Aidan, did you completely miss the point Bazz was making intentionally, or you too brain washed to understand simple facts.

The energy input required to build & install a wind generator is greater than the energy it will produce in it's life time. This is proven & has been shown a number of times.

A windmill can not replace itself, let alone produce useful power for the community as well.

I know people like you avoid any sites that publish this type of information, & understanding it does require a bit too much math for the simple folk, but fact it is.

People who talk about more/stronger cyclones & bush fires suffer the same problem. They will never learn the simple truth while avoiding any publication likely to be truthful.

Anyone who actually believes a bit of CO2 can cause all the garbage they claim for it are obviously simpletons.

No, Hasbeen, I understood Bazz's point perfectly.. And I also understand that whether something is a fact doesn't depend on whether it conforms to your prejudices, and what you claim to be a "simple fact" is actually an outright lie. There may have been some experimental wind turbines that required more energy to build and install than they produced, but it's definitely not the case for today's commercial wind turbines. They reclaim the energy in a few months.

You seem to be too mentally defective to comprehend that. Likewise with the effects of CO2.

Briefly Aiden, the curve be it eroei or eroe to build becomes close
to vertical near 7 and at 9 it is for all intents and purposes vertical.

Bazz, there's no inflection and nothing special about the figure of seven. The near verticality could come at a different point - higher or lower - simply by changing the scale on the axis!

Neither Bazz nor Aiden are correct.

https://www.freeingenergy.com/math/wind-turbine-weight-pound-mwh-gwh-m148/

The major consumer of energy in building wind turbines is concrete in creating the concrete from lime in huge gas hungry kilns and in demolishing it 20 years later. (as are most turbines in about 20yrs)

The carbon debt will take 2-3 years to compensate for.

Note that Germany's net increase in wind capacity has dropped close to zero as it is removing roughly the same capacity of redundant turbines as it is building new capacity.

Shadowminister, that link is the most detailed that I have seen, but
I have only seen one other.
I had realised the concrete was a major component of the cost etc.
Some argument I have seen include the cost of the maintenance service van !
Also its travelling to and from the site.
I guess it is all part of the operating costs and has to be paid.
Aiden said;
Have you already forgotten that report a few years back that fudged
the figures by "converting" non energy inputs into energy inputs in
order to get the figure for renewables

I think that it is the concrete etc to which you are referring.
Well concrete has rather high energy content I believe.
Yes, 7 is arbitrary, but nevertheless real as the required input
energy to get a significant increase in output gets bigger and bigger.