Natural Resources Research

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 271–281 | Cite as

Net Energy Payback and CO2 Emissions from Three Midwestern Wind Farms: An Update

  • Scott W. WhiteEmail author

This paper updates a life-cycle net energy analysis and carbon dioxide emissions analysis of three Midwestern utility-scale wind systems. Both the Energy Payback Ratio (EPR) and CO2 analysis results provide useful data for policy discussions regarding an efficient and low-carbon energy mix. The EPR is the amount of electrical energy produced for the lifetime of the power plant divided by the total amount of energy required to procure and transport the materials, build, operate, and decommission the power plants. The CO2 analysis for each power plant was calculated from the life-cycle energy input data.

A previous study also analyzed coal and nuclear fission power plants. At the time of that study, two of the three wind systems had less than a full year of generation data to project the life-cycle energy production. This study updates the analysis of three wind systems with an additional four to eight years of operating data.

The EPR for the utility-scale wind systems ranges from a low of 11 for a two-turbine system in Wisconsin to 28 for a 143-turbine system in southwestern Minnesota. The EPR is 11 for coal, 25 for fission with gas centrifuge enriched uranium and 7 for gaseous diffusion enriched uranium. The normalized CO2 emissions, in tonnes of CO2 per GWeh, ranges from 14 to 33 for the wind systems, 974 for coal, and 10 and 34 for nuclear fission using gas centrifuge and gaseous diffusion enriched uranium, respectively.


Renewable energy electricity wind power life cycle analysis fission 


  1. 109th Congress, 2005, Energy Policy Act of 2005, Sec. 1301, DSIRE—Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy, copy available at: Incentives/US13Fc.htm.Google Scholar
  2. BLS, 1998, Consumer Price Index—All urban consumers: Bureau of Labor Statistics, (, Accessed 15 July 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Danish Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, 1997, The energy balance of modern wind turbines: Danish Wind Turbine Manufacturers Association, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16 p. (,1033)/the_ energy_balance_of_modern_wind_ turbines%2c_1997.pdf).Google Scholar
  4. Denholm, P. L., 2004, Environmental and policy analysis of renewable energy enabling technologies: Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, 259 p.Google Scholar
  5. EIA, 2001, Renewable Energy Annual 2000: DOE/EIA-0603(2000), Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, ( Scholar
  6. EIA, 2004, EIA 759-Nonutility database: Energy Information Administration, ( page/eia906u.html), Accessed June 2004.Google Scholar
  7. EIA, 2004/6, EIA-906, Monthly Time Series File: Energy Information Administration, ( electricity/page/eia906_920.html), Multiple Years.Google Scholar
  8. EIA, 2006, Electric Power Monthly: DOE/EIA-0226(2006/09), Energy Information Administration, 161 p. (http://www.eia. Scholar
  9. EPRI, 2001, Wisconsin Low Wind Speed Turbine Project Third-Year Operating Experience: 2000–2001, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
  10. Friedrich, R., and Marheineke, T., 1994, Life cycle analysis of electricity Systems: methods and results: IAEA Advisory Group Meeting/Workshop, Beijing, China, IAEA, p. 67–75.Google Scholar
  11. MapquestTM, 1998, Roadmaps, ( roadmap.html), Accessed 3 February 1998.Google Scholar
  12. McGowin, C., DeMeo, E., and others, 1997, DOE-EPRI Distributed wind Turbine Verification Program (TVP III): Windpower 1997, Austin, Texas.Google Scholar
  13. NRC, 2006, Louisiana Energy Services (LES) Gas Centrifuge Facility: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (, Accessed 6 November 2006.Google Scholar
  14. NREL, 2006, United States—Megawatts of Installed Utility-Scale Wind Power: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, ( images/windmaps/installed_capacity_2006.jpg), Accessed 20 September 2006.Google Scholar
  15. Oreskes, N., 2004, The scientific consensus on climate change: Science, v. 306, no. 5702, p. 1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. San Martin, R. L., 1989, Environmental emissions from energy technology systems: The Total Fuel Cycle, USDOE.Google Scholar
  17. Spreng, D. T., 1988, Net energy analysis and the energy requirements of energy systems: Praeger, New York, 289 p.Google Scholar
  18. Uchiyama, Y., and Yamamoto, H., 1991, Energy analysis of power generation plants: Y90015, CRIEPI—Economic Research Center, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  19. White, S. W., 1998, Net energy payback and CO2 emissions from 3He fusion and wind electrical power plants: Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, 166 p.Google Scholar
  20. White, S. W., and Kulcinski, G. L., 1998, Energy payback ratios and CO2 emissions associated with the UWMAK-I and ARIES-RS DT-fusion power plants: Fusion Technology, v. 34, no. 2, p. 358–363.Google Scholar
  21. White, S. W., and Kulcinski, G. L., 1999, Net energy payback and CO2 emissions from wind-generated electricity in the midwest: Energy Center of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., 72 p. ( Scholar
  22. White, S. W., and Kulcinski, G. L., 2000, ‘Birth to Death’ analysis of the energy payback ratio and CO2 gas emission rates from coal, fission, wind, and DT fusion power plants: Fusion Engineering, v. 48, no. 248, p. 473–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Windpower Monthly News, 1999, Complete retrofit of generators at Lake Benton: Windpower Monthly, v. 15, no. 5, 33 p.Google Scholar
  24. Windpower Monthly News, 2000, Enron sells wind farms: Windpower Monthly, v. 16, no. 8, 4 p.Google Scholar
  25. WPSC, 1998, Low wind speed turbine project: Wisconsin Public Service Corp., (, Accessed September 5 1998.Google Scholar
  26. WPSC, 2005, Glenmore wind energy facility web-site, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Scholar
  27. Xcel Energy, 2004, Buffalo ridge wind power plant: Xcel Energy, (, Accessed 13 July 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Zond Energy Systems, I., 1997, The Z-46 Variable Speed Wind Turbine Generator: #00042 Rev. A, Zond Energy Systems, Inc., 18 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kansas Geological SurveyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations