7 ms·

But how much energy is used to create the wind farm?

floren 2y ago
That's exactly the question the study was answering > The study reviewed current literature on wind farms, as well as using real construction data to take into account everything from the manufacturing of individual turbine parts, to transporting them into place, to decommissioning the entire wind farm at Harapaki – which comprises 41 turbines.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yareal 2y ago
A lot less than they create? Like, if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms. Wind turbines produce whole integer MW, which is way more than they cost to make.
- pedroma 2y ago
  >negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follow the votes...
    - mikeyouse 2y ago
      Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".
      - Alupis 2y ago
        They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.
        mikeyouse 2y ago
        "Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.
        Alupis 2y ago
        If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing. Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.
        verall 2y ago
        I think it's fun to imagine that this solution you're miming at is closer to soylent green rather than only-viable-through-subsidies nuclear.
        2y ago
  - yareal 2y ago
    I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.
    - pedroma 2y ago
      My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.
      - andyferris 2y ago
        I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else? (I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).
      - garbageman 2y ago
        Maybe 20 years ago. On-shore wind and solar are currently the cheapest practical way to make electricity based on LCOE. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/...
        pedroma 2y ago
        I'm not familiar with this metric but does it at least account for the cost that non-wind sources must incur to keep their facilities running? For example, if you have a wind farm you will prioritize using that energy when available, but the natural gas facility still needs to employ people for low wind situations right? So the natural gas facility is not generating very much most of the year, but still needs quite a bit of people with the expertise to keep it operational despite that in addition to land lease costs, equipment maintenance etc. Does LCOE turn the cost of the natural gas facility cost into $0 during those situations to be fair? - Edit: Just glanced at the Wikipedia article and the variables involved in the LCOE equation. Seems to unfairly benefit wind and solar. "One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand." "In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative."
- uoaei 2y ago
  > if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise Unfortunately, cost does not track emissions that closely. People do all sorts of things that cause emissions all the time, and usually their choice is dictated by which option is lowest cost.
bastawhiz 2y ago
Who cares? What matters is the emissions, which is exactly what this article is about.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

That's exactly the question the study was answering > The study reviewed current literature on wind farms, as well as using real construction data to take into account everything from the manufacturing of individual turbine parts, to transporting them into place, to decommissioning the entire wind farm at Harapaki – which comprises 41 turbines.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

yareal 2y ago

A lot less than they create? Like, if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms. Wind turbines produce whole integer MW, which is way more than they cost to make.

pedroma 2y ago
>negative return on investment, energy wise, no one would be building wind farms I don't think it's this simple considering politics is usually involved. But if it was a simple profit question I still don't think people would be building wind farms.
- Alupis 2y ago
  Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics. Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follow the votes...
  - mikeyouse 2y ago
    Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".
    - Alupis 2y ago
      They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless. The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible. We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.
      - mikeyouse 2y ago
        "Wind can't be the entire solution" is such a different statement than whatever this misinformed smug dismissal is trying to get at.
        Alupis 2y ago
        If you were able to read the statement you would clearly see no such thing. Erecting more and more wind farms to make you feel fuzzy at night is absurd. We have the solution - metaphoric you just doesn't want it because reasons.
        verall 2y ago
        I think it's fun to imagine that this solution you're miming at is closer to soylent green rather than only-viable-through-subsidies nuclear.
        2y ago
- yareal 2y ago
  I didn't speak to profit. I spoke to energy return.
  - pedroma 2y ago
    My answer applies to both cases actually. For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.
    - andyferris 2y ago
      I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else? (I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).
    - garbageman 2y ago
      Maybe 20 years ago. On-shore wind and solar are currently the cheapest practical way to make electricity based on LCOE. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/...
      - pedroma 2y ago
        I'm not familiar with this metric but does it at least account for the cost that non-wind sources must incur to keep their facilities running? For example, if you have a wind farm you will prioritize using that energy when available, but the natural gas facility still needs to employ people for low wind situations right? So the natural gas facility is not generating very much most of the year, but still needs quite a bit of people with the expertise to keep it operational despite that in addition to land lease costs, equipment maintenance etc. Does LCOE turn the cost of the natural gas facility cost into $0 during those situations to be fair? - Edit: Just glanced at the Wikipedia article and the variables involved in the LCOE equation. Seems to unfairly benefit wind and solar. "One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand." "In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative."
uoaei 2y ago
> if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise Unfortunately, cost does not track emissions that closely. People do all sorts of things that cause emissions all the time, and usually their choice is dictated by which option is lowest cost.

bastawhiz 2y ago

Who cares? What matters is the emissions, which is exactly what this article is about.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]