Cotton farmers need not worry as farm subsidies will always trump the laws of thermodynamics.

Read the NY Times article first. It better explains the problem with this model.
This research projects a wind farm bigger than any ever built, "10,000 turbines, with rotor blades 165 feet long, in a 60-by-60-mile grid."

Realize that the original abstract includes this passage: "The impact on evapotranspiration is small." (Even with 10,000 turbines running.)

If I may quote another passage from the Times article:
"The researchers also suggested that potential problems could be ameliorated by redesigning the rotors to produce less turbulence."

I'm sure there are plenty of Texans who would take umbrage at your suggestion that someone should blow these expensive contraptions up because you fear that all that scientific data that's so hard to understand might mean that wind farms are evil.

Science wasn't your major in college, was it?

Shep:

Make a deal with A2. Offer to tell her your major/profession if she will tell you hers.

Do you also realize how much the wind farm royalty is?
Those ranchers who are cashing in on this bonanza are raising cattle, not cotton.

If the researchers who published this paper don't see an impact on the crops, neither do I.

Yes, certainly it would be interesting to hear what "Shepherd" says he studied in college, but you should let him speak for himself, no?

And you're pretty sure I'm a woman? Why?

I know what he studied and what he does. But this information is not mine to give.

I will say that I would bet he has more hard science training and expertise than you.

I would say that our beloved Site Admin does indeed know what I studied in college, knows that I did graduate and knows what I practice as a profession. (As to what I actually do...)

You first A2: what training and background give you the ability to interpret the Geophysical Journal's technical paper on wind farms with any level of authority?

As to another of your "points," we are rapidly approaching the number of wind turbines in the Great Plains that was used in the papers' modelling work. And the turbines being installed are larger than the model used.

I'll roll with Boone and take my chances on the windmills. Corn-based ethanol is going to disappear anyway within the next five years. As far as nuclear, clean coal, and wind are concerned, I don't see that we have a choice, knock-on side effects or not.

Regardless of who wins this election, there are going to be massive increases in government subsidies for wind energy and solar, both photovoltaic and thermal. If only I knew how to take advantage....

"The world’s largest wind farm, made up of 450 giant turbines, will be built this year on the Washington-Oregon border. Known as the Stateline Wind Generating Project, the new facility will use 240 ft tall self-monitoring turbines."

Then of course this from the NYT article:
"The study, published in October 2004 in The Journal of Geophysical Research, used a hypothetical model of a wind farm much larger than any that had been built: 10,000 turbines, with rotor blades 165 feet long, in a 60-by-60-mile grid in north-central Oklahoma."

So your 2004 model projects 10,000 turbines when the largest wind farm in the world will be built this year with only 450 turbines.

If "we are rapidly approaching the number of wind turbines in the Great Plains that was used in the papers' modelling work" just exactly where is this nest of turbines of which you speak?

I have a question: Let us say that the 10,000 turbine wind farm is actually built somewhere. How much electricity would it actually generate and at what cost per kilowatt/hr?

a2: There have been thousands of turbines erected from Abilene to Pampa to Guymon to Eastern Colorado, with more 200 foot fan blades clogging the highways daily*. All sites/farms built so far are constructed at a density significantly greater that the 2.8 turbines per square mile used in the model (that's called "math").

You have shown you can google "wind farm". Bravo. You continue to dodge the question as to the credentials or experience you have that allow you to critique the referenced work with any authority.

*I wonder how long a turbine would have to run in order to pay back the energy (forget the other costs) used in its design, construction, shipping and on-site assembly. I'd guess a year or two.

Nat: good question. All turbines and wind energy promotional material work off of "name plate" generating capacity or the maximum that the turbine can generate in ideal conditions. Actual running generation is around 20%...

when will we see lower energy bills?