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
![11675_h[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/11675_h1.gif?resize=640%2C504)
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
Heh heh, p-nas. Heh heh.
@walt man
Who’s going to pay for that power station operating in spinning reserve (in your utopia)? Sooner or later you’ve got to factor that cost into your equation (wind generation has to be backed up by fossil or nuclear one for one). Not a problem, either of those replace about 5000 of the state of the art windmills, at less cost.
Wow, they determined where the wind blows. They also determined it will most probably continue to blow there.
Likewise, they determined where the wind doesn’t blow, and most probably won’t blow in the future.
Quite the model. It confirms the null hypothesis.
Really? R E A L L Y?
Is there anything a model can’t predict? I am sure glad we live in a world of models. Where would be without these blessed models? There are clearly infallible and if your common sense says otherwise, well your common sense is wrong.
no maintainability problems ?? ..they were said to have a 20 year life but the gearboxes and bearings are failing in 2 years.
……and it cost 300,000 to fix
We have reliable and affordable electrical power from conventional sources and the models say the new renewable sources are better, but so far that has not been proven. And worse the justification for this new unproven energy is based on an unproven theory with no evidence of reality.
“studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production. A typical turbine lasts about 30 years”
Well, then. Wind turbines clearly need no subsidy since they apparently deliver power virtually too cheap to bother metering.
If you will go here
http://www.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20110501_DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
you will see that the Renewables portion of electricity in California, yesterday, was remarkably steady as a percentage of electricity produced.
I stated that poorly. The “Output” was remarkably consistent (about 2.5 GW/hr all day, and night.)
mike g says: May 2, 2011 at 6:48 pm @walt man
“Who’s going to pay for that power station operating in spinning reserve (in your utopia)? ”
The same people who pay for the spinning reserve now.
The reseve is required to back up 1GW nuclear stations which can cause a sudden loss on the grid when it scrams. In comparison the spinning reserve for a Turbine is 3MW!!
Wind does not suddenly stop over the whole catchment area so slower start conventional generators can be brought on line to cover failing wind.
“Sooner or later you’ve got to factor that cost into your equation (wind generation has to be backed up by fossil or nuclear one for one). Not a problem, either of those replace about 5000 of the state of the art windmills, at less cost.”
5000 state of the art windmills (currently 7.5MW) equates to about 7.5GW at 20% production (normally 28% in UK) which equates to about 3 nukes.
Can you show me figures that backup your statement – i have not seen the costs from a reliable source.
“Models show that……”
About the only thing that models show us is that the twentysomething female in the western world wears really strange clothes, and their anorexic frames cause them to walk funny. Beyond that, you need data.
Doug Proctor: Either that or winds near Florida will decrease BECAUSE of a decree in hurricanes.
Willis is “It’s models all the way down”
Just models built on models built on models.
Considering how little “Atmospheric Science Sara Pryor” knows about the cost and return of real wind turbine systems. Nothing she has to say can be of any value. pg
“…a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production. ”
Wow ! I didn’t know that. Look at her qualifications … it must be true !
Makes you wonder why all those silly people are burning that nasty coal. Makes you wonder why all those other silly people invest in shares when they can get a return like that !
Say no more, mention the words IPPC, Europe, EU, Wind or Solar & my hair stands on end, The Horror The Horror! Pryor/Barthelmie are Eco watermelon’s = Rent seeker’s. They have been on the backs of taxpayers for to long – Wind farm madness is a road to bankruptcy, wherever they are installed it becomes a financial & ecological fiasco.
How many bad examples do we need!
These two are professional grant seekers with little of no concern for the environment or the country’s they help push into bankruptcy with green energy insanity!!!
Reading about their involvement with the bird-shedder industry is enough to make me sick!!
Pryor was appointed to the National Climate Assessment & Development Committee, convened by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to help the U.S. government prepare for & deal with climate change. She also contributed to a special report used by the IPCC. Barthelmie is a widely respected expert on wind energy, particularly in northern Europe, whose wind farms she has studied for years. She;s winner of the European Academy Wind Energy’s 2009 Academy Science Award. Both Pryor & Barthelmie are faculty of IU Bloomington Department of Geography, a division of the College of Arts & Sciences, & the Center for Research in Environmental Science.
I give up. Twice I’ve been well into a message and it either froze or vanished. Read http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/a-new-development-model-gains-steam-in-aboriginal-communities/article1979303/?service=mobile
and then tell me if they would not be better off just putting the $700 million into bonds that pay 5%.
I presume that this example is closer to reality than repaying everything in three months.
IanM
The word model or models appears fifteen times in the press release.
Reality, confirm, confirmed, confirmation, verify, verified, verification, validate, validated, or validation? Zero.
Support or supported? Once:
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.
Several points…
1. My reading is that the windmills repay their embodied energy within 3 months – not the capital/money.
Briefly, say for a 3MW turbine, the nacelle comes in at 60 tons, Call that made of steel =60,000kg which takes 10kWh per kilo to make so total nacelle=600,000kWh or 600MWh
Say the tower weighs the same and is also steel and (total guess) say the same energy goes into a concrete slab to plant the thing.
Overall= 3 times 600MWh =1800MWh – call it 2000MWh between friends.
The thing has therefore to work for 2000 divide by 3 = 666 hours flat out or 4 times that at 25% comes to about 2700 hours, or, 3 months as they suggest.
2. Their models really are fantastic in the true sense of the word – stuff of fantasy. Power density goes as the cube of the wind speed, so a 10% error band on power density means a (roughly) 2.5% accurate prediction of wind speed.
They really can predict wind speed that accurately that far into the future?!
Fantastic.
/sarc
3. Someone above kinda alluded to the ‘wind is always blowing somewhere’ argument.
Those ruthlessly efficient Germans (whose national grid has been crashed by wind turbines) have researched this and the conclusion was, that over an area the size of Germany, ‘wind balancing’ could only be relied upon for (less than 5) minutes at a time and certainly not hours or even days.
Basically, the cube law scuppers everything, even a 10% variation in wind speed gives a 50% variation in power output.
One possible place where wind balancing might work for days at a time would be the eastern seaboard of the USA where, basically, a near constant stream of low pressure weather systems are pumped out of the GoM. Such a wind-farm would need to be a minimum of 2,500 miles long so as to guarantee an active weather system somewhere along its length.
The UK wind madness reached new extremes recently in Scotland where they were paid NOT to produce electricity, but you knew that.
If not, get a load of this.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876
The national academy of making it up as they go along? So they claim CAGW and they claim massive climatic changes along with positive feedbacks and changes to weather patterns but they know that despite these massive climate and weather pattern shifts the winds will still be just where the windmill carpet baggers require them to be. It just so happens that the windmill fraud needs to assure investors that the winds will still be there to power the bird manglers and right on time here is a report confirming that very thing. Perfect timing I would say, perhaps too perfect.
But hey folks, in the modern world of science today if you need a report that the moon is made of cheese and the earth is hollow all you need to do is buy one, science for sale.
“Wind farms are nearly carbon neutral, and studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production.” Only studies by wind developers come up with results like that. Independent lifecycle emissions studies studies show that they never pay back the emissions they are responsible for.
The source of the data that the UK wind madness reached new extremes recently in Scotland where they were paid NOT to produce electricity is the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF). See http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/231-high-rewards-for-wind-farms-discarding-electricity-5th-6th-april-2011
walt man: You must be in on the wind farm scam as you are just repeating their propaganda and lies. Clearly you have no engineering background.
‘studies show that a turbine pays for itself after only three months of energy production’
Umm…the Magnificent Erection in Sandwell, England cost about £5,000 and generated about £22 worth of juice in its first year (see story below on WUWT). In that case,
experiment showed that the windmill would pay for itself after only two thousand seven hundred months of production
Somewhere around 220 years. Plant one now and start making a profit in 2331!
Hint: if you use FireFox, install the Lazarus add-on. It saves your entries as you type, so you can recover anything that goes “poof”!
😉
There are versions out for Safari and Chrome, too, but aren’t yet full-featured.