The Guardian cites a 2010 study that found:
the average windfarm [sic] produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It also found that the average "energy payback" of a turbine was 3-6 months.
Wikipedia has a graphic that is based on another 2010 study showing similar numbers:
They refer to International Energy Agency's 2016 Key Renewable Trends report, which contains these 2 graphs:
Combining these two graphs shows that Wind energy is 3.3% of the 13.8% of the renewable fuel share.
13.8% * 3.3% = 0.46%
While the numbers provided by the sources seem to be strictly correct, they are lacking a significant amount of context. Once this context is injected into the discussion, the manufacture of Wind Turbines does not create as much radiation as Nuclear waste.
The primary claim, from the Institute for Energy Research (second quoted block in the question) seems ...
No, The Register has misrepresented the story.
There are several parts to this question. The summary is:
"Peak Wind" is a myth: there is nothing similar in wind to how hydrocarbon stocks will get to such a depletion point that annual production will decline inexorably thereafter.
The modelling methodology smackdown - Have previous estimates over-estimated ...
The origin of this claim is Andrew Walden's 2010 article Wind Energy's Ghosts.
He is specifically referring to the wind turbines installed in California between 1981 and 1986 in three locations: Altamont, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio. The article says 15,000 wind turbines were installed there in this time period.
An American Wind Energy Association report ...
NO, (or YES dependent on the definition of primary energy) as answer to the claim: "Wind power does not account for less than half a percent of total global energy usage in 2014."
The wording of the report (from Jordys answer)indicates that they compared electrical output of renewables to the energy contents of combustibles. Putting these on the same graph ...
TL:DR; Yes, the UK has potential wind resource to power itself many many times over. Yes, it could be five times as much (range: 4-200x). No, its technical potential harnessable wind resource is not 2000 TWh a year - it's much larger, but we don't know how much more; it's probably in the range 10,000 - 80,000 TWh/y.
For context, UK primary energy demand is ...
Given there's much talk about the 2010 study, here's a 2013 one. It mainly expand the other one, by:
"Tweaking the lifetime": very low ones were assumed for conventional plants (also including deprecated centrifugal enrichment tech for nuclear)
"Counting all output", even if not needed: i.e. including the need for buffering (aka "backup" in case of variable ...
Wind turbines are perfectly safe for Humans.
You your self brought two credible sources. And there is this article by
Simon Chapman is professor of public health at the University of Sydney. He has no financial associations with any wind energy company.
who references the British Acoustics Bulletin:
The British Acoustics Bulletin has just published ...
I believe we should start by looking at Figures 53 and 54 from the relevant documents, the 2018 Wind Technologies Market Report, which detail wind power purchase agreement (PPA) prices as they change through time:
In $2018, it seems that the PPA prices hovered around $15-20 per megawatt-hour, or about 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, which matches the claim.
This claim makes one very important and very obvious assumption: That all wind generators use rare earth magnets. Or, for that matter, that they even use permanent magnets at all.
From the linked article:
There are many different types of generators used today in wind turbines, but the most common types are asynchronous generators. The two ...
The question cites two links, but neither of them raise as a claim the question of how long it takes for a renewable energy system to recoup its energy cost, which is the title of the question. First I'll address the very broad question in the title, for which no notable claim was cited (but which will exist somewhere out there).
The two links cited raise ...
Unsurprisingly, given that it is from the Heartland Institute, it appears to be wrong. Looking at 2018 government data (note: Excel file), electricity generation in California is 30% greater in July (air conditioners?) than in September and October. So a 10% or even 17% drop in generation capacity should not create a shortfall in supply, as long as there ...
The figures seem consistent with most sources:
A Lazard 2018 study puts nuclear firmly in that range.
A UK government study puts new nuclear construction at 95 GBP per megawatt hour, which sits somewhere in the middle of the range stated by Reuters, depending on the exchange rate of the day.
The OpenEI configurable chart trends lower, but only outliers lie ...
The roi depends on the windmill, and it could be bigger than 3-6 months.
For example, if the windmill operates in colder regions, "the additional cost of such a system [de-icing] can be compensated by additional production within 2-3 years of operation."
Of course, a wind ...
Yes, at least according to:
T. Altmann, Y. Carmel, R. Guetta, D. Zaslavsky, Y. Doytsher, Assessment of an ‘‘Energy Tower’’ potential in Australia using a mathematical model and GIS",
Solar Energy 78 (2005) 799–808. (www)
Abstract: ‘‘Energy Tower’’ is a technology for producing renewable and
clean electricity by means of cooling hot and dry air, which ...
It depends on the renewable energy technology, but the answer is generally a few years.
Here is a detailed analysis of the embodied energy in two sizes of large scale wind turbines (850 Kw and 3 MW). This study involved a very detailed assessment of the embodied energy, which showed that previous estimates were considerably low. In spite of this more ...
TL;DR Yes, their are numbers that can be interpreted that way, but it is doubtful that any conclusion can be derived from these numbers.
I would like to expand upon the excellently formatted answer of Jordy, where the original articles' first two diagrams are accurately quoted without further context.
We have a question where the title is "Did wind power ...
The answer depends on you definition of subsidies, the energy market and country. As you second link is about Germany my answer will be also about Germany.
If we use a very broad definition of subsidies:
...in addition to direct state aid
and tax benefits, other forms of subsidies that are not a part of state budgets are
included here, such as the ...
This issue is currently being debated in Denmark.
There are some possible  health risks regarding low-frequency sounds generated by wind turbines. (Possible meaning that there is no scientific report yet to prove a casual link between symptoms reported by the neighbours to big wind turbines and the generated noise).
(More references can be found at the ...
According to Wind speed reductions by large-scale wind turbine deployments lower turbine efficiencies and set low generation limits Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, volume 113, pages 13570–13575, (2016):
Increasing wind turbine deployment uses an increasing share of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere, ...