On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:45:54 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

You're conveniently leaving out of your claim the _input_ energy costs of
producing the structures. No structure, consisting of a concrete base(?),
pilings, mast, ginormous blades, turning gear, generators, control systems,
synchronising apparatus, cables etc. etc. can realistically claim to have
'zero fuel cost'. The 'cheap to build' claim needs to be substantiated with
a 'how much energy needs to be put _in_?'; versus 'how much energy may be
extracted?' Just basing a claim on 'what cost have the beancounters
attributed to this scheme?' , isn't ,IMHO, a valid baseline to draw any
conclusions.

It is always reassuring when all the opposition can do is come up
with junk that was discredited long ago.

http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#payback

"How long does it take for a turbine to 'pay back' the energy used
to manufacture it?

"The comparison of energy used in manufacture with the energy
produced by a power station is known as the 'energy balance'. It can
be expressed in terms of energy 'pay back' time, i.e. as the time
needed to generate the equivalent amount of energy used in
manufacturing the wind turbine or power station.

"The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in
its manufacture within six to eight months, this compares favourably
with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months."




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54