Large-scale wind energy slows down winds and reduces turbine efficiencies

[tater]

It doesn't work well at all. 2.1 W/m².  Not worth the ugly. Honestly, I'd get rid of them just for the eyesore factor alone.

[Elthy]

Hey, not everyone thinks its ugly. I have 5 extremly large ones (6MW class) about 3km from my window and i dont mind them at all, also i know noone else who complained. Similary the sound isnt an issue, you only hear them when you are directly below them (and then they are still more quiet than the ~1km distant Autobahn).

Talk about the uglyness of coal surface mining...

[cantab]

"The authors calculated that when wind energy is used at its maximum potential in a given region, each turbine in the presence of many other turbines generates on average only about 20% of the electricity compared to what an isolated turbine would generate."

In other words, trying to extract all the wind energy affects the wind and gives diminishing returns. No poop Sherlock.

[peadar1987]

I actually don't think wind turbines look bad, personal opinion is that they're quite graceful structures. I wouldn't like to see them in an area of particular natural beauty, but around where I live, or offshore? No bother. Solar doesn't work everywhere, wind works out far more economically viable in Scotland, at least for electricity generation.

[tater]

22 minutes ago, Elthy said:

Hey, not everyone thinks its ugly. I have 5 extremly large ones (6MW class) about 3km from my window and i dont mind them at all, also i know noone else who complained. Similary the sound isnt an issue, you only hear them when you are directly below them (and then they are still more quiet than the ~1km distant Autobahn).

Talk about the uglyness of coal surface mining...

Here in New Mexico, I'd be able to see those well in excess of 10X the distance you are from them. 5? Might not notice. That's not a wind farm. 500? Ugly. Here and there is not a problem, many in one place is an eyesore to anyone who values what the natural world looks like.

Take this nice place, which is about halfway between my house, and the awful wind farm:

I could have taken an image with windmills on the horizon from near here (luckily there is a mesa mostly in the way). Yuck. I don't have any pictures, because I don't take pictures that can include windmills (because they are ugly). I was at an ancient Anasazi ruin near here in Sept, and on the route in, we saw the bloody things.

Note that the ugly wind farm produces about 1/10th the power that an SSN produces.

Edited November 15, 2016 by tater

[wumpus]

4 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Browsing for Dr. Lee Miller i get the feeling that this is a "sponsored research". He doesn't even state his climate model, it seems like it was created for that purpose.

There already has been more serious work on the impact of turbines on local (!) windsystems. Global atmospheric circulation is driven by the the arrangement of continents, sea currents, large scale solar insolation, atmospheric composition ... these things. Even mountain ranges have "only" sub-continental impact on gc.

With my (limited) knowledge of earth science i'd say: nonsense.

Until proven wrong of course :-)

Edit: if course, the wind behind the turbine is different than in front of it, but the amount of energy taken out even by a large scale windpark (northsea comes to mind) is neglectible compared to what is available. And polluting the atmosphere with even more greenhouse gases or radiation is the ... second best solution, to say the least ;-)

I'm rather curious why we haven't seen this effect due to antenna towers and other structures that slow down the wind...

I will admit that the effects of large buildings are fairly well understood, especially by anybody who has stood in NYC when the North wind is blowing.  But windmills aren't the same as buildings that cover that much area nor completely block out the wind, they are much more like antenna towers.

[78stonewobble]

5 hours ago, SchweinAero said:

"The authors calculated that when wind energy is used at its maximum potential in a given region, each turbine in the presence of many other turbines generates on average only about 20% of the electricity compared to what an isolated turbine would generate."

"Dr. Axel Kleidon, group leader at Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, admits that these scenarios of wind energy are hypothetical. Yet, he sees the results as highly relevant for the future expansion of wind energy."

I find it hasty to say "clean energy is not so clean and not so safe for environment". At most the result means that wind turbines should not be placed right next to one another in huge numbers, which makes intuitive sense both environmentally and financially.

To those who post after us: the OP did make a sweeping and provocative claim, but please let others be the ones who lapse into insults. Thank you.

It does mean, that you have to travel further to maintain the windmills, with associated costs in energy, risks during transport and more losses to energy.

[tater]

True, regarding antenna towers. I don't think the concern is for isolated windmills. Personally, I'm talking about large numbers. Alta (ugly!) has 600 turbines. Capricorn ridge has over 400. 

Roughly speaking, it takes 5-600 windmills to produce the electricity a single, safe, USN SSN can.

In wooded areas, you can be 1km away from something and have no idea it even exists. In the western US (or similar places like Australia), you can see these things from huge distances. Driving through the wind farm heading towards LA from the East is horrific. I'd be against the same amount of space covered with high tension wires, too. Or radio antennas.

The way to look at it is ugliness per watt hour as viewed from 10km, say. A nuke plant might be invisible 10km away. A coal plant itself would be, but the smoke would be visible much farther (like wind.or worse). Solar is so low to the ground, it would be nearly impossible to see from any distance (except maybe a single moment when it reflects at you, until the sun moves in a few seconds).

[Green Baron]

@wumpus: i would guess that behind a tower or antenna there is an effect as well, like shown f.e. by the accumulation of silt on the leeside od an obstacle, depending on the windspeed and direction. But surely few care about this. It plays a role in the planning of development a city (pressure changes, wind-dynamics, ...) but not on a regional scale. Noone cares about the effects of warming in and behind a city, though we are talking about many degrees here (temperature above concrete vs. above forest/meadows, sealing of the ground, changes to evaporation of surface water, ....).

I think that, as the discussion about alternative energies is changing the way we think and consume (it does change mine :-)), a lot of it is exaggerated in the one or the other way, depending on "what side your on". Sorry if this sounds a little ... comical, but there are substantial economic interests involved. The energy markets of the countries i know (i do not know the USA, fill me in !) are often oligarchic, few companies divide the market. That is not exactly a recipe for a change.

In some countries the installation of alternative energies, namely solar power, is highly encouraged, even subsidized, but not so here. You are not allowed to produce energy and feed it into the grid (like in Germany, where you get paid a little), instead you must disconnect or make sure that nothing gets out (technically not a problem). Some say this is because the company is in bed with the decision makers. But things change under public pressure, it just takes a while :-)

@tater: I hate to link to Wikipedia ... but this might solve your problem.

*duckandcover*

:-))))

 

Edit, yes how silly from me .... there are more sophisticated methods for felling a windmill.

:-)

Edited November 15, 2016 by Green Baron

[tater]

Assuming they have one that cuts steel, we're in bidness  .

[Elthy]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

True, regarding antenna towers. I don't think the concern is for isolated windmills. Personally, I'm talking about large numbers. Alta (ugly!) has 600 turbines. Capricorn ridge has over 400. 

Roughly speaking, it takes 5-600 windmills to produce the electricity a single, safe, USN SSN can.

In wooded areas, you can be 1km away from something and have no idea it even exists. In the western US (or similar places like Australia), you can see these things from huge distances. Driving through the wind farm heading towards LA from the East is horrific. I'd be against the same amount of space covered with high tension wires, too. Or radio antennas.

The way to look at it is ugliness per watt hour as viewed from 10km, say. A nuke plant might be invisible 10km away. A coal plant itself would be, but the smoke would be visible much farther (like wind.or worse). Solar is so low to the ground, it would be nearly impossible to see from any distance (except maybe a single moment when it reflects at you, until the sun moves in a few seconds).

Ok, 600 in one spot isnt realy nice. In my area they are build in small groups, 2-7 at once...

[tater]

The growth in need for electricity is such that you basically need to cover an area equal to the entire UK in windmills each year, just to keep up with world demand. Closest packing of windmills for optimal efficiency.

Edited November 15, 2016 by tater

[peadar1987]

53 minutes ago, tater said:

The growth in need for electricity is such that you basically need to cover an area equal to the entire UK in windmills each year, just to keep up with world demand. Closest packing of windmills for optimal efficiency.

But you wouldn't get all of your power from wind. Solar in places where there is lots of sunlight. Wind in places where there is lots of wind. Wave and tidal if you have it. Nuclear and energy storage for base load. You get the most energy for the lowest investment. I know you don't like wind, but in Scotland, solar doesn't even come close for price per kW installed.

[tater]

No doubt. We have 300+ sunny days a year here. 

Still, wind is pretty lousy. A single tiny nuke would replace that 600 unit wind farm. One old, decommissioned nuclear submarine plugged into the grid.

[78stonewobble]

10 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

Your wiki link contains this: " Wind power has a negligible effect on global mean surface temperature, and it would deliver "enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO₂ and air pollutants". Another peer-reviewed study suggested that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could actually have a warming effect, causing temperatures to rise by 1 °C (1.8 °F) in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions. This is due to the effect of wind turbines on both horizontal and vertical atmospheric circulation. Whilst turbines installed in water would have a cooling effect, the net impact on global surface temperatures would be an increase of 0.15 °C (0.27 °F) "

Sorry for cutting into your post here and this is more general questions at... well... everyone:

A: Just what will be the global energy demand in the year 2100 and what is 10 percent of that?

B: What is the carbon foot print and other enviromental issues from using wind turbines and the associated energy storage (batteries, hydrogen tanks, hydro, moltensalt and what not)?

If wikipedia, of all places, are to be trusted, then the global energy consumption in 2012 was 104,426 terawatt-hour and supply at 155,505 TWh. Windpower accounted for 534,3 TWh and would need to reach 10,442.6 TWh (20 x current wind capacity) to account for 10 percent of consumption and 15,550.6 TWh (30 x current wind capacity).

Alta Wind Energy Center generates on average 2,680.6 GWh and consists of 600 units taking up 3,200 acres. If my math is correct and that is far from certain... would we not need around 3,896 such Wind farms to just generate 10 percent of current consumption in 2012 (much less 2100)? With the associated 2,337,322 individual turbines and taking up 12,465,985 acres or 50,448 square kilometers (about the size of Costa Rica)?

To reach 10 percent of energy production in 2012, we would need 5,801 windfarms of that size, 3,480,698 individual turbines and 18,563,724 acres or 75,124 square kilometers (around the size of Panama)?

Factor in energy storage and transmission losses and not to mention possibly going for heating via electricity rather than central heating.

PS: In Spain there's a solar power plant using molten salt for energy storage. It requires 57,000 tonnes of molten salts (60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate) for storing power for 7.5 hours of usage for a plant that on average generates 495 GWh a year. To store enough energy for 10 percent of world wide energy consumption this way requires 1,202,481,212 tonnes of molten salts total, 721,488,727 tonnes of sodium nitrate and 480,992,484 tonnes of potassium nitrate. I don't know the global production or supply of sodium nitrate, but potassium nitrate comes from potash (correct me if I'm wrong?) and that supply is limited to around 37.62 million tonnes a year, which if 100 percent used for energy storage, would take around 12 years of production or at 1 percent about 126 years to produce enough.

PPS: Every time I take a look at these numbers, and granted my math be completely bonkers, nuclear power to be hopefully replaced by fusion looks more and more attractive.

Edited November 16, 2016 by 78stonewobble

[YNM]

This is a well-known, sensible fact. It's so sensible in fact that at least one city-building game has implemented it.

Nothing to lose, then.

[78stonewobble]

3 hours ago, peadar1987 said:

But you wouldn't get all of your power from wind. Solar in places where there is lots of sunlight. Wind in places where there is lots of wind. Wave and tidal if you have it. Nuclear and energy storage for base load. You get the most energy for the lowest investment. I know you don't like wind, but in Scotland, solar doesn't even come close for price per kW installed.

If you've got a shiny new nuclear powerplant for base load, why not run it all the time and not waste rawmaterial and energy to produce and maintain wind, solar, wave, tidal plus their associated storage requirements?

Apart from wanting to spend the least amount of money that is.

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, tater said:

No doubt. We have 300+ sunny days a year here. 

Still, wind is pretty lousy. A single tiny nuke would replace that 600 unit wind farm. One old, decommissioned nuclear submarine plugged into the grid.

300+ sunny days, and less (depending on your mountain) atmosphere to go through.  I'd stop complaining about the wind and go solar.
(This might have something to do with my memory of getting 2nd degree sunburn at Philmont, and just a couple days).

[cantab]

10 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

If you've got a shiny new nuclear powerplant for base load, why not run it all the time and not waste rawmaterial and energy to produce and maintain wind, solar, wave, tidal plus their associated storage requirements?

Apart from wanting to spend the least amount of money that is.

Well that's how nuclear power is operated. Partly because some (though not all) nuclear plants are slow to change their output, but mainly for economic reasons - the cost of running a nuke plant does not depend on output. The same economic situation applies to wind and most solar, but I think they can technically change their output quickly provided there's wind or sun available. On the other hand for power plants using fuel (whether it's fossil fuel or renewable biofuel), it's best to burn the fuel only when the power can be sold for good money, which means meeting peak loads. Some hydro and solar systems that can effectively store water or heat share that behaviour, and hydro can change output very quickly too.

Realistically we're going to have a mix of generation. Most solar has the blatant disadvantage of only working in the day.

[78stonewobble]

4 minutes ago, cantab said:

1. Well that's how nuclear power is operated. Partly because some (though not all) nuclear plants are slow to change their output, but mainly for economic reasons - the cost of running a nuke plant does not depend on output. 2. The same economic situation applies to wind and most solar, but I think they can technically change their output quickly provided there's wind or sun available. On the other hand for power plants using fuel (whether it's fossil fuel or renewable biofuel), it's best to burn the fuel only when the power can be sold for good money, which means meeting peak loads. 3. Some hydro and solar systems that can effectively store water or heat share that behaviour, and hydro can change output very quickly too.

Realistically we're going to have a mix of generation. Most solar has the blatant disadvantage of only working in the day.

1. That's true.

2. It's the... "provided there's wind or sun available" that's a problem... You still need to have some to quite a bit of power available if the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine.

3. Hydro is pretty awesome, untill you flood a historical town with it, cause landslides and a small manmade tsuname and so forth, but it is geographically limited and the energy storage systems of solar power plants can't practically be scaled to a significant portion of humanity's energy needs (atleast not molten salts) as far as I can see... See my other post here...

...

If wikipedia is to be believed in 2002 Denmarks windpower network generated less than 1 percent of average demand for 54 days... In 2013 it generated 100 percent... for 90 hours.

That is quite variable and our (being Danish myself) other powerplants (coal, oil and some biofuel) had to pick up the slack or we had to buy power from German coal or nuclear powerplants or Sweden and Norway.

 

[tater]

37 minutes ago, wumpus said:

300+ sunny days, and less (depending on your mountain) atmosphere to go through.  I'd stop complaining about the wind and go solar.
(This might have something to do with my memory of getting 2nd degree sunburn at Philmont, and just a couple days).

Lots of people have PVs. I complain about wind because I have to look at the blinky lights in front of Mt. Taylor.

my house is at about the same altitude as the lowest part of Philmont (6500ft). Sun is harsh even at that altitude.

[kerbiloid]

11 hours ago, Elthy said:

Talk about the uglyness of coal surface mining...

Yes, btw. They are made of plastic (need coal mining) and metal (need coal mining).

P.S.
Strange to presume that a redistribution comparable amounts of energy would not cause comparable impact on the nature.

P.P.S.
As wind energy is 100% solar energy accumulated in water and air, a wind energetics is a low-efficient perversed way to utilize sunlight at high latitudes.

P.P.P.S.
Unless you are lurking in a desert rancho far from cable lines.

Edited November 16, 2016 by kerbiloid

[JayPee]

We could decide, collectively, as a society, to simply use fewer resources.  Many of us live well above any reasonably measured minimum standard of living.

For instance, what if we decided, for the good of all of us, not to waste valuable watt-hours simulating the horrific, explosive deaths of fictional little green idiots in a comical series of poorly-planned simulated rocketry experiments.

Edited November 16, 2016 by JayPee
spelling error

[Green Baron]

 

I find this funny :-)

Are you working with different scales here, to suit a personal conception of what is "good" or "bad" ? A tiny scale (x/1000) is used for the impact of radiation and emission of green-house gases by conventional means of power generation to show that this is not that bad and nobody dies of it, and a huge scale (x*1000) is used to illustrate imaginative dangers of a renewable energy.

Germans have a word for that "Stammtisch Politik", illustrating the discussion of politics by those members of a village between mugs of beer in a local pub who have problems with a change. Nothing good comes from that :-) Like the hobbits in the lord of rings :-)

 

Sorry, no offense, but i just couldn't resist to overlook it from a distance. But i think you must admit that it has a political touch.

Sure, not everything is gold, but we will not change the world the one or other way in a game forum :-)

http://www.iea.org/topics/renewables/subtopics/wind/

Edit: i got a 1:50 die cast scale model of the crane with the lattice jib. It stands tall. Very tall.

 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Green Baron

[Tullius]

12 hours ago, tater said:

No doubt. We have 300+ sunny days a year here. 

Still, wind is pretty lousy. A single tiny nuke would replace that 600 unit wind farm. One old, decommissioned nuclear submarine plugged into the grid.

The problem with a nuclear power plant is, it needs water for cooling. And New Mexico is pretty low on water.

I grew up less than 20km from Cattenom in France, according to wikipedia the 8th largest nuclear power plant in the world. It takes its cooling water from the river Moselle and returns part of it back into it. Suffice to say that the captains of the ships (not very big, but still sufficient for commercial transport) on it are quite happy with it: There is much less ice on the river during the winter than before, since Cattenom heats the river up by 1 or 2 degrees.