Wind turbine payback period claimed to be within 8 months

@ur momisugly Karl Heuer
These links are NOT what you claim.
The abstract to #3 states that an AVERAGE of 33% wind power can be used as base load. (That means on AVERAGE for 67% of the installed capacity in not producing electricity. )
The abstract also give a maximum of 47%. However, the ONLY important number is the minimum – because on the days when the minimum occurs back up power is needed for (100% – min).
Please re-read the paper and share with us the minimum value and how often it occurred.
And, then explain how anything more than that minimum can be claimed to be base load power?!

Richard
I was doing data collection where it takes ~2 minutes to save and reload for the next run. The run itself takes ~5 minutes, not enough time to work on anything complicated. Checking out his links was a welcome distraction.
Academic studies are fine, but they are not PROVEN until someone in the REAL world takes the risk and implements them.
Scott

Calculations may be off.
Transport may not rely on windpower.
Renewable power may not give you the stability you need.
US power grids may be so poorly designed it hard to use.
That does not mean its useless.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/04/electricity-prices-fall-europe-german-renewable-energy-increases/

I will install three tomorrow and hand in my resignation at work. You can catch me in Alcapulco sipping cocktails by the sea.

The only person you need to listen to are the people who have bought them installed them and are making money. Everyone else is a poser.

Great info! It’s a shame most people don’t understand the numbers although the truth how I see it is oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies, investors and EMPLOYEES, don’t want to see sustainable energies dominate the market because the people in or affiliated with the aforementioned industries feel their financial securities at risk instead of seeing the massive opportunities available when we live in a world with cheaper energy prices!
If sustainable energies takeover forget the the environmental benefits it’s the new economy that gets me the most excited! A technological revolution would follow when energy prices fall. It’s a shame brainwashed people are still looking at things in a backwards fashion!
Anyway if it’s meant to be it will happen!

Hmmm. The original statement seems to be correct, or near it. The original statement was:
“Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.”
According to the EIA, the average US household burns about 10 MWh per year (wow, here in Cannuckia it’s 2.5 times that!). A 2 MW wind generator with a CF of 0.25 will generate (24 x 356) x 0.25 x 2000 = 4,380,000 kWh a year. If a house burns 10,000, that’s 438 houses. Actually I’m not sure where that 0.25 number came from (it’s in the comments), as the average here in Ontario is .30, which gives us 5,256,000 kWh, which is indeed “over 500 households”.
Every watt-hour that comes from a renewable really is a watt-hour that isn’t coming from a non-renewable. That’s pretty much the definition. So on that basis, the original statement is absolutely correct. Of course the argument here then shifts goalposts, to something the original authors did not say, or even imply. I see nothing in their work that suggests wind power *replaces* other forms, simply supplants it, and the conclusion quoted here doesn’t say what is being claimed. You do see that part about “in effect”, right? That’s what “in effect” means.
So let’s examine the concern being raised here, using the example from the post that appears directly above this editing area:
“Together with storage you’ll also need generators that can produce the same amount as the wind and solar farm can do”
This is true, but it’s also true for practically all other forms of power. For instance, coal plants take hours to spool up or down, which is why they always relied on additional sources like hydro or natural gas to help out. Nuclear plants, at least the majority of them, have very little throttling capability, and relied on a battery of backup systems to provide averaging-out. Here in Ontario, for instance, we get just over 50% of our power from nuclear, which demanded we also build the largest coal plant in the western world (Nanticoke) to power through the daily peaks.
In spite of the difference in technical terms being really nothing more than a matter of degree, in the larger debate nothing could be more blown out of proportion. Note, for instance, that no one mentions anything about storage or peaking issues for coal plants, which have reduced efficiency when changing load. But when discussing renewables, according to the detractors it is an insurmountable problem that will bankrupt the planet.
As always, the truth lies between the extremes of the wedge. The grid always has lots of spare peaking capacity these days, thanks to the rapid uptake of NG turbines as a primary power source, so we have lots and lots of room for additional PV and wind. In the US the deployment curves are basically identical, between now and 12 months from now, new PV+wind ~= new NG. Either one of the sides of that equation is far, far larger than all other new generation sources put together.
You can complain all you want, but you really are tilting at windmills. Wind, solar and NG are the fastest growing power sources on the planet, by far, and this growth shows no signs of changing any time soon. Complain all you want, but the power companies appear too busy actually fixing real problems to worry too much about made-up concerns.