Wide-Scale US Wind Power Could Cause Significant Warming, Study Says (technologyreview.com)

XxtraLarGe shares a report: Wind power is booming in the United States. It's expanded 35-fold since 2000 and now provides 8% of the nation's electricity. The US Department of Energy expects wind turbine capacity to more than quadruple again by 2050. But a new study by a pair of Harvard researchers finds that a high amount of wind power could mean more climate warming, at least regionally and in the immediate decades ahead. The paper raises serious questions about just how much the United States or other nations should look to wind power to clean up electricity systems. The study, published in the journal Joule, found that if wind power supplied all US electricity demands, it would warm the surface of the continental United States by 0.24 C. That could significantly exceed the reduction in US warming achieved by decarbonizing the nation's electricity sector this century, which would be around 0.1 C. "If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has -- in some respects -- more climate impact than coal or gas," coauthor David Keith, a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard, said in a statement. "If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power is enormously cleaner than coal or gas."

Comments

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

[meburke]

It can get complicated, but Scientists have known for years that there is a price to be paid, somewhere, for the apparent benefits of "free energy".

It is virtually impossible to calculate ALL the costs in providing wind and solar power.Do you start with the costs of mining the materials needed to produce the components of a wind generator? Wait! How about starting with the costs of producing the machinery that mine those elements? No, that doesn't take into account the lab time and personnel needed to come up with the idea in the first place...etc., etc. I found the articles on the IEEE Spectrum page very interesting. the articles have rotated off the page but are still searchable. There are many smaller articles in the series. Here's one: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ener...

Re:What about other options

[SEE]

the long history of nuclear safety issues

And yet the fact is, the per-terawatt-hour death rate from nuclear is lower than for any power source -- lower than wind, lower than rooftop solar, lower than hydroelectric, lower than biomass, lower than natural gas, lower than oil, and lower than coal.

If people were rationally concerned about safety, they'd be holding massive protests demanding the replacement of other sources of electrical generation with nuclear. That it would massively reduce greenhouse gas emissions over fossil fuels and that it is far easier to integrate with the electrical grid than solar or wind would then just be the side benefits of saving lives.

Re:What about other options

[angel'o'sphere]

And yet the fact is, the per-terawatt-hour death rate from nuclear is lower than for any power source -- lower than wind, lower than rooftop solar, lower than hydroelectric, lower than biomass, lower than natural gas, lower than oil, and lower than coal.
First of all: that is not true.
Secondly: the metric is completely irrelevant.

You are counting people who died in coal mines?
Why don't you count the people who died in iron ore mines? Wow, because then you would need to think about "steel", and how much "steel" is used in a nuke.
And from there we have to count down every aspect in the industrial chain and craftsmen chain.
E.g. I doubt more than a hand full of idiots (who rejected safety regulations) died in Germany due to installing of roof top solar. But I'm pretty sure a few dozens died in traffic accident, by traveling to the place where they installed roof top solar. So: how many people die per year in the maintaining and fueling and mining for nuklear power plants? Easy answer: you have no idea!
So stop reiterating that bollocks claim.

If people were rationally concerned about safety,
Rationally concerned about what kind of safety? _My own safety_ is absolutely not touched by any accident in a mine, or on a rooftop or at a wind mill construction site! _My own safety_ is only marginally touched by coal plants as they have effective air scrubbing! _My own safety_ is touched much more by Diesel cars in my town, than by the next best coal plant, just outside of town!!!
And to top it _my own safety_ and that includes 50% - 80% of the German population: is massively touched by any old nuklear power plant around us. And that includes the French ones, but particularly the Belgium ones, and also the Swiss ones. You know: Germany has 80 million inhabitants. Here is a nice map with most active nuclear plants, no idea why some are missing (e.g. Neckar Westheim is missing): https://www1.wdr.de/wissen/tec...

If one of them goes boom, especially one of the Belgium ones, e.g. Tiange close to Aachen, then we have to evacuate up to 50million people!!! To where exactly? How exactly? Considering that Poland will have to evacuate, too. That likely parts of France, Netherlands, Switzerland, definitely 90% of Belgium have to be evacuated. To where? Hae? Any clue? No? Me neither!

What do you think what kind of impact that will have on the harvests in Europe? Basically every harvest east of the plant, in a 1000 - 2000 miles range, and most likely most of the cattle, will be lost. Do you have any idea what it means when _the world_ loses 10% - 25% of its harvests in one year?

No please call me irrational again, you stupid *******!