PDA

View Full Version : Wind farms can cause change in local temperatures



billmi
06 October 2010, 1050
The benefits of wind farms in terms of global climate change are well recognized but according to researchers at the University of Illinois they can also affect local climates as well. The researchers observed that the area immediately surrounding a wind farm is slightly warmer at night and slightly cooler during the day compared to the rest of the region. The discovery could allow for strategies to mitigate those effects in areas where they are undesirable, or take advantage of them in others.

http://www.gizmag.com/wind-farms-affect-local-temperatures/16582/

I've been saying for years, when people talk about "zero impact" energy sources - there's no such thing. All power comes with some sort of price, and changing how the air flows through an area will have some sort of impact.

teddillard
06 October 2010, 1123
yeah like when travis says regen is free

:p

jazclrint
06 October 2010, 1430
It's ok Travis, he makes my head hurt too. lol

Richard230
06 October 2010, 1437
Well, that is weird. Who would have thought that tilting at windmills would keep you cooler during the day and warmer at night.

EVcycle
06 October 2010, 1532
Written by an Oil/Coal Company Representative no doubt..... :eek:

The amount of wind that may be disturbed would not be enough to make a difference.
As opposed to the amount of fumes in the coal being burned to make most of the electricity?

That is like saying the moon is affecting my mechanical clock...... yes it might, but how much?.not enough to be an issue. ROFL!

Pleeeeeeeeeeeease.

teddillard
06 October 2010, 1626
It's ok Travis, he makes my head hurt too. lol

wait what? dude, you gotta be on this group for more than a month or two before you start busting my balls, mister. after that, take a number. or a crayon.

:p

EVcycle
06 October 2010, 1716
wait what? dude, you gotta be on this group for more than a month or two before you start busting my balls, mister. after that, take a number. or a crayon.

:p


I have #2.

teddillard
06 October 2010, 1726
Honestly, it amazes me how much wind farms are contested by environmentalists. The Cape Wind project was hotly contested by Walter Cronkite, otherwise an outspoken conservationist and environmentalist. Seems it cut into his favorite sailing grounds, apparently more important than the coal generators and mines they'd replace. We've got several windmills locally, and I think they look really cool. It just proves to me that any solution, everything, anything is going to have someone who gets pissed off by it.

The secret is to ignore them. You know, like how BP ignored the consequences of it's actions... like that.

billmi
07 October 2010, 1158
Written by an Oil/Coal Company Representative no doubt..... :eek:

No, not so hideous. The paper was from the University of Michigan, and it wasn't denouncing Wind Power, just showing an effect wind farms have on local climate, and suggesting approaches to mitigate it - though in some agricultural settings it might even be desirable (i.e. my in-laws are citrus farmers, and they run wind machines in the winter just create the same effect at night).

akohekohe
01 November 2010, 0249
Wind farms are a particularly severe threat to bats. See http://www.batcon.org/index.php/what-we-do/bats-and-wind-energy.html There are some fairly simple mitigations but the industry has been slow in recognizing the problem.

EVcycle
01 November 2010, 0353
Just as slow as the "experts" to provide conclusive information on the effects. A study does not constitute conclusive answers.

Why would any company spend money to stop something that does not have definitive answers?

And yes I have direct experience in this matter.

teddillard
01 November 2010, 0354
Yeah, I'm sure a wind farm out in the middle of Nantucket Sound (http://www.capewind.org/) is gonna wreck havoc with the bats. And lord knows the bats are more a cause for concern than, oh, offshore drilling and such (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell). And yeah, let's hold these guys to higher standards that, say, the Nuclear Power industry, (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html) yeah, that's the ticket. ("Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product." - yeah, right.)

Spare me.

billmi
01 November 2010, 0921
We've had strong opposition to wind power in our county on the claim that it will kill lots of birds. Oddly, the opposition doesn't seem to support any research into bird-safe options, only opposition to wind power.

There's an opposing opinion editorial in the latest issue of SCUBA diving magazine in which writer goes on an on about how beneficial retired oil rigs are for the marine environment (not suggesting more drilling - but rather leaving rigs standing once they are closed down). Once a rig is shut down, if it's left standing, it becomes home to to some 10 times as many species of marine life as a comparable sized artificial reef set up on the sea floor. The opposing view point, from an environmentalist was that after they've become home to marine life, they need to be removed, because they are unnatural, and because there are a pile of laws which they don't immediately comply.

Everything has impact in some form or another. It just gets me how some people can fight against options that would lessen worse impacts in the future, because of small and sometimes even beneficial impacts in the short run.

akohekohe
01 November 2010, 1122
Yeah, I'm sure a wind farm out in the middle of Nantucket Sound (http://www.capewind.org/) is gonna wreck havoc with the bats. And lord knows the bats are more a cause for concern than, oh, offshore drilling and such (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/oil-spills-nigeria-niger-delta-shell). And yeah, let's hold these guys to higher standards that, say, the Nuclear Power industry, (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf04.html) yeah, that's the ticket. ("Nuclear power is the only large-scale energy-producing technology which takes full responsibility for all its wastes and fully costs this into the product." - yeah, right.)

Spare me.

The Nantucket site probably is not a problem for bats although it might be for some migratory species as well as for birds. But it is not a question of not building them, it is a question of mitigating the damage. Most of the problems with bat fatalities seem to be when the blades are turning slowly and that is also when you lose the least power by turning them off. Simply turning them off in low wind conditions a few months out of the year is not asking a lot. Most of the mitigation seems to be fairly inexpensive, what irritates people is when the wind people get self righteous and assume they don't have to address any environmental issues because they are producing "clean" energy. Anyway, check out the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative Website (http://www.batsandwind.org/). This is the right way to do it, with the industry and environmentalists working together to find solutions.

EVcycle
01 November 2010, 1223
We've had strong opposition to wind power in our county on the claim that it will kill lots of birds. Oddly, the opposition doesn't seem to support any research into bird-safe options, only opposition to wind power.

There's an opposing opinion editorial in the latest issue of SCUBA diving magazine in which writer goes on an on about how beneficial retired oil rigs are for the marine environment (not suggesting more drilling - but rather leaving rigs standing once they are closed down). Once a rig is shut down, if it's left standing, it becomes home to to some 10 times as many species of marine life as a comparable sized artificial reef set up on the sea floor. The opposing view point, from an environmentalist was that after they've become home to marine life, they need to be removed, because they are unnatural, and because there are a pile of laws which they don't immediately comply.

Everything has impact in some form or another. It just gets me how some people can fight against options that would lessen worse impacts in the future, because of small and sometimes even beneficial impacts in the short run.

Really good points.

EVcycle
01 November 2010, 1241
The Nantucket site probably is not a problem for bats although it might be for some migratory species as well as for birds. But it is not a question of not building them, it is a question of mitigating the damage. Most of the problems with bat fatalities seem to be when the blades are turning slowly and that is also when you lose the least power by turning them off. Simply turning them off in low wind conditions a few months out of the year is not asking a lot. Most of the mitigation seems to be fairly inexpensive, what irritates people is when the wind people get self righteous and assume they don't have to address any environmental issues because they are producing "clean" energy. Anyway, check out the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative Website (http://www.batsandwind.org/). This is the right way to do it, with the industry and environmentalists working together to find solutions.

The main issues with bats has been night time flying...(Normal time for a bat anyway) and since the wind in several areas dies down at night, several companies have voluntary (or by court order) shut down the windmills.

Next it will be the wooly bear caterpillar? (Come to think of it I have not seen one of those in a while.)


:):):)

Ed

teddillard
01 November 2010, 1300
mitigating the damage

This discussion ranks right up there with the argument about EVs making noise to be "safer". IMHO, just one more roadblock of almost innumerable hurdles these industries need to deal with help solve an almost insurmountable situation. But by all means, god forbid we kill any bats. Or birds. Hell, if it means we burn oil and coal for another decade to save 'em, well it's worth it. (That is SARCASM, not humor. Caustic, bitter sarcasm.)

Yeah yeah, I'm ringing the nurse for my meds now... shaddap.