Oh, thank heavens wind power will be safe

This academic pushing this PNAS paper thinks wind turbines don’t break, but get obsoleted in about 30 years. Boy is she in for a reality check. That and anyone who thinks they can accurately predict wind power density 30-50 years into the future might not pay attention to details like that. I wonder what makes the great lakes special but not the upper peninsula of Michigan in between? – Anthony

Global warming won’t harm wind energy production, climate models predict

 
Results from the Canadian regional climate model (CRCM) show the difference in energy density (power in the wind) between 2041-2062 and 1979-2000. If the grid cell is red the future energy density is higher than the historical values and if it is blue the future energy density is lower than the historical values. Solid squares show differences above 10% while the open symbols show changes of plus or minus 5-10%. The white grid cells show that the future lies within 5% of the historical values.2011Image by Sara Pryor, IU BloomingtonFuture U.S. wind density - click to enlarge

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Source Indiana University

May 2, 2011

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — The production of wind energy in the U.S. over the next 30-50 years will be largely unaffected by upward changes in global temperature, say a pair of Indiana University Bloomington scientists who analyzed output from several regional climate models to assess future wind patterns in America’s lower 48 states.

Their report — the first analysis of long-term stability of wind over the U.S. — appears in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.

“The greatest consistencies in wind density we found were over the Great Plains, which are already being used to harness wind, and over the Great Lakes, which the U.S. and Canada are looking at right now,” said Provost’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Sara Pryor, the project’s principal investigator. “Areas where the model predicts decreases in wind density are quite limited, and many of the areas where wind density is predicted to decrease are off limits for wind farms anyway.”

Coauthor Rebecca Barthelmie, also a professor of atmospheric science, said the present study begins to address a major dearth of information about the long-term stability of wind as an energy resource. Questions have lingered about whether a warmer atmosphere might lead to decreases in wind density or changes in wind patterns.

“We decided it was time someone did a thorough analysis of long term-patterns in wind density,” Barthelmie said. “There are a lot of myths out there about the stability of wind patterns, and industry and government also want more information before making decisions to expand it.”

Pryor and Barthelmie examined three different regional climate models in terms of wind density changes in a future U.S. experiencing modest but noticeable climate change (warming of about 2 degrees Celsius relative to the end of the last century).

The scientists found the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM) did the best job modeling the current wind climate, but included results from Regional Climate Model 3 (created in Italy but now developed in the U.S.) and the Hadley Centre Model (developed in the U.K.) for the sake of academic robustness and to see whether the different models agreed or disagreed when seeded with the same parameters.

All three state-of-the-art regional climate models were chained to output from one of four atmospheric-ocean general circulation models to derive a complete picture of wind density changes throughout the study area — the lower 48 United States and a portion of northern Mexico.

Comparing model predictions for 2041-2062 to past observations of wind density (1979-2000), most areas were predicted to see little or no change. The areas expected to see continuing high wind density — and therefore greater opportunities for wind energy production — are atop the Great Lakes, eastern New Mexico, southwestern Ohio, southern Texas, and large swaths of several Mexican states, including Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, Chihuahua, and Durango.

“There was quite a bit of variability in predicted wind densities, but interestingly, that variability was very similar to the variability we observe in current wind patterns,” Pryor said.

The Great Lakes — Lakes Michigan, Superior, and Erie in particular — consistently showed high wind density no matter what model was used.

Such predictions should prove crucial to American policymakers and energy producers, many of whom have pledged to make wind energy 20 percent of America’s total energy production by 2030. Currently only about 2 percent of American energy comes from wind.

“There have been questions about the stability of wind energy over the long term, ” Barthelmie said. “So we are focusing on providing the best science available to help decision makers.” Pryor added that ‘this is the first assessment of its type, so the results have to be considered preliminary. Climate models are evolving and improving all the time, so we intend to continue this assessment as new models become available.’

Wind farms are nearly carbon neutral, and studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production. A typical turbine lasts about 30 years, Pryor says, not because parts break, but because advances in technology make it desirable to replace turbines with newer versions.

“Wind speed increases with height, so turbines are also getting taller,” Pryor said. “One of our future projects will be to assess the benefit of deploying bigger turbines that extend farther from the ground.”

This is also the week of the annual Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, the largest such energy conference in the world, which has increasingly focused on offshore wind energy production in recent years.

Last month, Pryor was appointed to the National Climate Assessment and Development Committee, convened by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help the U.S. government prepare for and deal with climate change. She also contributed to a special report used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Barthelmie is a widely respected expert on wind energy, particularly in northern Europe, whose wind farms she has studied for years. She was the winner of the European Academy of Wind Energy’s 2009 Academy Science Award. Both Pryor and Barthelmie are faculty in the IU Bloomington Department of Geography, a division of the College of Arts and Sciences, and the Center for Research in Environmental Science.

Pryor and Barthelmie’s work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (BCS 1019603), the International Atomic Energy Authority, and the IU Center for Research in Environmental Sciences. The model output they analyzed were provided by the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP). NARCCAP is funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development.

===============================================================

The full paper: Barthelmie- nas-wind-paper

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

99 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Luke of the D
May 2, 2011 4:30 pm

Sara, Rebecca! Say it ain’t so! You were two of my favorite professors (well Sara was… Rebecca didn’t teach anything when I was there… [trimmed, Robt] Just look at this sentence: “Wind farms are nearly carbon neutral, and studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production.” Really? REALLY? So all that uber-pollution in China is “carbon neutral?” All that glorious 0-5% efficiency will allow your government subsidized wind farm boondagle to pay itself off in 3 months? Really? How is that logical?!?

old engineer
May 2, 2011 4:35 pm

Let’s see. Because of AGW, temperature will get warmer (or colder, depending) and precipitation will decrease (or increase, depending), BUT wind will remain the same!
Of course it will, because we need to it to stay the same to justify our push for wind power.

Luke of the D
May 2, 2011 4:35 pm

Wait-wait-wait. Forget the comment about [OK – It’s trimmed. Robt]… wrong person. Sorry! I did like Sara Pryor though… she was a good teacher.

Karl
May 2, 2011 4:51 pm

I live and work in the Upper Peninsula. The federal and state agencies are deeply committed to the agenda as our environmental groups. One, the Lake Superior Watershed Partnership gave away free CFL light bulbs. Here’s a supposedly environmental organization that’s giving away something that could potentially contaminate our water with mercury. Then they got a grant to study the feasibility of wind power. They want to erect these monstrosities that will blight our landscape. Insane!

May 2, 2011 4:52 pm

Doesn’t the wind decrease > 10% to the east of Florida mean that winds are going to be less, the winds less because of a lower thermal gradient across that part of the ocean, which means that hurricanes will be less…..?

May 2, 2011 4:56 pm

I have to wonder (and have wondered for many years) if anyone has considered the ramifications of removing that energy from the atmosphere. Will it affect weather patterns? Some other consequence not yet considered?

jack morrow
May 2, 2011 4:56 pm

Grants and models, grants and models. I am disgusted because this is all these type seem to come up with-another model and another grasp for grants.

Richard S Courtney
May 2, 2011 5:00 pm

So, according to a prediction of a climate model that has yet to demonstrate predictive ability, wind farms that don’t work will not be affected by climate changes.
And before the cliamre trolls and the shills for windpower companies jump in, I point out the following.
The climate model has not existed for 30 years so it is impossible for it to have made a correct prediction for a 30 or 50 year period: hindecasting is not forecasting. So, the climate model and the casting of chicken bones have the same demonstrated ability to predict winds 30 to 50 years in the future.
Windfarms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging bird swatters that produce no useful electricity at any time: they merely displace power stations onto standby mode (when the power stations continue to consume their fuel and to produce their emissions) during the periods when the wind is strong enough but not too strong for the wind turbines to generate electricity.
Richard

R. Shearer
May 2, 2011 5:01 pm

They pay for themselves after 3 months of operation? Where’s the proof?

GaryP
May 2, 2011 5:11 pm

“studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production.”
Therefore, even if all subsidies are dropped, they will still pay for themselves in about a year so investors will be lining up to enjoy all the profits from 29 years of free electricity.
I hope the pension funds for the professors are taking full advantage of this wonderful opportunity.

Jared
May 2, 2011 5:11 pm

The United States has not been affected by Global Warming that’s why are wind patterns are not affected. Just go to GISS and look at US temps. Global Warming does not affect this country so I do not know why global temps were even mentioned.

Latitude
May 2, 2011 5:11 pm

Let’s continue to use computer games…
…they have such a perfect track record so far
This wouldn’t have anything to do with Canada considering trashing their windmills…
…would it?

Roger Caiazza
May 2, 2011 5:13 pm

After reading this I had to respond: “Wind farms are nearly carbon neutral, and studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production. A typical turbine lasts about 30 years, Pryor says, not because parts break, but because advances in technology make it desirable to replace turbines with newer versions.” A quick web search confirms my initial reaction.
“Studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months” According to Answers.Com Capital costs for wind projects are $1,500 – $2,000 per kilowatt of nameplate capacity. The average price of U.S. residential electricity is $0.11 per kilowatt hour. There are 2,208 hours in the longest three month period. So at 100% capacity the wind turbine could generate 2,208 kilowatt hours and be paid $242.88 if all the money paid by a resident goes to the wind turbine owner. However, the price paid to a generator is a fraction of the total cost, there are operation and maintenance costs in addition to the capital cost, and wind projects do not operate at anywhere near 100% over any three month period.
“A typical turbine lasts about 30 years, Pryor says, not because parts break, but because advances in technology make it desirable to replace turbines with newer versions.” Another quick web search notes several sources with a bias towards the high end. National Wind (the leading developer of utility-scale, community owned wind farms) “We expect that today’s turbines will have a life span of 20-30 years.” Ehow.com – Wind turbines have a life expectancy of between 20 and 25 years, according to Wind Turbines UK and Wind Energy Solutions of Canada. Both claim they can be refurbished for another 15 years. My impression from other sources is that wind generating factories will be lucky to get 20 years of service before major overhauls are required.

PaulH
May 2, 2011 5:20 pm

…and studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production.
I think they left “with taxpayer subsidies” off the end of that sentence.

Justthinkin
May 2, 2011 5:34 pm

If, and only if and when we can harness the wind and BS coming from these eco-nuts will wind turbines produce any near 20% capacity. And yes….here in Canukistan,we are getting rid of all these bird and bat killers…BUT…wait for it…to start CO2 sequestration. Are all politicians and eco-nuts brain dead?

May 2, 2011 5:35 pm

Wind farms are nearly carbon neutral, and studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production.

I wonder 1) what flavor Kool-Aid she’s drinking, and 2) where does she find these ludicrous numbers?
With a normal installation of a 2MW turbine at $3.5 million, even an ideal location providing constant wind speed 24/7, and an FOB the turbine price of $100/MWH for the ‘lecky, it would take more than 1400 days to pay out. But! And it’s a big but, the wind is neither constant nor continuous. A good, not prime, location will require a design speed of twice the average wind speed. Since power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, only 12.5% of nameplate capacity would be delivered, except … . Except that speeds above the design speed give no additional power, and wind speeds below a threshold, about 5MPH, deliver no power at all. Giving the benefit of doubt, 12.5% actual output 24/7 with no days off for maintenance, yields 3MWH per day, or 32 years to pay off.
Major fail.
cheers,
gary

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
May 2, 2011 5:42 pm

…studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production.
I was torn between spewing coffee on the monitor and keyboard, or a hard head-desk action. But I wasn’t drinking coffee and I’m seated at the table. So I settled for closing my eyes, lowering my head, and praying for the stupid to quickly go away.
No such luck. Does this mean studies are showing a $10-15,000 (plus installation) residential wind turbine system will pay for itself in three months? If it’ll take longer, which wind turbines pay for themselves in less time?
Well, besides the ones that self-destruct or otherwise are destroyed so insurance pays for them…

SABR Matt
May 2, 2011 5:47 pm

Guys…the increase in wind speed projected from modeling over the Great Lakes shows up (and not the UP of Michigan in between) because wind itself is much stronger over the open lakes than it is over land…thus the magnitudes of the wind are more changeable over the lakes than over the land.
I know we all want to be skeptical…but it does help to have some basic knowledge of actual weather science before asking annoyed questions like in this article in re: the lakes.

MACK1
May 2, 2011 5:52 pm

Wind power is nonsense – excellent contribution here from Dieter Helm:
http://www.dieterhelm.co.uk/node/957

Kum Dollison
May 2, 2011 5:55 pm

I imagine what she meant to say (but, obviously, said it poorly) was that the energy output after 3 months will equal the Energy used in its manufacture.
I’ve read similar numbers, although this one IS on the low side.

rbateman
May 2, 2011 6:13 pm

So the model predicts winds are going to be less in the Sacramento Valley?
Har de har har. They sure don’t check up on thier history like they used to.
I hope the same folks that assume windmills are foolproof aren’t into auto design.
Murphys Auto Sales, there’s one born every second.

Lew Skannen
May 2, 2011 6:16 pm

“All three state-of-the-art regional climate models were chained to output from one of four atmospheric-ocean general circulation models”
This is just getting ridiculous now. Models are being treated as evidence now without a second thought.
Reality left town long ago…

Frank K.
May 2, 2011 6:18 pm

The problem with these studies is that the authors generally never really believe what they write. If they did, they would sell everything they own and invest the proceeds in wind turbines. They could, in fact, start their own power company, and show us all how it is done. Sadly, that won’t happen – instead OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY (i.e. you and I, the taxpayers) will be risked used to invest in unreliable wind power. It is always OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY!

walt man
May 2, 2011 6:27 pm

Richard S Courtney says: May 2, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Wind farms are expensive, polluting, environmentally damaging bird swatters that produce no useful electricity at any time: they merely displace power stations onto standby mode (when the power stations continue to consume their fuel and to produce their emissions) during the periods when the wind is strong enough but not too strong for the wind turbines to generate electricity.
What do you not understand about conservation of resources. A power station runing without producing power (spinning reserve, warm start) consumes very little energy to when fully loaded. This surely is obvious? Otherwise where does the excess fuel energy go?
The RSPB consider a correctly placed windturbine to be OK.
How many birds do windows on your house wipe out (we get perhaps 4 deaths/year despite stickers on the panes).
How many birds/animals does your traveling in road vehicles wipe out?
What is the “bird slicers” to vehicles/homes ratio?
What evidence do you have that wind turbines are polluting. According to Vestas 80% of a turbine can be recycled.
From Vestas web site:
For example, a V90-3.0 MW offshore wind turbine will pay for itself more than 35 times during its lifetime – producing 284,600 MWh over the course of 20 years in
The complete life cycle analysis of a wind turbine:
http://www.vestas.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2fFiles%2fFiler%2fEN%2fSustainability%2fLCA%2fLCA_V112_Study_Report_2011.pdf
Neodymium is not always used:
ENERCON news ENERCON WECs produce clean energy without neodymium
29.04. 2011
ENERCON wind energy converters (WECs) generate electricity in an environmentally friendly way without the use of the controversial element, neodymium. The gearless WEC design on which all WEC types – from the E-33/330 kW to the E-126/7.5 MW – are based includes a separately excited annular generator. The magnetic fields required by the generator to produce electricity are created electrically. By design, and unlike the majority of competing products, ENERCON WECs do without permanent magnets whose production requires neodymium.
No one thinks that a 1kW generator will produce economic electricity to the grid. But connect up a 3+MW generator and for the 28% of the time it produces power it is saving an equivalent in fossil fuels that future generations can use. Is this a bad thing?
No one expects a few hundred turbines to REPLACE fossil/nuclear generators. All know that there are times of no wind. BUT they do displace convenient energy to the future. And they do reduce all pollution.
All those you tube videos of burning and destructing turbines are good propaganda but one has to compare the permanent exclusion zone round a failed turbine to the exclusion zone round a failed reactor.

mike g
May 2, 2011 6:44 pm

Deekaman
No, removing that energy from the wind will not affect anything. Of course, putting the CO2 in the atmosphere that we’ve been putting there isn’t going to affect anything in a significant way, either.
But, what doe facts have to do with this debate?

1 2 3 4