Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Claim Wind Turbine Energy Payback In Less Than a Year

Posted by timothy on from the answer-is-blowin'-in dept.

mdsolar (1045926) writes "Researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online." Watts Up With That? has a more skeptical take on the calculations.

8 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Sounds about right... by phrostie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a little rivalry is a good thing.

    I'm a fan of both and still believe that putting all your eggs in one basket will just lead to other problems.

  2. WUWT by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The rebuttal is from a climate-change denial site?

    What the fuck is this, Fox News? What's next, Free Republic?

    Fuck you, Timothy. Seriously, just fuck off.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:WUWT by Burz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WUWT's publisher gets Koch funding by way of the Heartland Institute... so, not "random".
      http://mediamatters.org/blog/2...

      Now I get to put my first /. mod on my (rather small) enemies list and my exclusion list: Timothy.

  3. Coal has downtime as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A 4 unit coal fired power station will be lucky to have 80% availability.

    Maintenance is continuous on those things, so they don't have 100% availability either.

    Admitted, the downtime is handled on site (3 of 4 units still run while one is down), but that's WHY there's a power grid. So the counter argument has flaws as well.

  4. Show me the money! by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this wind farm expects payback in five to eight months, we should be able to find some other wind farm (anywhere) that had payback in less than a year, right? Does anybody have a pointer to that kind of success story?

    1. Re:Show me the money! by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not what it means by payback. The article, if you read it, means that the net cost of creating the turbine in terms of electricity and minerals is re-payed in 8 months, basically the cost to the environment.. Of course the skeptical site has nothing but a large strawman using the same type of argument you are using.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Show me the money! by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They aren't. They're using an established term "energy payback". The authors wrote an analysis which will be useful to many people but used the word "payback" in a way which does not match your preconceived notion of how it should be used. For this, you label them "charlatans".

      So all the people interested in energy payback times should not be able to publish or read about it because you've claimed ownership of the word "payback" and won't license them to use it? They should use a less clear term to express their meaning because otherwise some random idiot who reads technical papers might make the leap "payback = money", despite the term "energy payback" being self explanatory?

      Had you argued that because this is "energy payback" rather than financial payback, it isn't worthy of being reported on Slashdot, I could respect your argument. Instead you label people charlatans because what they discuss is not what you're interested it.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  5. Re:Sounds about right... by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's because the power is generated as close the user as possible. Only the balance is transmitted through long cables, and then even at high voltage to prevent losses.

    --
    Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.