Posted on 09/10/2018 7:40:03 AM PDT by ETL
Energy generation by wind and solar farms could reduce carbon emissions and thus mitigate anthropogenic climate change.
A new climate-modeling study, published in the journal Science, finds that large-scale installations of wind and solar farms in the Sahara Desert and the neighboring Sahel region areas particularly desirable for such farms because of their vastness and lack of inhabitants would increase local temperature, precipitation and vegetation. ..."
Our study is among the first to model the climate effects of wind and solar installations while taking into account how vegetation responds to changes in heat and precipitation, Dr. Li said.
Previous modeling studies have shown that large-scale wind and solar farms can produce significant climate change at continental scales. But the lack of vegetation feedbacks could make the modeled climate impacts very different from their actual behavior.
The wind and solar farms simulated in the study would cover more than 9 million km2 and generate, on average, about 3 terawatts and 79 terawatts of electrical power, respectively.
In 2017, the global energy demand was only 18 terawatts, so this is obviously much more energy than is currently needed worldwide, Dr. Li said.
The model revealed that wind farms caused regional warming of near-surface air temperature, with greater changes in minimum temperatures than maximum temperatures.
The greater nighttime warming takes place because wind turbines can enhance the vertical mixing and bring down warmer air from above, the researchers said.
Precipitation also increased as much as 0.25 mm per day on average in regions with wind farm installation.
This was a doubling of precipitation over that seen in the control experiments. In the Sahel, average rainfall increased 1.12 mm per day where wind farms were present, Dr. Li said.
This increase in precipitation, in turn, leads to an increase in vegetation cover, creating a positive feedback loop.
(Excerpt) Read more at sci-news.com ...
The air, downstream of the turbine will be cooler than upstream of the turbine because energy was created and, dependent on wetbulb temperature, could create rain downstream of the turbine.
Metals are denser in energy per KG than even hydrocarbons on a BTU per KG basis. With massive amounts of spare power the best way to move it would be to refine metal oxides electrochemically into base metals(this is done worldwide by the millions of KG commercially every day) then transport the metal by the thousands of tons via ship to where you need the power and then feed that metal into metal-air fuel cells. Once the fuel cells convert it back to metal oxides return that to the desert and electrorefine it again in an endless loop.
We already bulk transport oil via tankers half way around the world and send the empty tankers back. A similar sized ship carrying aluminum metal would have almost three times the energy stored as chemical energy than hydrocarbons as aluminum is 3 times denser than oil with comparable BTU per gram of free gibbs energy. Check out the link below that alum-air battery would give an EV a 1000 mile range with only 55KG of AL metal. Gasoline is 0.77kg/L so converting to gallons and Lbs 20 gallons of gas weights 54.22 Kg. the fuel cell never gets replaced only the metal plates of about a KG each would be replaced, slide in slide out. Metal air batteries are the future they have energy density that rival gasoline and electric motors are 90% efficient vs at most 50% for a ICE. It is not a matter of if but when EVs replace ICE vehicles.
I work in the oil industry as a petroleum geologist and even I know this is coming in my life time for sure. Oil is arguably too valuable to burn we need it for all the other things like plastics, medicines, fertilizers, fibers, lubricants ect. Oil is the Lego blocks, and the glue that holds modern society together.
https://phys.org/news/2013-03-phinergy-aluminum-air-battery-capable-fueling.html
Yes, that’s what I was thinking of. Thanks.
I think we should shoot for the optimum, 1500 ppm.
Four-fold increase.
Nothing but the best for Mother Earth.
_________________________________________________________
I don’t know if your comment was meant to be tongue in cheek or not but there is nothing wrong with 1500PPM although most scientists think 1000PPM is where you start getting diminishing returns.
The. Point being the desert is not friendly to technology.
Locals will recycle them as quick as they are built, throwing money away
IIRC through Roman and Visigoth times the north African coastal areas produced a lot of agriculture, including olive trees. Until overrun by nomadic, grazing rather than planting, culture c 700. Soon it was only fit for goats and camels.
How in the world can solar farms cause a temperature increase ? Are they bleeding off a lot of infrared ? The panels themselves remove solar energy from the atmosphere. Ie - Cool.
If you see any of the older semi trailers in ME countries....the cabs are stripped bare of paint by wind blown sand erosion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.