Uh oh.
Wind Farms Impacting Weather
Environmental Engineers Detect Turbines' Turbulence Effects
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/10...ing_weather.htm
No free lunch.
Full Version: "Clean" Wind Farms are causing environmental damage
Eastern US Weather Forums > Weather Forecasting and Discussion > Weather forecasting and discussion > Climate Change
It says in the OP's linked article that winds tends to be stronger at night. Now, I thought it was the exact opposite. Is there any truth to this?
That article is almost 3 years old..
The one thing they do create are false echos on doppler, that at one point, could cause a problem with early warning for severe weather. Something that NOAA has been looking at recently, and could have implications for permiting in the near future.
Yes,
Instead let's open up a coal plant so we can:
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), --as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
From: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
Even if in reality its half as bad, I'd prefer the first non free lunch
Instead let's open up a coal plant so we can:
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), --as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
From: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
Even if in reality its half as bad, I'd prefer the first non free lunch
QUOTE(rainshadow @ Aug 25 2008, 06:32 AM) 
Yes,
Instead let's open up a coal plant so we can:
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), --as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
From: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
Even if in reality its half as bad, I'd prefer the first non free lunch
Instead let's open up a coal plant so we can:
In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), --as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO), which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.
170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
From: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c01.html
Even if in reality its half as bad, I'd prefer the first non free lunch
Can we do both? coal miners need to eat too....
QUOTE(cheetah440 @ Aug 30 2008, 08:47 PM)
Can we do both? coal miners need to eat to....
Can't we teach them to build and maintain the wind farms instead? Think about it fresher air and all the free bats (see other thread
) they want. I wouldn't recommend eating the bats though, look what it did for Ozzie. Are you close enough to go see the Deutsche Bank?
QUOTE(rainshadow @ Aug 30 2008, 10:35 PM)
Can't we teach them to build and maintain the wind farms instead? Think about it fresher air and all the free bats (see other thread ) they want. I wouldn't recommend eating the bats though, look what it did for Ozzie.
Are you close enough to go see the Deutsche Bank?
) they want. I wouldn't recommend eating the bats though, look what it did for Ozzie. Are you close enough to go see the Deutsche Bank?
But Kennedy won't let us build wind farms.
I am in favor of all of it. Wind farms, Nuclear, drilling, all of it. I thought the newer coal plants are much clearner? I don't think we could do without coal, at least for the foreseable future. But if we can do it cheaper and cleaner I'm in favor. Just don't start coming after my 2-stroke snowmobiles.
I've been to the DB before, I've actually played the course too. I'm not a big fan of watching golf live, it's a lot of work to see a very little golf. I think it's best watched on TV. But it is cool every once in a while. I get jealous and would rather be playing than watching....
I went to the ryder cup in 99 and could barely see a swing. The Sr. US Open at Salem CC was really good to watch as it is an older course and has some good viewing spots. Fat Jack hooked one on 18 right to where I was standing. That was pretty cool.
I can't beleive these guys are just tearing that course apart. It is pretty wide open but the rough is nasty. Greens are perfect and they are used to fast greens. They are in a totally different league. Just amazing to think of a 61 on a 7200yd course like that.
QUOTE(cheetah440 @ Aug 31 2008, 10:30 AM)
But Kennedy won't let us build wind farms.
I am in favor of all of it. Wind farms, Nuclear, drilling, all of it. I thought the newer coal plants are much clearner? I don't think we could do without coal, at least for the foreseable future. But if we can do it cheaper and cleaner I'm in favor. Just don't start coming after my 2-stroke snowmobiles.
I've been to the DB before, I've actually played the course too. I'm not a big fan of watching golf live, it's a lot of work to see a very little golf. I think it's best watched on TV. But it is cool every once in a while. I get jealous and would rather be playing than watching....
I went to the ryder cup in 99 and could barely see a swing. The Sr. US Open at Salem CC was really good to watch as it is an older course and has some good viewing spots. Fat Jack hooked one on 18 right to where I was standing. That was pretty cool.
I can't beleive these guys are just tearing that course apart. It is pretty wide open but the rough is nasty. Greens are perfect and they are used to fast greens. They are in a totally different league. Just amazing to think of a 61 on a 7200yd course like that.
I am in favor of all of it. Wind farms, Nuclear, drilling, all of it. I thought the newer coal plants are much clearner? I don't think we could do without coal, at least for the foreseable future. But if we can do it cheaper and cleaner I'm in favor. Just don't start coming after my 2-stroke snowmobiles.
I've been to the DB before, I've actually played the course too. I'm not a big fan of watching golf live, it's a lot of work to see a very little golf. I think it's best watched on TV. But it is cool every once in a while. I get jealous and would rather be playing than watching....
I went to the ryder cup in 99 and could barely see a swing. The Sr. US Open at Salem CC was really good to watch as it is an older course and has some good viewing spots. Fat Jack hooked one on 18 right to where I was standing. That was pretty cool.
I can't beleive these guys are just tearing that course apart. It is pretty wide open but the rough is nasty. Greens are perfect and they are used to fast greens. They are in a totally different league. Just amazing to think of a 61 on a 7200yd course like that.
There is much irony there about the wind farms and Kennedy.
That link was from an envrionmental group, so I'm sure they were not going to show coal in worst possible light. I would rather go nuclear than coal, but try building one of those.
We saw the ladies play at Galloway, less crowded. Waiting for the U.S. Open in Merion, I'll practice my jumping or camping out at the 5th green at 4 in the morning.
QUOTE(hazwopper @ Aug 20 2008, 03:35 PM)
The one thing they do create are false echos on doppler, that at one point, could cause a problem with early warning for severe weather. Something that NOAA has been looking at recently, and could have implications for permiting in the near future.
If it's a meteorologist issuing a severe weather warning on wind farm echoes, then the problem is not with the wind farm its with the meteorologist.
Automated severe weather detection algorithms are a bit of a different story, and it can be tricky to prevent false alarms based on wind farm echoes. A further complicating factor is that as surface moisture enters the domain, the radar beam refracts into the ground and the echoes strengthen. Combining that with the simple fact that the rotors are constantly changing their orientation means that standard clutter mapping techniques do not perform very well. However the spatial characteristics of a wind farm echo differ enough from that of weather that as long as the algorithm is doing some analysis of the geometry of the echo, it should be able to prevent false alarms. A harder task is removing the wind farm echoes from the data altogether, in order to make a prettier picture for the user.
Below is a radar image close to the ground with the clutter filter turned off. (There is a weak smoothing filter applied) Weather is clearly in the majority of the image (center and top right). In the lower left of the image is a wind farm. In the bottom center is light drizzle over the wind farm.
Click to view attachment
The only tricky part is for the algorithm to realize that the "yellow" in the bottom left is not weather. This is a good example of the beam exhibiting strong refraction into the turbines.
QUOTE(Vortmax @ Aug 19 2008, 10:55 AM)
Uh oh.
Wind Farms Impacting Weather
Environmental Engineers Detect Turbines' Turbulence Effects
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/10...ing_weather.htm
No free lunch.
Wind Farms Impacting Weather
Environmental Engineers Detect Turbines' Turbulence Effects
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/10...ing_weather.htm
No free lunch.
Well, duh.
Anything we do at a large-scale can affect our environment.
This is not news and is really a non-issue for anyone with a brain.
It does fit quite nicely into your pre-defined agenda, however.
QUOTE(Sundog @ Aug 19 2008, 10:12 PM)
It says in the OP's linked article that winds tends to be stronger at night. Now, I thought it was the exact opposite. Is there any truth to this?
Summertime in the plains, the nocturnal jet results in more wind. Aside from that, on the whole, no.
QUOTE(radarMan @ Aug 31 2008, 01:03 PM)
If it's a meteorologist issuing a severe weather warning on wind farm echoes, then the problem is not with the wind farm its with the meteorologist.
Automated severe weather detection algorithms are a bit of a different story, and it can be tricky to prevent false alarms based on wind farm echoes. A further complicating factor is that as surface moisture enters the domain, the radar beam refracts into the ground and the echoes strengthen. Combining that with the simple fact that the rotors are constantly changing their orientation means that standard clutter mapping techniques do not perform very well. However the spatial characteristics of a wind farm echo differ enough from that of weather that as long as the algorithm is doing some analysis of the geometry of the echo, it should be able to prevent false alarms. A harder task is removing the wind farm echoes from the data altogether, in order to make a prettier picture for the user.
Below is a radar image close to the ground with the clutter filter turned off. (There is a weak smoothing filter applied) Weather is clearly in the majority of the image (center and top right). In the lower left of the image is a wind farm. In the bottom center is light drizzle over the wind farm.
The only tricky part is for the algorithm to realize that the "yellow" in the bottom left is not weather. This is a good example of the beam exhibiting strong refraction into the turbines.
Automated severe weather detection algorithms are a bit of a different story, and it can be tricky to prevent false alarms based on wind farm echoes. A further complicating factor is that as surface moisture enters the domain, the radar beam refracts into the ground and the echoes strengthen. Combining that with the simple fact that the rotors are constantly changing their orientation means that standard clutter mapping techniques do not perform very well. However the spatial characteristics of a wind farm echo differ enough from that of weather that as long as the algorithm is doing some analysis of the geometry of the echo, it should be able to prevent false alarms. A harder task is removing the wind farm echoes from the data altogether, in order to make a prettier picture for the user.
Below is a radar image close to the ground with the clutter filter turned off. (There is a weak smoothing filter applied) Weather is clearly in the majority of the image (center and top right). In the lower left of the image is a wind farm. In the bottom center is light drizzle over the wind farm.
The only tricky part is for the algorithm to realize that the "yellow" in the bottom left is not weather. This is a good example of the beam exhibiting strong refraction into the turbines.
Agree with everything you say. Only pointing out what the issues are regarding NEXRAD and windfarms. I saw a presentation from Tim Crum of NOAA regarding the issues at the AWEA Wind Power Project Siting Workshop back in February. I guess his concerns were similar, that local emergency management had difficulty differentiatinbg between the storms and false echos, not METS. He does point out, however, that the meteorlogical algorithim errors that can occur include false radar estimates of rainfall totals, false tornado vortex and mesocyclone features and false storm cell identification and tracking.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.