Scientist exposes anti-wind groups as oil-funded, now they want to silence him

This article maybe? https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/ESUS07/ESUS0... * (net embedded energy is offset in 12 monthes)

It would be interesting to compare the net energy requirements of different electricity production means, in such a way that, for every kWh provided to the grid by each source, we could somehow quantify:

- How many kWh the grid has to provide in exchange.

- How many kWh are obtained from other sources in order for this kWh to have been produced.

- How much CO₂ will be released for that kWh, considering the entire lifecycle of the source.

So that we can identify which other electricity production means would have been preferable (both in terms of total energy expenditure, and total CO₂ released).

At the moment, "net negative energy involved" seems like a proxy metric to me, and I don't know a proxy for what precisely.

Really, you take posts from x and YouTube for correct information? The x posts is just referencing other x posts and YouTube. Your YouTube link has 3 references in the description, the last two are 404 which means they probably got retracted.

Those mediums let arbitrary people post arbitrary non sense. Show me scientific studies, peer reviewed and published. And yes, even those can be bad, but at least I can read about their methodology how they conducted their study, the way they analyzed it, and then I can judge if it’s a good study.

Those links are borderline flat earth material.

So, I checked, and this life cycle assessment (first link I could find, seems very comprehensive) states a 27x return on energy: https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/environment/lifecyc...

This as opposed to a tweet about someone who 'read a life cycle analysis article in some engineering journal like 10 years ago'.

Please don't spread misinformation.

Am I getting that right that your source for this claim is some random person on Twitter who claims to have read an unnamed engineering paper ten years ago?

I am no expert on this topic but the first reasonably sciency and recent paper I found claims that all energy costs of a wind turbine are compensated after 6-16 months.

https://www.hb.fh-muenster.de/opus4/frontdoor/deliver/index/...

it's a bot account, the comment will get deleted after a while. Just look at it's history there are many on hn, reddit and other moderated forums.

Huh? This user does not look like a bot account at all to me. The account was created in 2016, and the user regularly comments on technical posts - sometimes encouraging developers and providing useful linls.

On the other hand, they seem to have rather 'anti-woke' views. They already posted the same stupid (sorry) Twitter link in another thread and got similar responses, by the way.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43167067

So, they are certainly no bot by any sensible definition but rather someone whos is hindered by their strongly-held views and limited will or ability to critically evaluate sources. I wish them the best.

Wind isn't that bad, check UNECE report instead of YT/Twitter. Or ourworldindata website as a starting point. Or NREL. All have data about lifecycle carbon impact or even more

What about the energy that we spent to read this stupid, one-sided argument? Will we ever get it back? I mean, you said yourself you are not oil-funded, so perhaps you are being scammed, because you are doing their job for free.