The science behind frozen wind turbines – and how to keep them spinning through the winter

Hui Hu, Iowa State University

Winter is supposed to be the best season for wind power – the winds are stronger, and since air density increases as the temperature drops, more force is pushing on the blades. But winter also comes with a problem: freezing weather.

Even light icing can produce enough surface roughness on wind turbine blades to reduce their aerodynamic efficiency, which reduces the amount of power they can produce, as Texas experienced in February.

Frequent severe icing can cut a wind farm’s annual energy production by over 20%, costing the industry hundreds of millions of dollars. Power loss isn’t the only problem from icing, either. The uneven way ice forms on blades can create imbalances, causing a turbine’s parts to wear out more quickly. It can also induce vibrations that cause the turbines to shut down. In the case of extreme icing, restarting turbines may not be possible for hours and potentially days.

The solution is obvious: de-ice the blades, or find a way to keep ice from forming in the first place. So far, however, most of the strategies for keeping ice off wind turbines blades come from aviation. And airplane wings and wind turbines are built differently and operate under very different conditions.

I am an aerospace and mechanical engineer, and my colleagues and I have been studying wind turbine icing physics over the past 10 years and exploring better solutions for turbine icing protection.

Not all ice is the same

Ice isn’t the same everywhere. It may come from precipitation, clouds or frost. It also freezes in different ways in different climates.

For example, rime icing, formed when tiny, supercooled water droplets hit the surface, usually occurs in regions with relative dry air and colder temperatures, under 20 F. That’s what we typically see in Iowa and other Midwest states in the winter.

Images of ice forming on wind turbine blades
Comparing rime ice and glaze ice shows how each changes the texture of the blade. Gao, Liu and Hu, 2021, CC BY-ND

Glaze icing is associated with much wetter air and warmer temperatures and is commonly seen on the Northeast coast. This is the worst type of ice for wind turbine blades. It forms complicated ice shapes because of its wet nature, which results in more power loss. It’s also likely what formed in Texas in February 2021 when the cold air from the north collided with the moist air from the Gulf Coast. While the majority of the power shut down by the storm was from natural gas, coal or nuclear, wind turbines also struggled.

Tempests in a wind tunnel

Building a wind power operation that can thrive in icy conditions requires a keen understanding of the underlying physics, both of how ice forms and the performance degradation that results from ice building up on turbine blades.

To explore those forces, we use a special wind tunnel that can demonstrate how ice forms on samples of turbine blades, and fly camera-equipped drones.

Using the Icing Research Tunnel at Iowa State University, my team has been replicating the complex 3D shapes of ice forming on turbine blade models in different environments to study how they affect the wind and the blades. Ice can create massive airflow separation. In airplanes, that’s a dangerous situation that can cause them to stall. In wind turbines, it reduces their rotation speed and the amount of power they can produce.

illustration of air flow separation
Ice buildup changes air flow around the turbine blade, which can slow it down. The top photos show ice forming after 10 minutes at different temperatures in the Wind Research Tunnel. The lower measurements show airflow separation as ice accumulates. Icing Research Tunnel of Iowa State University, CC BY-ND

We also study wind turbines in operation around the country as they face some of their toughest conditions.

Using drones equipped with high-resolution digital cameras, we can hover in front of 80-meter-high wind turbines and take photos of the ice right after it forms on the blades. Pairing that with the turbine’s production data shows us how the ice influences power production.

While ice can form over the entire span of the blade, much more ice is found near the tips. After one 30-hour icing event, we found ice as much as a foot thick. Despite the high wind, the ice-heavy turbines rotated much slower and even shut down. The turbines produced only 20% of their normal power over that period.

Chart of ice formation on blade tips
How ice builds up on the tips of turbine blades. Gao, Liu and Hu, 2021, CC BY-ND

Keeping ice off blades

There are a few reasons the strategies that effectively keep ice off aircraft wings aren’t as effective for wind turbine blades.

One is the materials they are made of. While aircraft wings are typically made of metals like aluminum alloy, utility-scale wind turbines are made of polymer-based composites. Metal conducts heat more effectively, so thermal-based systems that circulate heat are more effective in airplane wings. Polymer-based turbine blades are also more likely to get covered by dust and insect collisions, which can change the smoothness of the blade surface and slow water running off the blade, promoting ice formation.

Wind turbines are also more prone to encounters with freezing rain and other low-altitude, high-water-content environments, such as ocean spray for offshore wind turbines.

Most current wind turbine anti-icing and de-icing methods remove ice buildup through electric heating or blowing hot air inside. Heating these massive areas, which are many times larger than airplane wings, adds to the cost of the turbine and is inefficient and energy-consuming. Composite-based turbine blades can also be easily damaged by overheating. And there’s another problem: Water from melting ice may simply run back and refreeze elsewhere.

Another strategy in cold-weather regions is to use surface coatings that repel water or prevent ice from sticking. However, none of the coatings has been able to eliminate ice completely, especially in critical regions near the blades’ leading edges.

A better solution

My team has been developing a novel method that uses elements of both technologies. By heating just the critical regions – particularly the blades’ leading edges — and using water- and ice-repelling coatings, we were able to reduce the amount of heat needed and the risk of running back water to refreeze over the blade surfaces. The result effectively prevents ice from forming on the entire surfaces of turbine blades.

In comparison to the conventional brute-force surface-heating methods, our hybrid strategy also used much less power, resulting in up to 80% energy savings. Without ice to slow it down, the turbines can produce more power through the winter.

Worldwide, nearly 800 gigawatts of wind power have been installed so far, including over 110 gigawatts in the U.S. alone. As the market quickly grows and wind power supplants higher-polluting energy sources, de-icing and ice-proofing strategies are becoming essential.

Hui Hu, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

2.5 22 votes
Article Rating
247 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 9, 2021 10:10 pm

Actually made it through paragraph eight before I realized this was just another hot air blower. Sigh…

Bryan A
Reply to  writing observer
March 9, 2021 10:26 pm

pararaph eight also revealed the first falsehood

While the majority of the power shut down by the storm was from natural gas, coal or nuclear, wind turbines also struggled

NOTE:
It wasn’t Coal
It wasn’t Gas
It wasn’t Nuclear

It was “Natural Gas, Coal OR Nuclear”…anything but Wind

Last edited 4 months ago by Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
March 9, 2021 10:39 pm

They also require a great deal of energy to construct and install.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Sam Grove
March 10, 2021 5:34 am

I expect by 2025 will be the point when current investment in wind will be needed just to maintain what is already installed. When will we run out of landfill space for the blades I wonder.

PC_Bob
Reply to  Robert W Turner
March 10, 2021 12:22 pm

They will no doubt be forced to BURN the non-metalic parts and recycle the metal. That, too, requires a LOT of energy!

Sheri
Reply to  Robert W Turner
March 12, 2021 6:21 pm

We can just bury the blades in coal mines that we are not using anymore. The blades are completely harmless and probably good for the soil with all those chemicals in them. /sarc

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Bryan A
March 9, 2021 10:59 pm

The graphic bar chart provided in a WUWT post from 2 days ago tells all the story needed to grasp happened to Texas in mid-February and its over-reliance on Wind power.

Screen Shot 2021-03-09 at 11.56.32 PM.png
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 10, 2021 7:23 am

The graphic bar chart provided in a WUWT post from 2 days ago tells all the story needed to grasp happened to Texas in mid-February and its over-reliance on Wind power.

No, that graph is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what the problem was in Texas in February.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 10, 2021 10:27 am

How so???
Can you please qualify your “Misrepresentation” label?

fred250
Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 10, 2021 11:23 am

WRONG, it showed the data exactly as it happened.

Sorry FACTS hurt you so much !

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Mark Bahner
March 10, 2021 2:23 pm

Here’s the real problem for wind in Texas as at 9 p.m. CST 2/15 (=0300Z 16th): no wind!

ventusky-wind-10m-20210216t0300-31n100w.jpg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
March 10, 2021 3:20 pm

“Here’s the real problem for wind in Texas as at 9 p.m. CST 2/15 (=0300Z 16th): no wind!”

And that is the real problem: Windmills don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow, or when the wind doesn’t blow enough, or when wind blows too hard.

De-icing windmills may keep them working in cold weather, but when the wind stops blowing, and you have too many windmills on your grid, then your grid is going to crash, if you don’t have 100 percent backup power sitting in ready reserve. If you do have 100 percent backup ready reserve, then you don’t need the windmills in the first place. You are duplicating power sources and costing yourselves a lot of extra money.

Windmills are undependable because they depend on the undependable weather.

WBrowning
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 11, 2021 6:56 am
Last edited 4 months ago by WBrowning
BrianB
Reply to  Bryan A
March 10, 2021 7:02 am

That was a line so misleading and duplicitous I stopped reading right there.
In total they did constitute the majority of power loss [depending on where you measure from] primarily because they constitute a large majority of total power generation.
But as a fraction of their potential generation wind and solar both plummeted to practically nothing. Coal and nuclear both had minor dips. Natural gas did dip significantly from its peak that occurred DURING the cold snap but at the end it was still generating more power than it was at the beginning of it, while wind was contributing effectively nothing.

John Dueker
Reply to  Bryan A
March 10, 2021 7:29 am

Wind capacity fell 98% during the critical time versus 15% failure of all others.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  writing observer
March 10, 2021 5:32 am

Yep, can’t get a simple fact straight, can’t be expected to actually hypothesize or theorize any new idea.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Robert W Turner
March 10, 2021 2:51 pm

Yup, the good professor swallows the whole critical need for windmills or the planet will fry (and just incidentally for a decade his remuneration has depended upon optimizing their cold weather function). Nonetheless, even with plenty of advance meteorological notice of that several day event he could neither bring himself to provide forewarning to Texas grid operators that they may well need sufficient conventional electric generation at the ready to take up the major energy supply slack of these newer unreliables nor even get his team and their camera drones in place to confirm just which form the blade icing was taking so he didn’t have to surmise that too. In any case if all in all this ain’t an impressive professional service, at least his name (Hui) is fair warning about depending upon his professional perspective.

MarkW
Reply to  writing observer
March 10, 2021 8:04 am

He and his team would lose their jobs if the country stopped building wind turbines.

Doonman
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 10:34 am

Obviously. One must remember that wind power is a mitigation because fossil fuel and nuclear fuel is bad. Now, we need aerospace engineers to mitigate the mitigation. Next step, mitigate the mitigated mitigation. Its endless when you play this game.

Lrp
Reply to  writing observer
March 10, 2021 10:46 am

Another school project

March 9, 2021 10:10 pm

The best way to avoid problems with Wind-Turbines is never to build them. They are economically useless, kill rare species, drive people mad with noise and spoil the landscape.

Ron Long
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
March 10, 2021 2:08 am

The Aerospace Professor even admits the turbine blades kill insects. This starts the chain reaction where small birds try to collect the dead insects below, themselves get chopped up, then the predators and scavengers close in and get chopped up.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Ron Long
March 10, 2021 2:05 pm

Now if we could just get the “green” taxpayer money scavengers to float into wind farms in hot air balloons and get chopped up, windmills might be useful for something!

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
March 10, 2021 2:26 am

The best place to put a wind turbine is in a museum

Editor
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2021 5:44 am

Keep that in mind for when NASA’s Vertical Assembly building frees up.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2021 2:26 pm

Just so long as they don’t charge a dollar and a half just to see’em.

Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2021 10:45 pm

“my colleagues and I have been studying wind turbine icing physics over the past 10 years”. What a waste of all that education and learning (not to mention money).

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 9, 2021 11:05 pm

the research grants for those pay the bills and the paychecks for them.
Rent-seeking 101

Nothing aerodynamic related to that research is new that decades of aviation-related icing studies haven’t done before. The only unique question to wind turbines I can imagine is:

  • How far will a spinning blade toss a 2 kilogram chunk of blade-shedded ice?
  • And is the ground hazard zone large enough to account for these flying chunks of ice?
Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 10, 2021 2:31 am

I looked into this some years ago and the answer is a couple of hundred yards, and it depends on which country you are in. You might care to calculate the ballisttcs – tip speed on a blade is around 250 mph and the optimum angle neglecting wind resistance is 45 degrees

So the vertical speed component sin(45) * 250mph and that will under a constant g give you flight time and the horizontal component will be the same speed times that time…

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2021 1:03 pm

One other factor, the altitude from which the projectile is launched. With those really big blades, the point at which a released projectile would initially be moving at 45 degrees, could be over 100 feet up.

Paul C
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2021 1:58 pm

While the ice is the least of your worries, real-world data shows your (model) estimate to be on the low side.
The larger problem is how far can a broken/detached fibreglass aerofoil be launched in high winds.
This has examples of 400m, and while the turbines have got bigger since then, the maximum tip speed hasn’t increased by much – so primarily just the launch height has increased.
https://docs.wind-watch.org/REASONS%20for%20larger%20setbacks.pdf
Lots more info is available on the wind.watch .org site.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 10, 2021 2:11 pm

I wonder why deicing boots wouldn’t work just fine. A bonus is that it would permit maintenance of the blade leading edges; the composite blades get chewed up by anything they run into while operating, and it has been a big industry headache. At least you can replace a boot.

Cephus0
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
March 10, 2021 4:13 pm

Ten (count ’em 10) years to figure out that a warm, smooth, hydrophilic surface might mitigate the formation and sticking of ice on turbine blades. Einstein put General Relativity together on his own in that time. If you’d left these guys in charge of the Mars Perseverance mission they would still be discussing the hubcap options.

March 9, 2021 10:48 pm

Robert Murphy provides numbers and references on how the various sectors contributed in Texas. Check article citations
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13447&fbclid=IwAR3n8sXLfe6HhkSbOnJzx_ERwHTM4f6a4mNsjltV412TMyVaYrBUJvyfQZ8

Joel O'Bryan
March 9, 2021 10:48 pm

“Using drones equipped with high-resolution digital cameras, we can hover in front of 80-meter-high wind turbines and take photos of the ice right after it forms on the blades.”

I’d love to see a video one of their $2,000 drones getting smacked, just like some hawk or eagle does, by a blade tip moving at 180 mph.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 9, 2021 11:15 pm

The happiest of endings would be the drone getting smacked and the blade getting bent or damaged enough to make the turbine selfdestruct!
I’m looking forward to the time when we can start demolishing these blights on the landscape. I imagine there are many who feel like I do; if someone provides the recoilless rifle and ammunition I will happily provide the labor and transportation! Demolition of the bases I will leave to experts, but perhaps some of the towers and bases can be adapted to nesting sites for hawks and eagles to help them recover from the senseless slaughter of GangGreen!

Frank the Norwegian
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 10, 2021 12:19 am

How would a turbine blade react to 168 grains of copper and lead impacting at around 1200fps? Asking for a friend.

Steve E.
Reply to  Frank the Norwegian
March 10, 2021 4:13 am

probably no immediate reaction. But the impact site would be the starting point for cracks the could seriously shorten the life of the blade.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve E.
March 10, 2021 8:10 am

No immediate reaction is probably best.
Shoot and scoot.

Badgercat55
Reply to  Frank the Norwegian
March 10, 2021 7:50 am

Been thinking about this wrt the ginormous solar utility plant being implemented in our township. Lots of hunting happens around here…

YallaYPoora Kid
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 10, 2021 3:35 am

The bases are not demolished, they are left in situ for perpetuity.
Question: How should a huge block of reinforced concrete be demolished and who will pay for it? Answer; it would only add to the lifecycle cost which is already negative.
At best they are covered over with earth but not always.
BTW the blades made of carbon fibre and resin are also not recyclable – most likely buried in a hole in the earth somewhere – green technology is not very green.

Last edited 4 months ago by YallaYPoora Kid
MarkW
Reply to  YallaYPoora Kid
March 10, 2021 8:10 am

The bases for the really big wind mills is so massive you would probably have to go nuclear to be sure of getting all of it.

peter schell
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 1:02 pm

In this instance I see nothing wrong with leaving them in place. You’d likely do more harm taking them out than just leaving them be. They’d be no different from a really big rock.

Let archaeologists five thousand years from now speculate on the nature of the people who formed these massive objects that have no apparent use.

guard4her
Reply to  peter schell
March 11, 2021 9:40 am

They would be explained as possible religious sites used for some ritual. Like everything archeologists don’t understand is explained.

Editor
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 10, 2021 5:48 am

Perhaps the operators either feather the blades to reduce the pressure zone around the blade or (gasp!) stop them altogether. Please don’t assume they’re into photographing blade tips moving at operational speed.

Rhs
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 10, 2021 6:26 am

Since the same icing process affects the drones, I wonder how long they were able to fly the little buggers before they ice up as well.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 10, 2021 6:33 am

Love the enduring exurban mythology about what kills the most birds. Doh!, You conveniently forgot to compare power sources! A fact injection:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993#:~:text=It%20estimates%20that%20wind%20farms,about%209.4%20fatalities%20per%20GWh.

Last edited 4 months ago by bigoilbob
Mickey Reno
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 7:30 am

Sorry, Bigoilbob, from the paper on bird deaths:

For wind turbines and wind farms,fatalities arise from birds striking towers or turbine blades. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on.

ha ha ha ha ha ha…. Apples to oranges comparisons ruin the whole darn exercise. Not only that, but the author seems to be genuinely desirous of performing a sex act with wind turbines. Your counterpoint as unpersuasive.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Mickey Reno
March 10, 2021 7:39 am

The reference to climate change referred to TRENDS. The statistics reflect current realities. Well, maybe not current. The wind turbineers are now painting their blades in patterns. Trumpian YUGE reduction bird collisions.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:29 am

No the statistics represent CONTRIVED unsubstantiated fantasy in a desperate by FAILED attempt to hide the FACT that wind turbines decimate avian population.

LdB
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 2:34 pm

One is fact the other is hypothesis or as many would say science speculation … the fact you can’t distinguish that tells us about your education.

Ciphertext
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 7:48 am

I began reading the journal article but had to dismiss the thrust of the article as an assertion rather than an argument.

From the article: (emphasis mine)

Avian mortality compared to other energy sources

Perhaps surprisingly, for some readers of this Journal, wind farms appear to have fewer avian deaths per GWh than fossil-fueled power plants (coal, natural gas, and oil generators) and nuclear power plants. For wind turbines and wind farms, fatalities arise from birds striking towers or turbine blades. For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change, which is altering weather patterns and destroying habitats that birds depend on.

There are a whole lot of assumptions wrapped up in that loaded statement.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Ciphertext
March 10, 2021 7:56 am

AGAIN, whether you understand AGW or deny it, the relative rates of bird fatalities/GwH produced reflects what is actually going on now.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:32 am

Again, there is ZERO PROOF for this so call AGW

It is a scientific FALLACY

I bet you can’t even provide empirical science to support the very basis of this FARCE.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Or will you remain , as always, an empty sock.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 2:50 pm

Noted that yet again, greasy slimebag can post other mindless claptrap elsewhere but COWARDLY RUNS AWAY from basic proof of anything about CO2 warming

Without that CO2 warming all his mindless statistics are TOTALLY MEANING:LESS

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 12:21 pm

big greasy one falls for CONTRIVED statistical fantasy, again highlighting his complete INABILITY for rational thought !

CO2 has been shown to have increased the plant biosphere by 10% just this century.

That is a HUGE INCREASE FOOD and LIVING SPACE for avian species, (until it get chopped down to make way for wind turdines.)

An of course there is no real scientific evidence that CO2 has had ANY DETRIMENTAL EFFECT WHATSOEVER on the environment or climate

The slight warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years has been an absolute PLUS for all life on the planet, as has the increase in atmospheric CO2

Big greasy, slimy blob lives in a complete fantasy world of self-hatred and hatred for all living things.

Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 3:34 pm

Oh Andy. You are trying to get yourself rebanned here? And still going with your demands for proof once you’ve run out of arguments. Is there any proof that can be put to you that you will engage with or will you forever call it fake. If so why ask?

fred250
Reply to  Gee Aye
March 10, 2021 6:13 pm

Gee, you really are in LUV with that AngyG guy.

Does he know you are stalking him ?.

They were GREAT QUESTION he used weren’t they

Do YOU have an answer ???

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 7:32 pm

You’ve had that answered before just refer to those answers. They were quite good just refer back to them. You got booted off other sites for continually asking such off-topic questions and responding to answers with shouty name calling and calling all sources of information lies and conspiracies.

And here you are with new name and same MO. How long will you be humoured I wonder?

fred250
Reply to  Gee Aye
March 10, 2021 8:51 pm

So, YOU CAN’T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

JUST RUN AWAY, you poor pathetically effeminate, scientifically devoid, little child !!

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 11, 2021 9:19 am

We “understand” the changing climate, we don’t “deny” it … we simply don’t have faith in science that places more weight on virtual world model output over field measured data OR modifies field measured data to be online with expected model output

bigoilbob
Reply to  Ciphertext
March 10, 2021 8:07 am

Here are the rates, with not a whisper about climate change:

Wind – ~0.4/GwH
Fossil fuels – ~5.2/GwH

https://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567

Bigger pic, this lie has been definitively refuted for lots of years. Why does it still get retold in the deniersphere?

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 9:38 am

Using propaganda to refute real data. So typical of the climate alarmists.
The only thing being denied here is basic science, and it isn’t the skeptics who are doing the denying.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:36 am

Its a CONTRIVED FANTASY. greasy blob..

Next you will be blaming Hansel and Gretel

There is no such thing as the “deniersphere”.

Come on blind monkey..

What do we “deny” that you can provide solid scientific proof for?

Stop using the term unless your slimy, greasy EMPTY word can back up what you say.

Something you have NEVER been able to do.

Your self-hatred and hatred for all humanity is like a putrid slimy ooze.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 2:23 pm

Why…Potential Exposure
How likely is it that a Bird encounters the location of a Wind Turbine?
In 2012 there were 225,000 wind turbines globally
In 2017 there were 341,000 wind turbines globally
In 2020 there were 550,000 wind turbines globally
On average wind turbines kill 1.4 birds and 2 bats each and every year (some kill none but many take more than 1.4 birds/Raptors and 2 bats yearly.)
Now how likely will an encounter be when the turbine numbers increase 10,000 fold to replace conventional generation, power our transportation and recharge back-up batteries and EV quick chargers?
Instead of 550,000 turbines killing 770,000 birds and 1,100,000 bats annually, 5,500,000,000 turbines will be killing 7,700,000,000 birds and 11,000,000,000 bats annually

E X P O S U R E

bigoilbob
Reply to  Bryan A
March 10, 2021 2:35 pm

Folks, one more poster assiduously avoiding the facts of which form of energy kills more birds. Read back, and check the links Bryan. ~13/1, in favor of my old profession, oil and gas…

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 4:47 pm

bob presents one article from a propaganda site and declares himself the victor.
No matter how many people show the problems with the article cited, bob just continues to crow about how he has proven his point.
I’m starting to believe that bob actually is as dumb as his posts make him seem.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 6:15 pm

Not a FACT at all.

You are the one in DENIAL of actual real DATA.

Trying to cover up with fantasy nonsense unsubstantiated statistical and assumption driven garbage,

… which has ABSOLUTELY ZERO REAL EVIDENCE behind it.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 6:28 pm

Quit denying the truth Bob
energy use globally:

Residential Electricity
Commercial Electricity
Transportation
Shipping
Air Travel
The almost 60% of the world that’s experiencing energy poverty (no energy beyond burning wood and dung or limited access)

Wind accounts for only about 3% of ALL energy sources and uses globally.

Wind would need to increase it’s contribution to energy by 30 times (given wind’s abismal capacity factor index likely 90 times) just to be even with current fossil sources and by 1000 times that to replace all fossil energy demands and allow for back-up battery recharging.

This doesn’t include what would be needed to energize the energy impoverished

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 11, 2021 2:35 pm

Boy Bob, talk about Drive By Tourettesian outburst posting with no substance where’s your crown?

MarkW
Reply to  Ciphertext
March 10, 2021 8:13 am

Apparently the authors of the article are able to count the number of birds killed by climate change, which isn’t happening.

(Note to site admins: “Awaiting for approval” is grammatically incorrect. It’s either “Waiting for approval” or “Awaiting approval”.)

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
fred250
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 11:38 am

Yep , only a completely moronic fool would fall for such blatant propaganda contrivance of ANTI-SCIENCE.

ie the big oily blob

Badgercat55
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 7:57 am

Don’t think he said MOST birds. Lots of beautiful birds of prey tho. Very little uproar about that. Wonder what the bird kill trajectory will look like as we double, triple, quadruple the number of these things??

bigoilbob
Reply to  Badgercat55
March 10, 2021 8:12 am

Wonder what the bird kill trajectory will look like as we double, triple, quadruple the number of these things??”

Since they kill about 7% of what fossil fuels do, on a /Gwh produced basis, I can’t wait…

Lots of beautiful birds of prey tho.”

Hope you’re not inferring that wind turbines kill disproportionately more purty birds, and that makes the difference. But if so, then g’luck to your tender sensibilities…

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:40 am

Big oily blob falls for a CONTRIVED FANTASY piece of slimy propaganda pap.

Next read “Little Red Riding Hood” , slimy one. !

That’ll really get your grease oozing.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 2:32 pm

Bob,
What data are you using to confirm fossil generation Bird kills?

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 6:26 pm

ROFLMAO

“conceptualizing”…… with ZERO EVIDENCE

A FANTASY based on NOTHING.. an empty load of NONSENSE.

… just a DESPERATE and FAILED effort to hide the DEVASTATION WROUGHT BY WIND TURBINES on avian life.

And Sovacool.. really.. up there with mickey mann for FANTASY STATISTICS.

Everything in his abortion of a report is based on WILD UNSUPPORTED ASSUMPTIONS and mindless SUPPOSITORY BS. !!

Not ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC FACT in the whole ugly propaganda mess. !!

The fact that you remain clueless and so totally GULLIBLE to that sort of ANTI-SCIENCE BS, shows that your education level is several steps below that of a junior high student

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 7:08 pm

From your link

Wind energy Based on real world operating
experience of 339 wind turbines
comprising six wind farms
constituting 274 MW of
installed capacity. Total avian
mortality per year taken by
applying 0.269 fatalities per
GWh multiplied by the 171,422
GWh of wind electricity
generated in 2011

So they looked at about 0.1% 339/350,000
339 turbines with an installed capacity of 274 MW (averaging 0.8 MW each) and extrapolated that all other wind turbines are equally well sited. Interesting bait and switch figures though…274MW installed capacity used to calculate the multiplier then actual production used with multiplier to determine final figure. NOT GOOD

SPECULATIVE AT BEST

Then goes on to say

Fossil fuels Based on real world operating
experience for two coal facilities
as well as the indirect damages
from mountain top removal
coal mining in Appalachia, acid
rain pollution on wood
thrushes, mercury pollution,
and anticipated impacts of
climate change. Total avian
mortality taken by applying the
9.36 fatalities per GWh
multiplied by the 2.56 million

GWh of electricity produced by
the country’s fleet of coal-,
natural gas-, and oil-fired
power stations in 2011

I can’t locate the source of the 9.36 fatality per GWh figure

“For fossil-fueled power stations, the most significant fatalities come from climate change”
So Fossil Generating deaths are purely calculated by a questionable figure blamed on the great boogy man somethingthat really can’t be quantified

Last edited 4 months ago by Bryan A
fred250
Reply to  Bryan A
March 10, 2021 8:54 pm

“I can’t locate the source of the 9.36 fatality per GWh figure”

That is because IT IS A TOTAL FABRICATION !!

Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 10:10 pm

I did find this
Starting with the upstream part of their fuel cycle, Winegrad (2004) estimates
that mountaintop removal and valley fill operations in four states – Kentucky,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – destroyed more than 387,000 acres of
mature deciduous forests. Such a loss of forest will result in approximately 191,722
deaths of the global population of Cerulean Warblers. These deaths can be loosely
calculated to amount to 0.02 Warbler deaths per GWh (Sovacool 2009).

this is stating that potential habitat destruction from coal mining is taken into account for and counted against mortality rates for coal power.

CURIOUS THOUGHT

Habitat destruction mortality rates aren’t included in wind turbine figures. The Rare Earth Elements required in their manufacture are mined in similar fashion. Likewise Solar PV also require vast amounts of Coal Mining in the manufacture of Silicon for solar cells and both Wind and Solar require Fossil Fuel drilling for Petrochemical stocks to manufacture plastic components like the massive blades.

Wind Turbine related mortality rates are extremely undercounted once the mining portions, associated habitat damage and related climate change factors are taken into equal account.
Something the paper Didn’t Do

Doesn’t mining for Wind Turbine materials cause identical habitat destruction?

YES

Doesn’t mining for Solar Panel materials cause identical habitat destruction?

YES

Doesn’t Forest Clearing for Wind Turbine installation also equally affect wildlife?

YES

Doesn’t deforestation for woodchip manufacture for Biomass production equally affect wildlife?

YES

Last edited 4 months ago by Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
March 11, 2021 8:31 am

Bryan & bigoilbob:

Bryan: I agree. The 9.36 rate is conjured out of thin air.
‘bob’: Nonsense.
From the “Limitations ” section of “bob’s” Vermont Law School article
“Third, calculating the relationship between avian fatalities and climate change is admittedly simplistic. The role of climate change on bird extinctions, although indeed worrying, is not conclusive and as such should be approached with extreme caution. Studies looking at the expansion and contraction of ranges, shifts inmigratory patterns, cumulative effects with other environmental threats, and pre-dictions of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ are only recently surfacing (see Møller et al. 2004;Crick 2004; Schwartz et al. 2006; Jetz et al. 2007; Sekercioglu et al. 2008; Gilmanet al. 2010 for a sample). Moreover, the author has presumed that Thomas et al.’s(2004) estimate of birdspeciesextinctions can be extrapolated to the number ofindividualsthat will perish and that those deaths will occur at a constant rate year-to-year. Instead, the avian species most affected by climate change might be those withthe smallest populations, and rates of decrease will probably vary, with most deathsoccurring closer to 2050. The author is unaware of any reliable technique for how toaccount for these complexities within existing models.”

The Thomas et al reference is a 3 page 2004 Nature 427:145-48 piece which extrapolates extinction of a mean of 26% of ALL birds globally from “climate change”. [see Footnote #4]
This is utter nonsense. The entire paper is predicated on this modeled extinction from modeled climate change.

Its “Turtles all the way down!”

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 16, 2021 4:48 am

Can you show us some dead bodies of birds killed by climate change? Your lack of logic and understanding of science are astounding.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
March 16, 2021 7:27 am

Can you show us some dead bodies of birds killed by climate change?”

Why? Per my other links, the tiny fraction of wind turbine deaths/GwH produced/fossil fuel deaths/GwH produced do not include the AGW related deaths. They only make a tiny value even tinier.

Bryan A
Reply to  Badgercat55
March 10, 2021 2:29 pm

On average 1.4 birds and 2 bats PER TURBINE annually with the .4 covering the Rapter kills

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 8:12 am

Even if true, those other things are useful, wind turbines aren’t.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 8:14 am

2 for you, Mark. One for goal post movement. One for one more fact free prounouncement. FYI, most TEXANS disagree…

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 9:40 am

As usual, bob demonstrates that he has no concept of how formal logic works.
Additionally, bob demonstrates that he also has absolutely no self awareness, as he uses a fact free pronouncement to complain about a fact free pronouncement.

Then again, bob has a long history of proving himself to be a non-serious poster.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:42 am

Most Texans are SO SO GLAD that GAS was able to ramp up 450%

THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT GAS , hey greasy slimy fool

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:27 am

So, one REAL damage and death from wind turbines,

and the other a based on a contrived unsubstantiated FANTASY !

Typical of the big greasy blob !

meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 12:26 pm

BigBoob,

Once again, you show your ignorance. First, by linking to an article that just isn’t credible. The numbers on these phony studies have been shown to be bogus relating to both Wind (too low) and Nuclear (too high). The author included 3,000 bird deaths found under the smoke stacks of the four fossil fuel plants at the Crystal River Generating Plant on two very unusual days and falsely attributed them to the cooling tower of the ONE nuclear plant located there and further assumed that deaths like these were a normal occurance and could be expected to continue. The fool that wrote this actually included the deaths from electrocution by fossil fuel generated electricity as if wind generated electricity couldn’t kill birds on downstream electrical switching stations and other locations.

https://atomicinsights.com/nukes-kill-more-birds-than-wind/

Second, you’ve proven yourself to be a fool by assuming that it’s just birds that matter. Here’s a good article on windmill caused bat deaths written by a FORMER environmentalist. Read it, you might learn something. Who knows, learning something might whet your appetite to learn a second thing. If you did learn a second thing, why then you would know two things.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/26/why-wind-turbines-threaten-endangered-species-with-extinction/?sh=2eb50d2d64b4

bigoilbob
Reply to  meab
March 10, 2021 12:58 pm

I never mentioned nukes. And there are MANY similar DATA BASED studies w.r.t fossil fuels that all come to the same conclusion. I took 2 minutes to provide one.

FYI, your article by WUWT contributor Michael Schellenberger is chock full of woulda coulda, along with “scientists are sayin'”, but hardly any FACTS. And predictably, NO comparison to the fossil fuels they are replacing. The FACT is, oil and gas kills over an order of magnitude more birds/unit of energy produced.

I’ll be happy to find you MORE such studies, as soon as your provide ONE that says otherwise.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 2:47 pm

“MANY similar DATA BASED studies w.r.t fossil fuels that all come to the same conclusion”

NO , the are NOT DATA

They are FAKE NUMBERS based on FAKE statistical FANTASIES.

You have NO FACTS, just regurgitated FABRICATIONS that bear NO RESEMBLANCE to reality.

CO2 actually INCREASED bird life, because it provides SO MUCH MORE FOOD SUPPLY.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any detrimental effect from increased atmospheric CO2.

If you think there is .. PRODUCE IT !!

meab
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 7:02 pm

There’s no reasoning with you. You’ve already proved many times that when you get backed into a corner, you just come out with lies. Do you even know Schellenberger’s history and credentials?

I’ve got some advice for you BigBoob. Reach down with both hands. Grab your ears. Tug sharply in a downward direction. There! Did you pull your head out? Do things appear clear now? Do things smell better too?

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 10:25 pm

there are MANY similar DATA BASED studies

Let’s fix this

there are MANY similar DATA BIASED studies

That’s better

bigoilbob
Reply to  Bryan A
March 11, 2021 10:08 am

Which is why none of you can find even ONE that refutes them.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 11, 2021 2:37 pm

It is difficult to disprove a thing when it’s
Not Even Wrong

Abolition Man
March 9, 2021 11:00 pm

String him up with all the other bird and bat butchers and lets move on to some reliable energy sources that allow the economy to grow! There’s no reason to bring back outdated technologies that can never produce the energy density an advanced civilization needs!
I’d vote for the all of the above approach as long as we have the caveat that wind and solar can not be allowed to over penetrate the grid and they pay for their own backup and storage!

Peta of Newark
March 9, 2021 11:07 pm

Isn’t this just a lovely example of:

a) Dig Hole viz: Build wind turbine or employ other Crap Device/Strategy

b) Notice that said ‘crap device’ is a PITA

c) Fill Hole In ((expensively) attempt to fix)

d) Repeat (as per modern politics and ‘crap device’ renewable energy, goto a)

Was it Einstein who said something about this way of doing?

Last edited 4 months ago by Peta of Newark
Tony Taylor
March 9, 2021 11:25 pm

Wind power sure has a stack of costs between the blowing and the powering.

commieBob
March 9, 2021 11:31 pm

On a hot day, a helicopter loses lift due to decreased air density. It means the helicopter can’t carry as much. On the other hand, I’ve never heard helicopter pilots boast about how much they can carry on cold days so I’m guessing air density isn’t the only factor that determines how much a helicopter can lift.

In light of the above, do windmills produce more power on cold days?

Airfoils work because of pressure differences. As air is compressed and decompressed, the temperature changes. Does that have a measurable effect on the temperature profile of the airfoil? Does it affect icing in any way?

If you’re wondering what my point is, there isn’t one. I’m just being a curious geek. 🙂

Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2021 2:35 am

See my post. Any pilot knows that seriously hot days affect takeoff and climb performance, but its not a massive effect. You need to fly faster to take off, is all and use more runway. Johannesburg airport at 5000′ altitude on a hot summers day, is very quiet, as the jumbos wait till dusk to take off. the altitude has more effect than the heat, but both play a part

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2021 8:19 am

I was flying back from Milan to Atlanta once, with a stop over in Madrid.
The plane ended up having to wait on the ground for an hour because we missed our window for the flight over the Atlantic. The reason why we missed the window was because it was too hot to take off on the shorter runway and we had to wait for the longer runway.
The main reason why I remember it was because with the engines off, they didn’t have AC for the passenger compartment.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Leo Smith
March 10, 2021 3:20 pm

Living in Mexico City in the days of 707s, the Westbound Quantas flight used to take off with only a part load of fuel, dropping down to Acapulco for a sea level take off and a full load before the next leg to Tahiti (and on to Nandi and Sydney): a route that was always popular with those who had round the world tickets with stop off rights. Flights to London managed a slightly longer hop for a first refuel in Nassau or Kingston and thence to Bermuda for the transatlantic leg. But I can recall a takeoff on a warmish late morning where the pilot started at the runway threshold, keeping the brakes on until the engines had reached fairly full thrust, and we only managed to get airborne with perhaps 200 yards left out of a near 13,000ft runway. I guess he had done his calculations carefully.

MarkW
Reply to  Itdoesn't add up...
March 10, 2021 4:58 pm

I’ve always wondered how many sideways G’s airline landing gear can take. Normally when a plane gets to the end of the runway, they usually come to a full stop, and then start winding up the engines before releasing the brakes.
A few times they start winding up the as they approach the runway, The plane then takes the turn on what feels like two wheels, then accelerates down the runway.

I don’t know if the pilot thought the runway was a bit short, or if he was just saving a few gallons of gas.

D Boss
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2021 4:10 am

commieBob: Helicopters do in fact use Density Altitude as the final arbiter of how much they can lift, and even IF they can lift off and hover! The reason you don’t hear about how much they can lift when it’s cold, is all the charts and preparedness starts with the maximum weight you can handle inside the aircraft, at what density altitude (combines pressure altitude with outside air temp or OAT). (you are concerned with the worst case, not the best case as a helicopter pilot)

An MD-500D for example has a maximum internal gross weight of 3,000 lbs. From the FAA approved Flight Manual, page 5-19, is a chart showing pressure altitude on Y axis and gross weight on X axis, and a series of slanted lines representing OAT (outside air temperature).

This ubiquitous helicopter (same as from Magnum PI) can only hover in ground effect at 3,000 lbs at 1,000 feet (above sea level) with air temp at 45C. At 35C it can hover at 3,800 ft with max gross wt. At 25C it can go up to 5,000 to hover in ground effect. At 15C it can go to 5,800 ft. and at -25C it can hover at 9,800 feet with max internal gross weight.

The reason you don’t hear helicopter pilots speak of how much they can lift when it’s cold – is that is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is the point you crash if you fly with too much weight, at too high a temperature or altitude (i.e. too low air density)!

You see you can fly into a scenario with forward airspeed, and then not be able to hover and land if you exceed these limits – hence crash. Helicopters get additional translational lift with forward airspeed. So you could take off from one place, fly to another at higher altitude and when you try to slow down to hover, the aircraft drops like a rock once below 20-30 knots airspeed if you do not heed these limits when it’s hot!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dB5Ak80l-8

in the above video this is what happens if you are close to the edge of this “no go” region of weight and density altitude…. The instructor speaks of these rules of thumb with respect to max weight and hot/high operations comes at 6:20 in the video. Notice the chopper was fine with forward airspeed, but once attempting to hover – it went very badly.

Yes windmills produce more power with colder, more dense air. The formula for power is based on air density, area swept by the airfoils, etc… (1/2pAV^3, where p is air density, A is swept area and V is wind velocity – this times some power coefficient which is less than 0.59)

Yes, the aerodynamic effects of airfoils does affect the temperature profile around and on them. You can see this effect on very humid days with landing and taking off jetliners as in this example: (cooling air over the tops of the wings causes condensation clouds to form)

https://www.airlineratings.com/videos/wing-clouds-make-stunning-video/

In fact the air moving over the top of the wing is lower pressure, expanding and cooling – hence this exacerbates icing potential given ice formation conditions exist.

Editor
Reply to  D Boss
March 10, 2021 5:52 am

“The reason you don’t hear helicopter pilots speak of how much they can lift when it’s cold – is that is irrelevant.”

I miss the days when comments displayed commons sense and thought instead of the knee jerk denigrating comments that have become all too common here.

Thank you for taking the time to make a useful reply.

commieBob
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 10, 2021 12:46 pm

I also thank D Boss and Fraizer (below).

On the one hand, WUWT gets its share of stupid comments. On the other hand, I can’t think of any web site I’ve seen where the readers have a greater range and depth of expertise.

Fraizer
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2021 10:34 am

In aviation there is such a thing as Ram Air Temperature (RAT) also known as Indicated Air Temperature (IAT). As the air compresses when it hits the wing it heats up and the difference between it and the static air temperature can be fairly pronounced. It can be enough difference to maintain fuel above it’s freezing point even when static air temperature is maybe -60 0r -70 C. Note that this is purely from adiabatic compression and not from drag. Temperature rise from friction does not become a thing until above supersonic speeds.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2021 3:09 pm

Air pressure and temperature and water vapour all affect the density of the air. From PV=nRT, density is M.W.n/V=M.W.P/RT (note n is number of moles, not mass – M.W. is average molecular weight). So as temperature varies between say 240K and 310K there can be quite a variation for temperature. Pressure variations are usually less severe as part of weather (at least if we exclude hurricanes), but lower pressure makes installing turbines at altitude much less efficient, with pressure being about 20% less at 6,000ft compared with sea level.

Water vapour, with a molar weight of about 18g/mol, is much less dense than air at 29g/mol. You can simply calculate a weighted average for a good approximation of humid air molecular weight in normal weather conditions. Of course, you need to mole fraction of water vapour in the atmosphere. The effect is fairly small except in hotter climes, where the difference between dry desert and humid jungle

The energy in the wind is then (1/3) x density x (velocity)^3, and the maximum a turbine could theoretically extract is 16/27ths of this (the Betz limit): in practice a good turbine will manage no more than about 75% of the Betz limit and then only over a small range of wind speeds.

Turbine performance is notionally specified at 15 C, 1.225kg/m^3 and 101.325kPa. Weather variation means that real performance vs wind speed is actually better represented by a band that covers temperature and pressure variations.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  commieBob
March 10, 2021 3:23 pm

oops – it’s (1/2)x density x v^3 of course.

Pat Frank
March 9, 2021 11:36 pm

Hui Hu, “I am an aerospace and mechanical engineer,…” and “… wind power supplants higher-polluting energy sources...”

How someone can both be an aerospace and mechanical engineer and hold such a fatuous position about wind farms is beyond understanding.

Prof. Hu should be ashamed. And the real shame of it is that he’s not.

Reply to  Pat Frank
March 10, 2021 2:37 am

I am afraid that knowing a lot about one bit doesn’t mean you arent suffering total ignorance about another.

I am glad that I did a general engineering degree as well as electrical so I do know about structures, aerodynamics, efficiency of heat engines as well as how a wind turbine and a battery works.

Badgercat55
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 10, 2021 8:03 am

It’s why I quit American Society of Mechanical Engineers years ago….they totally sold out to the Green machine, rather than use their technical expertise to rationally advise lay persons on the pros/cons of ALL energy sources. Keep in mind engineers will design anything you ask of them. Just because you CAN doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 10, 2021 8:48 am

Hi Pat,

I think it has something to do with the theory of “cognitive dissonance”. When I was an engineering student, TPTB insisted engineers take electives outside of their majors to “round ourselves out”. Many of us gravitated to Psychology 101 due to workload considerations.

Vincent Causey
March 9, 2021 11:36 pm

This is a classic example of patching over bad technology. These band aid solutions are an admission that the technology should never have been used at all. First came the energy storage issue and the need to find a way to cope when the wind doesn’t blow. So batteries are introduced as the “fix”. Now they discover the ice problem. Oh dear. We didn’t see that coming. What band aid can we apply for this one? Let’s heat the blades, that should do it. And so the problems mount, more and more band aids get added, and the rationale for using these things for power generation recedes further and further into la la land.

Rod Evans
March 9, 2021 11:43 pm

There is a beautiful irony in this story that speaks to the lunacy of AGW believers.
Wind turbines are the biggest play in the Climate Alarmists hand book to stop global warming, their biggest issue is they are freezing up when they are needed most to save lives during bitter winter weather.
I could solve the wind turbine icing up problem very quickly, using well tried and tested technology..it is called a nuclear reactor.

Klem
Reply to  Rod Evans
March 10, 2021 1:53 am

True but the greenies know that nuclear power produces cheap energy and cheap energy is the lifeblood of Capitalism. Therefore nuclear power is not acceptable.

Badgercat55
Reply to  Klem
March 10, 2021 8:06 am

Paul Ehrlich in the ‘70’s (paraphrased): Giving abundant energy to humans is tantamount to giving a machine gun to a moron child.

PaulH
Reply to  Rod Evans
March 10, 2021 6:36 am

But according to the Green Blob, once we have enough windmills and solar panels the weather will be perfect and those nasty summer and winter storms will vanish.

Dennis G Sandberg
March 10, 2021 12:01 am

Ok, got it, just heat the inside of the leading edge of the propeller and coat the outside leading edge with slick’em. Problem solved, But first we need to write a grant request for a few hundred $billion to take down all the propellers and retrofit them. Give Beijing Biden a call he’ll fix you right up. He’ll get China to buy some more of our debt “at the right price”.

Or plan “B”:
Stop this worth less than nothing wind scam NOW!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
March 10, 2021 5:35 am

This was my first take on this. HOW DO ALL THE EXISTNG WINDMILLS GET RETROFITTED?

It won’t do much good to blow hot air down the middle of the blade if there are no passages to the leading edge. Composite materials don’t conduct heat very well. That means *replacing* all existing blades – probably totally uneconomic.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tim Gorman
March 10, 2021 6:08 am

Good points. Probably more likely on new equipment. A reminder. Most wind farms will be wind farms for centuries. The source is mostly not changing much over the decades, and the farmers love the trade off of rent $ to minimal extra hassle. So there will be generations of new builds.

And only worth it in certain areas. Iowa probably found their sweet spot with innards built to resist cold temps, shut downs in the worst conditions of icing and freezing, and good interconnectivity to make up the diff.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 8:27 am

Most wind farms will be wind farms for centuries.

If the current insanity lasts for centuries, then there is no hope left for mankind.

Andrew Krause
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 9:32 am

I think the lifespan of a turbine is 20-25 years which is a lot less than forever. Are there any forever wind farms that have been abandoned?
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/6350/Broken-promises-The-rusting-wind-turbines-of-Hawaii

bigoilbob
Reply to  Andrew Krause
March 10, 2021 10:18 am

Reading comprehension Mr. Krause. What lasts are the winds, not the wind turbines.

That’s why, ultimately, any favorably sited wind farms will not be “abandoned” for hundreds of years. Unlike the mid/high 11 figures worth of shirked hydrocarbon asset retirement obligations just on the CONUS, they will be recycled/landfiiled (very few poisonous/carcinogenic remains, unlike played out oil and gas fields) and then they will be re-equipped. over, and over, and over….

bigoilbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 10:26 am

Oh, BTW, how’z about a little update

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/12/09/ge-renewable-energy-partners-veolia-na-wind-turbine-blade-recycling/#:~:text=GE%20Renewable%20Energy%20has%20found,during%20upgrades%20and%20repowering%20efforts.

Love the whining about wind farm asset retirement costs, but crickets on those for oil and gas, on a/unit of energy basis STILL orders of magnitude higher…

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:47 am

LIAR.. they NEVER clean up after wind turbines

Leaving masses of concrete in the ground to pollute the environment ad infinitum

Most coal assets are returned to NATURE providing lakes and quality high carbon farmland.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 1:17 pm

Like most things bob knows, his claims to know, this is also completely false.

It may be less expensive to retire a single turbine than to retire a single fossil fuel plant. The problem is that it takes 10’s of thousands of wind turbines to replace the output of a single fossil fuel plant.

Beyond that, fossil fuel plants are required to post a bond, before they are even built to cover the cost of their decommissioning. Wind turbines and solar arrays are not.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 1:29 pm

“It may be less expensive to retire a single turbine than to retire a single fossil fuel plant. The problem is that it takes 10’s of thousands of wind turbines to replace the output of a single fossil fuel plant.”

Wut “fossil fuel plant”. I’m talking century oil trash can oil fields and new, almost impossible to plug competenlty, shale fields. Their operators, or their successors, or the entities that got them unloaded on them, are on the hook for mid/high 11 figure asset retirement costs.

“Beyond that, fossil fuel plants are required to post a bond, before they are even built to cover the cost of their decommissioning. “

Oh you impressionable child. These “bonds” are typically for a small fraction of the actual asset retirement costs. Oil/gas bribes, lobbying, and bullying in the field from better qualified private sector engineers like yours truly made sure of that.

2 minutes worth of digging. Not that I expect that you’ll to read any of it.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-oil-industry-cannot-afford-retire-yet-greg-rogers/

https://www.arowatch.org/

https://drillednews.com/report-big-oil-hasn-t-saved-for-retirement-and-it-could-cost-states-billions/

https://drillednews.com/report-big-oil-hasn-t-saved-for-retirement-and-it-could-cost-states-billions/

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 5:06 pm

 I’m talking century oil trash can oil fields

When you decide to start making things up, you go all out.

These “bonds” are typically for a small fraction of the actual asset retirement costs. 

Once again, you just invent whatever facts you need to support what you want to believe.

Oil/gas bribes, lobbying, and bullying in the field from better qualified private sector engineers like yours truly made sure of that.

So you admit that you are unscrupulous and willing to do whatever it takes to win. So why should we believe that you have suddenly decided that you will only tell the truth?

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 6:32 pm

And the big oily blob cites GARBAGE FACTS from ultra-left anti-development sites

Those people who want everyone to live in poverty and with absolutely no access to modern civilisation.

You really are a sick and demented little muppet, greasy one.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 8:57 pm

But they WILL be abandoned, as soon as the subsidies and feed-in mandates die a natural death

People DO NOT want to pay for WASTED UNRELIABLE non-energy supply.

And those rotting husks of wind turdine will be left forever destroying the landscape.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 11, 2021 6:29 am

Isn’t that also the same as saying that
There are only a limited number of premium places that Wind farms can exist, as such wind cannot power a global economy given that far more energy is needed than Premium Placement can allow for

bigoilbob
Reply to  Bryan A
March 11, 2021 7:04 am

There are only a limited number of premium places that Wind farms can exist”

True

“….as such wind cannot power a global economy given that far more energy is needed than Premium Placement can allow for”

Not “also the same as”. I have not seen demand v site estimates. As with every resource we pick low hanging fruit first. Expansion will, by definition, result in sitings less good than what we have now.

The best comparator is the US oil industry, circa 1870. If you look at the maturity of our current resource extraction, it shouldn’t exist. And in fact, we will end up shouldering most of the clean up costs for it for which the extractors assumed responsibility over the last 150 years. But a Trumpian YUGE reason that the biz has been so successful in the CONUS (and is only fading, instead of dead) is our entrepreneurial national spirit, coupled with private sector tech improvement, and a RELATIVELY clean business practice. Wind will evolve the same way.

BTW, appreciate the lack of fact free, Tourettesian outbursts…

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 11, 2021 10:31 am

https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-12304634.html
So an 80-meter (262-foot) rotor would need to be 560 meters — more than a third of a mile — from adjacent turbines
This allows for up to 9 turbines per Square Mile
A square mile contains 640 acres and the average turbine produces 2-4 MW on it’s 1/3 mile so 18-36 MW production potential for 640 acres.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant
Nuclear, like Diablo Canyon, has 2200 MW capacity production on 12 acres.

It would take a Trumpian YUGE almost 60,000 acres of prime wind area to replace Diablo Canyon generation capability.

If the goal is to produce energy without CO2 then nuclear is the way

Similar size requirements to replace coal power with wind generation.
And before you mention mining and habitat destruction related to coal mining, similar mining and habitat destruction is related to wind construction and generation. Once prime clear wind area has been utilized, clearing of less than prime space will be required

bigoilbob
Reply to  Bryan A
March 11, 2021 10:39 am

Lived nearby DC while running offshore oil/gas* fields, for decades. And son and DIL are both CPSLO STEM grads, so I’m familiar with it. Familiar enough to know that they have NO firm plan on what they will do with their last waste, post retirement. Other than to hide it in the back 40 and pray for a miracle..

*In case you’re wondering, Platform Habitat is ALL gas.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 11:45 am

“Most wind farms will be wind farms for centuries.”

REPLACED every 10-15 years

,,,, and ONLY as long as subsidies and ridiculous feed-in payments last !

Your putrid greasy mind lives in a total FANTASY world, doesn’t it slimy one.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 1:18 pm

Bob still believes his own propaganda.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 4:45 pm

As the FF and nuclear plants get retired, there will cease to be a feed-in payment. Wind and solar will need to assume the entire load and all that comes with it. Rate payers, look out!

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 5:07 pm

Heck, read the post above, he’s downright proud of how he’s lied in the past in order to get what he wants.

pigs_in_space
March 10, 2021 12:03 am

Pretty darn obvious don’t-cha-think??
Ice causes aircraft wings to stall.
Propellors are no different.

Accidents are avoided by removing ice on the ground and preventing formation with heated wings parts.
The heating comes from fossil fuel, via the ACU.

In place like Russia where ice formation is a known problem, there are still accidents because of failure to observe basic precautions. (I can quote, many unhappy ATR accidents because they were not designed for the Russian climate).

In place like Texas, they got so lackadaisical they forget even basic aerodynamics and wing differential pressure theory.

You get what you pay for.
Stupid does as stupid is!

Chris Hanley
March 10, 2021 12:08 am

Here’s an idea instead of fans, fan-heaters.
comment image

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 10, 2021 3:39 pm

Some of them have exactly that – ducted fan heater inside the nacelles, with air flow routes built into the blades. Actually a much less technologically demanding problem than providing cooling inside jet engine blades. Still, it can add quite a bit to cost and complicates blade manufacture.

Aaron Edwards
March 10, 2021 12:29 am

“While the majority of the power shut down by the storm was from natural gas, coal or nuclear, wind turbines also struggled.”Duh…
1. Natural gas, coal, nuclear provide 85% or more of the power.
2. The majority of power loss from gas was the result of automatic computer controlled distribution software which forces shut down of a particular source when the contract limit is reached. This can easily fixed next time an extraordinary cold snap hits.
3. Wind is more accurately called. “Unreliable Energy “not “Alternative Energy. Relying on non dispatchable energy is insane, a figment a neurotic self delusion over emotional green zealots ignorant of basic electricity grid science.

griff
March 10, 2021 1:02 am

800 GW… let that sink in for a moment…

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 10, 2021 2:15 am

Let this sink in, griff-fool !

comment image

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 10, 2021 2:17 am

“After one 30-hour icing event, we found ice as much as a foot thick. Despite the high wind, the ice-heavy turbines rotated much slower and even shut down. The turbines produced only 20% of their normal power over that period.”

Normal power being maybe 25% of nameplate.

20% of 25% = 5% of nameplate.

Let that sink in griff-fool

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  griff
March 10, 2021 2:23 am

German wind power 2015/16

comment image

Capacity factor only 20%

Less than that for 60% of the time

For 80% of the time, less than 30% of nameplate

It really is a POINTLESS WASTE OF MONEY

Let that sink in griff-twerp !

saveenergy
Reply to  fred250
March 10, 2021 3:18 am

Fred,
I think you’ve found that griff is a POINTLESS WASTE of time & effort.

MarkW
Reply to  saveenergy
March 10, 2021 8:31 am

As usual, griff has no concept of either context or ratios.

To his small mind 800GW sounds like a huge number. But remember, it’s for the ENTIRE WORLD. In reality 800GW is a very small number compared to how much power is being generated by fossil fuel and nuclear plants.

Last edited 4 months ago by MarkW
Climate believer
Reply to  griff
March 10, 2021 5:01 am

“800 GW… let that sink in for a moment…

LOL! oh yeah it’s sinking in.

Worldwide electricity generating capacity 6.14 TW.

Your windmills = 0.8 TW nameplate capacity.

Your windmills actual output = 30% of that,(being generous) which = 0.24 TW.

WOW! nearly 4% of unreliable expensive bird killing electricity worldwide.

…how long do I have to let it sink before something happens?

wind turbine.png
MarkW
Reply to  griff
March 10, 2021 8:29 am

Compared to how many terawatts provided by everything else.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
March 11, 2021 12:16 am

People don’t build 800GW of something which isn’t useful. 800GW of wind hasn’t collapsed anybody’s grid. 800GW shows this isn’t some idea which is just starting out, that people will realise won’t work and not go into, as Watt’s readers seem to believe: its mainstream, colossal and successfully expanding.

800 GW is the sign that anti renewable sentiment already failed.

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 2:17 am

“People don’t build 800GW of something which isn’t useful”,

BUT THEY HAVE !!!!!

The data shows that for a large proportion of the time they are TOTALLY USELESS. (UK regularly has days in a row with basically NONE.)

Thank goodness for GAS and interconnects.

comment image

Data also shows that they need 100% or more RELIABLE BACK-UP

“800GW of wind hasn’t collapsed anybody’s grid.”

YES IT HAS, german grid separated a few months ago

Texas grid collapsed because they relied on wind and didn’t properly fund and maintain their RELIABLES.

The only reason Germany’s grid still mostly works is because of all the surrounding COAL and NUCLEAR

UK has just had several days in a row where wind has been basically AWOL.. ALL OF IT !!

THANK GOODNESS FOR ALL THAT GAS and the COAL and NUCLEAR feeds from France.

South Australia is currently running on GAS as the interconnects from COAL in Victoria work overtime. NO WIND to speak of , despite the huge waste of funds.

One warm evening with no wind, and SA prices skyrocket. Just hope the COAL FIRED electricity keeps coming, hey griff, you deluded fool !

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 8:30 am

As usual, Griffie-poo still fails to understand the profound difference between power (in GW) and energy (in Joules or GW.hour). What matters to consumers in the latter, not the former.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 2:43 pm

If Texas has double their current wind capacity and a similar percentage freeze up occurred, their grid would have collapsed
They were only saved from cold dark oblivion because gas could ramp up

MarkW
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 2:59 pm

You are right that under their own volition, nobody would buy something that is useless to them.
That’s why government has to step in and mandate such purchases.

Are you really as stupid as your posts make you sound?

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 6:43 pm

In 2019 nuclear plants supplied 2657 TWh of electricity, up from 2563 TWh in 2018. This is the seventh consecutive year that global nuclear generation has risen, with output 311 TWh higher than in 2012

People don’t build generators that produce 2657 TWh from a source that isn’t useful

Alasdair Fairbairn
March 10, 2021 2:09 am

Icing is not the only problem. These blades are continually being blasted by particles(aerosols) of various types at very high velocities. These result in both erosion and build up of deposits on the aerodynamic surfaces over time which again cause a drop in efficiency.

The Central Electricity Generation Board (CEGB) here in the U.K. dealt with this problem in their steam turbines with regular maintenance by way of stripping down the turbine and grit blasting off the build up of rough deposits to return the blades to the correct profile. I in the past I was involved in this operation as a subcontractor and understand that this improved efficiency by some 10%.
To carry out this process on wind turbine blades would be mind boggling expensive. No doubt these wind turbines do have major problems which are now becoming more apparent.

Agreed the references to fossil fuel and the woke implications made me grind my teeth.

Badgercat55
Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
March 10, 2021 8:14 am

I’ve managed several plant maintenance organizations in my engineering career, and one of my initial thoughts about these things decades ago was “Great! Let’s take our maintenance issues, distribute them out across miles and miles of space, and put them 400’ up above ground! Nothing bad can come from that, right?”

March 10, 2021 2:24 am

Winter is supposed to be the best season for wind power – the winds are stronger, and since air density increases as the temperature drops, more force is pushing on the blades.

Possibly not… in temperate climes the equinoxes are generally held to produce the strongest winds, not winter.

And cold air versus hot air is significant, but not by much. Has about as much effect on turbine output as CO2 has on world climate…

Air density is the inverse of absolute temperature, so a change from 300°K to 270°K (27°C to -3°C) is only about 10% change in density…

And turbine power output is proportional to mv³ wher m is the air mass and v is the wind velocity.

So maybe a 10% increase in outpout in cold weather …as much as a 2.5% increase in wind speed would produce.

Examination of real world data shows that although summer, in the UK, is on average lower wind power, in reality autumn, winter and spring outputs are dominated by random weather systems.

mysql> select extract(month from timestamp) as month, avg(wind) from day where timestamp like '2020%' group by month;
+-------+--------------------+
| month | avg(wind)         |
+-------+--------------------+
|    1 | 8506.080869175627 |
|    2 |  9905.11087164751 |
|    3 | 7535.0922939068105 |
|    4 | 4732.648263888889 |
|    5 | 4175.676859318996 |
|    6 | 4581.356134259259 |
|    7 | 4425.325268817204 |
|    8 | 4522.983758960573 |
|    9 | 5709.090856481482 |
|   10 | 7072.615591397849 |
|   11 | 6697.5881944444445 |
|   12 | 7097.207773297491 |
+-------+--------------------+
12 rows in set, 1 warning (1.27 sec)

mysql> select extract(month from timestamp) as month, avg(wind) from day where timestamp like '2019%' group by month;
+-------+--------------------+
| month | avg(wind)          |
+-------+--------------------+
|     1 |  5469.945752073526 |
|     2 | 6151.8364335317465 |
|     3 |  6535.249775985663 |
|     4 |  4778.339467592593 |
|     5 | 3043.7701612903224 |
|     6 |  4200.326041666666 |
|     7 |  3467.937948028674 |
|     8 |  5091.878444992158 |
|     9 |  5466.272453703704 |
|    10 | 6327.6228296180125 |
|    11 |  5592.480782588562 |
|    12 |  7465.554092730395 |
+-------+--------------------+
12 rows in set, 1 warning (0.20 sec)



mysql> select extract(month from timestamp) as month, avg(wind) from day where timestamp like '2018%' group by month;
+-------+--------------------+
| month | avg(wind)          |
+-------+--------------------+
|     1 | 6199.4669578853045 |
|     2 |  5328.484623015873 |
|     3 |  4937.949394075404 |
|     4 |  4247.168075008682 |
|     5 |  2968.065972222222 |
|     6 | 2376.7753589624826 |
|     7 | 1863.5809811827958 |
|     8 | 3162.6722670250897 |
|     9 |  4900.449357564533 |
|    10 |  5416.870183691756 |
|    11 |  6718.261837787154 |
|    12 |  5996.168048397939 |
+-------+--------------------+
12 rows in set, 1 warning (0.22 sec)


source

That was 2020, 2019, 2018.

Make of it what you will. Of course it is distorted by new turbines being built, but the only real pattern I can see is that usually summer is a bit quieter. There isnt much difference across the whole of autumn winter and spring

Carl Friis-Hansen
March 10, 2021 2:26 am

There is a paradox.

When there is good wind, a lot of power is generated, waste heat from gear and generator is transferred to ambient air through a huge radiator assembly in the back – similar to waste heat from a ICE car.

The waste heat could, in theory, circulate the inside of the blades, bofore being transferred to ambient air.

When the wind is calm, non or very little power is generated, no waste heat, and external power is needed to heat internal components and space.
So in calm winter days there is no waste power for heating the blades.
External power needed for heating and possibly also external de-icing equipement like helicopters.

Independently, in low wind speed conditions, cold welding should be avoided. Cold welding appear in the main bearing, when the rotor is stopped and there is no oil pressure.
This can be avoided by external power to keep the blades rotating or pressurize the oil.

Conclusion:
Don’t use wind turbines in winter.
During winter, the blades may, in rare circumstances, be damaged or break due to extreme overicing, but apart from that, keeping the wind turbines may have far too many drawbacks and costs associated with it.
It is much the same story as that for the solar panels.
Detrimental to grid stability , resource use and sensible use of manpower.

Most importantly, the cost of wind turbines must be published at the cost of backup capacity, grid stabilizing capacity, maintenance cost, demolition cost, environmental damage cost, grid extension cost, grid strengthening cost and as this article discuss the externally provided deicing equipment and running cost.

As others have commented: Why try to salvage a modernized 400 year old technology, when we throughout the last 150 years have developed far more discrete, more economic and reliable technologies.

That was just the windmills of my mind.

saveenergy
March 10, 2021 2:27 am

“While the majority of the power shut down by the storm was from natural gas, coal or nuclear, wind turbines also struggled.”


“I am an aerospace and mechanical engineer,”

What kind engineer can’t read (& more importantly understand ) a generation production graph ???

I wouldn’t like to be close to anything he was involved with designing.

Graemethecat
Reply to  saveenergy
March 11, 2021 8:33 am

No one has yet explained why these failures are happening now, when Unreliables like wind and solar are displacing the fossil fuels. The only blackouts I remember growing up in the 1970’s in the UK were due to the Miners’ Strike.

Steven Johnson
March 10, 2021 2:55 am

How difficult is it to get green energy. How long does it take to make these windmills, how difficult it is to transport them, how much they cost, and in the end it is still necessary to fight the ice. But it’s still worth it. The whole world is now revolving around green energy, waste recycling, etc. A bunch of small and large companies like this are doing this for the future of the planet.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Steven Johnson
March 10, 2021 7:55 am

The Watermelon Utopia!

Reject it.

MarkW
Reply to  Steven Johnson
March 10, 2021 1:22 pm

How is impoverishing most of the world’s population “worth it”.
You haven’t gotten rid of fossil fuel power, nor have you reduced CO2 emissions. The reason for this is quite simple, you need to have fossil fuel plants, running in hot standby. Ready to take over on a moments notice whenever the wind slows down or a cloud passes over the solar array.

fred250
Reply to  Steven Johnson
March 10, 2021 2:55 pm

“How difficult is it to get green energy.”.

Coal fired power provides the most atmospheric CO2, the ultimate GREEN energy.

Modern COAL and GAS fired power stations are the CLEANEST, most GREENING supply of electricity available.

Lrp
Reply to  Steven Johnson
March 10, 2021 5:13 pm

you are funny!

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Steven Johnson
March 10, 2021 5:27 pm

Trying to pretend that wind is l’Oreal (…because you’re worth it!) of energy is really like putting lipstick on a pig.

very old white guy
March 10, 2021 4:16 am

You mean to tell me this article was not humor?

LdB
Reply to  very old white guy
March 10, 2021 2:39 pm

It was satire

fred250
March 10, 2021 4:17 am

totally and completely off topic

Crash landing albatross !

https://twitter.com/hashtag/RoyalCam?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 4:19 am

US eyes offshore wind boost as Mass. project advances
By MATTHEW DALY and PATRICK WHITTLE
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A huge wind farm off the Massachusetts coast is edging closer to federal approval, setting up what the Biden admin-istration hopes will be a model for a sharp increase in offshore wind energy development along the East Coast.
The Vineyard Wind project, south of Martha’s Vineyard near Cape Cod, would create 800 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 400,000 homes in New England. If approved, the $2 billion project would be the first utility-scale wind power development in federal waters. A smaller wind farm operates near Block Island in waters controlled by the state of Rhode Island.
Vineyard Wind is significantly farther offshore than Cape Wind, a previous Massachusetts offshore wind project that famously failed amid opposition from the Kennedy family and businessman William Koch, among others, who considered it a birdkilling eyesore in their ocean views.
Supporters say Vineyard Wind, located nearly 15
miles offshore, is better situated than Cape Wind and uses superior technology with fewer and larger turbine blades. Under a preferred alternative being considered, the project’s giant turbines will be located at least 1 nautical mile apart, allowing fishing boats easier movement around the blades, officials said.
The Interior Department said Monday it has completed an environmental analysis of Vineyard Wind, with a decision on whether to approve the project expected as soon as next month President Joe Biden has vowed to double offshore wind production by 2030 as part of his administration’s efforts to slow climate change. The likely approval of Vineyard Wind — one of two dozen offshore wind projects along the East Coast in varying stages of development — marks a sharp turnaround from the Trump administration, which stymied wind power both onshore and in the ocean.
As president Donald Trump frequently derided wind power as an expensive, bird-slaughtering way to make electricity, and his administration resisted or opposed wind projects nationwide, including Vineyard Wind.
The project’s developer temporarily withdraw its
application late last year in a bid to stave off possible rejection by the Trump administration. Biden provided a fresh opening for the project soon after taking office in January. “The United States is poised to become a global clean energy leader,” said Laura Daniel Davis, a senior Interior Department official.
Vineyard Wind, which is slated to become operational in 2023, is the first of many offshore wind projects that will help the nation “combat climate change, improve resilience through reliable power and spur economic development to create good-paying jobs,” said Amanda Lefton, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, an Interior agency that oversees the project.”

Steve E.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 6:15 am

Is there something wrong with the writer’s math? or is it me? 800 megawatts split 400,000 ways gives each house 2000 watts, right?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve E.
March 10, 2021 6:19 am

Makes sense- how much does a typical home use?

DrGEM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 8:01 am

One won’t be doing much more than house lighting with 2 kW of power. Certainly no heat, no hot water, no cooking.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DrGEM
March 10, 2021 8:17 am

OK, good to know. That item I found in a local newspaper. Now I can write a reply challenging the theory that it can power 400K homes. I wonder what a typical home in cold Massachusetts might use if 100% electric including their car(s)? A rough idea would be helpful.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  DrGEM
March 10, 2021 9:28 am

Most New Englanders do not heat with electricity. Too expensive. 2kW used 24×7 for a month is 1440 kWh……comfortable living for a family of five.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  Brian Jackson
March 10, 2021 9:33 am
MarkW
Reply to  Brian Jackson
March 10, 2021 9:47 am

They don’t heat with electricity now. However the greens want to outlaw all forms of heat that actually work.

MarkW
Reply to  DrGEM
March 10, 2021 1:27 pm

My wife’s hair dryer claims to pull 2500 watts.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  DrGEM
March 11, 2021 6:51 am

A typical microwave oven is 1kW.

John Dilks
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 11:43 am

How much does your house use?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Dilks
March 10, 2021 2:12 pm

I have no idea- my wife pays the bills and I never see it. I’ll check.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 1:26 pm

Around here, most homes have a 200 amp drop. Some of the newer ones have a 250amp drop.
One way to tell for your home would be to look at your breaker panel. Most newer ones have two rows of breakers. Above these two rows is usually a single, much larger breaker. This breaker kills power to the entire house. (Useful to know at times.) The rating for this breaker should be the rating of your house’s drop.
200 amps times 120V gives 24000W.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 4:22 pm

But that is just possible peak usage. A kettle may consume 3kW (but it’s only working for say 1-4 minutes at a time depending on how full it is), and an electric stove a similar amount per hob plate – but it actually operates in pulse mode, constantly switching each plate on and off – Thanksgiving dinner might see it peak at 12-15kW in the hour before serving. The fridge and freezer is another intermittent consumer. TV can be quite a bit if you have a big system – a 65″ plus 7 channel home cinema might be 2kW on its own. Lighting is now increasingly trivial with LEDs. An electric shower can be 10kW. Thing is, you don’t use anywhere close to capacity most of the time. Unless you are fast charging EVs of course…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 5:06 pm

Look at it this way. Power is voltage * amps. 2000 watts at 120v = ~17 amps. A 1500 watt space heater is not uncommon for a room. So if you run one, that pretty much uses up your supply. How about a 1000 watt microwave?

Basically look in your breaker box and see how many 15/20 amp or even 30/40 amp breakers you have. Do you think 17 amps would let you run much of what you have.

The last thing to mention is that is 2000 watts at any one time. That isn’t Kilowatt hours over a days time. That is all your going to get at any one time. 2000 watt gasoline generators are pretty common, but they won’t supply a whole house.

Think of this, if you have 100 amp service to your house at 220 volts, that is the capability of 22,000 watts.

Last edited 4 months ago by Jim Gorman
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 11, 2021 4:05 am

OK- that helps. So, a middle class family with 2 kids; lots of computers (with kids staying home due to Covid); smart phones; all electric home for cooking, heat, TV; 2 EVs, etc. is going to use a lot more than suggested in that article. Also, the claim that the wind farm will have 800 MW is just the face-plate- it’ll be much lower. So what might be a reasonable number of homes it can serve? Instead of the claim of 400,000 homes- more likely 100,000 at best- if the wind is blowing? With about 6 million people- there must be 2 million homes more or less and since nobody wants wind turbines on the land here in MA- and since resistance is building against solar farms which are popping up everywhere- much of the new “clean and green energy” will have to be wind- which means maybe 20 times as much wind energy at sea. But then we have to find energy for industry (what’s left of it- now mostly education, hospitals and some high tech)- for the rest of transportation (trucks, subways, trains, planes).

Meanwhile, here, they’ve shut down all nuclear and coal and there is immense resistance to new gas pipelines. And, of course, the enviros here hate woody biomass as a small energy provider. This state has gone nuts- totally bonkers. The state’s energy czar recently got fired for admitting the public will be hit hard by this, especially the elderly (like me). Any way, at least now I have enough information to challenge that news article- maybe in the Boston Globe, though they generally refuse to publish any letters not in tune with the prevailing political correctness.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Steve E.
March 10, 2021 4:00 pm

2kW x 8760 hours is 17.52MW/year. It’s quite high for an average use figure if there is no space heating or aircon involved. In the UK, the highly variable unit of energy is the “home”, which I have seen quoted as low as 3.2MWh/year. More homes per wind turbine that way.

Of course, peak usage will be considerably higher.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve E.
March 11, 2021 3:04 pm

Even worse, the 800 MW is faceplate power. Actually power will be about 1/3rd of that and will be available at random times.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 3:55 pm

Why did I read that as “US eyesore wind…”?

Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2021 4:34 am

On the Yale360 web site: “Is the ‘Legacy’ Carbon Credit Market a Climate Plus or Just Hype?”
subtitled:
“As major corporations look to buy carbon credits to offset emissions, critics are questioning the value of “legacy” credits from green projects that are a decade or more old. What’s needed, experts say, is to reform the credit system so it delivers actual carbon reductions.”

https://e360.yale.edu/features/is-the-legacy-carbon-credit-market-a-climate-plus-or-just-hype

cedarhill
March 10, 2021 5:18 am

Engineers .. gee. The obvious best solution is a thorium powered generator. 100% no issue with “icing”.

Editor
Reply to  cedarhill
March 10, 2021 5:41 am

I haven’t been following that closely, but I know China has been working on it (they have a _lot_ of thorium sand frome their rare earth mining). Research must not be going well, as they’re building new coal fired power plants.

Updates welcome!

Editor
March 10, 2021 5:43 am

I stumbled across https://techxplore.com/news/2021-03-field-icing-turbines-power-production.html a couple days ago and was thinking of writing a post with it.

It has a nice photo of a rimed IWT blade,comment image

Editor
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 10, 2021 6:15 am

Incidentally, I found that page as a link from https://stopthesethings.com/2021/02/04/cruel-unusual-punishment-400-french-cows-succumb-to-low-frequency-wind-turbine-noise-vibration/ which refers to several other human and non-human impacts of infrasound and other evils.

bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 6:01 am

I read this a few days ago. Dr. Hu is pimping his technique, which does sound better.

W.r.t. Texas, they need to stick practicality and discounted cash flows:

  1. Assess what they thought would happen in this low (but increasing) probability, high impact, event. In detail, by mode of production, including the interconnectedness of natural gas to electric conversion and other sources
  2. Assess what DID happen in the same detail.
  3. Find the lowest cost method of economically minimizing the chance of such impacts the next time.
  4. Implement those changes, via REGULATIONS.

Or you could just let me turn all of the cards over:

  1. Equip the wind turbines with cold resistant innards, heated and insulated as appropriate. Blade de-icing only if found to be practical. Plan realistically, for a conservative fraction of service.
  2. Prioritize the electrical requirements for natural gas production w.r.t. rolling blackouts and out right turn offs.
  3. Gird up the natural gas production to natural gas fired (both in line and peaker plant) system from formation face chemical injection to conversion facility outputs.
  4. Add to/improve, natural gas storage/deliverability capacity. California started doing this 4 years ago.
  5. FFS, INTERCONNECT!!

Saved the state many $M in high cost consulting. They need to send me honorary license plates with any one of the 3 state mottos.

  1. TEXAS TRUCK.
  2. TEXAS, THE LAND OF WRETCHED EXCESS*.
  3. TEXAS, TOO MUCH IS NOT ENOUGH*.
  • H/T’s to Molly Ivins. RIP….
Editor
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 6:17 am

How is that “pimping?”

bigoilbob
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 10, 2021 6:23 am

He’s pushing it, perhaps in the hope of rewards to him. NOTHING wrong with that. It’s the American Way and if the method proves economic for new builds in the right sites, then Mo’ Power To Him…

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 8:27 am

“Or you could just let me turn all of the cards over”

bob,

For sake of argument, I’ll assume you know everything there is to know about producing a gas well under sub-zero conditions – and while I’m at it, I’ll assume that some of your other ideas above might be reasonable under certain conditions. The issue you’re missing is that your top-down solution is doomed to fail when any aspects of the “regulations” become sub-optimal under time-varying conditions.

In other words, whatever top-down regs bigoilbob, bigpipelinebob, bigutilitybob, bigwindbob, bigsolarbob, biggreenbob, bigisobob, bigpoliticalbob, biggeneratorbob, etc. can agree to and impose will inevitably be a sub-optimal kluge of economic rent-seeking and cost shifting. Very much akin to having Hayek’s Fatal Conceipt meet Buchanan’s Public Choice Theory.

Assuming the PUCs (another political problem) can deal with the utilities, why are you afraid of having ERCOT establish consistent rules for the supply of energy to the grid, including make-whole penalties for non-performance? I’m pretty sure I know the answer – it’s because the bid-in cost of renewables will have to include the cost of non-performance, and these unreliable sources will become a much smaller factor in the daily dispatch, if they don’t disappear completely. Note, this is not to say that energy prices won’t increase under conditions of higher reliability – they have to because reliable energy is worth more than unreliable energy – but they’ll certainly be lower than those resulting from your top-down scheme.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 10, 2021 8:42 am

Your faith based alternative apparently had some flaws.

Assuming the PUCs (another political problem) can deal with the utilities, why are you afraid of having ERCOT establish consistent rules for the supply of energy to the grid, including make-whole penalties for non-performance?”

Not afraid of this at all. If the investigation concludes that it is the right way to go. However, I’ll bet you a coke that – if this investigation by competent businessmen and rtechnical pro’d actually get done – there will be NO push to make wind power peak under parts/ten thousand weather conditions. Rather, the plan which will cost WAY less in cumulative discounted cash flow, will (mostly) include 5 improvements I outlined.

FYI, your l your conflation of rules and regulations with “socialism” is both misplaced and selective. Pretty much a “GET THE GD GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY MEDICARE!!” rant

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 9:05 am

bob,

Let’s agree there that not all regs are bad e.g., don’t pass a school bus that’s picking up / discharging passengers.

Can you kindly translate this:

“if this investigation by competent businessmen and rtechnical pro’d actually get done – there will be NO push to make wind power peak under parts/ten thousand weather conditions”

Thanks!

bigoilbob
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
March 10, 2021 9:17 am

Minus my usual typo’s and incomplete words, it’s my opinion. Wind should not be scapegoated for bad planning and 0.5 assed gas systems. But, I’m happy to await for an investigation by the pro’s to prove me right.

Apparently, everyone else in these fora want to ready, fire, aim at wind instead. There’s already enough in to see what REALLY happened, and it interferes with their prejudgments. So, instead they want to quash the presentation of the factual details. Kind of a Kris Kobach redux…

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 10:44 am

Ok – I don’t see the need to scapegoat wind either. But it should pull its own weight, in which case I’m willing to bet it becomes much less prominent in the energy mix. What we have now is a system where renewables are effectively off limits to criticism from the “pros” while the reliable sources take regulatory shots to beggar each other.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 12:35 pm

Over-indulgence in virtue-seeking wind …. Is the problem.

Wind is not the “scapegoat”

…. it is the ABSOLUTELY AND TOTAL BLAME for the problem.

Lrp
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 5:22 pm

You guys are Marxist crooks, and that’s that. You make us laugh with your self important 5 improvements plan and top down regulations for something that’s been done by coal power or nuclear plants for a century without your improvements.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Lrp
March 11, 2021 8:40 am

Leftists and Greens are busy sabotaging a system which has provided electrical power unobtrusively, economically, and reliably to the World for decades.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 10, 2021 9:00 pm

“Find the lowest cost method of economically minimizing the chance of such impacts the next time.”

WOW great to see big oily blob ADVOCATING COAL FIRED POWER. !

RobR
March 10, 2021 6:16 am

I’m not a fan of wind turbines but the article and solution presented makes for interesting reading. We can all learn from each other.

EWSTX
March 10, 2021 6:51 am

So tired of them being called wind “farms”… Like they are some sort of friendly place with cows and chickens and lovely crops growing… They blight the land in West TX like you would not believe.

Lrp
Reply to  EWSTX
March 10, 2021 5:23 pm

they are farming ratepayers money for sure

observa
March 10, 2021 7:01 am

Well in South Oz we have them shutting down with high temperatures. So we’ll have to ensure they’re heat proofed as we’ll be needing a lot more of them sooner than planned for-
Victoria’s largest coal-fired power station to close four years early (msn.com)
The coal stations have been eking out the last of their revenues as fickle wind and solar dump on the grid as. They finished investing in their ongoing refurbishment some years ago so it’s only a matter of time before they pull the pin on them all one by one.

Reply to  observa
March 10, 2021 7:18 am

The exit from coal-fired power plants is taking shape, as are the associated problems. On January 1, 2021, eleven hard coal-fired power plants in Germany with a total capacity of 4700 megawatts were shut down and the operators paid € 317 million for the premature shutdown. As Daniel Wetzel reported in “Die Welt” , the most powerful German hard coal-fired power station, Heyden, was shut down on January 1, 2021 – five years before the planned shutdown. At the request of the network operator Tennet, the system had to be restarted six times since the turn of the year. The reasons for this were, on the one hand, disruptions in the European network (on January 8th and February 25th) and dark lulls in the course of January and February.
Two other plants that were shut down on January 1st must remain in operation for an indefinite period of time: The network operator Amprion applied to the Federal Network Agency to classify STEAG’s Walsum 9 power plant and RWE’s Hamm Westfalen E power plant as “systemically relevant” and the To oblige owners to continue operating as reserve power plants. The lack of electricity will become evident in the dark doldrums of next winter when another 3 nuclear power plants (Brokdorf, Grundremmingen, Grohnde) are to be shut down.

Source

observa
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 10, 2021 4:46 pm

I suspect the same will happen in Australia when it looks like rolling blackouts with the unreliables. The eastern seaboard grid (Qld, NSW, Vic, SA and Tas) are linked under control of the AEMO but here’s islanded WA going down the same path-

“Luring large-scale industry to town isn’t proving easy.
The state government redirected $60 million in funding from its last budget to that end, following stalled plans for the establishment of a biomass energy plant and solar farm in Collie which could have delivered up to 200 jobs.
It has so far cut a cheque for $2 million to part-fund a medicinal marijuana facility the government says will create 24 permanent jobs and a slew of “considerable flow-on effects for the Collie community”.
Between a black rock and a hard place (msn.com)

Our future lies with the dope heads and their needs it seems but sooner or later they’ll be going cold turkey.

Ben Vorlich
March 10, 2021 7:31 am

When they say

and using water- and ice-repelling coatings, we were able to reduce the amount of heat needed and the risk of running back water to refreeze over the blade surfaces.

https://www.rainx.co.uk/

or some permanent paint or plastic coating? In my experience Rain-x has a fairly short life, perhaps a couple of years as just a coating. On a windscreenthe life is shorter thanks to the wiper blades

MarkW
March 10, 2021 8:02 am

Does anyone know what the U, T, and LWC mentioned in the first two photos stand for?
T is probably temperature.
U might have something to do with wind speed.
LWC might have something to do with how much ice has accumulated.

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 4:45 pm

U is the velocity of the air stream in their wind tunnel in metres/second: you have to think of the tip velocity of the blade in considering what might be relevant. At full power, a turbine typcially rotates at about 20 rpm. A 30m blade would have a tip speed of about 62m/sec at full power, but in lesser winds the 40m/secfigure is quite plausible – and in any event, at full speed, it applies about 2/3rd the way to the tip.

T is indeed the temperature of the air stream in Centigrade.

LWC is the water content of the air in grams per cubic metre. At their test temperatures dry air would be about 31 g/m^3, so water varies between about 1% and 10% by weight in their examples. It may effectively include fine ice crystals at the higher content in particular.

MarkW
March 10, 2021 8:03 am

I have a couple of questions.
What is the cost of these heating elements?
What is the cost of these non-stick coatings?
How well do the heating elements and the non-stick coatings deal with the wear and tear from bugs and dust?

Itdoesn't add up...
Reply to  MarkW
March 10, 2021 5:37 pm

When I looked at the website of a Finnish company that specialise in ice prevention/deicing for turbines they indicated the starting point for economic viability was over 3% of time being subject to icing problems. I’d call that a fortnight a year in rounder numbers, and I’d want to take a close look at weather patterns around likely icing events: no return if like Texas the wind simply dies. Of course, it can be cold with no icing risk because the air is dry (cold air holds little moisture normally). It is extremely unlikely to make economic sense in Texas, but when has that ever stopped wind farm advocates?

Charles Higley
March 10, 2021 8:48 am

YOU CANNOT BUILD A RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FROM UNRELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES.

Unless, of course, your goal is to destabilize the energy supply and make it too expensive to use. AGENDA 21.

fred250
Reply to  Charles Higley
March 10, 2021 9:03 pm

Building more than about 10% of wind and solar into a grid is…..

DELIBERATELY BUILDING IN UNRELIABILITY.

griff
Reply to  fred250
March 11, 2021 12:12 am

Take a look at the amount of wind and solar on the German, UK and Spanish grids and tell me if they are unreliable (or more unreliable than in the past)

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 2:23 am

comment image

Poor griff-tard

Data really is an enema to you isn’t it !

German wind BELOW 20% nameplate at least 60% of the time.

UK wind missing in action several days in a row.

comment image

TOTALLY UNRELIABLE.. and you know that, so WHY PRETEND ???

Only saved by GAS, COAL and NUCLEAR and via interconnects to NUCLEAR.

Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 8:46 am

Your assertions will come as a big surprise to German industrialists, who are terrified by the prospect of the collapse of the German grid.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/09/05/renewables-threaten-german-economy-energy-supply-mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/?sh=5c6da8d18e48

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 11, 2021 3:08 pm

griff is of the firm belief that anything that hasn’t happened, can’t happen.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 3:08 pm

They are definitely more unreliable in the past. If it weren’t for hydro from Norway, nuclear from France and coal from Poland, the German grid would have collapsed a number of times this past winter.

griff
Reply to  Charles Higley
March 11, 2021 12:12 am

I thought it was agenda 31 now? anyway, you can’t make a reasoned argument on choice of energy sources based on conspiracy theory.

fred250
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 2:27 am

You mean on an UP-FRONT STATED AGENDA don’t you, griff-denier.

You don’t even know what your own far-left socialist totalitarian scammers are saying ……

Just do a google for “Agenda 30”

It is driving force of UN one-world dictatorship..

Are you just IGNORANT or deliberately LYING

But you are correct.. AGENDA DRIVEN energy infrastructure is sheer STUPIDITY

BUILT-IN UNRELIABILITY can never be RELIABLE.

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
fred250
Reply to  griff
March 11, 2021 2:33 am

Why are you SO STUPIDLY IGNORANT that you continue to post idiotic comments…

…. that are so easily proven TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG !!

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
March 12, 2021 6:37 am

Griff
4 words…

Stay away from “thought”

You don’t wear it well…

ASTONERII
March 10, 2021 9:14 am

“While the majority of the power shut down by the storm was from natural gas, coal or nuclear, wind turbines also struggled.”

The fact is that the solutions to keeping gas, coal and nuclear power online in these conditions are known, they just did not put the money into it because they did not think it would happen. These were also brought back online very quickly while wind power remained offline until the conditions changed.

For wind power to remain online in these conditions, there are no known solutions that are economical.

MarkW
Reply to  ASTONERII
March 10, 2021 9:34 am

A decrease of over 90% in power being delivered is merely “struggling”?

Chad W Jessup
March 10, 2021 9:21 am

Good study.

“While ice can form over the entire span of the blade, much more ice is found near the tips. After one 30-hour icing event, we found ice as much as a foot thick. Despite the high wind, the ice-heavy turbines rotated much slower and even shut down. The turbines produced only 20% of their normal power over that period.”

This finding is not surprising as the water will undergo the effects of centripetal force, and the resulting ice build-up at the blade tips will be subject to the law of conservation of angular momentum.

ron gaudry
March 10, 2021 9:36 am

i wonder if the is a solution to the uneven or unusually fast wearing out of the bearings in wind turbines due to uneven load distribution caused by having only three blades?

BallBounces
March 10, 2021 9:43 am

CO2 is not a pollutant.

ResourceGuy
March 10, 2021 10:51 am

Why study this when you have the NYT and NPR to declare all is well all the time with wind turbines? They never freeze up in la la land.

PC_Bob
March 10, 2021 12:41 pm

While the majority of the power shut down by the storm was from natural gas, coal or nuclear, wind turbines also struggled.”

From the charts I saw, Gas was producing at the rate of +450% of normal, while Wind was doing almost the opposite, at -450%! Trying to make it appear that wind was affected not-so-much? It seems to me that trying to keep the ice melted would take up a LOT of whatever electrical power the windmill was able to generate, just trying to keep the blades ice free. In the end it sounds like a lose-lose situation!

Robert of Texas
March 10, 2021 2:55 pm

A better solution to keeping ice off of the wind turbine blades is NOT TO BUILD THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

They serve no purpose other than consuming resources, money, and making rich people richer.

Gunga Din
March 10, 2021 5:11 pm

Tell you what.
Get Gates or some other Megamouthinaire (not Biden, NO Government funding or subsidies) to build a wind farm at McMurdo or above the Arctic Circle.
Get back with us about how well they preformed AND how much “extra” they cost.
Then build the same design on the Equator and do the same.
(Another suggestion would be to do the same with solar panels in “The Land of The Midnight Sun”.)

Last edited 4 months ago by Gunga Din
bill
March 11, 2021 6:14 am

Ten years studying ice, a great contribution to our nation.

Tom
March 11, 2021 6:17 am

The storm in Texas covered more than a weeks time, involved two snow storms, and left most areas in single digit night temperatures in areas with a normal daily low in the 40s. By many assessments, it was the worst such storm since 1899. It would simply not be practical to install deicing equipment on wind turbine blades in a region where more than a half-dozen blade sets would need replacement before one set even required them.

The biggest problem was not technology, it was the incompetence of ERCOT in managing the disruptions, and government bureaucrats in not allowing some backup power generation to be used properly due to CO2 emissions. As many have already said, natural gas provided the bulk of the power generation replaced due to the wind turbine failures. Available natural gas was limited by rotating power cuts at natural gas compressing facilities and by output restrictions due to CO2 regulations.

In the area where I live, lack of snow plows prevented road clearing. This, combined with the rotating power outages meant that gas stations and food stores were not replenished, and store coolers were shut down spoiling all refrigerated items. This meant that gas ran out, food stores ran out of dry foods and could not sell any refrigerated items either. Such is life in a once per century storm. Even if the county had saved their snow plows after their last such storm, there wouldn’t have been any horse teams around to pull them. In the next such storm, all the wind turbine blades in the landfills shouldn’t have any unused de-icing equipment on them, either. Hopefully the bureaucrats will have learned how to deal with power shortages, but I doubt it.

Sheri
March 12, 2021 6:19 pm

I DO NOT WANT THEM SPINNING ALL WINTER.

March 22, 2021 6:52 pm

If government hadn’t forced the utilities to build these monstrosities to begin with we wouldn’t have this problem to worry about. I love that part about 20% of output. 20% of nothing is still nothing.