4 ms·

Will it make wind energy net positive? Search for photos of the amount of concrete and rebar needed to install a tower. Coupled with manufacturing, transport, m

Will it make wind energy net positive? Search for photos of the amount of concrete and rebar needed to install a tower. Coupled with manufacturing, transport, maintenance, and end-of-life, they are always net negative. edit: https://x.com/RizomaSchool/status/1805813119664484836 https://x.com/RizomaSchool/status/1805813119664484836

newyankee 2y ago
I think a lot of EROEI calculations have clearly refuted this. Summary: Wind power contributes significantly to scenarios where EROI remains above the "net energy cliff" (typically around 10). While exact EROI values for wind alone aren’t isolated in the paper, the system-level EROI for high-renewable scenarios (including wind) ranges from 10 to over 20, depending on factors like transition speed and enabling technologies (e.g., storage or grid upgrades). Wind’s individual EROI is implied to be high and competitive, aligning with earlier studies showing operational wind EROI values of 19-30+. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9
energy123 2y ago
Search for photos but don't search for thorough calculations?
floatrock 2y ago
The metric you're looking for is called Energy Return on Energy Invested, or EROEI -- how many units of energy do you need to put into all that concrete, rebar, and transportation in order to stand up the turbine vs. how many units of energy do you get out of the turbine over its lifetime. Those who have studied it found that wind is around 4-20. Solar PV is something like 8-30. A Saudi oil well is in the 40's IIRC, and a fracking well is in the low single digits. In the US, we don't have saudi oil wells (and some would say the saudi's haven't had a proper saudi oil well since the early 2000's...), so given the options left on the table and stopping short of some materials breakthroughs that need to happen to make thorium work, wind is pretty competitive relative to what we have left here at the bottom of the metaphorical energy barrel. Now, if we're just trying to be wowed by looking at construction photos, we can also look at photos of the miles of pipework needed in the acres of an oil refinery, but that's not really going to tell us anything about the actual numbers either...
KaiserPro 2y ago
Depends on what you're doing. However compared to gas turbines, wind is cheaper. How can I assert this? because in the UK electricity prices are benchmarked against gas. (for various reasons) Even offshore wind is cheap. In the US its probably even cheaper as roads are bigger and straighter, and planning is not nearly as onerous.
abenga 2y ago
Have you done a computation of the equivalent amount of inputs into getting petrol/LNG/coal power to you and compared? Why are incumbent sources of power always excluded from this cost-benefit-analysis?

newyankee 2y ago

I think a lot of EROEI calculations have clearly refuted this. Summary: Wind power contributes significantly to scenarios where EROI remains above the "net energy cliff" (typically around 10). While exact EROI values for wind alone aren’t isolated in the paper, the system-level EROI for high-renewable scenarios (including wind) ranges from 10 to over 20, depending on factors like transition speed and enabling technologies (e.g., storage or grid upgrades). Wind’s individual EROI is implied to be high and competitive, aligning with earlier studies showing operational wind EROI values of 19-30+. Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44232-9

energy123 2y ago

Search for photos but don't search for thorough calculations?

floatrock 2y ago

The metric you're looking for is called Energy Return on Energy Invested, or EROEI -- how many units of energy do you need to put into all that concrete, rebar, and transportation in order to stand up the turbine vs. how many units of energy do you get out of the turbine over its lifetime. Those who have studied it found that wind is around 4-20. Solar PV is something like 8-30. A Saudi oil well is in the 40's IIRC, and a fracking well is in the low single digits. In the US, we don't have saudi oil wells (and some would say the saudi's haven't had a proper saudi oil well since the early 2000's...), so given the options left on the table and stopping short of some materials breakthroughs that need to happen to make thorium work, wind is pretty competitive relative to what we have left here at the bottom of the metaphorical energy barrel. Now, if we're just trying to be wowed by looking at construction photos, we can also look at photos of the miles of pipework needed in the acres of an oil refinery, but that's not really going to tell us anything about the actual numbers either...

KaiserPro 2y ago

Depends on what you're doing. However compared to gas turbines, wind is cheaper. How can I assert this? because in the UK electricity prices are benchmarked against gas. (for various reasons) Even offshore wind is cheap. In the US its probably even cheaper as roads are bigger and straighter, and planning is not nearly as onerous.

abenga 2y ago

Have you done a computation of the equivalent amount of inputs into getting petrol/LNG/coal power to you and compared? Why are incumbent sources of power always excluded from this cost-benefit-analysis?