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

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


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 has a point on flawed logic.