That would be amazing if it was the case (and wind would get a lot more support if so), but it doesn't say that. It says it pays for itself emissions-wise.
It says “can” and op said “if”. Is not one else seeing how these posts are pandering?
In a moral society, paying off the environmental deficit of production is as important as the monetary deficit.
Who defines what moral is
While this is talking about carbon emissions the monetary payoff is not that much different. There's a reason people are building these things like crazy. The solution to climate change is to align the incentives.
It's not too surprising that the payoff times are similar - the cost to manufacture something (that doesn't require large amounts of human labour) tends to approximate the energy input required.