153

A rumor in my region states that a wind turbine consumes far more energy while being built and setup than it can produce in a lifetime.

The debate is about modern, freshly built turbines in Southern Germany.

Is there evidence that this is true?

Community
  • 1
OddDev
  • 2,139
  • 5
  • 14
  • 14
  • 4
    I'm not sure this is a "notable" claim –  Apr 26 '17 at 13:43
  • 10
    Is your region a coal-producing one by any chance? I've heard recent claims that the costs of coal due to environmental damage, health problems, and early deaths is far greater than the value of the energy produced. I'm sure it matters what kind of coal is burned, though. In any event, this could be an attempt to co-opt that argument and turn it around. – JimmyJames Apr 27 '17 at 19:48
  • Maybe if you smelted the steel in some remote region (desert) where heat energy is amply available, transported the windmill to somewhere windy efficiently, you could see it as a wind activated battery... – rackandboneman Apr 27 '17 at 22:06
  • A good answer should take into account how much wind there is in southern Germany. Turbines are far more popular in northern Germany, presumably because southern Germany has much less wind compared to the North. – CodesInChaos Apr 28 '17 at 09:41
  • 26
    It's absolutely true, if you forget to build them outdoors. – userLTK Apr 28 '17 at 11:38
  • 15
    Rule of thumb: the energy cost to build something, is passed on in the purchase price. Nobody would buy wind turbines if their purchase cost more than they'd ever be able to earn back. – Hobbes Apr 29 '17 at 08:12
  • 9
    @Hobbes You forget we live in a world of government subsidies and decisions based on hope and moral ideals instead of math. Never under estimate the raw power of human stupidity. However, nice and objective as the math is, that doesn't mean we are immune to creative accounting shenanigans. Always look into who did the math. – candied_orange Apr 30 '17 at 22:25
  • 3
    This fairly broad question actually has an answer of different sources that supports the accepted answer as well. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17775/how-long-does-it-take-for-renewable-technology-to-recoup-its-energy-cost – RomaH May 01 '17 at 13:19
  • 1
    @DoritoStyle I am in Utah, USA and have heard this claim as well. Generally from politically conservative, religious persons. – JYelton Apr 20 '18 at 19:53
  • 1
    @JYelton generally, hearing a thing from "some people" doesn't make a claim "notable" as required in the site guidelines. –  Apr 21 '18 at 13:10
  • I have yet to see a cost report that takes into account the energy used by the diesel engines necessary for the entire installation -- a necessary calculation if you assume a future where those engines are all electric and run off the grid. I suspect that wind is cost effective provided you use diesel for most of the installation work. – JamieB Oct 21 '22 at 13:44

3 Answers3

231

The Guardian cites a 2010 study that found:

the average windfarm [sic] produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It also found that the average "energy payback" of a turbine was 3-6 months.

Wikipedia has a graphic that is based on another 2010 study showing similar numbers:

enter image description here

The German federal environmental protection agency says that wind turbines produce back the amount of energy that was consumed during production after 3 to 7 months.

Siemens analyzed its wind turbines and found that the energy amortization period is about 5 months for onshore facilities and about 10 months for offshore farms. This considers not only the cost to produce the turbines, but the entire lifetime energy cost, including maintenance, dismantling, etc.

daniel
  • 725
  • 7
  • 13
tim
  • 51,912
  • 19
  • 209
  • 180
  • 11
    Have they counted in the additional costs on network due to unforseen changes in energy production? I.e. overproduction when winds come and underproduction when wind calms down? Have they count in the need of backup plan for sudden coverage of power drop (maintaining peak hydro+Coal both ready to switch on)? – Crowley Apr 25 '17 at 16:17
  • 141
    @Crowley Probably not. Also probably not the incalculable cost of nuclear waste storage for fusion, or the destroyed landsapes for coal. The question was about a wind turbine and the energy being consumed to build and setup that specific windmill – Hagen von Eitzen Apr 25 '17 at 17:02
  • 2
    What do you mean 'similar numbers'? One chart shows coal at 80x and the other chart shows coal at 11x. Big difference. Why are they so different? If they are wrong for coal, can they be wrong for wind? – Chloe Apr 25 '17 at 17:46
  • 2
    @Chloe I meant similar numbers regarding wind energy. This question isn't about comparing energies, so I didn't look further into coal. The report itself only mentions previous studies, but doesn't cite them properly. I'll remove that source because it's not clear where exactly the numbers come from (the peer reviewed studies also seem more trustworthy in general). – tim Apr 25 '17 at 17:55
  • 20
    In the interests of properly informing comparisons against conventional energy production, note that this is 2010 data. Photovoltaic has improved quite enormously since then. I'm not sure whether the improvements in wind turbines have been quite so meteoric, but they've also definitely improved (bigger usually equals better better for wind, and they're a lot bigger today! ) I'd also like to know what figures are used for the life expectancy of the various types of generating plant. To a fair approximation, double the life and you double the energy return. – nigel222 Apr 25 '17 at 18:09
  • 3
    @nigel222 Yes, I'm sure that wind as well as solar have improved in the last years, but I focused on the question here (which is basically if wind energy makes any sense at all, which it does, and did already years ago). Comparing different sorts of energy is more complex, as energy return isn't the only important measure. Also, doubling the life does not necessarily double the return (because of maintenance costs). – tim Apr 25 '17 at 18:25
  • @tim that's why I said "to a fair approximation". I'm particularly thinking of solar. Very little maintenance is required. The panels last until the environment breaches the panels' seals. There's no fundamental reason why they can't last for centuries. In practice it'll be many decades of incremental improvement before we know the practical limits. Wind turbines are also new and rapidly evolving technology, though they do have moving parts which panels do not. – nigel222 Apr 25 '17 at 18:41
  • 36
    @HagenvonEitzen I think you mean fission, not fusion? (I only wish we had viable fusion power already!) – Doktor J Apr 25 '17 at 21:08
  • 7
    @nigel222 not according to this: https://goo.gl/mtJ8jp ... a photovoltaic cell's output does decrease over time, depending on UV exposure and physical stresses. At the 50 year mark, a PV cell may only be outputting ~50-80% of its original output regardless of the "seals". Granted, this is still a pretty great ROI, and as we improve the efficiency of PV cells themselves as well as PV cell recycling it only gets better! – Doktor J Apr 25 '17 at 21:14
  • 2
    @nigel222 solar cells are expected to be at 80% capacity after 20 years, high-power inverters and batteries need replacement much more often (5 years). But the replacement costs are much smaller than initial invest. –  Apr 26 '17 at 01:00
  • 2
    It'd be nice if that graph had a log scale, rather than a linear one. (Not your fault, someone else's). – Golden Cuy Apr 26 '17 at 07:20
  • 2
    @AndrewGrimm no log scale required here! Hydro is just that much better in terms of an energy ratio, maybe beaten by a sail boat but it gets more hand wavy and less scientific pretty quick. – daniel Apr 26 '17 at 07:39
  • 20-25 times: that's it??? – Kaz Apr 27 '17 at 17:43
  • 2
    @HagenvonEitzen My understanding is there are no long-lived nuclear waste products from fusion. Perhaps as Doktor J suggests, you mean fission instead. – JimmyJames Apr 27 '17 at 19:44
  • 4
    @Kaz 20-25 times is actually a pretty good EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's better than natural gas and imported oil, for example. There are also some newer turbines that can hit EROEI values as high as 50. Nuclear and hydro do better than that, but not much else. Coal does as well, but obviously has plenty of other costs (health and economic, etc) that make EROEI alone a bad measure of its desirability. – Toast Apr 27 '17 at 20:06
  • 2
    @TaylorOstberg Suppose a carpenter buys a hammer for $10, and it's toast by the time he earns the first $250 with it. Know what I mean? The numbers just feel shitty somehow, ha. – Kaz Apr 28 '17 at 01:38
  • 3
    @Kaz if i had some hammer eating carpentry job where my only expenses were $10 hammers, and my net profit was $240 an hour I would happily buy 40 hammers every week at the hardware store. Anyway this is energy returned on energy invested, you can bet an energy company will have a substantial markup on their sales price. – daniel Apr 28 '17 at 13:26
  • I should point out that the study cited in The Guardian has as one of its authors an employee of what appears to be a wind power generation firm. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the results, but as a comment to the question notes, we should pay attention to who is doing the math(s). – David May 02 '17 at 16:02
  • Why nuclear ROI is so low on this graph ? I have seen nuclear ROI up to 90. This is the densest energy actually in use, and most nuclear plants built are still operationnal. – xrorox Feb 19 '18 at 14:53
  • TIL - we're never going to stop using coal. Ever. – Mazura Feb 02 '19 at 01:46
  • It does seem hard to believe their claim. Consider the amount of energy expended in the concrete alone. How much energy was used by the mixers? By trucks that hauled it in and poured it? I assume they are simply pricing "the turbine" itself and not all the heavy and costly infrastructure which made it possible to install and utilize. – JamieB Oct 20 '22 at 14:28
20

Given there's much talk about the 2010 study, here's a 2013 one. It mainly expand the other one, by:

  • "Tweaking the lifetime": very low ones were assumed for conventional plants (also including deprecated centrifugal enrichment tech for nuclear)

  • "Counting all output", even if not needed: i.e. including the need for buffering (aka "backup" in case of variable energy sources)

Energy Return On Investment

With respect to just wind power, we can see they offer a similar mean figure of around 16~19 (which as Weißbach notes is massively dependent on the place turbines are built). If you consider the aforementioned later caveat, this gets double halved, but still we are quite above "energy sink" levels.

Further anyway (depending on whether your actual point is about wind energy in general, or "to be built new turbines") EROI further scales up, given most common newer installations average size is almost two times an E-66.

mirh
  • 332
  • 1
  • 5
  • 1
    What do the blue and yellow columns mean exactly? – Tomáš Zato Apr 28 '17 at 08:59
  • 1
    The yellow columns include backup power. – Cees Timmerman Apr 28 '17 at 09:03
  • 1
    Your source notes that these are energy costs and outputs, not monetary costs, which can be entirely different. So instead of computing the raw EROI, as in the graph above, it can be more useful to consider the exergy equivalent, by weighting both the energy inputs and energy output by a factor of 3 when the energy type is electrical. – Cees Timmerman Apr 28 '17 at 09:12
  • 8
    Also, using GDP for economical viability is flawed as it ignores environmental damage (and resulting loss of health and tourism). – Cees Timmerman Apr 28 '17 at 09:43
  • 5
    @Cees Timmerman if you open it that was done (called EMROI). It doesn't include externalities, but if any those would just lower fossils I guess. We were talking about raw energy i/o on the other hand so that's why I didn't mentioned it. – mirh Apr 28 '17 at 12:34
  • You did not link to a study. You linked to a thorium-advocate's blog post referencing a study. The study in question is allegedly quite flawed, there have been rebuttals published. They find reasons to question numerical results, physically impossible claims (i.e. basic concepts gotten wrong) and strawman arguments in the 2013 study. – otus May 07 '17 at 09:13
  • 1
  • I linked the blog because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to credit the nice graph they made. 2) In the end there was a study beneath, so I dunno why the first 2 sentences. 3) I had read them too. May I point the finger towards Mr. Raugei and his PV interests so? 4) Now, put aside childish namecalling the question is: why assuming a fantastic world where all energy will only come from X source?
    • – mirh May 07 '17 at 17:00