In case you missed it, Ars Technica has a breathless article about the claims of a 'researcher' that offshore wind farms may help to protect us from hurricanes.
Wind power plays a very significant role in Jacobson's plan, and many states don't have extensive on-shore wind resources. As a result, going entirely renewable involves building offshore wind on a truly massive scale, with many individual states sporting tens of thousands of turbines on the continental shelf.
And that will unsurprisingly have an effect on how winds propagate. Jacobson modeled three different hurricanes—Isaac, Katrina, and Sandy—plowing into a massive field of wind turbines. The wind speeds dropped by up to 90 miles an hour, which is enough to drop all but the most powerful storms out of the hurricane category. In fact, the huge fields of turbines were so disruptive that the wind speed started to drop before it even reached the turbines, meaning that in many cases, they could safely continue generating energy throughout the storm.
In Sandy's case, the wind did very little direct damage; rather, the storm surge the winds drove was the primary culprit. But without the wind, the storm surge was underpowered. Depending on the precise details, it dropped by anywhere from six percent to nearly 80 percent.
In a paper that was also released today, Jacobson and some colleagues at the University of Delaware have calculated that all the benefits of the wind farms—improved health via lower pollution, reduced climate change, and hurricane mitigation—combine to make the net cost of electricity generated by these wind farms cheaper than if it were generated using fossil fuels. And despite the high cost of offshore wind, when those savings are considered in the total system costs, it becomes cheaper to build wind than it does to build seawalls to protect all vulnerable areas from storm surges.
There's more at the link. Bold underlined text is my emphasis.
Note the problems that the article doesn't highlight. First, these claims are based on mathematical models, not on reality. One can make a model prove almost anything if it's constructed just right. Climate change 'scientists' have been using models for decades to preach their gospel of imminent doom, gloom and disaster. Guess what? None of their models can actually reproduce reality - i.e. when fed real raw data and asked to compare their outputs to the actual results in nature. The models are all flawed to a greater or lesser extent. Why should Mr. Jacobson's models be any different?
Next, note their conclusions. These guys are apostles and evangelists for renewable energy sources. Of course their calculations are going to show that their favored energy solutions are the most optimum! They're in the business of selling that particular brand of snake oil! Now, if you get me a bunch of hard-nosed engineers and technicians who work in the field, and they confirm those numbers on the basis of hard-earned experience, I'll listen. Until that happens, I'll take these researchers' recommendations with a bucket or two of salt, thank you very much.
As for wind turbines in hurricanes - remember what happened the last time one was filmed during such a storm?
Uh-huh. So much for mathematical models. I wonder how well those turbines would have protected the US coastline?
Snake-oil salesmen. Grrrr!