What they seem to be claiming is that because the wood itself contains more carbon that is used to produce the turbine, they have net negative carbon emissions before accounting for actual energy production.

That seems pretty dubious to me. After the turbine’s thirty year life, what happens to that carbon?

At any rate, if it’s true that it takes 90% less carbon to produce in the first place, setting aside the whole “wood contains carbon” thing, that’s pretty cool.