Talk:Wind farm/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

New source article in The Economist

New article in The Economist, "A new twist for offshore wind," in the 7 Jun 2008 edition (pp. 10 of Technology Quarterly in the US print edition). Would be useful to mine for additional info for the offshore section of the WP article. Online reference is [1]. N2e (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Old discussions

Old discussions have been moved to archives - use the navigation box to switch between them. I used the much nicer {{archives}} and {{archivesnav}} templates as found on the Personal computer talk pages to spruce up navigation a little. Rememember when creating new archive pages that they must have a space in the title - talk:Wind farm/Archive 2 would be the next page, for example. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The wind blows faster at higher altitudes ...

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm#Altitude the first sentence reads: "The wind blows faster at higher altitudes because of the reduced influence of drag of the surface and lower air viscosity. " Gas viscosity is not significantly dependent on pressure, which is the main property of air that varies with altitude: http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/Chem345-1997/gasviscosity/GasViscosity.html (note Section 6, Kinetic Theory of Gases - for a given gas only T is variable) Gas viscosity is significantly dependent on temperature. Temperature can vary with altitude but is more dependent on time of day, time of year, local land use, weather conditions, etc.131.81.200.92 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the mention; it can be returned if necessary. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Numbers for Germany in Comparison

The part about European Union says "Germany has the second largest number of wind farms in the world after the United States. Its installed capacity was 20,622 MW as of December 2006." as there seems to be no number of wind farms for USA and for USA the amount of MW is compared between 31.12.2008 USA and 31.12.2006 for Germany, the conclusions from these numbers are wrong.

It should be:

Germany has the hightest capacity of electrical power by wind farms as of Decemper 2008. Its installed capacity was 23,902 MW at the end of the year. see the linked article about EU and Status der Windenergienutzung in Deutschland - Stand 31.12.2008 The numbers for the other european countries at the end of 2008 also may be found at Wind power in the European Union

later in "United States" right at the beginning of the text it says

"The United States was the second largest installed capacity of wind power, after Germany until 2008, when it surpassed Germany with the American Wind Energy Association stating that the United States had 21,000 MW of wind energy capacity at the end of 2008."

Revised text suggstion: "The United States had the second largest installed capacity of wind power, after Germany with The American Wind Energy Association stating stating that the United States had 21,000 MW of wind energy capacity at the end of 2008."

91.17.118.68 (talk) 07:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Jutta, Nov 14th, 2009

Capacity by country

I've working updating this table but have a few concerns:

• The table isn't dated, and data for each county has been referenced separately. These issues make it hard to make fair comparisons or to make updates. If it's considered reasonable I will complete the table from once source: World wind energy association This may mean removing the column for Wind capacity under construction, or alternatively referencing each value seperately for that. As far as size, perhaps the top 20 countries would be appropriate. Thoughts?

• The table is already on the Wind power article, should it appear in this article too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeySteve (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"although by the end of 2010 the United Kingdom will have the second highest with a total of 12,277 MW. " WP:FUTURE :Speculation about a future event which may or may not occur. I suggest waiting until end 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.96.170 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is also not sourced. I deleted it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Impact of wind farms on agriculture

People that are against wind farms argue that the blades do not only occupy agricultural land, but damage crops. Two recent U.S. studies say the opposite. The professor of atmospheric science Somnath Baidya Roy of the University of Illinois, in a study published in October in the scientific journal PNAS Link label shows that in the immediate vicinity of wind farms, the climate is cooler during the day and slightly warmer during the night than the surrounding areas. According to Roy, the effect is due to the turbulence generated by the blades.

In another study conducted by Gene Takle and Julie Lundquist University of Colorado, presented at San Francisco conference of the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (December 13-18, 2010), the analysis carried out on corn and soybean crops in the central areas of the United States has noted that the microclimate generated by wind turbines improves crops as it prevents the spring and autumn frosts, and it reduces the action of pathogenic fungi that grow on the leaves. Even at the height of summer heat, the lowering of 2.5-3 degrees above the crops due to turbulence caused by the blades, can make a difference for the cultivation of maize Link label. Vince005 (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Kleidon

Axel Kleidon of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry has published a paper in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society that calculates some energy factors for widespread use of wind power. Among the findings is that it could create as much warming as doubling CO2, due to mechanical and electrical inefficiencies. "How does the earth system generate and maintain thermodynamic disequilibrium and what does it imply for the future of the planet?" It's been reported in New Scientist.[2][that link will expire shortly] Here's a blog posting about it.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How? Wind blows around some trees and loses energy, which is dissipated into the atmosphere. Wind blows around a turbine, which makes electricity, which runs our toys, which makes heat...which is dissipated into the atmosphere. Could you summarize the argument? Is it a practical concern or is it one of those scenarios with turbines covering ever square kilometer of dry land and shallow ocean? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wind does not blow around a turbine, it is captured for conversion. The energy is removed from nature's use. New Scientist summarizes Kleidon's analysis pretty well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerberos (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So where does the energy go when the wind blows around a tree? It all gets dissipated as heat no matter if it's by rustling leaves, moving dust, or lighting bulbs. Looking at the New Scientist article relieves my mind somewhat; we're talking wind turbine installations 300 times as much as we have today, producing one and one half times the world's current total (human) energy use, to produce an effect comparable to doubling CO2 (which is pretty much going to happen anyway long before all those turbines get built). No need to smother your children tonight, there will still be a world to wake up to in the morning. To get to 75 TW you're talking about every society on Earth using energy as the same rate as the United States does today; I'm surprised that that level of use has so little effect on the environment (one imagines the Puppeteer worlds, kept warm by their own industrial waste heat). I don't think this needs to be dwelt upon in the article unless it gets a lot more scientific traction as being a serious limitation to wind power exploitation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the Earth is absorbing 166000 terawatts of energy continually...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Beware extrapolations - if we keep doubling the human population every 30 years, by the middle of this millenium we won't need the sun any more; our own body heat will keep the planet warm.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"nub" wind turbine

Someone just tried to add the term "nub" in front of "wind turbine", as an added descriptor. The word "nub" might refer to the little knob protuding from the hub of the blades that comprise the major part of a wind turbine. However, this creative little bit of embellishment does not match with the current descriptions of wind turbines. It is not appropriate to throw in your little inventions without some valid reason, and to pretend you have imparted some astounding revelation to the world. Please experiment in the sandbox, which is for such trivial uses. --Skol fir (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

62.49.23.145 wrote "Shouldn't there be some discussion of NIMBYism in relation to windfarms?" (now at Talk:Wind_farm/Archive_1 ). Wondering if there any Wikipedia article where it would be appropriate to cover NIMBYism against wind farms. Example: Farmers were seeing if it was feasible to build a wind farm on their land in Marshland St James, Norfolk, but opposition included Poison pen letters, sabotage of a 279-foot tall anemometer and threats of violence that resulted in death of farmer Richard Herbert in 2007 May. --EarthFurst (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The very use of the word NIMBY betrays a point of view. Meanwhile, people are getting sick, abandoning their homes, maybe even trying to kill themselves because of these machines, and mention of it is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Kerberos (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's real, it can be verified and documented by a reliable source, that is, not a blog. There's all kinds of minority viewpoints expressed on Wikipedia but they have to be documented and given appropriate weight. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

News story after news story describes what people are suffering. --Kerberos (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about reliable and reputable news sources, what coverage has there been in the New York Times or The Times? Perhaps more importantly, what coverage has there been in peer-reviewed medical journals? -- Johnfos (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We can reflect that a controversy exists without making a judgment about the validity of the arguments. We don't need peer-reviewed medical journals to reflect the fact that concerns about medical effects (concerns that are, IMHO, wildly overblown) are sometimes brought up in public discussion. A couple of news articles would be more than sufficient reference to the existence of the debate - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There certainly is a general debate about the use of wind power, which is covered at Environmental effects of wind power#Community debate, Environmental effects of wind power#Aesthetics, and Environmental effects of wind power#Noise level, among other places. But I would humbly suggest that if the specific debate about health concerns hasn't even been covered by the NYT, or The Times, or BMJ, or JAMA, then there really isn't any serious debate going on -- just media hype... Johnfos (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

CTV and CBC in Canada have covered the issue extensively. So has ABC News and The Australian in Australia. The Independent in Britain reported on Nina Pierpont's work, and USA Today and the Detroit Free Press in the U.S. and major papers in Japan have reported on the issue of adverse health effects. Even so, the assumption that certain papers are gatekeepers of legitimacy seems wrong. For example, the New York Times was a great promoter of invading Iraq and are at it again for Afghanistan. Are we to ignore dissenting views because the NY Times does? They have a more blatantly corporatist POV than most local and regional papers, who are reporting information much more directly. --Kerberos (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that there is no relevant coverage in the NYT, The Times, BMJ, or JAMA. Johnfos (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of health studies at http://www.dkvind.dk/nyheder/2012/pdf/100212_litteraturstudie.pdf TGCP (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Equation for the power and energy output of a wind farm

Shouldn't there be a new section which offers up the the various current scientific theories as regarding the power and energy output of a wind farm? I'll let someone else write the Wikipedia entry itself but I'll offer up my (Peter Dow's) equation as a starting point for this discussion.

"Dow" equation for the power and energy output of a wind farm.

"The power and energy of a wind farm is proportional to (the square root of the wind farm area) times the rotor diameter".

In his book which was mentioned to me on an internet forum and so I had a look, David MacKay wrote that the power / energy of a wind farm was independent of rotor size which didn't seem right to me considering the trend to increasing wind turbine size.

Now I think the commercial wind-turbine manufacturing companies know better and very possibly someone else has derived this equation independently of me and long ago - in which case by all means step in and tell me whose equation this is.

Or if you've not see this wind farm power/energy equation before, then see if you can figure out my derivation!

Peter Dow (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Education Program banner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/Environment_and_Society_-_Fall_2012_(Grant_Aylesworth)/Articles#Articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxiao2424 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)