tl;dr: The original claim is a lot narrower than the Yahoo headline implies, and is making a comparison between future and current prices which may not be justified.
The Yahoo article is reposted in its entirety from a sponsored blog which is using it as an excuse to advertise investments. The headline "Offshore Wind in the U.K. Is 9 Times Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels" comes from this summary, and implies a very general comparison which is not actually made in the text.
The article on Carbon Brief from which that sources its information has a more specific headline:
Analysis: Record-low price for UK offshore wind is nine times cheaper than gas
This is more clearly not comparing "offshore wind" as a general energy source to "fossil fuels"; it is comparing "record-low prices" to "gas". The first sentence then clarifies the context further that we are talking about electricity generation, not any other use of gas:
A UK government auction has secured a record 11 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity that will generate electricity nine times more cheaply than current gas prices.
The article then explains in detail a process by which companies wishing to supply electricity to the UK's power grid compete to provide the lowest estimated costs in a reverse auction. The government then guarantees that they will be paid that amount, regardless of the market price:
Once projects have been built, the money they earn from generating electricity is compared with a market reference price. If this is lower than the strike price, the project receives a subsidy to make up the difference. When prices are higher, the project must pay back the extra money.
The headline is referring to two separate observations of the latest auction:
- The agreed "strike prices" for offshore wind are lower than in previous rounds of the same auction process.
- The agreed "strike prices" are significantly lower than the current price being charged by gas-fired power stations.
The latter point was originally published as "four times cheaper" - still reflected in the URL - but amended to "nine times cheaper" based on updated prices for gas. This was around the peak of the gas prices, so the point at which the comparison looked most dramatic.
Picking any current gas price is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, since the wind projects whose prices are being agreed will take several years to build.
The article attempts to justify this with a prediction that gas prices "are expected to remain elevated for a number of years". They link to this World Bank blog which makes some predictions for 2023, but not beyond. The offshore wind projects being discussed are due to start operating in 2026/27, according to a figure showing the auction results.
They also quote some sources comparing the contracts against projections of the wider energy market, but none makes an explicit statement about what they expect gas prices to be at the time this projects come online.