South Shore in for Greener Pastures?
If weather is so sensitive to initial conditions that one butterfly could affect the formation of a hurricane, what might wind turbines do to our weather?
Boost rain and reduce hail, says statistically inclined Kansas farmer Jim Robb:
“Consistently over five years, more rain fell inside the wind farm than outside it,” he says. “It didn’t matter if it was wet year or a dry year. Inside the wind farm, rainfall increased by about 20%. In addition, rain gauges located within 500 feet of a turbine tower appear to have recorded more rain that those 1,500 feet from the same tower.”
…Robb consulted with three hail insurance providers to learn which areas in the region had sustained the most losses from hail. Then he mapped them out based on which areas had the highest hail premiums according to prior claims and which had the lowest.
“I overlaid the wind farm map on the grid of the region,” he says. “And wow, all the lowest premiums were inside the wind farm. We’re talking by a lot — like half” [P.J. Griekspoor, “Farmer’s Data Shows Land Beneath Wind Farm Gets More Rain, Less Hail,” Kansas Farmer, 2018.07.13].
Robb’s state climatologist Mary Knapp offers the usual “correlation is not causation” caution, but she suggested an explanation for the data:
“The theory is that the turbulence created by the turbines created air disturbance that caused the raindrops to combine and gain enough weight to fall to the ground,” he says. “And, [the meteorologist] said the same turbulence would interrupt the repeated updraft of hail that allows it to grow in size. That’s one theory at least” [Griekspoor, 2018.07.13].
Robb’s empirical finding runs counter to a European modeling experiment that predicted that increased wind turbine deployment would cause a reduction in winter precipitation in Europe that would be significantly less than seasonal variation. However, one modeling experiment indicated that a giant wind farm from the Texas panhandle to central Nebraska could increase rainfall around and to the southeast of the wind farm by 1%.
If wind turbines enhance rainfall, then get out your perpetual motion hats: a 1988 study suggested that rainfall could increase the performance of wind turbines by 3% by keeping the turbines blades cleaner and thus improving their aerodynamics.
Studies in Scotland and Texas found that wind farms create a slight nighttime warming effect, as turbines mix the cooler ground-level air with warmer air above.
The Public Utilities Commission this week approved the Dakota Range wind project, which will put up maybe 72 wind turbines on 44,500 acres north and west of South Shore and on either side of I-29. Folks in South Shore, get out your rain gauges, and let’s see if your pastures around the new wind turbines get greener.
If you don’t want to wait for Dakota Range to collect rain data around wind turbines, here’s a list of South Dakota’s existing wind farms:
547 turbines cranking out 934 megawatts of power—and maybe a few more drops of rain and less hail?
Great wet news for South Dakota on Bastille Day. Get your Tricolore out boys and girls and toast the Great French Republic!
“And, [the meteorologist] said the same turbulence would interrupt the repeated updraft of hail that allows it to grow in size. That’s one theory at least” [Griekspoor, 2018.07.13]
Ms Knapp used the word would as if it was a scientific fact that turbulence prevents repeated rises of hail. Or am I imagining?
934 MW is the total capacity….but they do not run at capacity.
If they operate at 30% capacity, the total is 280 MW.
If there is an increase in rainfall in one location, is there a decrease in another location? How would that impact wind farm approval if farmer A gets more rain and farmer B does not?
Man doc, you would do anything and say anything to discredit renewable energy. trump does that as well. funny..in a sadistic kind of way.
If renewables are worth it, and you in effect are robbing Peter to pay Paul (via rainfall), what does Peter get out of the deal?
Probably there is going to be some additional irrigation for Peter.
Instead of sending the power out East when supply does not meet demand, Peter would get first dibs on the compensatory power to drive the needed extra irrigation.
Hey, if wind turbines were cost effective (make enough to pay for themselves) I would be all for it but, alas, they don’t. Beyond that, wait till they put one outside your home, even 1/2 mile away you hear it. As first you think of the whoosh, whoosh of the blade as nothing but then it continues forever. Here you are a home owner, it’s not your land being leased, you receive nothing from the turbine, spinning away, creating noise all the while some guy that leased out his 20 acres per wind turbine pockets his $800 a month and you get what? You lost your quiet. That may not seem like much but when you live in the country in a small house its quiet, peaceful, really tranquil. That will be over, well over until the government electrical subsidies end and then it will be just you and a tall none moving wind turbine that produces nothing but an eyesore.
Of the renewable options I tend to like community solar better than big turbines next door to communities for that reason. Smaller wind turbines that are vertical are a little better.
The recent growth has been big wind and natural gas for utilities. But at some point we’ll run out of the prime locations for wind where the people are not.
Wind turbine noize is tolerable. The pathological lying Drumpf and his OldSferbrains sidekick yapping at fullthrottle is pretty annoying.
That’s funny Mike.
Robert said, “Smaller wind turbines that are vertical are a little better.”
I’ve seen businesses with wind turbines on the roof that more closely resemble the turbine on a home’s ventilation shaft. The blades are vertical, maybe 3 ft long, attached to a ring top and bottom, spinning around a central shaft. Is that what you’re referring to, but larger?
I’ve also seen wind turbines that look more like the old water tank windmills, except all steel, on farms. I’d guess the diameter of the blade circle is 10-15 ft. They provide supplemental electricity just to that farm. What is your opinion of them, Robert?
Yes, the smaller vertical ones that are right-sized for home/neighborhood/business/school use are what I am talking about.
If you use all the wind energy on the farm (heating, cooling, lighting, recharging electric tractors, etc.), then you don’t have to get into the business of making up for the intermittency on the grid, which is a good use of wind.
When connected to the grid, saying a wind turbine generates all the energy you use on the farm is misleading. The total produced by the turbine may indeed equal what is consumed over a period of time. But somebody burns gas or coal when the wind isn’t blowing enough, and when it blows too much the energy goes elsewhere.
Doc, is all energy produced on site by nukees used on site or is it shipped somewhere else. You seem totally hung up because wind power gets sold out of state.
Does nuke power use coal or gas when the atoms aren’t smashing?
Good question Mike.
Nuclear energy can be used in a load-following capacity, so that the supply and demand are in sync, regardless of the renewables that are on the grid.
This may shock you…but the Trump Administration is not asking me how to use nuclear energy in the context of deploying nuclear and coal more often.
But if you want to reduce the gas and coal we burn while making the energy we actually consume, renewables plus flexible nuclear is the way to go at the moment. If batteries or carbon capture works, that only makes things better.
Current nuclear (i.e. large water-cooled reactors) relies upon back-up diesel power and some batteries when there is a shutdown.
But that is why you want the small reactors to be built to work with renewables. They don’t need external power to dissipate heat, the fuel is more resistant to higher temperatures, and they have been designed with load-following in mind.
It seems to me that farms might be wise to replace the once ubiquitous farmyard pumphouse with a battery house. You know, to store the extra electricity the turbine generates on windy days for those calm days. (I grew up in central SD and I recall very, very few “calm” days.)
My dad told me about the bank of batteries they used to have in the basement, charged by the generator outside, before REA wires came through. That’s the kind of thing I’m thinking about with the battery house. If there is a problem with the batteries, the house won’t be burned down. It will be awfully hard for Putie to sabotage the power grid when it’s divided up into so many small bits.
Well, I’m 100% in favor of renewable energy and against nuclear but doc and I have something we can agree on. I really dislike the giant wind farm’s. If little people could get paid the same as the big wind farms get paid per kwh I might have different opinion. They can not and the utility’s at least try to charge little folks for even being hooked to the line they are feeding into. Monopolies like to keep their power…literally. When the PURPA act of 1978 was passed I expected virtually every farmer to have a small wind turbine. 40 years later and farmers don’t and now there are hardly any of them out here to have them.
Strange the article didn’t mention ice throwing….the potentially deadly tossing of chunks of ice off the blades under the right conditions. There is a reason why they can’t be near roads or domiciles.
Clyde, this has been an issue with the fix of that problem now being addressed. Good news for sure. Hail hurts, but a chunk of ice coming off a blade, could be devastating for the turbine as well as anything else.
https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/cracking-icing-problem-turbine-blades/
Putie has an ace up his sleeve for sabotaging America’s power grid, food supply, money etc. It is called the dumbass in the WH who willingly serves Master Putie instead of America.
Drumpf’s defense is since he isn’t taking any pay h is free to work with whomever he wants. And OldSferbrains seconds that motion.
Doc, know nothing Drumpf has no need to ask anyone anything because he says he knows more than anybody else.
I’m not against renewables Clyde. I just want to generate the power that we actually use, when we want to use it, without emitting carbon.
I want to solve climate change and grow the economy at the same time.
A future with 100% renewables, no energy storage, no nuclear, and no natural gas would be a political Pyrrhic victory: The voters will be faced with not having energy when they want to use it and pay more. I don’t think that is politically sustainable, and it may not be physically sustainable either due to the supply of critical elements.
Renewables + natural gas works now because our demand is flat and we are replacing coal plants. Slow exponential growth in both population and demand (here and abroad) will lead to more total carbon than today.
The Trump administration isn’t talking to me about renewables either, but providing supplementary heating and cooling to public buildings with solar or small wind would be a good first battery-free step to save the taxpayer some money. And if battery storage ever does work out, a lot of the infrastructure would then already be in place.
There is a wind turbine a half mile from my home, on the Presentation College campus. I’ve never heard it. We also haven’t had much hail at my house… ;-)
Clyde, the PUC staff included in the pre-filed evidence this flyer on the Vestas Anti-Icing System. Ice decreases power generation efficiency, so operators have a financial interest in reducing icing. A study from the Alps finds most of the ice throw happens below the blades.
McTaggart supposes … “A future with 100% renewables, no energy storage, no nuclear, and no natural gas would be a political Pyrrhic victory. I don’t think that is politically sustainable, and it may not be physically sustainable either due to the supply of critical elements.”
It takes no science degree to know that he has no idea what the future holds. We have commonplace things that were unimaginable 50 years ago and no reason to believe we won’t have things just as fantastic in another 50 years. McTaggart’s negativity bias towards sustainable non-nuclear energy is very self obsessed and shallow.
I guess I can quote myself just as well:
“I just want to generate the power that we actually use, when we want to use it, without emitting carbon. I want to solve climate change and grow the economy at the same time.”
If energy storage doesn’t work…and it may not because apparently I don’t know much about the future ;^)….are we only going to solve climate change if energy storage works?
Really bummed to see this lazy story. I can provide several farmers and studies showing the negative effects of local climate change caused by industrial wind turbines. 220 feet blades spinning at 170 to 200 mph 40 feet off the ground drives out soil moisture. Upwind is up to 10 degrees cooler and downwind up to 10 degrees warmer. Story did not mention 500 foot giant lighting rods being placed all over the land, or that industrial turbines may be creating their own lighting. There will be soil so compacted the land will lose crop yield and will be noticable forever. Have you looked at the cradle to grave carbon footprint? What will industrial wind turbines do to the prairies of SD and the pollinators. What about the economic ruin of bees keepers in South Dakota ( we are the second largest honey producing state)? Where is the investigative story about financial ruin of landowners when they get a nuisance lawsuit, stuck with the decommissioning bill of $200K per turbine or a lien on their property because Apex didn’t pay their bills? Refer to PUC docket EL18- 003. Also in the Docket Trans Canada pipleine, wait, what, why is a fossil fuel company playing nice with wind turbine companies? What about the property rights and health effects to neighbors? Ice throw, blade throw, and infrasound, low level electrical pulses put people at risk. Did you listen to the Dakota Range PUC hearing in it’s entirety? Have you looked into the corruption surrounding the projects in SD? Not so green, not so clean, not good for the environment. We can do better with renewables, but health and environment destroying offshore size turbines and industrial power plants in people’s backyards are not the answer.
Lazy? Feel free to provide links to support your claims.
~ It’s important to know where a commenter sits before we can assess where they stand. ~
“Ms. Mogen does not provide any information indicating she is qualified to offer testimony on any topic other than her personal knowledge and her exhibits go beyond her stated knowledge,” Mollie Smith, a lawyer for a Minneapolis law firm wrote in her request.
Mogen was barred from introducing third party exhibits at a wind farm permit hearing.
“This is a difficult issue for the commission,” Commissioner Chris Nelson said.
Nelson said the commission prefers to give lay interveners “every opportunity” to make their points.
But, he continued, there are rules to protect all parties to ensure exhibits are fully factual.
Porter, I am bothered by a lawyerly argument that would prevent private citizens from doing research and presenting their findings before a regulatory body.
Why is a fossil fuel company playing nice with wind turbine companies?
Natural gas benefits when wind turbines are built. As we build more wind turbines, we also consume more natural gas (which is delivered by pipelines).
However both have to deal with the same BANANA issues (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody), while having to deliver the energy people want.
If only there were a way to generate a lot of power in the smallest footprint possible….without emitting carbon….
Lot’s of comments since my last one.
First off, Robert, I didn’t mean to imply that you were against renewables….only that you are very friendly towards nuclear!
The old saw of power not being available when its needed is drug out way to often. I recently watched a bit on that that made the argument that if our grid was run properly that the need for massive amounts of storage is bogus. As I have stated before if the power were priced according to peaks in supply and demand it would be surprising how people would modify their lifestyle.
Instead of any work being done to move us toward a renewable lifestyle we have Trump slapping his first big tariff on solar panel’s. Just when the growth in that industry was mushrooming and, perhaps, putting the scare into the power monopolies.
Finally, if you want a small foot print let the little people put up small wind turbines and cover their roof’s with solar panels. Actually pay them what the big wind farms get payed and let the economy’s of mass production give the economy’s of scale a run for the money.
Just a bit more…..When a big well healed industry has to drag out a bunch of lawyers to make sure no one can comment against them the whole industry begins to smell worse to me. Reminds me of the stink of Hyperion…..
Capitalism doesn’t give a d**n about global exponential population growth. Just more markets or more near slave labor. Since the US imports almost everything we could make a difference by tying a country’s efforts to control population to our friendliness towards trading with them.
Clyde,
Trump is trying to stop that importation of China slave labor. I didn’t know you loved Trump?
China is now promoting child birth. I wonder why?
Clyde, home roofs in Minnesota, where I live now, are often covered in solar panels. It’s not unusual to see commercial or industrial building roofs similarly set.
That’s because Minnesota has a Democratic governor and is a liberal-progressive state, hence money was made available from the state government to assist in funding solar power. Also, the state has been very proactive in procuring federal grants for solar power.
Debbo,
What percentage of houses have solar panels and how many years does it cost to get back the cost?
Keep in mind that electricity costs vary by State but I would guess that your’s are higher than ND and SD.
Let’s discuss our costs. Are you ready to Debbo?
Hyperion! Well played Clyde! I just went through Elk Point and could not remember that was another corrupted game that South Dakota comrades tried to pull off. Thanks man.
BTW, just outside of Des Moines, stands some beautiful wind chargers with more substations and more windmills getting prepped for the very near future of going on line and right in the cornfields!. (looked like the ears were stronger, bigger and fuller by the wind chargers, just kiddin) It is good to see our own South Dakota getting this going as well.
Let’s build America and the rest of the world with more renewable energy, be it windchargers or solar from what sources we need and built by who can build them. We need them now.