What does "net-zero" mean in this context?

I would have assumed of course that wind turbines are net negative emissions, even factoring in the construction and materials.

Do they mean net-zero in materials and construction alone? Because that sounds impossible.

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.

Presumably they mean that the CO2 captured in the wood of the tower can offset the manufacture of blades and other components at some point in the future. Not that reaching net zero in wind power is an important milestone or anything. From their technology page:

> The life-cycle emissions from modern wind power plants made of steel are about 4–7 grammes carbon dioxide per kWh. Building the tower in wood lowers the emissions from the wind power plant by approximately 30 percent per kWh.

That would put wind power some 50-100x below fossil fuels already. Additional improvements are always nice to have, but not really a big selling point.

> I would have assumed of course that wind turbines are net negative emissions, even factoring in the construction and materials.

It's net much-less-than-coal and much-less-than-oil, but it's not zero and certainly not negative.

I think you're confusing "if we add this to the grid we subtract the carbon emissions compared to the current system" with "this pulls carbon from the atmosphere". Those are very different things.