dennis@home wrote:


"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , "dennis@home"
writes:
[]
ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is
required as a solution to GW.

By CO2, you can only - in this context - mean energy.

Are you seriously saying that a windmill generates less energy in its
working life than is used in total to create, maintain, and (arguably)
decommission it?

Well they quote lifetimes of about 30 years and payback periods of about
20 years, but that assumes they work as quoted.
The actual production of existing wind generators appears to be somewhat
less than ideal.

Then there is the minor issue of backup for calm days and its associated
CO2, unless you have suddenly decided that power cuts are acceptable.
I believe that the power system is being reworked ATM to ensure the
power cuts only affect those that don't vote labour, but I may be
mistaken. ;-)


If so (and it is possible), then the fact needs wider circulation.
(Though I'd want to see pretty foolproof proof.)

It also makes me wonder why people are building them; OK, subsidies
and so on, but it suggests there would never be sufficient ROI - and
business just doesn't work like that.

ROI is cash, not CO2.
If you factor in grants, rising fuel prices, etc. you can make a
business case for building them.

No, not compared with nuclear. They always cost more to build, and
produce less.

They ONLY exist commercially *because they are SUBSIDISED*.



It does not mean that they save any CO2 over their lifetime.