Talk:Wind farm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old discussions[edit]

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)[]

New source article in The Economist[edit]

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)[]

The wind blows faster at higher altitudes ...[edit]

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[edit]

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[]

Controversy[edit]

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)[]

Capacity by country[edit]

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?

"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)[]

"Nearshore" vs. "Offshore" -- a distinction without a difference?[edit]

The article currently (October 2010) contains both a "Nearshore" subsection and an "Offshore" subsection. It makes the attempt to distinguish between "Nearshore turbine installations ... on land within three kilometres of a shoreline or, on water within ten kilometres of land." while stating that "Offshore wind development zones are generally considered to be ten kilometers or more from land." Neither claim is sourced, despite being fact-tagged for over a year now.

  • 1) Is this distinction common in the industry?
  • 2) Is this a distinction worth making in the Wikipedia encyclopedia article?
  • 3) Even if a consensus for 1) and 2) are 'yes', is it a distinction that should be made by different article subsections, as opposed to merely mentioning the distinction in the text of a single paragraph?

My thoughts: on 1), I don't know. re 2), definitely not unless the distinction is supported by verifiable and sourced information. on 3), I would think not.

What do other editors think? If no objection, or if no citation is provided for the distinction from a reliable source, I will make some changes to tone down the emphasis after a week or two. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[]

I think this could be revised. There is a distinction in the industry between deep-water wind power that needs floating foundations, as opposed to shallow-water installations that can rest directly on the seabed. But this is more a function of water depth than distance offshore. So, perhaps this is the disctinction we should be describing here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[]

Good job, N2e. I had the same "itch" about that term since around the same time you posted the above topic. Glad to see it sorted. Cheers, Rehman 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[]

The distinction is used in the industry, but perhaps it has not been represented in mainstream media. The distinction seems to refer to whether the transformer is located offshore or onshore, and water depth (offshore is water deep enough for common ships, nearshore is water too shallow for ships). Both aspects impact cost, and thereby feasibility, and in an edge-case, whether the project happens or not. I think the notability corresponds to a few sentences, perhaps a table column. I don't see it being sorted anywhere? TGCP (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[]

Impact of wind farms on agriculture[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)[]

Equation for the power and energy output of a wind farm[edit]

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.[edit]

"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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[]

How do you install a megawatt?[edit]

From the second paragraph of the lead: "For example, the Gansu Wind Farm in China has over 5,000 MW installed with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020." This sounds very odd: megawatts aren't installed, wind turbines are. Megawatts are generated by wind turbines. So are we saying the Gansu Wind Farm generates over 5,000 MW with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020? Or does Gansu Wind Farm have over 5,000 turbines installed with a goal of 20,000 turbines by 2020? Or what? Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[]

It's a common way of describing capacity. All power plants have varying output, some more varying than others, but the technical capacity remains the same once installed. Also, turbines have very different sizes, so capacity is a better measure of plant size (a plant being a number of turbines). TGCP (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[]
OK, but the language is still confusing. I'm changing it to "the Gansu Wind Farm in China has a capacity of over 5,000 MW with a goal of 20,000 MW by 2020." And MW should be linked there rather than in the next sentence. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[]

What constitutes a single wind farm ?[edit]

There are different ways of defining a wind farm. The list in this article includes Jaisalmer Wind Park but not Gansu Wind Farm which is noted in the lede. Neither is mentioned in this PT list which fails to define what a wind farm is and is not, but it seems to show a single entity owning/operating the park. That single entity has two or more companies as owners, but in principle, the wind farm has a single owner. However the same could be said for Gansu, owned by Chinese government power companies. The London Array has two substations and six cables to land. All parks are built in stages with presumably several substations and grid connections, so that adds to the confusion.

We are having the same discussion over at List_of_offshore_wind_farms.

So I guess my question is; should we define a single wind farm as turbines in the same area having one owner ? Or what? TGCP (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.power-technology.com/projects/greatergabbardoffsho
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.power-technology.com/features/feature-biggest-wind-farms-in-the-world-texas/
    Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[]

Criticism section seems heavily biased[edit]

The whole section looks like a defence of wind farms, intended to refute criticism of them. It starts off categorising all opposition to wind farms as based on a "not in my back yard" mentality. After mentioning bird mortality concerns, it follows with "Deaths by collision with wind turbines must also be compared with alternatives, for example one company reported 20 eagle deaths by wind turbines and 232 by power lines for coal plants" as though it's the article's responsibility to refute this criticism. This happens again regarding noise level concerns, with the statement "however this has not been supported by reliable peer-reviewed research", which is sourced to a publication by the Canadian Wind Energy Association, whose website says it "is the voice of Canada’s wind energy industry, actively promoting the responsible and sustainable growth of wind energy". Not exactly a neutral source! The human health doesn't even bother to start off by stating the criticism; it immediately begins with "A 2007 report by the U.S. National Research Council noted that noise produced by wind turbines is generally not a major concern for humans beyond a half-mile or so" again as though the purpose of the article is to defend wind farms against their critics. Colonial Overlord (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[]

There were some unsubstantiated claims of damaging as well as lack of damaging effects, and these should be cleared out, leaving only the scientific research. TGCP (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[]
Wikipedia has a requirement of due weight. Thus, criticism must have a presence proportional to its weight, not too much and not too little, giving balance to its purpose of describing the subject in a fair manner. As such, the Criticism section might be a bit large, but I guess we can live with that, however it is cumbersome and somewhat clumsy - the wording that offends you I see mostly as just clumsyness. Some subsections point to further articles describing that area better.
As for the "peer-reviewed research", it is a meta study by independent scientists in fields not related to wind power, collecting the present knowledge of of scientific literature. As such it has significant scientific value, unrelated to AWEA / CanWEA. Should there be other peer-reviewed scientific research on the subject, please submit it for inclusion in this article. TGCP (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Wind farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Wind farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[]