Oh No! 2009 record amounts of new US wind power

[BubbaDog]

@Zeriel

Hey, man, I can’t help having heard words to the effect from a climatologist. No damn reason to jump on someone looking for the straight dope on the subject.

Besides, the end of the study says flat out :
“Our analysis suggests that the climatic impacts of wind power may be nonnegligible, but they do not allow a detailed quantitative evaluation of the climatic changes induced by extraction of wind power. Further research is warranted on the local effects of current wind farms on surface climate and boundary-layer meteorology, as well as on the development of better parameterizations of wind farms in large-scale models.”

If we are pushing collectively for renewable energy to be more than a minuscule fraction of global power generation, then this is the kind of thing we NEED to think about and plan for, or else what’s the point of trading one power-generating demon for another. It shouldn’t just be dismissed out of hand as absurd.

Hey, if you just got a nice grant to do a study of the obvious would you conclude your study with - “well this is just plain silly” or would you throw in a “This could use more investigation”

Read the passage you just quoted. It’s basically saying that they really couldn’t even quantify the effects of restraining wind.

We’re talking about some structures that decrease the total energy of the global weather machine by such a minute amount that it’s results belong in the realm of the butterfly effect.

Think of it. Even if you cover hundreds of thousands of square miles with wind turbines you have impeded the planet’s airflow by just a minuscule amount. The atmosphere extends for miles above those turbines. And most of the energy continues to flow not only around them on the millions of square miles not impeded and in the airspace above them. It also flows through them. That’s why they said “do not allow a detail quantitative evaluation”. They lacked the ability to detect the differences in wind force between up-stream and down-stream wind currents at the site of the plants. They had to rely on mathematical models instead of measurable tests.

My snark wasn’t prompted about the question, but about the implied lack of priorities the question raised.

Acid rain, global warming, heavy metal pollution, thermal waste - these are all big ticket items that are problems with the existing generation infrastructure.

With wind -power you also have migratory bird issues, transmission stabilization, aquatic and land environmental impact etc.

A study on “Gee, does it slow down the wind or something” just seems way to low on the list to even be a consideration at this point.

[Chimera]

Boys, tear down the Himalayas. They’re blocking the wind.

[wmfellows]

@Zeriel

It shouldn’t just be dismissed out of hand as absurd.

Actually, yes it should.

[Ludovic]

When you think about it, a comparable situation occured hundreds of years ago. The entire eastern half of the United States used to be forested, with an impact on the wind surely several orders of magnitude higher than if you built as many windfarms in the same place as needed to supply our current energy needs.

And while the forests probably had some effect on wind patterns, the fact remains that no disastrous disruption to climate due to wind pattern change occured when they were removed.

[Zeriel]

@BubbaDog

A study on “Gee, does it slow down the wind or something” just seems way to low on the list to even be a consideration at this point.

The number I came away with was in the opening to their conclusions, which estimated seasonal mean temperature shifts of half a degree in a scenario where 10% of global power is generated by wind. That’s not exactly a small number, climatologically speaking. It’s positively minuscule when compared with the ecological effects of fossil fuel power, true. It might be a small or large number when compared with, say, the ecological impact of hydroelectric or nuclear or solar.

My thoughts:

• It was a NCAR/GFDL-model-based study. If it cost a million total in grant money to run, I’d be very surprised. My last employer would routinely make bids for climate research projects of similar complexity in the $500k range.
• I would rather not get into a situation where we install a significant power generation base on ANY technology without seriously considering the variables. That’s how we ended up with a greenhouse effect in the first place. These kind of studies just seem like basic prudence.
• It’s already apparent that climate is potentially profoundly affected by relatively minor changes–the science of global warming should have already taught us about the potentially disastrous effects of mean temperature shifts of tenths-of-a-degree. So why is it silly to wonder about the potential consequences, at least enough to wonder if anyone’s modeled it, of extracting atmospheric energy in the terawatt range? (aside from politics, I mean).

@Ludovic

When you think about it, a comparable situation occured hundreds of years ago. The entire eastern half of the United States used to be forested, with an impact on the wind surely several orders of magnitude higher than if you built as many windfarms in the same place as needed to supply our current energy needs.

And while the forests probably had some effect on wind patterns, the fact remains that no disastrous disruption to climate due to wind pattern change occured when they were removed.

I don’t know enough about climatology to know if the difference in heights between forests and 90+m wind turbine towers is significant in this regard.

[robby]

@Chimera

Boys, tear down the Himalayas. They’re blocking the wind.

I don’t doubt that the Himalayas affect wind patterns. What is your point, exactly? That mountain ranges don’t affect wind patterns and climate?

[robby]

@The_Second_Stone

Wind industry grows at record pace in 2009 - MarketWatch

In 2009, 5,700 new wind turbines were installed in the United States. This constitutes up to 10,000 megawatts of new power.

Meanwhile, nuclear energy has supplied not a single watt of new power in the US in the past 30 years, yet gets tens of billions in loan guarantees. Good news for hucksters promoting nuclear power. I predict in the next five years, not a single nuke plant will break ground in the US, and meanwhile we can expect more and more wind turbines generating actual electricity.

Now, please, all you nuke loving fantasists, let’s hear the excuses from the losers who can’t bring power on line. Oh, ugly shriveled up coal apologists are also welcome.

Interesting relevant article by George Will in this week’s Newsweek:
This Nuclear Option Is Nuclear: The costs of fads and superstition.

In the article, he directly addresses why wind power is growing at such a rapid pace: unsurprisingly, it is being heavily subsidized by the government.

@George Will

Meanwhile, America, which pioneered nuclear power, is squandering money on wind power, which provides 1.3 percent of the nation’s electricity: it is slurping up $30 billion of tax breaks and other subsidies amounting to $18.82 per megawatt-hour, 25 times as much per megawatt-hour as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity production.

Wind power involves gargantuan “energy sprawl.” To produce 20 percent of America’s power by wind, which the Obama administration dreamily proposes, would require 186,000 tall turbines—40 stories tall, their flashing lights can be seen for 20 miles—covering an area the size of West Virginia. The amount of electricity that would be produced by wind turbines extending the entire 2,178 miles of the Appalachian Trail can be produced by four reactors occupying four square miles of land. And birds beware: the American Bird Conservancy estimates that the existing 25,000 turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds a year. Imagine the toll that 186,000 turbines would take.

[BubbaDog]

@Zeriel

(snip)

• It was a NCAR/GFDL-model-based study. If it cost a million total in grant money to run, I’d be very surprised. My last employer would routinely make bids for climate research projects of similar complexity in the $500k range.(snip)

If you are familiar with these models and types of study you should also be familiar with their range of error. I suspect that the results of this study are well below the noise threshold of the calculations.

The only thing that is 100% accurate is that some effect happens. The 1st law of thermodynamics guarantees this.

The changes in landscape caused by the creation of metropolitan areas have been happening for a few hundred years. It’s easier to extrapolate an impact from this existing data and come to the conclusion that yes, there are impacts and no they aren’t very big.

[BubbaDog]

@robby

I don’t doubt that the Himalayas affect wind patterns. What is your point, exactly? That mountain ranges don’t affect wind patterns and climate?

It’s a whoosh. The point is that wind turbines are much less of an invasive presence to the planets climatology than something as natural as a mountain range.

It’s the fine point that Zeriel and I have been arguing. Zeriel contends that a study of the climatological effect of removing power from wind is important. I claim it isn’t.