4 ms·

The material inputs for the lifetime of the project are roughly 27 t/GWh, 1/3 of which is metal. It shows how terribly poor wind energy systems are.

trhway 9y ago
what happens to that metal afterwards? wouldn't it continue to be metal which can scrapped and reused? the reuse/remelt is much more energy efficient then original production you seem to allude to.
- Flavius 9y ago
  I guess he's talking about the initial investment. Not sure how this compares to solar. I know that solar would be much better, but in some places it's not an option.
  - beefman 9y ago
    Solar can get to ~ 3 t/GWh under ideal circumstances (panels only). With balance of plant (mounting hardware, transmission infrastructure etc) it's at least twice that (and about the same as onshore wind).
- beefman 9y ago
  Yes, metal can be recycled. It's still more energy-intensive than concrete. Materials intensity is a pretty good figure of merit for energy systems, and energy intensity is an ideal one.
  - azernik 9y ago
    Concrete's CO2 emissions are, however, doubled by the chemical processes used to make cement.
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      Which is relevant in what way? The amount of concrete is small in relative terms, so doubling a small quantity is still a small quantity. A forest fire will put out significantly more CO2 and they occur quite frequently around the globe. If you want us to take your comment seriously, you will need to show that the CO2 emissions would be on some significant level.
      - azernik 9y ago
        Concrete (specifically, the cement used to produce it) accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-c...
golem14 9y ago
Just out of curiosity, how does a coal / nuclear plant compare ? Those are neither small, nor made from cotton candy.
- beefman 9y ago
  You can have a look at my LCA page[1]. The Sanyo figures are obsolete and I should update them soon. The coal figure is double-counted but hopefully that's clear. The LCA literature, including this page, is quite seriously flawed. But it should be a good starting point. [1] http://lumma.org/energy/lca/ http://lumma.org/energy/lca/
  - golem14 9y ago
    I looked at that site, but the data here is hard to verify, and the methodology is a bit unclear. E.g., coal energy only has a coal material flow, the wind turbine only a steel material flow. I'm not even sure if that means that the turbine has a life expectancy of so many GW and then is considered evaporated. I suppose coal plans are made of cotton candy, or the material per GWh is negligible ? Trying to figure this out, a nuclear plant might have 1GW capacity and a lifetime of 30 years, so ≈260,000 hours. [1] seems to suggest a plant would need 40,000t of steel, or about 0.16t steel/GWh over the lifetime, with coal plans using over twice that. My math might be off, or the assumptions might be wrong. [1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a093a941366c6658.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a0...
kaycebasques 9y ago
What does material inputs mean?
torpfactory 9y ago
Isn't EROI the more important perspective? I mean, sure takes a lot of material (i.e. energy input) to make, but it _makes_ a lot of energy in return. And that energy isn't creating CO2 in the process. Your own data says that the EROI is quite a bit better than solar. Why does the material input matter in absolute? Looks like your page is pretty pro-nuclear. Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.
- beefman 9y ago
  > Isn't EROI the more important perspective? Yes. > Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading. The fission materials intensity number includes the mass of an entire plant and all the fuel that will ever go in it. The assumed technology is also 40 years old and very far from optimal for fission.
  - torpfactory 9y ago
    If you agree that EROI is more important, why bring up the comment about material use? You're arguing against wind with a statistic that you just admitted isn't important. And as for Fission material intensity, obviously it looks great: Fission releases an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of matter. But cost-wise, fission plants are expensive. Your cost data are misleading ones, not material data: You compare lifetime cost of solar and a few other options with the cost of ONLY the uranium. Fission plants themselves are hugely expensive, even before you put the Uranium in them.
    - beefman 9y ago
      I didn't say materials intensity is unimportant. It's usually required to estimate EROI. The fuel figures shouldn't be misleading because they're clearly labeled. The balance of plant for solar is not included with the panel cost. As with the nuclear plant, there is no commodity pricing to include.
hristov 9y ago
"Material inputs" seems to be yet another misleading statistics intended to sell nuclear. I would completely ignore it. The nuclear industry has been trying to convince us that nuclear energy is cheap, but this is becoming a very tough sell after a series of bankruptcies and massive cost overruns. So now they try to sell us on how great nuclear is because it uses less total weight of material per gigawatt produced. That may be the case but it is still far more expensive than all the other options. It is like saying that a Ferrari must be cheaper than Chrysler minivan because it has about half the weight of total metal in it.

trhway 9y ago

what happens to that metal afterwards? wouldn't it continue to be metal which can scrapped and reused? the reuse/remelt is much more energy efficient then original production you seem to allude to.

Flavius 9y ago
I guess he's talking about the initial investment. Not sure how this compares to solar. I know that solar would be much better, but in some places it's not an option.
- beefman 9y ago
  Solar can get to ~ 3 t/GWh under ideal circumstances (panels only). With balance of plant (mounting hardware, transmission infrastructure etc) it's at least twice that (and about the same as onshore wind).
beefman 9y ago
Yes, metal can be recycled. It's still more energy-intensive than concrete. Materials intensity is a pretty good figure of merit for energy systems, and energy intensity is an ideal one.
- azernik 9y ago
  Concrete's CO2 emissions are, however, doubled by the chemical processes used to make cement.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    Which is relevant in what way? The amount of concrete is small in relative terms, so doubling a small quantity is still a small quantity. A forest fire will put out significantly more CO2 and they occur quite frequently around the globe. If you want us to take your comment seriously, you will need to show that the CO2 emissions would be on some significant level.
    - azernik 9y ago
      Concrete (specifically, the cement used to produce it) accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-c...

golem14 9y ago

Just out of curiosity, how does a coal / nuclear plant compare ? Those are neither small, nor made from cotton candy.

beefman 9y ago
You can have a look at my LCA page[1]. The Sanyo figures are obsolete and I should update them soon. The coal figure is double-counted but hopefully that's clear. The LCA literature, including this page, is quite seriously flawed. But it should be a good starting point. [1] http://lumma.org/energy/lca/ http://lumma.org/energy/lca/
- golem14 9y ago
  I looked at that site, but the data here is hard to verify, and the methodology is a bit unclear. E.g., coal energy only has a coal material flow, the wind turbine only a steel material flow. I'm not even sure if that means that the turbine has a life expectancy of so many GW and then is considered evaporated. I suppose coal plans are made of cotton candy, or the material per GWh is negligible ? Trying to figure this out, a nuclear plant might have 1GW capacity and a lifetime of 30 years, so ≈260,000 hours. [1] seems to suggest a plant would need 40,000t of steel, or about 0.16t steel/GWh over the lifetime, with coal plans using over twice that. My math might be off, or the assumptions might be wrong. [1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a093a941366c6658.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/519e/a5c55a312f3f45ccfcc4a0...

kaycebasques 9y ago

What does material inputs mean?

torpfactory 9y ago

Isn't EROI the more important perspective? I mean, sure takes a lot of material (i.e. energy input) to make, but it _makes_ a lot of energy in return. And that energy isn't creating CO2 in the process. Your own data says that the EROI is quite a bit better than solar. Why does the material input matter in absolute? Looks like your page is pretty pro-nuclear. Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading.

beefman 9y ago
> Isn't EROI the more important perspective? Yes. > Comparing the total cost of solar power with the cost of ONLY the uranium in a nuclear reactor... that's very misleading. The fission materials intensity number includes the mass of an entire plant and all the fuel that will ever go in it. The assumed technology is also 40 years old and very far from optimal for fission.
- torpfactory 9y ago
  If you agree that EROI is more important, why bring up the comment about material use? You're arguing against wind with a statistic that you just admitted isn't important. And as for Fission material intensity, obviously it looks great: Fission releases an enormous amount of energy from a small amount of matter. But cost-wise, fission plants are expensive. Your cost data are misleading ones, not material data: You compare lifetime cost of solar and a few other options with the cost of ONLY the uranium. Fission plants themselves are hugely expensive, even before you put the Uranium in them.
  - beefman 9y ago
    I didn't say materials intensity is unimportant. It's usually required to estimate EROI. The fuel figures shouldn't be misleading because they're clearly labeled. The balance of plant for solar is not included with the panel cost. As with the nuclear plant, there is no commodity pricing to include.

hristov 9y ago

"Material inputs" seems to be yet another misleading statistics intended to sell nuclear. I would completely ignore it. The nuclear industry has been trying to convince us that nuclear energy is cheap, but this is becoming a very tough sell after a series of bankruptcies and massive cost overruns. So now they try to sell us on how great nuclear is because it uses less total weight of material per gigawatt produced. That may be the case but it is still far more expensive than all the other options. It is like saying that a Ferrari must be cheaper than Chrysler minivan because it has about half the weight of total metal in it.