Energy is neither created or destroyed. We take trillions of Watts out of the air currents every day to generate electricity.
What is the environmental impact of reducing the amount of energy in the air streams?
Since this energy moves water around the planet, does removing this energy for electrical generation also remove the ability for the air to move this water?
If the air no longer has the ability to move the air with higher water concentrations to areas with lower water concentrations, this would cause floods and droughts where they wouldn’t normally occur.
Are we creating a new problem with wind power? Are we creating ‘Global Calming’?
8 Responses
The reduction in air speed is really vanishingly small compared to the drag caused by trees and buildings. It is not a reason to stop building wind turbines. Quite often hedges and trees are planted to provide wind breaks to shelter fields of crops and houses. Luckily the atmosphere goes up for miles so a little energy removed from the wind near the Earth’s surface isn’t going to make a difference.
And all the energy that gets taken out is replaced by the sun so it isn’t like it is going to run out and cause stagnation.
We can never know. The “buttterfly effect” from the blades may produce disastrous storms in other parts of the world. Man is the real problem. Without us, the world would never change and all animals would live in harmony and love.
OMG, Global Calming!!
We are destroying the planet!!
WE MUST PREVENT GLOBAL CALMING !!!!!!
But seriously, I don’t think we have that much influence.
Quick answer is no, we are only harvesting the energy in the boundary layer winds and only a very small fraction of a percent at that. Movement in the upper layers are uninhibited.
The amount of CO2 released annually as a result of human activity is on the order of gigatons. Accounting for sources of natural inputs and sinks (INSOLATION, and natural cycles), human beings are contributing to the greatest proportion of global warming (see IPCC reports if you want good scientific information). There is more work to do the evidence is overwhelming that AGW poses a significant threat.
The debate is over in most of the world and even in the US policy circles. Move on to what are the least painful steps we can take to reduce our CO2 output and maybe slow the problem down over the next 100 years.
No.
Scientists have studied the effects of wind farms on local weather.
The climatic effects of reducing fossil fuel use are far more important, and positive.
No, because from reading these boards I have learned that the only thing that can affect the global climate is the sun, that man is insignificant, and that nothing we do can possibly have any global consequences.
Fortunately, the impending “Global Calming” crisis has been averted by other environmentally conscious activists who are diligently engaged in deforestation efforts. For every wind turbine that impedes the flow of wind, acres of rain forest have been clear cut to help improve the flow of wind, thereby avoiding a global calamity. The only part that remains to be implemented is a “wind credit” scheme whereby wind turbine operators would have to purchase “wind credits” from lumberjacks.
Not likely. You see, about half of the world sucks while the other half blows, so with all the sucking and blowing there’s always going to be some wind somewhere. These are called oralgraphic winds and are responsible for a lot of the regional wind features you see around the planet (e.g., the “trade winds” between Buffalo and NYC).
HTH