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. Sounds about right... by djupedal · · Score: 5, Funny

    We attended an investors meeting in Portland relating to solar power 2 yrs. ago....the panel of solar experts all kept talking about playing catch up with wind and how solar was getting it's ass kicked. Finally someone in the group asked "Can you tell us what room the wind energy investment group is meeting in...?"

    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. Re:Sounds about right... by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The wind is always blowing somewhere. We need a world grid. We already have Europe/Asia/Africa power grids. A grid that connects the world, probably along the lines of a Risk board, would let us move power from day to night, and from wind to still. There's more than enough power, we just have a storage or distribution problem to solve, and given the state of storage and the state of transportation, I think we'd be better off with world-wide distribution.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. 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.
    4. Re:Sounds about right... by flyneye · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remember those politicians are fueled by those of the Koch bros. ilk.
      I couldn't help but notice that the wind map used by Watts Up was from some random day and not representative of prevailing winds AT ALL!
      Perhaps someone there had a bit of cranial rectumitis when Googling for a wind map for their "research"( first clue, midwest winds prevail from the southwest 90% of the time and the map has north winds displayed, FAIL! I can show you an area in eastern Colorado where the wind nearly NEVER stops) I would suggest their research is not much more than jealous bunk. Anyway, to couple wind with solar power is a common solution to the fear that Watts Up is trying to instill in the reader.DUH! If it isn't windy, the sun shines most days in most places, so if one isn't producing, the other will in enough quantity that your batteries need not be drained. Further, the wind industry is producing jobs and boosting economy in rural areas that need it. Fuck the Kochs and their worry about their and their investors wallets. Plenty of other investments out there.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  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 Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Typical Slashdot. "New peer reviewed science study says something. But random guy on the internet says they're wrong!"

      --
      I was watching this thing on TV about some guy named Hitler. Someone should stop him!
    2. Re:WUWT by Anubis+IV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Does it matter what the source is, so long as it presents a testable claim?

      Besides which, their argument was mischaracterized in the summary. It's not a rebuttal of the ROI period, which is what the summary seems to suggest. Rather, they took issue with the overly-broad statement that seemed to suggest that each turbine would replace the need for traditional power sources for over 500 homes, which is, as far as I can tell, an accurate claim. Obviously, there are lulls in the wind, so while it may on average provide that much power, the lulls would mean that the traditional sources will still need to be used. What was left unsaid is that they would be used in lesser quantities.

      Yes, it's a "well duh" sort of thing, but it's also accurate. And if you don't think it is, feel free to disprove them. It wasn't exactly a complicated argument, nor a particular meaningful one, but that's also a bit of a "well duh" sort of thing, given the source. ;)