Compared with conventional technologies, wind power requires vastly more raw materials for the same installed capacity: up to 15x more concrete, 90x more aluminum, and around 50x more iron, copper and glass. Each 2 megawatt turbine uses about 1700 tons of material: around 1300 tons of concrete, nearly 300... tons of steel, plus iron, fiberglass and copper. The foundation alone uses hundreds of tons of concrete. Concrete is one of the world's largest CO2 sources, responsible for 8% of global emissions. Then there are the rare earths. Just one ton of rare earth elements generates 2000 tons of toxic waste. Worse still, all of this ends up in landfill every 15 to 20 years, with the entire process repeated. Wind is not the clean energy it is sold to be.show more

The Greeny Weeny Wind Energy Hoax

Wind industry kill more birds than anything else made by man. Placed in the wind route, exactly same wind route birds ride on when moving south or north. In these routes you naturally also find predators hunting and many of them too get chopped up and fall down killed or wonded.

Comparing material use per installed MW instead of per lifetime MWh is the oldest trick in the anti-wind playbook. Add the capacity factor and 25 years of operation, then redo the math. I'd like to read the LCA study behind the 15x/90x figures.

Do you lot actually get issued the day's sceptic talking points? "Saturday: attack the solutions on environmental grounds." Do you get briefing notes? It's a labour of deep concern, I know.

Your average America can be forgiven for not knowing this years ago. However, your average American should have rejected any energy source that required tax subsidies when we had energy sources that paid taxes. Liberals, learn from your mistakes!

That is misleading garbage from Electroverse

And yet somehow, here we are smashing it with more wind on the system.

𝗢𝗵, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿! 𝗪𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗽. Someone tell engineering that massive steel structures need foundations. Clearly, burning millions of tons of coal forever is the much more "minimalist" approach. Congrats on discovering that building things takes materials. You totally nailed it by focusing on the initial construction while completely ignoring the 25 years of 𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼-𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁𝘆 that follows. Peak math. 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲, 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻'𝘁 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 and that the whole thing just vanishes into a landfill. If you ignore the entire concept of a lifecycle analysis, you're 100% right. Happy now?P

In a 20 year life time, a 2 MW turbine will generate 105 GWh electricity. It replaces: 34,700 tonne coal, saving 89,000 tonne CO2 OR 14,300 t NG saving 39,000 t CO2 The 1300 t concrete has a CO2 footprint of up to 900 t, the 300 kg steel up to 600 t. CO2 payback < 12 months.

And then for 20 years no more material input, compared to constant molecules being fed for fossil power plants. What is your argument? We need both.

Once the turbine is built, the embodied energy used in the build is recouped in months. When you build a fossil fuel plant, you have to keep bushing millions of tonnes of fossil fuel through it to keep generating energy. Big difference.

You forgot the oil it needs

Catch Up: Poison wind power – the shocking environmental damage they don’t want you to see. Hendrik Gout reports. Clarification On 1 March 2017, Today Tonight

But but but nucular is bawd... (Yes, I spelled it wrong on purpose, numnutz)

The concrete foundation is permanent, even if the windmill is not. There is no way to remove, let alone recycle, that huge lump of concrete & steel. Off-shore wind is even worse. "Environmentalists" hate the planet; that's the only rational explanation.

Wind’s energy payback time—the period needed to generate as much energy as was used to mine, manufacture, transport and install the turbine—is usually 6–18 months. After that the turbine produces many times more energy than was invested. Onshore wind typically requires several thousand tonnes of concrete plus steel per TWh, but far less than the ongoing fuel-mining footprint of coal when the rock and coal that must be extracted every year for a coal plant are included.

Et une quantité phénoménale d'énergie pour leur fabrication, transport, installation, maintenance et démantèlement.

Definitely the ugliest!!!!

Need more CO2, 700 ppm is not so bad, need more and more green areas,(Saharian regions for instnc)

People can't wrap their heads around those figures. These dimensions are alien to them. I was telling my son that more people die of cooled then heat. He blamed it on countries like Russia, not taking care of their people. School and media is leading in this, no common sense..

Excellent summary of facts. We agree.

🤔

The multiples are real and rarely priced in. But over a 25-year life, per MWh, the gap narrows — there's no fuel stream behind it. And of that list, only copper is genuinely scarce; concrete and aluminum are abundant. Copper and the grid transformers are the real bottleneck.