Quote:

The development of wind energy is essential for decarbonizing energy production. However, the construction of wind farms changes land surface temperature (LST) and vegetation by modifying land surface properties and disturbing land–atmosphere interactions. In this study, we used moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer satellite data to quantify the impacts on local climate and vegetation of 319 wind farms in the United States. Our results indicated insignificant impacts on LST during the daytime but significant warming of 0.10 °C of annual mean nighttime LST averaged over all wind farms, and 0.36 °C for those 61% wind farms with warming. The nighttime LST impacts exhibited seasonal variations, with stronger warming in winter and autumn, up to 0.18 °C, but weaker effects in summer and spring. We observed a decrease in peak normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) for 59% of wind farms due to infrastructure construction, with an average reduction of 0.0067 compared to non-wind farm areas. The impacts of wind farms depended on wind farm size, with winter LST impacts for large and small wind farms ranging from 0.21 °C to 0.14 °C, and peak NDVI impacts ranging from −0.009 to −0.006. The LST impacts declined with the increasing distance from the wind farm, with detectable impacts up to 10 km. In contrast, the vegetation impacts on NDVI were only evident within the wind farm locations. Wind farms built in grassland and cropland showed larger warming effects but weaker vegetation impact than those built on forests. Furthermore, spatial correlation analyses with environmental factors suggest limited geographical controls on the heterogeneous wind farm impacts and highlight the important role of local factors. Our analyses based on a large sample offer new evidence for wind farm impacts with improved representativeness compared to previous studies. This knowledge is important to fully understand the climatic and environmental implications of energy system decarbonization.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac49ba

So nigthtime temperatures increased the most, exactly what "the science" says about nightime temperatures and CO2. So a double whammy. ;)

Things get even hotter when something like this happens ....


https://youtu.be/PHCaaSMPBnc

Meanwhile Sweden's largest windfarm, owned by Chinese interests, faces bankruptcy.

"The Swedish Tax Agency opposes a reconstruction of the Chinese-owned company that has had financial problems for several years, writes Dagens Industri.

Markbygden Ett, with 179 wind turbines, has in the last three years an accumulated loss of 2.5 billion kronor (220 million euros). Its debts now amount to SEK 6 billion (EUR 530 million).

The reason for the financial problems is a long-term contract with the Norwegian industrial group Hydro for deliveries until 2040. In the current market situation, the contract means that Markbygden Ett is selling electricity at a loss. Hydro is not interested in negotiating the contract.

In order to avoid bankruptcy, reconstruction is under way. But now the Swedish Tax Agency wants to stop the reconstruction, according to Dagens Industri. Other stakeholders who also oppose the reconstruction to continue are the customer Norwegian Hydro and the supplier American GE Energy.

The Swedish Tax Agency believes that the owner, the Chinese nuclear power company China General Nuclear Cooperation (CGN), should take the consequences of a failed "economic investment abroad".

CGN bought into Markbygden Ett in 2018 when GE sold its stake in the wind farm. CGN now owns 75% of Markbygden Ett. With its 179 wind turbines, Markbygden Ett represents about one third of the entire wind farm in Markbygden in the municipality of Piteå.

CGN controls six wind farms in Sweden. According to Dagens Industri, the company's wind farms have a combined loss of SEK 3.6 billion (EUR 320 million). The owners have invested SEK 3.4 billion (EUR 300 million) in the companies, of which SEK 2.1 billion in Markbygden Ett (EUR 190 million)."

https://northswedenbusiness.com/news/2024/januari/sweden-s-largest-wind-farm-faces-bankruptcy/

Thanks Lee - good topic.

It seems that there is no perfect solution to obtaining energy.

We are still waiting for fusion and Thorium energy.

I wonder about geothermal energy as the Earth is very hot
with an endless supply of energy only 20 to 30km deep just about anywhere on Earth.
Below our feet could be the answer.

So what's worse, and potentially more lethal,
and for a far longer period?

One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines'
self-destruction?

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 1:26am:

So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction?

A meltdown and explosion of radioactive substances poisons land forever.

Nuclear waste takes too long to decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste

Some common nuclear waste half lives:

Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years.
Americium 241 half life          432 years
Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years
Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years.
Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years
Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years
Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 1:26am:

So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction?

So give us all the details of deaths etc from the "Fukushima meltdown" ::)

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 1:26am:

So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction?

Fukushima...one of the trinity of catastrophe regularly trotted out by those with no understanding of nuclear power.  How many people died from the effects of radiation at Fukushima?

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 5:01am:

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19th, 2024 at 1:26am: So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction? A meltdown and explosion of radioactive substances poisons land forever. Nuclear waste takes too long to decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Some common nuclear waste half lives: Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years. Americium 241 half life          432 years Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years. Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years

What is 'nuclear waste' ?

lee wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 11:53am:

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19th, 2024 at 1:26am: So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction? So give us all the details of deaths etc from the "Fukushima meltdown"

It's naive to equate the absence of any immediate deaths
as minimising the effects of the disaster on the lives of those
164,000 residents living in the region.

The rates of psychological distress among evacuated people
rose fivefold compared to the Japanese average due to the
experience of the accident and evacuation.

A 2012 survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses
from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone.
The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing
frustration, instability, and an inability to return to their earlier lives.
Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health
of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9%
reported feeling more irritated compared to before the accident.

In 2022, six residents who developed thyroid cancer sued
the facility's owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, and
its former executive officers were ordered to pay AU$154 billion,
intended to cover the costs to TEPCO for dismantling the reactors,
compensating affected residents and cleaning up contamination.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 2:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 19th, 2024 at 5:01am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19th, 2024 at 1:26am: So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction? A meltdown and explosion of radioactive substances poisons land forever. Nuclear waste takes too long to decay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste Some common nuclear waste half lives: Plutonium 239 half life      24,110 years. Americium 241 half life          432 years Radium 226     Half life      1,600  years Uranium 236  Half life   15 million years. Plutonium 244 Half life   80 million years Uranium 235  Half life  704 million years Uranium 238 half life      4.5 billion years What is 'nuclear waste' ?

Read the link:


Radioactive waste is a type of hazardous waste that contains radioactive material. Radioactive waste is a result of many activities, including nuclear medicine, nuclear research, nuclear power generation, nuclear decommissioning, rare-earth mining, and nuclear weapons reprocessing.[1] The storage and disposal of radioactive waste is regulated by government agencies in order to protect human health and the environment.

Radioactive waste is broadly classified into low-level waste (LLW), such as paper, rags, tools, clothing, which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity, intermediate-level waste (ILW), which contains higher amounts of radioactivity and requires some shielding, and high-level waste (HLW), which is highly radioactive and hot due to decay heat, thus requiring cooling and shielding.

And thus granite dust is low level waste. ::)

AusGeoff wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2024 at 3:39am:

lee wrote on Jan 19th, 2024 at 11:53am: AusGeoff wrote on Jan 19th, 2024 at 1:26am: So what's worse, and potentially more lethal, and for a far longer period? One Fukushima meltdown or 100 wind turbines' self-destruction? So give us all the details of deaths etc from the "Fukushima meltdown" It's naive to equate the absence of any immediate deaths as minimising the effects of the disaster on the lives of those 164,000 residents living in the region. The rates of psychological distress among evacuated people rose fivefold compared to the Japanese average due to the experience of the accident and evacuation. A 2012 survey by the Iitate local government obtained responses from approximately 1,743 evacuees within the evacuation zone. The survey showed that many residents are experiencing growing frustration, instability, and an inability to return to their earlier lives. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their health and the health of their families had deteriorated after evacuating, while 39.9% reported feeling more irritated compared to before the accident. In 2022, six residents who developed thyroid cancer sued the facility's owner, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, and its former executive officers were ordered to pay AU$154 billion, intended to cover the costs to TEPCO for dismantling the reactors, compensating affected residents and cleaning up contamination.

How does that compare to psychological distress in tsunami events without a nuclear power plant? In other words, how many were affected by the tsunami's non-nuclear effects and how mwpany by the nuclear fallout alone.

We are NOT comparing wind turbines with tsunamis, after all.

Frank wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2024 at 3:20pm:

...How does that compare to psychological distress in tsunami events without a nuclear power plant? In other words, how many were affected by the tsunami's non-nuclear effects and how many by the nuclear fallout alone.

I'm not even sure why you're asking this odd question Frank.

The answer should be obvious:  A tsunami is an unavoidable
act of nature.

The melt down of a nuclear power plant's reactor is the avoidable
devastating result of mankind's poor scientific and engineering
capabilities.

Further of course—and which should be obvious—is that radioactive
fallout can contaminate the local region for decades, unlike the effects of a
tsunami which can, hopefully, be repaired and reinstated in a matter
of months, or even weeks in some cases.

And of course, any or all major destructive events—natural
or man-made—can have long-term, negative psychological effects
on those communities experiencing them.


Frank wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2024 at 3:20pm:

We are NOT comparing wind turbines with tsunamis, after all.

Well no... I certainly wasn't Frank.  It was you that introduced this
strange comparison.  I was comparing wind turbines with nuclear
reactors as either being a safer and/or greener method of electricity
generation.

Anyway, the catalyst for Fukushima's meltdowns were due primarily
to a sub-sea earthquake, and not the following tsunami.


Quote:

[In] this example, if the seawalls were too low and could, therefore, be overtopped by a tsunami, then flooding might disable the generators. This is exactly what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Its seawall was 19 feet high. Despite warnings in a 2008 report suggesting that the plant could be exposed to a tsunami of up to 33 feet, the plant was still protected only by the existing 19-foot seawall when the tsunami struck. The tsunami that made landfall reached over 40 feet high, even larger than the earlier report had suggested was possible. Because the seawall was inadequately protective relative to the magnitude of the potential hazard, the plant was more sensitive to a catastrophic meltdown, which in turn increased the sensitivity of nearby populations to exposure to radioactive materials and long-term contamination of property and natural resources.

—Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster, Pennsylvania State University.

lee wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2024 at 1:08pm:

And thus granite dust is low level waste. ::)

Our bodies can handle tiny amounts of Uranium found in rocks such as granite
but the elements found in nuclear waste are not natural.
Plutonium is one of the most poisonous substances known to exist.

Poor muddled JM - he just likes to show his ignorance.


Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2024 at 7:02am:

lees thinks he is on to something. 1000 windfarms is what, lie 1/1,000,000th of the earth’s surface? Probably much less than that as the “farm” might cover, what 100–1000 acres, the actual towers+blades be a lot less than that.

Wind Turbine Generators and spacing -

"The most efficient turbine spacing, i.e., that which allows the turbines to economically extract the most energy from the wind, has been shown to be some 15 rotor diameters. Most efficient extraction of useful energy will approximately coincide with the least production of waste energy, namely sound and vibration."

http://en.friends-against-wind.org/realities/wind-turbine-separation-distances

15MW to 22MW  rotor diameter is between 250 and 310 metres. Some regulations allow for 2km spacing. That's 7 rotor diameters. 15 would be in excess of 3.5km's.

So his 1000 acres is 404Ha. And 1Ha is 100m x 100m. 400Ha is 4 km². So a 7 diameter path would be 2km*2km. So at best 4 wind turbines. And that doesn't take into account the wake effect.

"Optimal wind farm locations require a strong and reliable wind resource and access to transmission lines. As onshore and offshore wind energy grows, preferred locations become saturated with numerous wind farms. An upwind wind farm generates ‘wake effects’ (decreases in downwind wind speeds) that undermine a downwind wind farm’s power generation and revenues. Here we use a diverse set of analysis tools from the atmospheric science, economic and legal communities to assess costs and consequences of these wake effects, focusing on a West Texas case study. We show that although wake effects vary with atmospheric conditions, they are discernible in monthly power production. In stably stratified atmospheric conditions, wakes can extend 50+ km downwind, resulting in economic losses of several million dollars over six years for our case study. However, our investigation of the legal literature shows no legal guidance for protecting existing wind farms from such significant impacts."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-018-0281-2

Poor JM responded.He failed to reconcile what he said.

"1000 windfarms is what, lie 1/1,000,000th of the earth’s surface? Probably much less than that as the “farm” might cover, what 100–1000 acres"

Clearly talking about windFARMS. They are larger than 4 wind turbines. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor JM has a point on flawed logic. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D