Costs and consequences of wind turbine wake effects arising from uncoordinated wind energy development


Optimal wind farm locations require a strong and reliable wind resource and access to transmission lines. As onshore and offshore wind energy grows, preferred locations become saturated with numerous wind farms. An upwind wind farm generates ‘wake effects’ (decreases in downwind wind speeds) that undermine a downwind wind farm’s power generation and revenues. Here we use a diverse set of analysis tools from the atmospheric science, economic and legal communities to assess costs and consequences of these wake effects, focusing on a West Texas case study. We show that although wake effects vary with atmospheric conditions, they are discernible in monthly power production. In stably stratified atmospheric conditions, wakes can extend 50+ km downwind, resulting in economic losses of several million dollars over six years for our case study. However, our investigation of the legal literature shows no legal guidance for protecting existing wind farms from such significant impacts.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A map of the wind farms’ turbine positions plotted over an elevation map of the surrounding terrain.
Fig. 2: Comparing predicted capacity factors with the actual capacity factors at the downwind farm using econometric analysis.
Fig. 3: Time series of WRF-simulated power production for the Texas complex of wind farms for January 2013.
Fig. 4: WRF-calculated wind farm wakes.
Fig. 5: Wind turbine characteristics and wind farm wake variability.

Data availability

The data that support all of the empirical findings in this study are based on publicly available data as referenced herein. National Weather Service Automated Surface Observing System data were accessed via The WRF simulations employ the publicly available WRF code ( with no custom code. The data that support the plots within this paper are available at These data, as well as the namelists for the WRF simulations, are also archived at the University of Colorado PetaLibrary (funded by the NSF under grant OCI-1126839) and can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Change history

  • 05 March 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. 1.

    Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy (EIA, 2017);

  2. 2.

    Stokes, L. C. & Warshaw, C. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17107 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Brower, M. Wind Resource Assessment: A Practical Guide to Developing a Wind Project (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, 2012).

  4. 4.

    Kaffine, D. T. & Worley, C. M. The windy commons? Environ. Resour. Econ. 47, 151–172 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nygaard, N. G. Wakes in very large wind farms and the effect of neighbouring wind farms. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 524, 12162 (2014).

  6. 6.

    Davidson, M. R., Zhang, D., Xiong, W., Zhang, X. & Karplus, V. J. Modelling the potential for wind energy integration on China’s coal-heavy electricity grid. Nat. Energy 1, 16086 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Platis, A. et al. First in situ evidence of wakes in the far field behind offshore wind farms. Sci. Rep. 8, 2163 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lissaman, P. B. S. Energy effectiveness of arbitrary arrays of wind turbines. J. Energy 3, 323–328 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Christiansen, M. B. & Hasager, C. B. Wake effects of large offshore wind farms identified from satellite SAR. Remote Sens. Environ. 98, 251–268 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Zhou, L. et al. Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 539–543 (2012).

  11. 11.

    Rajewski, D. A. et al. Crop wind energy experiment (CWEX): observations of surface-layer, boundary layer, and mesoscale interactions with a wind farm. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 94, 655–672 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Rajewski, D. A. et al. Changes in fluxes of heat, H2O, and CO2 caused by a large wind farm. Agric. For. Meteorol. 194, 175–187 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Armstrong, A. et al. Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 44024 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Vautard, R. et al. Regional climate model simulations indicate limited climatic impacts by operational and planned European wind farms. Nat. Commun. 5, 3196 (2014).

  15. 15.

    Jacobson, M. Z., Archer, C. L. & Kempton, W. Taming hurricanes with arrays of offshore wind turbines. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 195–200 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jacobson, M. Z. & Archer, C. L. Saturation wind power potential and its implications for wind energy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 15679–15684 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Barthelmie, R. J. et al. Quantifying the impact of wind turbine wakes on power output at offshore wind farms. J. Atmospheric Ocean. Technol. 27, 1302–1317 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Hansen, K. S., Barthelmie, R. J., Jensen, L. E. & Sommer, A. The impact of turbulence intensity and atmospheric stability on power deficits due to wind turbine wakes at Horns Rev wind farm. Wind Energy 15, 183–196 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lee, J. C. Y. & Lundquist, J. K. Evaluation of the wind farm parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting model (version 3.8.1) with meteorological and turbine power data. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 4229–4244 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Fitch, A. C. et al. Local and mesoscale impacts of wind farms as parameterized in a mesoscale NWP model. Mon. Weather Rev. 140, 3017–3038 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Fitch, A. C., Lundquist, J. K. & Olson, J. B. Mesoscale influences of wind farms throughout a diurnal cycle. Mon. Weather Rev. 141, 2173–2198 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fitch, A. C. Notes on using the mesoscale wind farm parameterization of Fitch et al. (2012) in WRF. Wind Energy 19, 1757–1758 (2015).

  23. 23.

    Lee, J. C. Y. & Lundquist, J. K. Observing and simulating wind-turbine wakes during the evening transition. Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 164, 449–474 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Jiménez, P. A., Navarro, J., Palomares, A. M. & Dudhia, J. Mesoscale modeling of offshore wind turbine wakes at the wind farm resolving scale: a composite-based analysis with the Weather Research and Forecasting model over Horns Rev: Mesoscale modeling at the wind farm resolving scale. Wind Energy 18, 559–566 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    DuVivier, K. K. & Witt, T. NIMBY to NOPE—or YESS? Cardozo Law Rev. 38, 1453–1504 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    AWEA State Fact Sheet (AWEA, 2018);

  27. 27.

    Annual Electric Utility Data – EIA-923 Data File (EIA, 2017);

  28. 28.

    Annual Electric Generator data – EIA-860 Data File (EIA, 2017);

  29. 29.

    USGS Energy Resources Program (USGS, 2017);

  30. 30.

    Climate Data Online (NCDC, accessed 31 October 2017);

  31. 31.

    Skamarock, W. C. et al. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF version 2. 113 (National Center For Atmospheric Research Boulder Co. Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Div., 2008).

  32. 32.

    Powers, J. G. et al. The Weather Research and Forecasting Model: overview, system efforts, and future directions. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 1717–1737 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Schmitz, S. XTurb-PSU: A Wind Turbine Design and Analysis Tool (Penn State University, 2012).

  34. 34.

    Schroeder, J. L. et al. The West Texas Mesonet: a technical overview. J. Atmospheric Ocean. Technol. 22, 211–222 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Market Prices (ERCOT, accessed 31 October 2017);

  36. 36.

    Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit (PTC) (Department of Energy, accessed 26 May 2018);

  37. 37.

    Kaffine, D. T., McBee, B. J. & Lieskovsky, J. Emissions savings from wind power generation in Texas. Energy J. 34, 155–175 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Novan, K. Valuing the wind: renewable energy policies and air pollution avoided. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7, 291–326 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Millstein, D., Wiser, R., Bolinger, M. & Barbose, G. The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States. Nat. Energy 2, 17134 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Tonko, P. H.R. 3165 - 111th Congress (2009–2010): Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2009 (2009).

  41. 41.

    Tonko, P. H.R. 2782 - 112th Congress (2011–2012): Wind Energy Research and Development Act of 2011 (2011).

  42. 42.

    Wind Siting Act 216F (Minnesota Legislature, 1995).

  43. 43.

    In the Matter of Establishment of General Permit Standards for the Siting of Wind Generation Projects Less than 25 Megawatts (Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 2008).

  44. 44.

    Wiser, R. & Bolinger, M. 2016 Wind Technologies Market Report (2018).

  45. 45.

    Hasager, C. et al. Using Satellite SAR to characterize the wind flow around offshore wind farms. Energies 8, 5413–5439 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Siedersleben, S. K. et al. Evaluation of a wind farm parametrization for mesoscale atmospheric flow models with aircraft measurements. Meteorol. Zeitschrift. (2018).

  47. 47.

    Diamond, K. & Crivella, E. Wind turbine wakes, wake effect impacts, and wind leases: using solar access laws as the model for capitalizing on wind rights during the evolution of wind policy standards. Duke Environ. Law Policy Forum 22, 195–244 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Lee, J. C. Y. & Lundquist, J. K. Evaluation of the wind farm parameterization in the Weather Research and Forecasting model (version 3.8.1) with meteorological and turbine power data. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. 2017, 1–31 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Dee, D. P. et al. The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 553–597 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Hong, S.-Y., Dudhia, J. & Chen, S.-H. A revised approach to ice microphysical processes for the bulk parameterization of clouds and precipitation. Mon. Weather Rev. 132, 103–120 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Mlawer, E. J., Taubman, S. J., Brown, P. D., Iacono, M. J. & Clough, S. A. Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J. Geophys. Res. D 102, 16663–16682 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Dudhia, J. Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J. Atmospheric Sci. 46, 3077–3107 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Jiménez, P. A. et al. A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formulation. Mon. Weather Rev. 140, 898–918 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Ek, M. B. et al. Implementation of Noah land surface model advances in the National Centers for Environmental Prediction operational mesoscale Eta model. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 8851 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Nakanishi, M. & Niino, H. An improved Mellor–Yamada level-3 model: its numerical stability and application to a regional prediction of advection fog. Bound. Layer Meteorol. 119, 397–407 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Kain, J. S. The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: an update. J. Appl. Meteorol. 43, 170–181 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Vanderwende, B. J., Kosović, B., Lundquist, J. K. & Mirocha, J. D. Simulating effects of a wind-turbine array using LES and RANS. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 8, 1376–1390 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    State Legislative Approaches to Wind Energy Facility Siting (National Council of State Legislatures, 10 February 2018);

  59. 59.

    Wind Energy & Wind Park Siting and Zoning Best Practices and Guidance for States 182 (National Regulatory Research Institute, NARUC, 2012).

  60. 60.

    State Enabling Legislation for Commercial-Scale Wind Power Siting and the Local Government Role 70 (ELI, 2011).

  61. 61.

    Smith, E. E., DeWolf, S. K. & Wetsel, R. E. Wind Law (LexisNexis, 2017).

  62. 62.

    DuVivier, K. K. Animal, vegetable, mineral - wind? The severed wind power rights conundrum. Washburn Law J. 49, 69–100 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Rule, T. A. A downwind view of the cathedral: using rule four to allocate wind rights. San. Diego. Law. Rev. 46, 207–247 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Rule, T. A. Airspace in a green economy. UCLA Law Rev. 59, 270–332 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    DuVivier, K. K. Sins of the Father. 1 Tex. AM J. Real Prop. Law 1, 391–423 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    DuVivier, K. K. The superagency solution. McGeorge Law Rev. 46, 189–214 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    DuVivier, K. K. Wind power growing pains. Chapman Nexus J. Law Policy 21, 11 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Diamond, K. Wake effects, wind rights, and wind turbines: why science, constitutional rights, and public policy issues play a crucial role. William Mary Environ. Law Policy Rev. 40, 813 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Environmental Impacts of Wind-Energy Projects (National Research Council, 2007);

  70. 70.

    Rule, T. A. Solar, Wind and Land: Conflicts in Renewable Energy Development (Routledge, Abingdon, 2014).

Download references


The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the US Department of Energy or the US government. The authors express great appreciation to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) Coupled Natural and Human systems programme, which primarily funded this work under BCS-1413980. J.M.T. was partially supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship under grant number 1144083. Simulations were conducted using the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment, which is supported by NSF grant number ACI1053575. K. King provided research assistance on the econometric model. We express appreciation to the West Texas Mesonet, Texas Tech University, for the use of the sodar data for the WRF model validation. K.K.D. was supported in her research efforts by D. Burkhardt, T. Witt, S. Lloyd, E. Montague, J. Calicchio, J. Dake, C. Wilden and B. Roche. She also benefitted from consultations with K. Diamond, R. Wetsel, T. Rule, E. Crivella, M. Safty, Y. Lifshitz and B. Diffen. The Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance) is the manager and operator of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory is a national laboratory of the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. This work was authored by the Alliance and supported by the US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding was provided by the Wind Energy Technologies Office.

Author information




J.K.L., D.K. and K.K.D. conceived the research. D.K. designed and carried out the econometric study and wrote the economic sections. J.K.L. and J.M.T. designed the atmospheric simulations; J.M.T. carried out the atmospheric simulations; J.K.L. and J.M.T. wrote the atmospheric sections. K.K.D. designed the legal investigation and wrote the legal sections. All authors contributed significantly to writing the joint sections.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. K. Lundquist.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–7, Supplementary Figures 1–13, Supplementary Tables 1–8, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lundquist, J.K., DuVivier, K.K., Kaffine, D. et al. Costs and consequences of wind turbine wake effects arising from uncoordinated wind energy development. Nat Energy 4, 26–34 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading