15

On my way in to work today there was a guest on the radio claiming that the "Heat Dome" was the result of the disturbance of natural wind patterns by the windfarms that have proliferated the midwestern US in the last decade. He also said that it was not being moved out because of this disturbance as well.

I have seen some of the data about the bird kills and local impacts but is there any evidence that these wind farms can have an impact that is this widespread and lasting?

I know there are just as many on the other side claiming this is global warming and I am not asking about the cause of the Heat Dome just if there is any evidence of the windfarms having an effect that impacts more than local weather patterns.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Chad
  • 9,099
  • 6
  • 49
  • 96
  • AFAIK, there are two claims about windfarms: one valid - they are ugly and they are visual pollution, one not so valid - they allegedly kill birds. Claim that they affect weather seems totally ridiculous. – vartec Jul 21 '11 at 14:49
  • 5
    @vartec - Trust me they kill birds. If you want to come visit during mirgration season and see the dead geese under some of them, its not pretty. I have also seen some evidence of local impact (<1 mile down wind) of the air patterns causing some local weather irregularities, though nothing that would cause me any concern if i lived that close. – Chad Jul 21 '11 at 15:01
  • 3
    I think clearing trees for farmland has a pretty big impact on weather also. Just saying. – Rex Kerr Jul 21 '11 at 19:56
  • 1
    @Chad - lots of things kill birds, and fish and other animals, due to global warming, due to sulfur pollution down wind from coal plants. –  Jul 21 '11 at 19:57
  • @Rex Kerr - That happened over 150 years ago. I doubt that caused the "Heat Dome." In the US Now any logging is reglated and mostly sustainable tree farming, and clearing of dead loss, which is actually good for the ecosystem. – Chad Jul 21 '11 at 20:00
  • 3
    @woodchips - I didnt say that they didnt. Buildings in general kill birds. When a 40 ton 20m blade rotating at 7-10 rpm ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine_design ) hit a bird it kills them as dead as they would if they hit us. When it hits a flock trying to fly through it kills them. It has not had an impact on the number of geese returning, in fact the canadain goose population in Iowa is over sustainable levels for the last 5 years. Same for Illinois. – Chad Jul 21 '11 at 20:06
  • "In the US" is also local. It's just a bigger local. :-) – Lennart Regebro Jul 22 '11 at 08:33
  • 1
    @Chad: I have no doubt that it kills some birds, I just don't believe that it's a number significant enough to impact bird population. – vartec Jul 22 '11 at 09:45
  • @vartec - I never said it did. At least not on a scale that is relevant to a global population. And I am not suggesting they should be taken down because of it. Quite frankly I see this as nothing more than natural selection. They were unable to adapt to an environmental change. – Chad Jul 22 '11 at 12:46
  • Everyone scoffs at claims of bird deaths but never mentions human deaths. http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm When you divide the number of people (mostly workers) killed by the amount of energy produced in the process, wind is actually a pretty deadly form of energy. – endolith Jul 24 '11 at 21:26
  • @endolith - Thats because neither side really cares about them. However with any new technology there is and increased risk. As the technology matures so will the best practices and safe work procedures. It is more cost effective to work safely than unsafely. – Chad Jul 25 '11 at 15:34
  • @Chad The plot on the Caithness site shows accidents increasing with increasing capacity. I wonder if the ratio is changing, though. Should be easy to find capacity over time – endolith Jul 25 '11 at 16:31
  • @endolith - I would wager that the correlation is to the amount of work completed / time alloted to complete. In other words as they try to squeeze more work out of the same number of people corners get cut and more injuries occur. When you are working 100m+ in the air a fall is more serious than it is at 10ft. – Chad Jul 25 '11 at 16:47

1 Answers1

8

The wikipedia article on Environmental impact of wind power has a good section on this:

One study reports simulations that show detectable changes in global climate for very high wind farm usage, on the order of 10% of the world's land area. Wind power has a negligible effect on global mean surface temperature, and it would deliver "enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants". Link to source

Another study published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics suggested that using wind turbines to meet 10 percent of global energy demand in 2100 could actually have a warming effect, causing temperatures to rise by one degree Celsius in the regions on land where the wind farms are installed, including a smaller increase in areas beyond those regions. This is due to the effect of wind turbines on both horizontal and vertical atmospheric circulation. Whilst turbines installed in water would have a cooling effect, the net impact on global surface temperatures would be an increase of 0.15 degrees Celsius. Author Ron Prinn cautioned against interpreting the study "as an argument against wind power, urging that it be used to guide future research". "We’re not pessimistic about wind," he said. "We haven’t absolutely proven this effect, and we’d rather see that people do further research". Link to source

The actual linked source articles are well worth the read.

From reading through them it appears the effect is a matter of scale and likely something that could be helped with advances in technology. It also talks about considering the benefit vs. impact.

going
  • 18,069
  • 18
  • 86
  • 151
  • 4
    It must be said that both these studies relate to wind farm usage far above current levels. – DJClayworth Aug 11 '11 at 01:49
  • @DJClayworth - You are absolutely correct, there are studies on a local level, however the OP asked about "is any evidence of the windfarms having an effect that impacts more than local weather patterns". So I thought he was asking on a much larger scale than local. – going Aug 11 '11 at 03:29
  • My comment wasn't intended to be a criticism of the answer, which is a good one. I just wanted to make sure someone doesn't draw the conclusion 'wind farms are affecting our weather' from it. – DJClayworth Aug 12 '11 at 15:18
  • @DJC - No problems. I just wanted to point out the reason I went for that scale because I thought that was what he was after. – going Aug 13 '11 at 03:08