3 ms·

What a long row of impressive numbers. But what counts, is only one single number: how long does it take for the wind turbine to produce more power than it took

by _ph_ 10y ago

What a long row of impressive numbers. But what counts, is only one single number: how long does it take for the wind turbine to produce more power than it took to produce. And as far as I know, it is a rather small amount of its life time. After that it starts to improve our carbon balance. And all of this does not take into respect, that with the raising ratio of our energy being produced by wind or solar, the production of windmills and solar cells becomes more and more carbon free too.

CydeWeys 10y ago
Exactly. This litany of numbers without meaningful comparison is just an attempt at obfuscation. Of course wind turbines require resources to construct; no one ever claimed otherwise. But they create a lot more energy over their lifetime than they cost to create, which is the whole reason they're built at all. And as impressive as those figures sound, they pale in comparison to how much fossil fuels are being burnt simply to provide energy, at a complete dead loss, with no future energy dividends paid whatsoever (as you'd get with wind turbines). Constructing turbines is like buying stock in a good company, whereas burning fossil fuels for energy needs is like frittering away all your income and living paycheck to paycheck.
- tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
  Actually, the little point that undermines this litany is buried right in the middle: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year." So, do turbines last more than a year? Much more than a year? Ok then!
  - _ph_ 10y ago
    I missed that in the huge bunch of less relevant numbers. This makes the article an even bigger troll, trying to hide the true number. Also the talk about "intermittent" is quite misleading. Yes wind power depends on the wind. But that is quite well predictable in those places, where you would install a wind generator. With a reasonable electrical grid, this can be quite well managed.
cheeko1234 10y ago
Yup. A lot of good answers on this quora page: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-carbon-released-from-the-manufacturing-of-a-wind-turbine-is-far-greater-than-the-carbon-saved-by-substituting-wind-power-for-carbon-based-power https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-carbon-released-fr... "US researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest. Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, 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." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.h...
kumarski 10y ago
He takes into account what you're saying. "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies." As an Indian engineer, I'm waiting for westerners to pony up and let us have Nuclear energy instead of toying around with Solar and Wind hype for the developing world. It just doesn't cut it and uranium and nuclear blocking IP keep us in the stone ages, so does western hype around solar/wind. We needed Uranium yesterday. 300M Indians went to sleep last night without electricity and we have a similar number of farmers b/c wind and solar don't provide us with escape velocity baseload to build out nitrogen and steel feedstock electricity. Ahemm.... I feel somewhat extremely alone in Silicon Valley and hackernews in my views on this. Not sure if anyone else in here grew up around farmer suicides and high infant mortality, but it'd make you feel a little bit of angst toward all the solar/wind hype as your lithosphere crumbles.....to lignite 50% ash coal burning through your soil chemistry and ravaging your air to make up the difference of energy shortages.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  Why do you claim the west does not let you have nuclear? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India there is nuclear power in India and it is growing? Whether this is the most economic (not mention safe) way of extending the electricity supply is another question. As far as I am aware, India is quite aggressively investing in solar too. In sunny regions, solar is way cheaper than nuclear already. And the same applies for wind, especially in costal regions.

by _ph_ 10y ago

CydeWeys 10y ago

Exactly. This litany of numbers without meaningful comparison is just an attempt at obfuscation. Of course wind turbines require resources to construct; no one ever claimed otherwise. But they create a lot more energy over their lifetime than they cost to create, which is the whole reason they're built at all. And as impressive as those figures sound, they pale in comparison to how much fossil fuels are being burnt simply to provide energy, at a complete dead loss, with no future energy dividends paid whatsoever (as you'd get with wind turbines). Constructing turbines is like buying stock in a good company, whereas burning fossil fuels for energy needs is like frittering away all your income and living paycheck to paycheck.

tgjsrkghruksd 10y ago
Actually, the little point that undermines this litany is buried right in the middle: "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year." So, do turbines last more than a year? Much more than a year? Ok then!
- _ph_ 10y ago
  I missed that in the huge bunch of less relevant numbers. This makes the article an even bigger troll, trying to hide the true number. Also the talk about "intermittent" is quite misleading. Yes wind power depends on the wind. But that is quite well predictable in those places, where you would install a wind generator. With a reasonable electrical grid, this can be quite well managed.

cheeko1234 10y ago

Yup. A lot of good answers on this quora page: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-carbon-released-from-the-manufacturing-of-a-wind-turbine-is-far-greater-than-the-carbon-saved-by-substituting-wind-power-for-carbon-based-power https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-carbon-released-fr... "US researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest. Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, 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." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140616093317.h...

kumarski 10y ago

He takes into account what you're saying. "Undoubtedly, a well-sited and well-built wind turbine would generate as much energy as it embodies in less than a year. However, all of it will be in the form of intermittent electricity—while its production, installation, and maintenance remain critically dependent on specific fossil energies." As an Indian engineer, I'm waiting for westerners to pony up and let us have Nuclear energy instead of toying around with Solar and Wind hype for the developing world. It just doesn't cut it and uranium and nuclear blocking IP keep us in the stone ages, so does western hype around solar/wind. We needed Uranium yesterday. 300M Indians went to sleep last night without electricity and we have a similar number of farmers b/c wind and solar don't provide us with escape velocity baseload to build out nitrogen and steel feedstock electricity. Ahemm.... I feel somewhat extremely alone in Silicon Valley and hackernews in my views on this. Not sure if anyone else in here grew up around farmer suicides and high infant mortality, but it'd make you feel a little bit of angst toward all the solar/wind hype as your lithosphere crumbles.....to lignite 50% ash coal burning through your soil chemistry and ravaging your air to make up the difference of energy shortages.

_ph_ 10y ago
Why do you claim the west does not let you have nuclear? According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India there is nuclear power in India and it is growing? Whether this is the most economic (not mention safe) way of extending the electricity supply is another question. As far as I am aware, India is quite aggressively investing in solar too. In sunny regions, solar is way cheaper than nuclear already. And the same applies for wind, especially in costal regions.