TANSTAAFL*
Air turbulence from giant turbines causes air temperatures to rise around wind farms, scientists say. Researchers … examined conditions around 2,358 turbines at four Texas wind farms. [They] reported a temperature increase of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade at wind farm locations, compared to nearby areas.
…
“Turbine rotors were modifying surface-atmosphere exchanges and the transfer of energy, momentum, mass and moisture within the atmosphere,” they wrote. [T]he results match modeling studies showing wind farms can significantly affect local scale meteorology by increasing surface roughness, changing the stability of the atmospheric boundary layer, and enhancing turbulence in the wake generated by rotor blades. [more]
The rest of the article is a “yeah, but.” They try to say it’s a minor effect (which is probably is) that’s offset by taking CO2 producers out of the energy-production process (which it doesn’t). Since wind generation is variable, no coal/nuke/gas plants have been taken off line; because they have to be available when the wind dies and to accommodate peak demands. They just don’t count that unproductive CO2 in the “offsets” and “savings.”
Finish your assignment! »
* There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch in nature or anywhere else.
Nature doesn’t care how friggin’ brilliant one thinks one’s idea is.
Finish your assignment! »
Didn’t wanna say “I told you so,” but I told you so. There’s an extended comment or post back in the archives some years ago about this.
Humans do not understand the physics of the atmosphere well enough to ignore the unknowns, and those looking to support their pet theory often neglect to include the entire “system” that’s in play (I have a MS in Systems Engineering, not the software kind, and I can attest that tunnel vision will ruin a solution as fast as anything). Architects and engineers have had to deal with local surface aerodynamics only for the past century or so. Climatologists, unlike meteorologists, seem more interested in statistics than in cause-and-effect. They are looking for data to support or stories that describe their mythology, they are not trying to understand the physics.
No, that’s not quite right. They want talking points to justify punishing Homo sapiens for it’s presumption, for it’s arrogance in rising above the other animals, for polluting the idyll, for spoiling their little fantasy. Well, for the peasants doing that, not they themselves, not they the enlightened, not they the ones living in their cloud castles with rainbows and unicorns, not they the ones Mom said were special, not they the ones who know a good king when they see one, not they the believers in the enlightened despot, not they who don’t care how many millions have to die from their really, really sincere good intentions for the Earth.
[Send SASE for a transcript of the entire rant.]
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
17 Comments!
But will such evidence make any difference to those “enlightened” ones?
Nah, they will just make something up explaining how this supports their theories.
How this will support their theories— hmmm what was that about theories??? It’s all in the harnessing of it and the distribution of it— figure that out and maybe it could work but not on the premise of stopping global warming. Natures way is a gift we aren’t smart enough to figure out.
Now it becomes obvious: wind turbines cause Global Warming.
“Climate scientist Professor Nigel Tapper …
“I do believe in global warming and I believe we have to look at alternative energy.”
Click red shoes together three times.
“If you were to use solar panels rather than turbines you would still have an effect.”
O rly????????????
I love that the wakes from the front bird-dicers are lowering the efficiency of the ones behind…
Air turbulence?? I thought it was the heat from the steaming carcasses of gajillions of bald eagles slaughtered by the 7 ton blades…
Silly me.
Looks like they would have at least consulted an aeronautical engineer, pilot, adult with common sense, or teenager with above common sense about the turbulence factor/decreased efficiency of placing them in a straight frigging line.
Or maybe just wait for a flock of geese to fly over.
mojo (4) & joe (6)
Ahh, you noticed that.
I pondered (read: pon-der-ed) upon that very observation for a while.
I’m guessing that they decided upon that layout geometry for economic reasons (perhaps it entails the cheapest overall underwater* cabling costs, dunno).
I’ll bet there’s a study, somewhere, evaluating the aerodynamic shadowing factors vs wind distribution for a number of layout geometries. Might be a fun thesis.
One would assume that this photo is not of the prevailing wind direction. If it is, it appears that somebody screwed-up. However, any layout will have some shadowing on the third or fourth row, no matter how you slice it, so it may well be a viable layout in whatever overall-value function one uses to decide these things.
* Might not be water. Might be a land fog. Dunno. Similar considerations apply. Might have other constraints having nothing to do with efficiency (e.g. field corners).
I say we just kill ‘em. They’re starting to get on my nerves.
Eddies and vortices are evidence of energy lost. Next: wind turbine blades with winglets on the tips.
That way we can have sliced as well as smashed birds.
Soooo, that fat fucker, Ted Kennedy (…who knew sumfin about water under a bridge…) was right about wind turbines, near his house, up East! {…Bonus knowledge: In Hell, they really fucking *fan* the flames, Senator :o}
Slightly off topic, but I wonder if that is have an effect regarding the drought in Texas?
They are just about to drop the drought status, but we have had the DRIEST April ever.
Down through the decades of my techy careers I’ve invoked Heinlein’s TANSTAAFL…. a lot. Invariably I’ve gotten the blankest stares and unending arguments from the left-of-center.
a) at last! proof of man-made climate change….
b) I think Heinlein should be required reading in high school. Taken together, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Starship Troopers, Glory Road, and Red Planet (teenagers with guns! shooting whatever needs to be shot!) should provide something to both educate and offend just about everybody.
c) Meanwhile, more “green energy” bullshit gone astray and fucking up the environment:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/04/28/solyndra-not-dealing-with-toxic-waste-at-milpitas-facility/
Correct, DougM.
Just because the pic was taken of them neatly in rows into the wind, doesn’t mean its the prevailing wind direction.
We have a rather large wind farm near me and the rows seem to be not quite perpendicular, but slightly angled to the prevailing direction. (like the leading edge of a modern, non-aerobatic airplane wing)
Rest assured, there are many thousands of hours of CFD that go into determining turbine placement.
Well there you go! Ted Kennedy was right to not want those wind mills off Martha’s Vineyard!
So instead… DRILL BABY DRILL!
Windmills are pretty handy if you want to get a taxing entity to help secure right of way, which you can use for other things. I’ve heard a pipeline fits well in the confines of the area needed for overhead cables.
^ interesting point Jess. Can I use the land under the windmills to grow weed?