Is their a study that answers these questions?
You are asking about the capacity factor, but that's governed more by when wind is available, and is about 40-50% for onshore wind.
> and during which lifetime to be able to pay up
This is the payback time and there are several to consider.
For the embodied greenhouse gases of the wind turbine, about 5.3 months on average: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6686152/
> for all that steel, copper, aluminum, and a couple of rare earth metals
About 6-7 years for the economic payback of capital costs (not counting the unaccounted avoided $ externalities of displaced fossil fuels).
https://www.semprius.com/how-long-does-it-take-a-wind-turbin...
Turbines last about 20 years.
> About 6-7 years for the economic payback of capital costs (not counting the unaccounted avoided $ externalities of displaced fossil fuels).
Presumably, all that steal and other material is still around in 20 years to be resold?
How much do materials like these depreciate over 20 years? I'd guess in REAL terms not even 50%.
Historically (since 1975) metals have appreciated about 5x after inflation. Here is the 50 year price of scrap steel futures:
https://www.investing.com/commodities/steel-scrap-historical...
Stuff like composites for the turbine blades don't have a clear recycling/resale story yet, although there have be recent attempts to grind them down and turn them into other useful things:
https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-....
It's around 6 to 9 months.
However, remember that all power plants have materials, and wind has the second-lowest lifecycle emissions of all renewable technologies (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf), and of course is orders of magnitude better than non-renewables.
> to pay up for all that steel, copper, aluminum, and a couple of rare earth metals,
This sentence obfuscates that we're just talking about the dollar price here. Which is easily calculated
> offset the environmental impact of collecting and producing such materials?
Harder to decisively calculate but seems unlikely to be an actual issue; and trivial when compared to the opportunity cost of generating the same energy with fossil fuels.
On shore wind is not as cost effective as solar or off shore wind either.
No direct answers but you can back out some timelines from these https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/offshore_...
https://weatherguardwind.com/how-much-does-wind-turbine-cost...
"GE’s renewables segment is going to generate between $15 billion and $16 billion in revenue this year, and onshore wind will make up the vast majority, roughly 70%."
The returns are fine and growing, but GE is restructuring, and as the article points out, facing stiff competition and supply chain issues as well. Apparently they think losing 20% of their staff will help, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how long it takes a new tower to become profitable.
There are several businesses in the chain.
The manufacturer (GE), and sometimes component manufacturers, the project lead/developer, financiers, insurers, the engineering lead, and sometimes specialists, the subcontractors who do the physical work. And probably more.
It's not uncommon for some of these to be financially stressed at times in PV. Not the financiers, though.
Jérôme Guillet has a series on financing offshore wind[1]. On-shore is along the same lines; I'm sure you can adjust.
Links to articles that reference the studies: - https://www.windpowerengineering.com/wind-turbine-carbon-pay... - https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is...
Wind can compete favorably with solar on price when you have the right conditions, which are both starting to beat traditional sources of power. It is hitting the point where you would select either wind or solar for price, when ignoring the desire for stable output.
One current issue for wind power is what to do with the waste. The blades erode over time and need to be replaced, but mostly consists of fiberglass. It's not a huge problem, but each advancement in technology brings a new set of problems to be dealt with. Still, I'd rather deal with fiberglass than nuclear waste.
...
The wells, refining plant, and pipelines for gas, and the mines, railways, and ash disposal pits for coal. And the river intakes, detention ponds and so on needed for steam and cooling water.
You are comparing wind power to 'nothing'. You need to compare it to the alternatives.
edit: HN not being able to take a joke as usual.