Posted on 04/29/2012 11:01:35 PM PDT by DallasBiff
LONDON, April 29 (Reuters) - Large wind farms might have a warming effect on the local climate, research in the United States showed on Sunday, casting a shadow over the long-term sustainability of wind power.
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels contribute to global warming, which could lead to the melting of glaciers, sea level rise, ocean acidification, crop failure and other devastating effects, scientists say.
In a move to cut such emissions, many nations are moving towards cleaner energy sources such as wind power.
The world's wind farms last year had the capacity to produce 238 gigawatt of electricity at any one time. That was a 21 percent rise on 2010 and capacity is expected to reach nearly 500 gigawatt by the end of 2016 as more, and bigger, farms spring up, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.
Researchers at the State University of New York at Albany analysed the satellite data of areas around large wind farms in Texas, where four of the world's largest farms are located, over the period 2003 to 2011.
The results, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, showed a warming trend of up to 0.72 degrees Celsius per decade in areas over the farms, compared with nearby regions without the farms.
"We attribute this warming primarily to wind farms," the study said. The temperature change could be due to the effects of the energy expelled by farms and the movement and turbulence generated by turbine rotors, it said.
"These changes, if spatially large enough, may have noticeable impacts on local to regional weather and climate," the authors said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
“does not create cooling. It creates heat”
If it were a fan blowing the air you would be correct, but it is the air blowing the fan. Energy is taken from the air and converted to electricity. The energy in the air is due to the motion of the air molecules. When there’s a net direction to the air molecules it appears as wind. When there’s no wind the molecules are in random motion and the aggregate speed of those molecules is felt as heat.
The turbine’s removal of energy from the air manifests itself as a lowering of the air’s velocity and also probably the lowering of temperature, but definitely not the increasing of temperature.
Just accept the fact that what the neo-luddites really want is to reduce the earth’s population by 80%, and for the remainder (which will be them of course), to live in some idyllic 17th century pre-industrial revolution age.
You are claiming work is being done and it generates surplus energy. Laws of Physics are just the opposite.
“You are claiming work is being done and it generates surplus energy. Laws of Physics are just the opposite.”
Work is being done on the air and on the turbine blades. What does “generates surplus energy” mean?
Anyway ...
Energy from the moving air is converted to electrical energy by the turbine. The air exiting the turbine has lower energy than the air entering the turbine. Do you disagree?
How does the air leaving the turbine differ from the air entering the turbine? Answer: its molecules are moving slower. That can manifest itself as lower velocity or lower temperature. Do you disagree?
Next time you are in wine country, check out the Wind Machines.
The purpose of these windmills is not to generate electricity. In fact, they are powered by electic motors, and their purpose is to disturb the airflow over the vinyard to keep the ground level warmer at night.
They have been using these things out in California for as long as I can remember, so at least thirty years. This is not exactly a newly discovered phenomenon.
"There is only so much wind on a given day... If we take that wind and convert it to electricity, what impact could it have on the environment? Even more global warming? Wouldn’t wind help cool the planet?"
And they called me crazy. :D
I would love to see the scientific explanation. I am trained as a Physicist and have done research in the optics and semiconductor fields. These gaia idiots have yet to offer ANY scientific proof of their lies BECAUSE THEY CAN’T. We should bring a class action suit claiming damages from increased prices on gas, food, and everything else. The punishment is DEATH by packing the bastards in ice and letting them freeze to death!
I would love to simply see the chemical equations. Coal and oil vs wind and solar. Seems to me there is a simple way to predict the amount of energy needed to produce usable energy. Of course, that would also need to include the storage and distribution of each. We have a lot of very bright people working on things and yet, we cannot get simple answers. If the idiots cannot produce it, we must.
I am a scientist with a PhD in Gaia ScienceA PhD in Greek mythology...got it.
No. Velocity is not an energy level.
Velocity gives potential energy, relative to other objects, similar to gravity if an object is raised above a surface.
Unless an object interacts with another object at a different velocity, there is no difference than being at rest.
The mass of air moving at 50 mph only has potential energy to striking objects at rest. The air molecules colliding with other air molecules traveling at the same speed are no different in potential energy than those at zero velocity.
Those same air molecules are spinning at velocity with the earth's rotation, as well as around the sun. Velocity only has meaning in relative terms to other objects. It does not raise or lower the temperature of the object.
“Velocity is not an energy level” - no, velocity is kenetic energy - the energy of motion.
“Velocity gives potential energy” - potential energy is the energy “no motion”. A lifted weight has potential energy that will be given up as it falls to a lower level.
A molecule of air hitting a moving turbine blade is like a ball hitting an object that is moving away from the ball. The ball after impact will have a slower speed than before, and the object will have hibher higher speed. Energy is transferred from the ball to the car.
With a gas, velocity, or let’s say speed which does not have an associated direction, is thermodynamically equivalent to temperature.
Potential energy does not relate to an object temperature.
Velocity will not increase an object temperature any more than lifting an object above the floor.
All velocity measurements are relative to other objects. Velocity has no absolute and stand alone measurement like temperature has. They are not related the way temperature, volume and pressure are related for gases.
Maybe this related example will help explain it better.
Take a child’s pinwheel. Hold it in a 20 mph breeze. Now live it 20 mph in still air. The reaction and effect on the air are the same, very minor heating by friction. The velocity was only relative to the ground as to which was moving and not part of the interaction equation.
For what you claim to work would require “still” air to drop in temperature aa you move the pinwheel through it.
Sorry, move it 20 mph, not live it.
I’m typing on a phone with autocorrect and I missed that in the preview.
“For what you claim to work would require “still” air to drop in temperature aa you move the pinwheel through it.”
Not true, because since you’re moving the pinwheel through the air (assuming it’s not freewheeling and therefore having no effect on the air), the pinwheel blades are speeding up the air molecules. By ‘speeding up’ I mean the molecules are moving faster coming out of the blades than going into the blades.
So the temperature of the air coming out of the blades is higher than the temperature going into the blades. This is the case when the blades are moved through the air, as opposed to the air moving against stationary blades.
When moving air is deflected by stationary blades, the air is slowed down.
That's because you didn't finance them with Rick Perry's ETF slush fund money.
You believe a 20 mph wind blowing against a stationary pinwheel would have a different effect than still air and a pinwheel held out the window of the car traveling 20 mph?
*snort*
“20 mph wind ... pinwheel”
Forget my last post which was wrong.
Either way - pinwheel moving, air stationary or air moving, pinwheel stationary, the air is cooled because energy is taken from the air and converted to electricity (assuming the pinwheel is driving a generator).
I am sorry, but you have a different understanding of Physics than was taught when I go my engineering degree.
Have a nice day.
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.