revenue this year, and onshore wind will make up the vast majority, roughly 70%."

The returns are fine and growing, but GE is restructuring, and as the article points out, facing stiff competition and supply chain issues as well. Apparently they think losing 20% of their staff will help, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how long it takes a new tower to become profitable.

> With ROCE like that

There are several businesses in the chain.

The manufacturer (GE), and sometimes component manufacturers, the project lead/developer, financiers, insurers, the engineering lead, and sometimes specialists, the subcontractors who do the physical work. And probably more.

It's not uncommon for some of these to be financially stressed at times in PV. Not the financiers, though.

Jérôme Guillet has a series on financing offshore wind[1]. On-shore is along the same lines; I'm sure you can adjust.

1.https://wfo-global.org/financing-offshore-wind-part-1/

People are trying build green power like crazy. But it's not like you can just create a power generation facility anywhere you want. It has to hook into the transmission system. Because this is somewhat hard to organize, you need a certain scale of investment to do it. You also of course need an area with enough wind and demand for the energy. And land you can use.

On shore wind is not as cost effective as solar or off shore wind either.

Finland is having a boom, 70% increase in built wind power last year and 70% this year so far, and I checked the projects completed or completing this year. Most are Vestas and Nordex, some GE, and few outliers (Siemens, Eventus, Cypress one project each).

GE is not the only builder. Siemens for example is a big company that is building a lot of wind turbines.