Letter | Published:

Taming hurricanes with arrays of offshore wind turbines

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 195200 (2014) | Download Citation

Abstract

Hurricanes are causing increasing damage to many coastal regions worldwide1,2. Offshore wind turbines can provide substantial clean electricity year-round, but can they also mitigate hurricane damage while avoiding damage to themselves? This study uses an advanced climate–weather computer model that correctly treats the energy extraction of wind turbines3,4 to examine this question. It finds that large turbine arrays (300+ GW installed capacity) may diminish peak near-surface hurricane wind speeds by 25–41 m s1 (56–92 mph) and storm surge by 6–79%. Benefits occur whether turbine arrays are placed immediately upstream of a city or along an expanse of coastline. The reduction in wind speed due to large arrays increases the probability of survival of even present turbine designs. The net cost of turbine arrays (capital plus operation cost less cost reduction from electricity generation and from health, climate, and hurricane damage avoidance) is estimated to be less than today’s fossil fuel electricity generation net cost in these regions and less than the net cost of sea walls used solely to avoid storm surge damage.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Normalized hurricane damage in the United States 1900–2005. Nat. Hazards Rev. 9, 29–42 (2008).

  2. 2.

    et al. Tropical cyclones and climate change. Nature Geosci. 3, 157–163 (2010).

  3. 3.

    & Saturation wind power potential and its implications for wind energy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 15,679–15,684 (2012).

  4. 4.

    GATOR-GCMM: a global through urban scale air pollution and weather forecast model. 1. Model design and treatment of subgrid soil, vegetation, roads, rooftops, water, sea ice, and snow. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 5385–5402 (2001).

  5. 5.

    , , & Physically based assessment of hurricane surge threat under climate change. Nature Clim. Change 2, 462–467 (2012).

  6. 6.

    & Sandy aid bill: Senate approves $60.4 billion hurricane recovery package. Huffington Post (from Reuters) (accessed 28 December 2012);

  7. 7.

    Weighing sea barriers as protection for New York. New York Timesp. A21 (8 November 2012).

  8. 8.

    , , , & Hurricane modification and adaptation in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 636–642 (2012).

  9. 9.

    Sandy versus Katrina, and Irene: Monster hurricanes by the numbers. Scientific American (November 2012).

  10. 10.

    , , , & Tropical cyclones of the North Atlantic Ocean 1851–2006. Technical Report HCS 6-2, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (accessed 4 August 2013).

  11. 11.

    , , , & Pricing offshore wind power. Energy Policy 39, 6408–6421 (2011).

  12. 12.

    & Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. Energy Policy 39, 1170–1190 (2011).

  13. 13.

    et al. Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power, and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time. J. Power Sourc. 225, 60–74 (2013).

  14. 14.

    et al. Examining the feasibility of converting New York State’s all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight. Energy Policy 57, 585–601 (2013).

  15. 15.

    & Spatial and temporal distributions of U.S. winds and wind power at 80 m derived from measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 108 (D9), 4289 (2003).

  16. 16.

    & Evaluation of global wind power. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D12110 (2005).

  17. 17.

    , , & Technical Report NREL/TP-500-45889. (accessed 29 November 2012)

  18. 18.

    , , , & Where is the ideal location for a U.S. East Coast offshore grid. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L06804 (2012).

  19. 19.

    , , , & U.S. East Coast offshore wind energy resources and their relationship to peak-time electricity demand. Wind Energy (2012).

  20. 20.

    International Electrotechnical Commission, International Standard IEC 61400-3. August 2005

  21. 21.

    Central Florida Hurricane Center. Google maps of storms Katrina and Sandy. , (accessed 1 December 2012)

  22. 22.

    , & Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Katrina, National Hurricane Center. (accessed 29 August 2013)

  23. 23.

    Blake, E. S., Kimberlain, T. B., Berg, R. J., Cangialosi, J. P. & Beven II, J. L. Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Sandy, National Hurricane Center. 2013. (accessed 29 August 2013)

  24. 24.

    Tropical cyclone report: Hurricane Isaac, National Hurricane Center. 2013. (accessed 25 November 2013)

  25. 25.

    , , , & The operational GFDL coupled hurricane–ocean prediction system and a summary of its performance. Mon. Wea. Rev. 135, 3965–3989 (2007).

  26. 26.

    et al. Hurricane Weather Research and Forecasting (HWRF) Model: 2013 Scientific Documentation. 99. 2013. (accessed 27 November 2013)

  27. 27.

    , , & Integrated hydrodynamic and economic modelling of flood damage in the Netherlands. Ecol. Econom. 66, 77–90 (2008).

  28. 28.

    , , & The development of wind damage bands for buildings. J. Wind Eng. Industrial Aerodyn. 84, 119–149 (2000).

  29. 29.

    EIA (Energy Information Administration). (accessed 10 October 2012)

  30. 30.

    EIA (Energy Information Administration). (accessed 31 December 2012)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Marchok from NOAA/GFDL for helping compare results with operational model results. Funding sources include NSF, NASA and NASA high-end computing.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford California 94305-4020, USA

    • Mark Z. Jacobson
  2. College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA

    • Cristina L. Archer
  3. College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment, and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA

    • Willett Kempton

Authors

  1. Search for Mark Z. Jacobson in:

  2. Search for Cristina L. Archer in:

  3. Search for Willett Kempton in:

Contributions

M.Z.J. developed the idea for the study and the GATOR–GCMOM atmospheric–ocean model and the treatment of wind turbine power extraction within it. He ran the simulations with the code and provided numerical output. C.L.A. coded and performed the storm surge analysis with output from the atmospheric–ocean model, developed figures, and performed the model validation analysis. W.K. performed the analysis of turbine strength and contributed to the economic analysis. All three contributed to writing and editing the article.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Z. Jacobson.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2120

Further reading