IT CAME AS A surprise Wednesday to read that some scientists think the wind is slowing down. The greatest slowdown in the United States, the researchers say, is in the East and Midwest. They say Kansas is among the states in which the wind speed has dropped most sharply over the past 36 years.
Coming the day after a typical prairie storm did its best to blow Emporia a few miles to the south, the report is not likely to be accepted as gospel by anybody in these windy hills without a lot of corroborating evidence. It is spring in Kansas, and that means that people who go outside without wearing a hat or gluing their hair down arrive at their destination looking like Albert Einstein on his worst hair day.
Kansas’ wind can be an irritation, but slower winds, perhaps a result of climate change, could have serious consequences. One expert said that a 10 percent reduction in peak wind speed could lower wind turbine-produced by 30 percent. Another expert disagreed, of course, saying a drop in wind would have little or no effect on power production.
The first thing to do is find out whether the winds are actually slowing. It is much too early to start carving out philosophical or political positions on whether the wind is dropping and, if so, why. The core question must be answered by science, not by opinion polls.
The researchers who think the wind is slowing will publish their study later this summer. Then other scientists will begin picking the study apart, looking for holes in the data and for facts that support the idea or tend to disprove it.
If a consensus is reached that the wind is slowing, that will be the time for politicians and others to decide what that information means for energy policy and other issues, such as agriculture, disaster planning and population patterns.
Wind, after all, is more than an annoyance. It is a necessary part of the world’s weather machine and, increasingly, an important source of clean energy for a planet that needs all it can get.
What, if anything, is happening to the wind is a serious question.
But it is a question that no one can answer yet.
Patrick S. Kelley
Editorial Page Editor
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
All we have to do is read Patrick's op-ed and know just like the music group Kansas, "IT'S BLOWING IN THE WIND"
June 11, 2009 at 8:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
KANSAS, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH LOGJAM!
June 11, 2009 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...
Anybody that reads the Gazette should know that the most consistent wind in Emporia emanates from the editorial room. Sorry, couldn't help it.
June 11, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
krazykansan (anonymous) says...
Patric, Who is that one person that said a 10% reduction in wind speed would result in 30% loss of wind power electric production?
Must have been a oil company exec. Will they stop at nothing?.
Come on! I'm starting to think all this wind is comming from down town Emporia.
June 11, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
"One expert said that a 10 percent reduction in peak wind speed could lower wind turbine-produced by 30 percent. Another expert disagreed, of course, saying a drop in wind would have little or no effect on power production."
P = 0.5 x rho x A x Cp x V3 x Ng x Nb
where:
P = power in watts (746 watts = 1 hp) (1,000 watts = 1 kilowatt)
rho = air density (about 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level, less higher up)
A = rotor swept area, exposed to the wind (m2)
Cp = Coefficient of performance (.59 {Betz limit} is the maximum thoretically possible, .35 for a good design)
V = wind speed in meters/sec (20 mph = 9 m/s)
Ng = generator efficiency
Nb = gearbox/bearings efficiency (depends, could be as high as 95% if good)
This one works too: kinetic energy (joules) = 0.5 x m x V2
where:
m = mass (kg) (1 kg = 2.2 pounds)
V = velocity (meters/second) (meter = 3.281 feet = 39.37 inches)
http://www.awea.org/faq/windpower.html
So yes, wind speed DOES have a LOT to do with the potential power generated.
:D
Matt
June 12, 2009 at 2:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )