It is nice to see an upside. A lot of companies are not disclosing the down side risk from climate change to investors though. https://mninews.marketnews.com...

It does establish a special relationship between the government and the money changers for a particular religion. Very cozy.

The corporations are established by the government to have a special relation with a particular religion on which they profit. Basically the money changers of the temple all over again.

This is a mistake. The generator is not added, it is already there. It just gets used less and less, extending its life and reducing fuel costs for electricity.

No, I think you are pretty confused. If you want to spread things so thin, then money does not work. Wind displaces coal and thus reduced the energy cost of caring for people with lung disease, but your measure misses that. Better to do the math correctly with understood boundaries than use to your short cut and fool yourself into thinking you are getting the same result. Obviously you will want to consider money before you break ground. They just are not the same tools. They both have advantages and drawbacks.

No, I didn't assume. It is well known that removing boundaries leads to that result. So, you want money to muddy boundaries. Fine, but it isn't a proxy that teaches us about technical feasibility and so it is not a useful tool for that purpose.

Technical feasibility is only one aspect. Right now, I most like big turbines because they make Dodge truck commercials interesting during the World Cup. That is esthetic and slightly ironic. Wind turbines are symbols of guts and glory it they are big enough.

So, I just made an exception. He did cite the study. He just did not understand it and made an error as a result.

Well, ROI is not EROEI. For example, you can have ROI above unity for making widgets, but you can't get EROEI above unity for that. It is a different measure and serves a different use.

I don't click on that website because it makes such a big deal about traffic, but did that link actually cite the present study? Does it address the subject of the study at all? Timothy linking there boosted this from a 50 comment story to a 300 comment story, but I don't know it there was anything relevant there to the fairly nerdy subject of energy payback time which more of a TOD thing than a climate kook thing.

Or, France has substantial rate subsidies.

When you leave out boundaries, everything ends up with an EROEI of unity. That is because you count societal energy use as contributing to energy production.

This type of study can tell us if a particular build out rate is technically feasible or not. Your approach can't do that. It can say if we should continue the production tax credit or not as a means of carrying out a clean energy policy.

Since running cost is pretty much fuel cost, and since less fuel is used then yes, they will have lower running costs. It is upsetting to the fuel based plants to be used less since their revenue stream is reduced, but it is also extended in time since they don't wear out as quickly.

They account for the energy required for maintaining it, so they need to know how long it will be maintained. I guess that part and the recycling part are "pay ahead" rather than payback.

RTFA

You missed a key word in the title: "energy." What is the energy payback time? So, how much energy went into making the steel and the blades and the generator windings? It is different from money.