Offshore wind turbines steal each other’s wind: yields greatly overestimated

The energy yields of offshore wind turbines are overestimated by up to 50% in national policy documents. This conclusion is based on an analysis of operational data from 72 wind farms.

From CLINTEL

Bert Weteringe

In order to meet the net-zero targets set out in the European Green Deal, offshore wind turbines will have to make a significant contribution to Europe’s future energy supply – at least, that is the plan of European governments. However, these plans are facing setbacks due to high investment costs and uncertainty about returns, as demand is lower than expected. On October 30, outgoing Minister Hermans of the Dutch Ministry of Climate & Green Growth (KGG) announced in a letter to the House of Representatives that no applications for a permit had been received for the tender for the Nederwiek I-A wind farm, which has an installed capacity of 1–1.15 gigawatts. This is a trend that is not limited to the Netherlands. In August, for example, there were no bids for the ten gigawatts of tenders that the German government had put out for offshore wind projects. On top of that, there is now another setback: the energy yields of offshore wind turbines appear to be much lower than assumed in most national policy plans.

“National policy targets show expectations of energy production up to 50% higher than can realistically be achieved”, concludes Carlos Simao Ferreira, professor of Wind Energy Science at Delft University of Technology. He published, together with Danish colleagues Gunner Chr. Larsen and Jens Nørkær Sørensen from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU), an article in the latest journal Cell Reports Sustainability, on November 21. “This study establishes a physically grounded upper limit on wind farm performance, demonstrating that aerodynamic constraints impose a fundamental ceiling on the energy extractable from the marine Atmospheric Boundary Layer”, the scientists continue.

According to the article, the ever-growing wind farms, which are also becoming increasingly denser, extract energy from the lower part of the atmospheric boundary layer, affecting this boundary layer up to several kilometres above the Earth’s surface. The energy extracted from the airflow must be replenished from the higher layers of the atmosphere, but this is only possible to a limited extent due to atmospheric limitations determined by physical principles known from meteorology and geophysics. This means that wind turbines literally steal each other’s wind, which means that the efficiency of wind turbines will decrease even further as their number increases. The scientists demonstrate this with a validated analytical model that defines the physical upper limit of offshore wind farm production.

They built their model based on the actual yields of 72 large wind farms in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and compared the actual yields of the wind farms with the theoretically expected yields set out in national policy documents in a number of case studies. In seven of the nine case studies, the national policy targets for offshore wind yields turned out to be way overestimated. Two German wind farms were slightly underestimated.

The limitations of offshore wind revealed in the publication are not new. Scientists from the Danish university and the German Max Planck Institute have previously warned that the expected yields from offshore wind energy could fall by a third or more if offshore wind is scaled up further. In a 2020 publication by the German organization Agora Energiewende, an interdisciplinary and international team that develops scientifically sound and politically feasible strategies for the transformation towards climate neutrality, they showed how the efficiency of wind turbines decreases as the use of wind energy increases in scale. In addition, Axel Kleidon, physicist and group leader at the Max Planck Institute, states in a 2021 publication in the ‘Meteorologische Zeitschrift’ that the energy yields of areas with wind turbines covering more than 100 square kilometres, are up to twelve times lower than those of small wind farms in prominent locations, regardless of the technological advances made in wind turbines. The Cell Reports publication now confirms these earlier findings with hard figures.

The Netherlands stands out most conspicuously: with an overestimation of revenues of 49%, the scientists have labelled the Dutch government’s policy as “internally inconsistent”. The North Sea Wind Energy Infrastructure Plan (WIN), published by the Dutch government in July, assumes a capacity factor of 51 to 56 percent—this is the ratio between the actual electricity production of a wind turbine and the maximum possible yield in the same period. This is despite figures from Statistics Netherlands (CBS) showing that the capacity factor of wind turbines in the Dutch part of the North Sea was 37% and 38% in 2023 and 2024, respectively. The Delft publication cites this as a striking example of how “changing targets, spatial planning, and assumed performance can become misaligned with physical constraints.”

“Such overestimation not only hides true energy costs but also underestimates power variability, integration, and curtailment risks, and it distorts policy pathways”, the scientists argue. They further note that the resulting shortfall in electricity revenues “could have a profound impact on society and the economy.” The effectiveness of large-scale investments in the flexibility of the power grid and in wind energy storage—such as batteries and hydrogen production—depends to a large extent on the actual capacity factor of offshore wind turbines. According to the scientists, the underutilization of these investments in the future will have an impact on several generations. “The heavy demands on society, the economy, and the environment mean that corrective paths may become costly or unfeasible for a country or region”, they state.

Simão Ferreira et al., A theoretical upper limit for offshore wind energy extraction, Cell Reports Sustainability (2025), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2025.100573

Bert Weteringe

Bert Weteringe is a Dutch aeronautical engineer and the author of the book Downwind (2023), in which he informs readers about the devastating effects of the climate agenda on society and nature, specifically the impact of large-scale energy generation using wind turbines. As an independent investigative journalist, his focus is primarily on the energy transition. Through his website, he publishes news about the energy transition and wind turbines in particular.

5 22 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Subscribe
Notify of
72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
January 5, 2026 6:43 pm

As wind farms get bigger, the total amount wind “stealing” will increase.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2026 6:14 am

I would imagine that the same problem impacts land based wind farms, it’s just that because the landscape around the farms is more complex, it is harder to analyze.

atticman
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2026 8:09 am

During sea battles in the days when navies used sailing ships, one side would often try to position themselves so as to “take the wind out of the sails” of their opponents, thus leaving them less able to manoeuvre and at a disadvantage. Hence the well-known expression about doing just that.

ResourceGuy
January 5, 2026 7:11 pm

Meanwhile Europe is gorging on slave made solar from western China. The coal fired import goods index is flying off the chart.

KevinM
January 5, 2026 7:16 pm

Not the point of the article, but:
There is enough data now to make absolute evaluations of cost if it were available.

James Snook
Reply to  KevinM
January 6, 2026 12:58 am

there is also a lot more data now available since the last time a meaningful study of output deterioration due to aging was carried out.

Editor
January 5, 2026 7:16 pm

This photo from 2008 shows the spread of downwind turbulence and how that impacts turbines downwind. A picture worth well more than 1,000 words!

vattenfall-image_300
rovingbroker
Reply to  Ric Werme
January 6, 2026 4:21 am

” …  and how that impacts turbines downwind.” Which is why there are no turbines downwind.

The real demonstration is how energy is transferred from the moving air to the generators that are driven by the windmills. The evidence of that loss of energy is the cooling of the air demonstrated by the condensing of moisture as the air temperature drops.

Physics 101.


R.Morton
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 5:16 am

Funny, because there are a LOT of turbines downwind in that picture, so…

rovingbroker
Reply to  R.Morton
January 6, 2026 7:21 am

I wondered about that — it seemed a waste. With these old eyes on my tiny screen, the downwind turbines disappeared. I’ll sit closer next time.

Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 5:53 am

re: “Which is why there are no turbines downwind.

?? There are turbines, seen in a larger image, downwind in the contrails of that image …

Reply to  Ric Werme
January 6, 2026 7:12 am

The upstream wind mills take energy from the wind, which leaves less for downwind wind mills.
This has been known for at least 30 years.

Wind mills also alter local climates, because they slow down surface winds that should be blowing.

Water Vapor Change Effect Much Greater than Any CO2 effect
The IPCC claims, water vapor feedback is an amplifier of the radiative effect of rising concentrations of CO2. 
But we know about the latent heat of water vapor, and more generally, the operation of vapor-cycle heat engines, such as the Rankine cycle of condensing steam engines and steam turbines.
.
The latent energy in the atmosphere at 1 inch of precipitable water, PW, is about 17,600 watt-hour/m2. 
One inch of PW is about 25.4 kg/m2. 
The intensity of conversion to internal energy in a one-inch-per-hour rainfall event is 17,600 W/m2
.
Water vapor promotes the effectiveness of energy transport from the tropics to the poles, and from low altitude to high altitude, 
A 1 C increase in air temperature provides a 7% increase in saturation vapor pressure 
A 7% increase of PW at about 25.4 kg/m2 provides about 1,200 watt-hour/m2 of increased energy transport.
.
There is no scientific reason to expect the world’s climate system to be perceptibly influenced by emissions of CO2, due to its single-digit-W/m2 radiative effect! See URL
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=pwtr&ortho=1&wt=1

Reply to  wilpost
January 6, 2026 7:13 am

Here are 5 articles attesting to the small global warming role of human CO2 in the atmosphere

Eight Taiwanese Engineers Determine Climate Sensitivity to a 300 ppm CO2 Increase Is ‘Negligibly Small’
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/eight-taiwanese-engineers-determine-climate-sensitivity-to-a-300
By Kenneth Richard
.
The Fairy Tale of The CO2 Paradise Before 1850…A Look at The Real Science
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-fairy-tale-of-the-co2-paradise-before-1850-a-look-at-the-real
By Fred F. Mueller
 .
Achieving ‘Net Zero by 2050’ Reduces Temps by 0.28 C Costing Tens of $TRILLIONS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/achieving-net-zero-by-2050-reduces-temps-by-0-28-c-costing-tens
By Kenneth Richard    
.
German Researcher: Doubling Of Atmospheric CO2 Causes Only 0.24°C Of Warming …Practically Insignificant
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-researcher-doubling-of-atmospheric-co2-causes-only-0-24-c
By P Gosselin on 19. November 2024

Just in time for COP30 in Belem, Brazil, we have fresh confirmation, cooling temperatures are resulting in lower-than- expected levels of atmospheric CO2
So, the wind, solar, battery, and Net-Zero by 2050 frenzies to reduced CO2 by 2050 are impossibly expensive hoaxes, based on IPCC “proprietary science”.
https://willempost.substack.com/p/just-in-time-for-cop30-in-belem-brazil?r=1n3sit&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Reply to  wilpost
January 6, 2026 7:15 am

CO2 IS AN ABSOLUTELY VITAL FOR GROWING FLORA AND FAUNA; NET ZERO IS A SUICIDE PACT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-an-absolutely-vital-gas-ingredient-for-growing-flora-and
By Willem Post
.
The IPCC, etc., has endowed CO2 gas as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC, etc., claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
The IPCC, etc., denies the Little Ice Age, uses fraudulent computer temperature projections.
.
Governments proclaimed: Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to: 
1) increase command/control by governments, and 
2) enable the moneyed elites to become more powerful and richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people, already for at least 50 years; extremely biased CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, NBC ABC, CBS come to mind.
.
CO2, just 0.042% in the atmosphere, is a weak absorber of a small fraction of the absorbable, low-energy IR photons.
CO2 has near-zero influence on world surface temperatures.
CO2 is a life-giving molecule. Greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an essential ingredient for: 
1) increased green flora, which increases fauna all over the world, including desert areas, and 
2) increased crop yields to better feed 8 billion people.
.
At About 30% Annual W/S Electricity on the Grid, Various Costs Increase Exponentially
The W/S systems uglify the countryside, kill birds and bats, whales and dolphins, fisheries, tourism, view-sheds, etc.
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent W/S output, often too-little and often too-much, creates grid-disturbing difficulties that become increasingly more challenging and more costly (c/kWh) to counteract, as proven by the UK and California for the past 5 years, and Germany for the past 10 years, and recently in Spain/Portugal. 
.
All have “achieved” near-zero, real- growth GDPs, the highest electricity prices (c/kWh) in the EU, and stagnant real wages for almost all people, while further enriching the moneyed elites who live in the poshest places.
.
Native People Suffer Extra Burdens: Their angry, over-taxed, over-regulated native populations, already burdened by the wind/solar/batteries nonsense, and then further burdened by the bureaucrat/moneyed elites bringing in tens of millions of uninvited, unvetted, uneducated, unskilled, ghetto-trash, crime-prone, poor folks, from dysfunctional countries. 
Those folks are sucking from the multiple, government-program tits, while making: 
1) minimal efforts to produce goods and services; and 
2) maximum efforts to be chaotic, culture-destroying burden, the native populations never voted for. 
.
Minimal Temperature Change due to CO2: The climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years. During that time, world surface temps increased by at most 1.5 C +/- 0.25 C, of which: 
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C) of the warming, such as the UHI of about 700 miles, from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning. 
Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
About 65% of the US linear warming trend between 1895 and 2023 was due to increasing population density at the suburban and urban stations; 8% of the warming was due to urbanization at rural stations. Most of that UHI effect warming occurred before 1970.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for less than 0.3 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age, 
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
.
BTW, the 1850 surface temp measurements were only in a few locations and mostly inaccurate, +/- 0.5 C. 
The 1979-to-present temp measurements (46 years) cover most of the earth surface and are more accurate, +/- 0.25 C, due to NASA satellites.
Any graphs should show accuracy bands.
The wiggles in below image are due to plants rotting late in the year, emitting CO2, plants growing early in the year, consuming CO2, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere. See URL
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/about.html

mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 5, 2026 7:47 pm

I don’t get the “stealing’ of wind. Does the air slow down once it goes through the turbines? It’s not like a puff of wind that deteriorates since there’s more behind it. Help me understand.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 5, 2026 8:41 pm

It’s a little like coasting your car down a gentle hill. Ultimately you will reach a point where your speed is constant, a balance between the gravitational energy supplied by the slope and the rolling and wind resistance of your car.

Now, tap the breaks and extract some kinetic energy. That is like the windmill. You slow down a little, or a lot, depending on how hard you extract the energy. You then lift your foot, and start to coast again. If there is enough time, and slope length you will again reach that constant velocity.

A collection of windmills may be simulated in this little thought experiment by a tapping of the breaks at regular intervals, you never get back up to the constant speed and any secondary or subsequent energy extraction is going to be less than the first. The first one ‘stole’ the energy of the downstream units.

In this example, your car is the wind.

Hope that helps.

John Hultquist
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 5, 2026 8:50 pm

Wind doesn’t go through turbines. Wind hits the blades and some of the energy of the wind converts to spinning a shaft. Wind is moving air (N2 & O2). Those molecules hit the blades, they move, and the molecules slow down. If all of the energy coming from wind were extracted as useful energy, the wind speed afterward would drop to zero.
Start with Betz’s Law. 

Arthur Jackson
Reply to  John Hultquist
January 5, 2026 9:14 pm

Wouldn’t zero wind change the climate? Hmmm…….

rovingbroker
Reply to  Arthur Jackson
January 6, 2026 4:26 am

There is zero wind on the moon.

Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 4:29 am

There is wind on the moon

R.Morton
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 5:16 am

0 for 2…

rovingbroker
Reply to  R.Morton
January 6, 2026 7:36 am

Not so fast Mort … Copilot AI begs to differ.
Is there wind on the Moon?
No — there is no wind on the Moon because the Moon has no meaningful atmosphere to move air around. Wind, as we experience it on Earth, requires air pressure differences and flowing gases. The Moon simply doesn’t have that.

NASA puts it plainly: the Moon “does not experience weather, like wind or atmospheric temperature or precipitation” because it lacks a significant atmosphere.

More from NASA via Copilot AI …

So what does happen on the Moon?
Even though there’s no wind:

  • The Moon is constantly hit by solar wind — a stream of charged particles from the Sun — but this is not “wind” in the Earth sense.
  • Micrometeorites strike the surface and can kick up dust.
  • These processes create a very thin exosphere, not a real atmosphere.

https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f3f3.svg
What about the Apollo flag “waving”?People sometimes ask why the flag seemed to flutter. The explanation is simple:

  • When the astronauts twisted the pole into the ground, the fabric moved due to inertia, not wind.
  • The flag had a horizontal support rod to keep it extended, which made it look rippled
Mr.
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 8:29 am

Thank you for your attention to this matter 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 6:58 am

The moon has a different climate.

The more correct assertion is there is no atmospheric wind on the moon.
Solar wind, yes.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 6, 2026 5:55 pm

Calling the ionic flow to and from the sun “wind” is a misnomer and one of the bigger mistakes in cosmology.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Arthur Jackson
January 6, 2026 6:56 am

“Wouldn’t zero wind change the climate? Hmmm…….”

In the vicinity of the WTGs, the climate is altered. Anything downwind from the deployment also has an altered climate.

Climate is not just temperatures.

Reply to  John Hultquist
January 6, 2026 5:50 am

re: “Wind hits the blades and some of the energy of the wind converts to spinning a shaft.

And, with a conversion from (pretty much) an incoming laminar flow now to an outgoing turbulent flow (as seen in the image posted by Ric, the article author, in the comments here.)

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 5, 2026 9:30 pm

Turbulence like F1 cars following one another or better, yacht sails creating turbulence for downwind yachts. Clear air is paramount for performance. The turbulence last for a long way downwind of the source and reduces the efficiency of the aerofoils / sails / blades.

rovingbroker
Reply to  Streetcred
January 6, 2026 4:42 am

in the wake of an airplane or race car, turbulence is evidence of drag. Efficient designs taper the cross-sections at the rear of the aircraft/car to reduce the turbulence generated as the body moves through the air. An extreme example …

comment image

… which shows that this was understood many decades ago.

MarkW
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 5:58 am

No drag means that no energy is being imparted to the blades, which means no energy is being produced. Kind of defeats the purpose.

Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 4:08 pm

Sort of an ‘aside’ – looking at the vintage of the vehicle design and the six exhaust vents – on each side – it’s powered by a RR Merlin engine?

rovingbroker
Reply to  Streetcred
January 6, 2026 4:50 am

The total drag of two F1 cars following closely is less than that of the same two cars well separated which explains why it is often difficult to pass on a long high-speed strait. It’s kind of fun to watch when, on a long strait, the following car moves out of the leader’s drag-shadow, pulls up next to the leader and is unable to pass. Frustrating, I’m sure.

MarkW
Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 6:01 am

Unwittingly, you have just confirmed the point of the original article.
In your example, the two cars shape combines to deflect air AWAY from the two cars. Great for race cars, but bad for wind turbines.

rovingbroker
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2026 7:48 am

A car with a blunt front like a cabover truck/tractor does deflect air away from itself. That’s why they generally are designed to be at least somewhat streamlined. Think of a Jaguar XK-E.

A race car or aircraft is designed to minimize deflection of air away … they are designed to be “streamlined.” Less air resistance, better gas mileage and faster top speed. And they generally look better … like that Jaguar.

Reply to  rovingbroker
January 6, 2026 10:12 pm

I can’t think of a worse example than a Jaguar XKE. Terrible handling, knacked old ancient engine unit, awful brakes and that huge long bonnet acting as an excellent lift surface making driving anything over 100mph floaty and scary..quite apart from the weight distribution issues…
All the usual crappy stuff from Coventry thrown together by people that couldn’t weld with rust thrown in from day 1.

If you wanted a decent example think of the first Audi 100s.

If you are still a Jag fanatic look at the rear end of the XJS.
Sayer’s buttress design made the car pretty much immune to crosswinds, then they gave it lights about as dim as an acetylene lamp and windscreen wipers that seize up and scarcely work.

Arthur Jackson
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 5, 2026 9:32 pm

Yes, the wind slows down, pressure drops, and temperature goes up. It’s the same effect as if the wind hits trees in a forest or buildings in a city. It’s not like a puff of wind it’s like prevailing winds over a smooth ocean hitting the coastal mountains, forests, and cities of California. The wind meets a lot of drag and the wind loses energy and slows down a lot.

Windmills aren’t zero sum. If a windmill makes one megawatt of electricity then there is one megawatt less wind energy in the atmosphere. Windmills are climate change machines.

Gregg Eshelman
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 5, 2026 10:54 pm

Large fields of them do slow the wind down. There’s probably some fancy mathematical equation that can be used to calculate the max turbine density and placement pattern to not have upwind turbines have too much impact on the ones behind the front row.

Part of that problem is the wind doesn’t always blow in exactly the same direction. An ideal pattern for a wind from directly west or east could fall off on extraction efficiency when the wind changes direction even a little, and be very poor in northerly or southerly wind.

SxyxS
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 6, 2026 1:32 am

See how birds save energy when flying in specific formations.
The same applies here,especially when they are lined up symetrically as in the picture above.
Think of it as a kind of Slipstream.
And professional cyclest claim that they already save energy at top speed when they are 15+ m behind a car.

A windmill is way more effective in that sense and besides that it causes turbulences that are also slowing down wind.

BillR
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 6, 2026 4:24 am

To add to these excellent analyses, I drive a hybrid vehicle that is very sensitive to energy balance measured through the instant MPG reading. It gets much better fuel efficiency in heavy traffic than it does on a lonely road. The difference can exceed 5%. If I closely follow a semi-truck, the difference can be as much as 10%.

This is just simple conservation of energy. The car does work on the air, which is equivalent to the air doing work on the car, as occurs in a wind turbine. When following another object in the same situation, there is less energy available to do work, so less work is done.

rovingbroker
Reply to  BillR
January 6, 2026 7:52 am

Drafting!

Luke Williams
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 6, 2026 6:58 am

Energy has been taken out of it, so there less energy to be extracted downwind.

I have a vague memory of something Jerry Pournelle wrote in a non fiction book somewhere back in the 80s? about diminishing returns on wind. Pretty much predicting precisely this.

TANSTAAFL.

rovingbroker
Reply to  Luke Williams
January 6, 2026 7:55 am

Slightly related to why really fast airplanes have jet engines, not propellors.

rovingbroker
Reply to  Luke Williams
January 6, 2026 10:14 am

Ahhhh yes. Chaos Manor.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
January 6, 2026 10:42 am

Mr. Layman here.
It sounds a bit like the C-Factor in pipes. The friction from a pipe’s interior surface will slow down the flow of the water through a pipe. How much it is slowed depends on the material of the pipe, the diameter of the pipe and the length of the pipe. (Curves, such as elbows, and valves also add to the slow down.)
The bigger the turbines and wind farms, the more the wind is slowed for the downwind turbines.

PS If they’re so concerned about a bit of Man’s CO2 changing the “Climate”, why aren’t they concerned about slowing down wind changing the “Climate”?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 6, 2026 1:01 pm

Because the reality is, they are not concerned about the climate.

They are concerned with transforming the planet into socialism under a UN controlled One World Order and in the process implementing the recommendations of the Club of Rome and The Population Bomb.

Michael Flynn
January 6, 2026 12:06 am

This means that wind turbines literally steal each other’s wind . . .

And steal everybody else’s wind as well.

The atmosphere being chaotic, nobody has the faintest idea what totally unforeseen circumstances might follow, for better or for worse.

Climate science at its finest?

Reply to  Michael Flynn
January 6, 2026 5:14 am

The Butterfly Effect * – at its finest …
.
.
*The term, a concept in chaos theory, suggesting that small changes can lead to significant and unpredictable outcomes.

January 6, 2026 12:07 am

Australian wind farms reached peak money extraction from then consumers in 2022 of $3510M. Their ability to earn income is now in deep depression. This year the total income across the NEM was down to $2230M.

The cause is primarily theft of demand by rooftops as consumers become producers. So the farms often compete with rooftops that do not respond to any price signal. The wind farms consequently suffer from falling price when they can operate and are often economically curtailed because the price goes negative.

Many would-be consumers have voted with their wallets and installed rooftop solar and battery. The price of rooftop power is now about 25% of grid power price due to falling grid demand and rising grid costs pushing up units costs. The whole process is an comic death spiral for the grid..

January 6, 2026 1:14 am

The Climate Alarmist politicians didn’t think this thing through, did they. They assumed too much. That is the signature of Climate Alarmist climate science: They always assume too much. And that’s because Alarmist Climate Science is made up solely of speculation and unverified assumptions, That’s the reason they are having so many problems now.

Just think of the situation Climate Alarmists find themselves in. They put out bids for new windmill farms and nobody bids on them.

It’s all over but the crying. Although the momentum may still bankrupt Germany and the UK. But the writing is on the wall: Windmills and Industrial Solar are not fit for purpose. They cannot power a modern industrial society.

One of these days, Climate Alarmists will figure this out. Until then, nations and economies suffer.

1saveenergy
January 6, 2026 1:39 am

How dare these scientists question the ability of politicians to set targets !
Scientists & engineers must change these silly laws of physics to comply with the politically set targets.
You should know our political masters are always correct in all things at all times.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  1saveenergy
January 6, 2026 7:03 am

Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik

Reply to  1saveenergy
January 6, 2026 9:32 am

Although the sarcasm is biting, it does reflect the truth. A way too many scientists and engineers have taken a big bite of the evil apple in order to not jeopardize their paychecks.

It is why only the ones with no self-interest that do so!

January 6, 2026 4:35 am

It’s good to see energy extraction using wind turbines analyzed this way in physical terms. It’s a good introduction to the concept of dynamic energy conversion in the modeling of the atmosphere’s general circulation. The conversion of absorbed solar energy into bulk kinetic energy is why wind turbines work at all.

But then, as you realize what is happening throughout the depth of the troposphere, there is no good physical reason to have ever expected the minor increase in IR absorbing power from incremental CO2 to end up exerting a perceptible influence toward “warming” of the land + oceans + lower atmosphere. So the “climate” motivation for intermittent wind energy vs. reliable coal or gas was based on a misconception all along.

If this seems hard to accept, even by some skeptics of climate alarm, let’s consider that the modelers know this from the fundamentals of compressible flow applied within their computed representations of the atmosphere’s motion.

Illustrated here using the ERA5 “vertical integral of energy conversion” –
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link

And explained more fully here, with references –
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Reply to  David Dibbell
January 6, 2026 5:25 am

re: “the minor increase in IR absorbing power

IF there is an IR absorbing power, there is ALSO an IR transmitting power; The flip side of this coin is often – usually, not considered. The same molecule ‘action’, be it flexing, spinning, or vibrating of a polar (non-uniform electric field) CO2 or H2O molecule can also give up its energy via EM (electromagnetic) energy via radiation (as in energy movement out of, emission of energy from) an antenna. This is how satellites can view, for instance, water vapor or CO2.

https://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/displaySat.php?region=ABI&itype=C10&size=large&endDate=20260106&endTime=-1&duration=0

MarkW
Reply to  _Jim
January 6, 2026 6:12 am

In the lower atmosphere, the molecule of CO2 gives up the energy it gained by absorbing a photon, to other molecules in the atmosphere via collision before it has a chance to emit it.

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2026 6:47 am

re: “In the lower atmosphere, the molecule of CO2 gives up …

EVENTUALLY this energy reaches space; Maybe you do not know this? Else, HOW do satellites derive their imagery? Fax dispatches from the office of MarkW the all-knowing?

At most, CO2 and water vapor act to diffuse, delay and store temporarily this thermal energy. Maybe you do not see this. IR radiation (emissivity) of these air masses do not, however, reach that of the ground. It is unmistakable that CO2 radiates (as does WV) IR energy to space. Did I say EVERY CO2 molecule radiates its energy to space? No. MarkW would seem to assume this.Its more like a ‘bucket brigade’, with the ‘infinite sink’ of deep space eventually being the recipient of ALL IR energy leaving earth, and her atmosphere.

MarkW would seem to be a little deficient in knowledge here.

Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2026 6:57 am

It is for this reason, about which I know there are differing opinions, that I have been using the wording “incremental IR absorbing power” when discussing the atmosphere’s dynamic response. Same as in 1938 when Brunt commented on Callendar’s attribution of reported warming to incremental CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/06/open-thread-138/#comment-4058322

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2026 7:06 am

That is what they want you to believe, but it is not true if one understands valence states.

Reply to  _Jim
January 6, 2026 6:32 am

Thank you for this reply. No disagreement with your point. One way to state the core claim of the “climate” movement concerning incremental CO2 is that the longwave emitter, as observed from space, MUST be considered de-rated so as to require a higher temperature at the substrate (i.e. land and ocean surfaces) to maintain the pre-existing overall output. In my view, the valid null hypothesis is that there should be no significant influence of incremental CO2 on the broadband overall IR output. That null hypothesis has not been falsified by satellite sensing of narrow-band emission or by spectral analysis.

Len Werner
January 6, 2026 5:25 am

Nobody (yet) pointed out that this is another model study. Why should I consider this model better than the climate models that call for these wind turbines, just because I like the prediction of this one? It may be right but that inherently includes the possibility that it may be wrong.

I’ve mapped geology in some pretty wild terrain in icefields; to think I could have just stayed in a warm office and modelled it on a computer…if there was one back then.

MarkW
Reply to  Len Werner
January 6, 2026 6:13 am

Because the subject is much simpler and better understood.
Rejecting all models because climate models are mis-used is not a scientific position to take.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Len Werner
January 6, 2026 7:09 am

They used the models and the data.
The model outputs matched the measurements.
That kind of verification and validation is too often missing from models in the Climate Liar’s toolkit.

Models are tools.
Tools can be useful.
Tools can be abused.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
January 6, 2026 7:53 am

All models are wrong, some are useful. Forgot who originally said that.

Len Werner
Reply to  Phil R
January 6, 2026 8:20 am

You’re all correct, of course. But those promoting the predictions of climate models make the same claims, that theirs are right and are supported by data. Personal bias often decides whether the models are right and whether the data fits.
.

Reply to  Len Werner
January 6, 2026 9:19 am

If the truth or correctness of climate models predictions is decided by personal bias then the the truth is an epistemic truth, not an ontological truth. Unfortunately, “climate Scientists” and modelers often confuse the two.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phil R
January 6, 2026 1:06 pm

what we know (epistemic)
what actually exists (ontological)

Our knowledge (epistemic) is always a perception of reality (ontological). 

Been awhile, so I looked them up.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Phil R
January 6, 2026 1:03 pm

“All models are wrong, but some are useful,” is attributed to British statistician George E. P. Box.

Sparta Nova 4
January 6, 2026 6:52 am

In summary, WTG farms blow.

Dave Andrews
January 6, 2026 7:44 am

Insead Knowledge also studied the effect of the much larger turbines now being installed offshore and came to the following conclusions.

“As energy companies continue to install bigger wind turbines further offshore our results counter the conventional wisdom that associates larger wind turbines with higher efficiency and profitability”

“Results show the relationship between profit and blade size and distance to shore is an inverse U shape. This means there are limits to the benefits of larger turbines and increased distance to shore. Beyond an optimal point the benefits will start to reduce”

“Considering maintenance and end-of-life costs, alongside the reduction in offshore wind available downwind after passing through a turbine (wake loss) it can be optimal for turbines to be smaller and closer to shore”

“In addition the challenges of routine maintenance and repair work increase with distance from shore and can increase operational expenditure considerably”

https://knowledge.insead.edu/operations/life-giants-life-cycle-view-wind-turbines/

Bob
January 6, 2026 2:23 pm

It can’t be said too often, get the government out of the power business. They are incapable of handling something this important. Stop building wind and solar farms they can’t support the grid, they endanger the grid, they are expensive, they can’t support a modern society, they use huge amounts of rare resources, they have huge footprints, they kill wildlife and they are ugly. Only government would be so stupid to continue down this path.

Edward Katz
January 6, 2026 2:39 pm

I remember reading long ago that for wind turbines to have any degree of effectiveness, they have to be spaced well apart so that they don’t interfere with the prevailing wind currents and thereby reduce the output of the structures on their lee sides. This would mean they have to be well-spaced so that wind farms would have to occupy increasingly large tracts of land. Regardless, they’d still be only moderately effective only when there would be enough wind, so wouldn’t a gas-fired generating station be a better choice since it could be producing 24/7/365?

1saveenergy
Reply to  Edward Katz
January 6, 2026 10:46 pm

“wouldn’t a gas-fired generating station be a better choice since it could be producing 24/7/365?”

Yes, but better than that, use nuclear to cover 90% of the average demand & gas to fill the remaining demand.