The Fundamental Myth Of CO2 Payback

The fundamental truth that needs to be determined is whether the energy spent on building harvesters of renewable energies will ever in their lifetime result in a CO2 payback (a positive internal rate of return)http://www.windaction.org/documents/7753 M J  Hall, 2006, in his resume of factor ignores the CO2 shift that occurs providing cover when the turbines aren't turning. Such shift might be trivial and unimportant while the contribution to the total grid demands are themselves trivial but this will not be the case as turbine emplacement continues to fulfil the European Directive that 30%  of the National Grid requirements of the UK are met. Allowing that some several conventional or nuclear power stations will effectively be dedicated to cover the contingency of no or inadequate wind, the CO2 from their construction, operation and maintenance for this cover must be taken into account.

The simple estimation of payback now ignores the fact that the existing grid facilities provide cover when for instance the wind isn’t blowing and can do so because such provision as is offered by wind turbines is a minute fraction of their contribution to the grid ( In the UK this is 4-6%).

As the proposition of a 30% contribution unveils itself (30% is the European directive to the UK) the cover required will mean new power stations for the very purpose of this cover and it is this that obfuscates the picture that the renewable energy protagonists paint.

Common sense dictates that the picture can be made better if the costs ( and that translates as energy (ies)  required for construction at the outset can be reduced and provision can be made for storing the energies these devices harvest when conditions are ideal. However there appears nowhere attempts to store the energies so produced and at best only grid sharing shows any likelihood of dissipating  energy gaps as they occur.

The production of wind turbines as now occurs is a crass waste of money as the electricity they produce cannot be stored. A much cheaper wind turbine can store the harvested energy as a water- head which can be tapped as grid needs demand. The inherent need of water for this means that they should be at sea or at least coastal and this rather locks in with the current ‘nimby’ resistance to on-shore turbine placement.
It is to this point that the Wasphead  project is proposed. I have patented this proposal . blog).

Resistance to this is the initial costs of building dams at sea but the savings on building the hundreds if not thousands of turbines it would serve would compensate for this outlay.

The Wasphead would also offer a massive ecological footprint for concomitant solar, wave and tide harvesting of energy and collection and storage of potable water on at least a large reservoir scale.