When the wind isn’t knocking the stuffing out of these things (see above), it struggles to keep them spinning as more turbines get added to any given location.

Known as ‘wake effects’, every wind turbine downwind from another receives less air and/or a less direct flow of air towards its blades, reducing efficiency and therefore the output of every downwind turbine.

Of course, anyone with the temerity to point out the obvious physical limitations of wind power (an already pathetically limited generation source) gets treated with full-blown ridicule, as No Tricks Zone reports below.

German Professor: Wake Effect Decreases Wind Farm Efficiency, Contributes To Warming
No Tricks Zone
Klima Nachrichten (translated by Pierre Gosselin)
18 September 2024

Professor Gerd Ganteför was called a lot of names when he reported on the so-called wake effect of wind turbines on the high seas in spring 2024. Wind turbines in wind farms not only take the wind away from each other, they can also have an impact on the wind behind the turbines up to 100 kilometers away.

In the meantime, the realization has also reached the windpark operators. The company Orstedt, which is heavily involved in so-called renewable energies, has some interesting results on its website. In a nutshell, it says that the turbines in the network deliver less yield, which means that the profitability per turbine decreases.

Overall, electricity production increases with more wind farms, but also the time until the investment per turbine pays off. The yield decreases if the calculated 4,000 – 4,500 hours of electricity generation per year are not achieved. The effect is likely to increase with more and more wind farms. It’s like a downward spiral. Let’s see what the German response to this is. It wouldn’t be surprising if it was to pay even more feed-in tariffs.

The size of the German areas is not the decisive factor. ‘Theoretically, much higher capacities than 70 gigawatts could be built there,’ says Martin Dörenkämper from Fraunhofer IWES in Oldenburg.

Admittedly, the wake effects would increase if the wind turbines were planned even closer together than they already are. But overall electricity production would still increase, even if the yield per turbine were lower. The question is therefore not whether Germany has enough space for 70 gigawatts, but how many terawatt hours of electricity can be produced each year – and at what price.

The higher the power density and the lower the yield per turbine, the more difficult it will be for the operator to refinance the construction and generate a return on investment.”

In his video, Ganteför explains that it is now possible to visualize the wake effect with the help of radar images from the Sentinel 2 satellite. In spring, he was ridiculed for this theory.

He points out that the wake effect can have various effects. On the one hand, there are the turbines on land, which could receive less wind, and the possible warming behind the turbines. Also there’s the influence of precipitation. Ganteför calls for more research in this area.

Two years ago, the Fraunhofer Institute Hereon already pointed out another problem. Another effect: disturbing the stratification of the water can have an impact on plankton production, i.e. the start of the food chain.

Another consequence of wake vortices is the reduction of shear-related processes on the sea surface. In other words, the turbulent mixing of the water surface caused by the winds is reduced for dozens of kilometers around the wind farm.

Water is usually stratified, e.g. a layer of warmer water lies on top of a layer of cold water.

The natural stratification is disturbed by the wind farms. Due to the reduced mixing, a more stable stratification of the water is favored. This was particularly noticeable during the decline in summer stratification. The natural stratification of the water is particularly striking in summer and decreases towards the fall. In the area of the wind farms, however, a more stable stratification was calculated outside of the seasonal fluctuation.

What do the results mean for the North Sea?
‘The magnitude of the induced mean changes does not indicate serious local effects, but far-reaching structural changes are occurring in the system,’ says Christiansen. ‘The changes in currents and mixing are likely to affect plankton production and food web structure and may influence the functioning of protected areas. It is therefore important to take these consequences into account when developing marine protection concepts,’ says Prof. Corinna Schrum, and Hereon Institute Director. Schrum provides an outlook for the implementation of the results, adding that further studies are required to analyze possible feedbacks on the air-sea exchange. A change in this exchange has a potential impact on regional atmospheric conditions and ecosystem dynamics and will be the subject of further studies.”

That doesn’t sound like settled science at all.
No Tricks Zone

From ClimateREALISM

By James Taylor

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (MJS) shamefully attempted to cash in on Hurricane Milton as the storm ravaged the Florida coast, spreading false assertions and misinformation to further its aggressive climate change agenda. Presenting a Master Class on deception and sensationalism, the MJS claimed, “the message sent by this year’s hurricane season” is “climate change is here, there are no havens, and it’s deadly and expensive.” If the MJS and author Caitlin Looby had bothered to do research, they’d learn there never was any “climate havens”.

“The science is straightforward and incontestable,” the MJS claimed. In this regard, the article is true. The science is straightforward and incontestable that hurricane events like Milton are becoming less frequent and severe, that warmer temperatures are saving lives, and that the MJS makes Pinocchio look like a legendary truth-teller.

Some facts regarding Hurricanes might help them,

“The message” of Hurricane Milton is that while global warming/climate change is causing a remarkable decrease in hurricane activity, climate change isn’t making all hurricanes disappear. Taking advantage of the fact that a relatively few hurricanes still occur, charlatans like the MJS will peddle misinformation that climate change causes all hurricanes and makes them worse.

Attempting to personalize its climate change alarmism to Wisconsinites, the MJS cited recent wildfires in Canada and the American West, claiming drifting smoke from the distant wildfires killed people in Wisconsin and that climate change caused those wildfires. There is no scientific evidence for this claim and it seems on its face, extremely unlikely that smoke from distant wildfires killed or even sickened anyone in Wisconsin. However, assuming for the sake of argument that people in Wisconsin die from wildfires that occur in far distant places, the science is straightforward and incontestable that wildfires are becoming less frequent and severe as the planet modestly warms. In 1998 NASA satellites began precisely measuring the amount of lands burned by wildfires. According to NASA, the amount of land burned by wildfires declined by 24 percent since 1998. Peer-reviewed studies show the trend has been declining for more than a century. If wildfires burning thousands of miles away – or anywhere else – are truly killing Wisconsinites, we have climate change to thank for saving countless lives as wildfires become less frequent and severe.

Hillary Clinton made news this week by calling on Big Tech to censor and suppress online misinformation. Perhaps Big Tech will be inspired by this call to action and respond by censoring and suppressing the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Don’t count on it. In the meantime, we can all learn the truth about climate change here at Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students.

They say the victor writes the history of a period, and that may be so.  But when enough time has passed it must be the case that the present will be seen as truly bizarre when it comes to the demise of the natural sciences and our understanding of the physical world around us.  This must especially be the case when it comes to how energy moves in it, especially heat.

Thermal energy, or heat, is the energy that comes from the movement of atoms and molecules in a substance.  Heat increases when these particles move faster.

Rather than acknowledging that most of the heating on planet Earth comes from the Sun, and how this energy is distributed changes with the seasons because of the tilt of the Earth relative to the Sun.  Instead of acknowledging this – and considering how most of the heating occurs at the equator with the heat transferred to the poles – we have even the right of politics promoting the nonsense idea that global warming from carbon dioxide is real and it’s manmade.    I’m quoting Bjorn Lomborg, that is what he keeps repeating, and Jordon Peterson has made him the chief scientists, for the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship that is attempting to rewrite the story for the right of politics in The West. 

This is the meme that has swept across the West with the ruling class pretending their scientists, who are often just political scientists, can not only know the average temperature of the Earth, but also control the temperature of the Earth.   

To be able to do this, they will, of course, need to be able to dial back this heating as it moves from the equator to the poles, or should they be dialling it up?

Which should it be?  

To dial down the average temperature of the Earth, should we be seeking to increase the yearly average heat transport poleward, or slow it down?