Yes, we had a warm day yesterday, and some welcome light rain has spread over the region last night.
But the real story of the past few days is about wind. Wind on the mountain crests, wind on the eastern slopes of the Cascades, and the modulation of wind energy over our region.
Consider the maximum winds observed since midnight today (below). 83 mph at Camp Muir around 10,000 ft on the slopes of Mt. Rainier. 88 mph downstream of the south Cascades and 50-70 mph at several locations of the eastern slopes of the North Cascades.
What are the origins of the strong winds?
Aloft, the strong winds are connected with a strong low (trough) offshore and a high (ridge) inland (see map for 500 hPa pressure, about 18,000 ft at 5 AM this morning below). This created a big gradient of pressure/heights that produced very strong southwesterly winds.
Lower down, strong winds are aided by a very large difference in pressure (pressure gradient) across the Cascades, with pressure rising rapidly in western Washington as cold, dense, heavy air moved from off the ocean. The sea-level pressure map for 2 AM today illustrates the pressure pattern (the solid lines are isobars...lines of constant sea level pressure).
The strong westerly (from the west) winds descending into eastern WA are producing a major uptick in wind energy generation (see BPA plot below). The green line is electricity generation by wind, and the red line is the load--the energy demand. Blue indicates hydro generation.
Let me be clear: this is not to say that wind energy is useless, since can use hydro when wind fails.
Lower down, strong winds are aided by a very large difference in pressure (pressure gradient) across the Cascades, with pressure rising rapidly in western Washington as cold, dense, heavy air moved from off the ocean. The sea-level pressure map for 2 AM today illustrates the pressure pattern (the solid lines are isobars...lines of constant sea level pressure).
The strong westerly (from the west) winds descending into eastern WA are producing a major uptick in wind energy generation (see BPA plot below). The green line is electricity generation by wind, and the red line is the load--the energy demand. Blue indicates hydro generation.
You can see there is a problem with wind generation. The energy demand went up substantially during our warm period. Folks use plenty of energy for AC now, since far more homes in the region have air conditioning compared to a few years ago.
But during the warm periods in western Oregon and Washington, wind energy is nearly non-existent and hydro generation has to spike.
Why is this the case?
Because heat waves on the west side are inevitably associated with low pressure over western Oregon and Washington (we call it the thermal trough), which prevents westerly winds from descending into the wind turbine area east of the Cascades. The pressure pattern on Wednesday morning at 2 AM shows the problem. In fact, the winds over the Cascades and along the eastern slopes of the Cascades REVERSE during such situations.
Let me be clear: this is not to say that wind energy is useless, since can use hydro when wind fails.
But it is true that wind energy tends to fail around here when energy is needed the most: during warm spells west of the Cascades and during cold periods during mid-winter (then high pressure settles over the region).
We have a problem during peak energy demand, and this problem is getting worse.
Since solar is problematic around here because of our northern latitude and substantial cloudiness for half the year, and there is little chance for more hydro (in fact, some "environmentalists" want to tear down dams), how will the rapidly increasing energy demand be met?
The obvious place to turn is nuclear---first fission and in a decade or so, fusion. Clean and reliable.
Wind and solar can not fill the gap as energy demand rises rapidly, and this is going to be a very serious problem very soon.
Hi Cliff, one small and one big quibble with terminology. The small one is the event was not "Hurricane-Forced." A hurricane did not cause the event. I assume this is a typo and what was meant is "Hurricane-Force."
ReplyDeleteAnd thus comes the big quibble. "Hurricane-Force Winds" are sustained winds (a 2- to 5-minute average depending on the instrumentation). We frequently see TV media and others refer to "hurricane-force gusts," which is incorrect since gusts are defined as 2- to 5- to maybe 10-second winds. In this case, the winds cited are gusts, not sustained winds (which were 55-65 mph): https://nwac.us/weatherdata/campmuir/now/
Thus, BY DEFINITION, there is no such thing as a "hurricane-force gust." Please join the small but growing cadre of us to stamp out this misuse of terminology. A sustained wind over a 2- to 5-minute period is a much greater risk to life and property than a 2- to 5- to 10-second gust.
Additionally, a tropical cyclone (aka hurricane) is so completely different than what is happening here, or an extratropical low, or a Mesoscale Convective System, that trying to make some connection relating the winds is spurious -- just call them "extreme winds."
You make some very interesting points, and I thank you for helping us to be more accurate with our weather terminology. I do have a couple of questions, though. First, if there is no such thing as a "hurricane-force gust", what should we call wind gusts that occur during a hurricane, which would be produced by "hurricane-force winds"? Second, since sustained winds are more dangerous than gusts, should weather forecasters begin putting more emphassis on sustained wind speeds and less on gusts? Thank you.
DeleteThis is how the National Hurricane Center does it (thanks to current TS Alvin in the EPAC):
Delete“Maximum sustained winds have decreased to near 45 mph (75 km/h)
with higher gusts.”
Full Advisory:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/mobile/refresh/MIATCPEP1+html/310248.html
In short, those with wind thresholds (Emergency Managers, Police/Fire/EMS, Coast Guard) know gusts are transient, and usually base decisions off the sustained winds.
For those with loose or no thresholds (general public), the gusts do not matter much. Put another way, if one is boarding up windows for hurricane force winds, they are not “double-boarding” to account for gusts.
A starting point for gusts is to assume they are 1.2x or 1.3x the sustained winds. So 100 mph winds could be expected to produce 120-130 mph gusts.
However, the gust ratio can vary quite a bit. Each weather phenomenon (hurricanes, extratropical cyclones, Mesoscale Convective Systems) will have differing gust profiles. Even within hurricanes, gustiness in outer rainbands could be higher than within the eyewall. Surface friction (topography, forests, urban buildings) can also affect gustiness, as can elevation above the ground (e.g., in a tall building or tower).
To sum up, sustained winds are generally emphasized over gusts. For some applications (Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts and Fire Weather), gusts approach a near equal mention.
Very interesting information. Thank you for sharing it.
DeleteNuclear power today has vastly improved safety and reliability. We should be moving rapidly towards increasing that source of power. Wind power, while not constant is relatively cheap to produce and so attractive to power companies. The same with solar. I say build them all.
ReplyDelete100%
DeleteKind of odd yesterday looking onto Sinclair Islet - normally on a hot day the wind is coming out of the north by noon, but yesterday even early in the afternoon it was strongly out of the south.
ReplyDeleteLike your picture of Camp Muir.
ReplyDeleteBut can't we build more solar in Eastern Washington?
And I say why does anyone need AC in Western Washington? Just go swimming (like I did yesterday) or stay in and sip lemonade. It always gets cool at night so put a fan in your bedroom window.
Why does no one think geothermal power would work here? With the drilling tech developed for fraking (sp) the cost of drilling is down and tech to go deep and there now. Plus we have a few volcanoes for a pretty good heat source.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea of fracking anywhere near our region's volcanoes. While I agree that geothermal power should be looked at for our region, fracking has played a part in increasing the amount of earthquake activity in places where it is widely utilized, such as Oklahoma and Texas. I don't believe that we should be causing more earthquakes in our already earthquake prone region, and especially not near our volcanoes. The big one will be bad enough when it comes. No need to add an volcanic eruption to mix. Is there other drilling technology out there that is less likely to increase earthquake activity?
DeleteI agree on nuclear fission. A necessary tool in our energy toolkit.
ReplyDeleteBut I worked long enough on fusion (1974-1984), and then observed it long enough in the next forty years, to gain a lot of skepticism.
The Tokamak approach reaches scientific breakeven but is hopelessly complex and capital-intensive from an engineering point of view. The non-Tokamak magnetic fusion approaches are far, far from even scientific breakeven, and have no reasonable chance of engineering feasibility.
Back when I worked in fusion energy, the joke was: "When will fusion be ready? Fifty years from whenever you ask the question."
Notwithstanding that, fusion in the last few years has taught me something I had never known. Namely, a lot of venture capitalists are really easily conned.
IMHO, commercial fusion is the biggest energy scam after wind and solar now being perpetrated on the public. At some point between 150 and 200 years from now -- by my guestimate -- peak oil will have long since passed and the majority of the world's supply of energy will come from a variety of fission reactors running a mix of nuclear fuels which includes uranium, thorium, and plutonium extracted from reprocessed spent nuclear fuel.
DeleteLiquid carbon fuels, gasoline and diesel, will be synthesized from CO2 dissolved in seawater using process heat from high temperature supercritical nuclear reactors. And, in the year 2300, energy from commercial fusion will still be fifty years away.
Look at Helion - they are not trying to use fusion for thermal turbine power generation. They are using the EM pulses that happen at the beginning of a fusion event (100x per second). It's rather ingenius and gets around the problem of having to sustain and control a fusion event. They have working prototypes and are now building their commercial reactor. They have a contract (with MSFT) to deliver commercial fusion-generated power in 2028. It's here and around the corner......
DeleteOverall, the first 2/3 of spring (03/21-05/31) have had just about exactly normal precipitation an temperatures in Bellingham; near-term CPC outlooks indicate that the final 1/3 (through 06/21) may be a bit on the warm and dry side.
ReplyDelete