Rethinking wind energy?


New research at Harvard University conducted by David Keith suggest that we may not have access to wind energy as much as scientists thought because the world's capacity for large-scale wind farms has been overestimated.

"People often think that there is no better energy source than wind power and that it is one of the most evolutionary sources of energy," says Harvard applied physicist David Keith. After all, gusts and breezes don't seem to be lacking on a global scale .

However, the latest research in atmospheric modelling, published today in the journal Environmental Research Letterss, suggest that the generating capacity of large-scale wind farms has been overestimated.

Each wind turbine creates a "wind shadow" behind it, in which the air is slowed down to slide over the turbine blades. The ideal wind farm would be made up of land-based islands of wind turbines spaced far enough apart to reduce the impact of these "wind shadows". But as wind farms grow larger, they begin to interact with each other and the regional wind regime becomes increasingly important.

David Keith is trying to show that the generating capacity of very large wind energy facilities (more than 100 square kilometres) can peak at between 0.5 and 1 watt per square metre. Previous estimates, which ignored the effect of wind turbines on slowing the wind, had overestimated this figure by between 2 and 7 watts per square metre. In short, we cannot have access to wind energy as much as scientists thought.

Why not enjoy unlimited reading of UP'? Subscribe from €1.90 per week.

As an internationally renowned expert on climate science and technology policy, Keith is as well known as Gordon McKay, Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and as a professor of public policy at Harvard Kennedy School. Another eminent scholar, Amanda S. AdamsAssistant Professor of Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte, says: "One of the challenges with wind energy is that once you start developing wind farms and harvesting the resource, you change the resource, making it difficult to assess what is actually available.

How can we have a really accurate estimate on this issue of carbon neutral energy resources? Solar, wind and hydropower: all could play a role in meeting the energy needs currently met by coal or oil.

If we were to cover the entire Earth with wind farms, according to Keith, "the system could generate huge amounts of energy, well in excess of 100 terawatts, but at that point, according to our climate modeling, the effect on global winds, and therefore on the climate, would be severe, perhaps greater than the impact of doubling CO2. « 

"Our results don't mean we shouldn't pursue wind power, which is far better for the environment than coal, but its geophysical limitations may make sense if we really want to scale up wind power to provide a third alternative to our primary energy," Keith adds.

And the climate effect is not the only constraint, geography and economics also matter: "Clearly, the theoretical upper limit for wind energy is huge, if you don't care about the consequences of covering the whole world with wind turbines," Keith explains. "What isn't clear, and this is a topic for future research, is what is the practical limit to wind energy, considering all the constraints of the real world? One would have to assume that wind turbines are located relatively close to where people live and where there is a fairly constant supply of wind, in order to cope with environmental constraints. You can't put them everywhere. « 

The real problem," he adds, "is that if you can't get much more than half a watt, and if you accept the fact that you can't put them everywhere, then you can begin to understand where their usage limit is. « 

"In order to stabilize the Earth's climate, Keith believes the world will need to identify the sources of several dozen terawatts of carbon without jeopardizing human life. At the same time, decision-makers must also allocate resources to develop new technologies to harness this energy. »

To conclude, Keith believes that "it is worth asking questions about the scalability of each potential energy source: will it be able to supply, say, 3 terawatts, which would correspond to 10% of our overall energy needs, or only 0.3 terawatts, or 1% of our needs? « 

"Wind energy is in a field of consensus," he says again. "It is still one of the most evolving renewable energies, but our current research suggests that we will need to pay attention to its limitations and climate impacts".

 (Source: Caroline Perry / Harvard Gazette - Feb. 25, 2013) 

To fight against disinformation and to favour analyses that decipher the news, join the circle of UP' subscribers.

{Jacuzzi on}

Nous avons un message pour vous…

En octobre dernier nous avons pris l’engagement que UP’ Magazine accordera au dérèglement climatique, à l’extinction des espèces sauvages, à la pollution, à la qualité de notre alimentation et à la transition écologique l’attention et l’importance urgentes que ces défis exigent. Cet engagement s’est traduit par le partenariat de UP’ Magazine avec Covering Climate Now, une collaboration mondiale de 250 médias sélectionnés pour renforcer la couverture journalistique des enjeux climatiques.

Nous promettons de vous tenir informés des mesures que nous prenons pour nous responsabiliser à ce moment décisif de notre vie. La désinformation sur le climat étant monnaie courante, et jamais plus dangereuse qu’aujourd’hui, il est essentiel que UP’ Magazine publie des rapports précis et relaye des informations faisant autorité – et nous ne resterons pas silencieux.

Notre indépendance éditoriale signifie que nous sommes libres d’enquêter et de contester l’inaction de ceux qui sont au pouvoir. Nous informerons nos lecteurs des menaces qui pèsent sur l’environnement en nous fondant sur des faits scientifiques et non sur des intérêts commerciaux ou politiques. Et nous avons apporté plusieurs modifications importantes à notre expression éditoriale pour que le langage que nous utilisons reflète fidèlement, mais sans catastrophisme, l’urgence environnementale.

UP’ Magazine estime que les problèmes auxquels nous sommes confrontés dans le cadre de la crise climatique sont systémiques et qu’un changement sociétal fondamental est nécessaire. Nous continuerons à rendre compte des efforts des individus et des communautés du monde entier qui prennent courageusement position pour les générations futures et la préservation de la vie humaine sur terre. Nous voulons que leurs histoires inspirent l’espoir.

Nous espérons que vous envisagerez de nous soutenir aujourd’hui. Nous avons besoin de votre soutien pour continuer à offrir un journalisme de qualité, ouvert et indépendant. Chaque abonnement des lecteurs, quelle que soit sa taille, est précieux. Soutenez UP’ Magazine à partir d’1.90 € par semaine seulement – et cela ne prend qu’une minute. Merci de votre soutien.

Je m’abonne →

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Previous article

Earth-orbiting power plants, it's possible...

Next article

What energy for the year 2050?

Latest articles from Ecological and Energy Transition



Already registered? I'm connecting

Inscrivez-vous et lisez three articles for free. Recevez aussi notre newsletter pour être informé des dernières infos publiées.

→ Register for free to continue reading.



You have received 3 free articles to discover UP'.

Enjoy unlimited access to our content!

From $1.99 per week only.