- Nov 2, 2016
- 4,818
- 1,642
- 67
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
It really is impossible to have a scientific discussion on here.Or pump water.
relevance to topic is?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It really is impossible to have a scientific discussion on here.Or pump water.
Which post does not address the question. At all.I see the argument that wind turbines can contribute to climate change as a direct feedback still has legs.
In my previous post the equations for the kinetic energy of the wind Ew and the energy of the wind turbine Ewt were derived.
To nip this argument once and for all the 1st law of thermodynamics needs to be brought into the picture.
The 1st law requires ΔE(universe) = 0 which is the conservation of energy law and ΔE(system) = q + w where q and w are the heat and work exchanged with the thermal and mechanical reservoirs respectively.
ΔE(system) is a constant and an increase in q results in a decrease in w and vice versa.
We can consider the Earth as being the system of the universe and the wind turbine as being the system.
In this case ΔE(system) = Ewt – Ew.
The engineering design for wind turbines is to maximize w so all the wind energy within the Betz limit is converted to mechanical energy which can only occur if q = 0.
Hence ΔE(system) = Ewt – Ew is the energy supplied by the wind as work, no heat is exchanged and therefore no direct impact on the climate.
I would have expected a more intelligent response from an individual who boasts about their high IQ and being intellectually superior to everyone else.Which post does not address the question. At all.
your energy balance is hopelessly incomplete.
And even if it wasn’t , it still doesn’t address the question.
Abstract: We simulate the climatic impacts of large-scale wind power over the US using a high resolution mesoscale model. The diurnal and seasonal cycle of the climate response to wind power is roughly consistent with recent observations of the climate impacts of wind farms. A scenario that generates 0.46 TWe of wind energy over the windiest 1/3 of the US warms the Continental US by an average 0.24ºC. This impact is negligible compared to estimated 21st century warming, yet it would take more than a century before wind’s warming impacts are offset by the climate benefits of reduced emissions. The ratio of climate-impact to climate benefit is much smaller for solar PV. Wind’s overall environmental impacts are surely less than fossil energy, yet quantifying wind’s climate impacts are relevant to informing choices between low carbon energy sources during the transition to a decarbonized energy system.
Here’s what their model does show: wind turbines do not add more heat to the atmosphere, but they may redistribute heat by mixing air. Certain models show that could temporarily and locally raise ground temperatures. Again, however, there is no contribution to rising global temperatures and their associated problems.
Spare me the simplistic nonsense.I would have expected a more intelligent response from an individual who boasts about their high IQ and being intellectually superior to everyone else.
Your question was; "Is extracting wind power causing some climate change problems?"
To which you added this comment. "my point is whether wind extraction is causing greater land temperatures? Ie disturbing climate balance?
literalky [sic] a green house effect. A green house is in essence a window free enclosure .(????)"
For a wind turbine to behave like a greenhouse effect it would have to radiate heat towards the ground which is reheated, where as in the case of greenhouse warming CO₂ molecules return to their ground state by re-emitting some of the IR radiation absorbed back towards the ground.
The answer to your question is either yes or no.
I have used science to show the answer is emphatically no.
Let me reiterate; wind turbines by design result in the wind performing maximum work on the system where the energy extracted from the wind is exclusively converted into mechanical energy without any heat being exchanged with the environment in the process.
This is the 1st law of thermodynamics in operation.
If you want to dispute my answer, I suggest you practice what you preach and base your counterarguments using science instead of making vague comments.
It’s going to be a tall order to show wind turbines produce a greenhouse effect without violating the 1st law.
Wind turbines can cause “climate change” through the creation of atmospheric turbulence which is not a greenhouse effect and is nowhere near the same magnitude.
Furthermore the requirement is for “more wind” not “less wind” as you asserted in your opening post.
Name them.I am in good company - there are those at Harvard who agree..
Quote it.Also one US study concluded the net increase of temperatureby wind reduction exceeded the benefit of switching energy use to unreliables .
That's not how wind moves. It moves through the windmill around the windmill and over the windmill and behind it. There's no decrease in wind.From efficiency Wind farms take ( say) 40- 50 % of the available power.
A plausibility argument:
Wind is part of what is cooling land.
So with less wind , the land WILL be hotter.
That heat is part of the climate change problem.
so is wind power extraction - at best unreliable - causing greater temperature swings?
Ive looked for impact statements or science , I’ve not found much.
I’m not interested in your CV and if my post is simplistic nonsense then you would have had no problems in answering the question.Spare me the simplistic nonsense.
As you say i spent years analysing and modelling hard and complex physics including some meteorological effects which is why I think is a problem.
And who are these individuals at Harvard, they are clearly not Miller and Keith the authors of the Harvard paper as their model is based on high wind conditions.I am in good company - there are those at Harvard who agree.. Also one US study concluded the net increase of temperatureby wind reduction exceeded the benefit of switching energy use to unreliables . Sorry I mean renewables. But I see little consensus or even study of it.
This contradicts your opening post.We simulate the climatic impacts of large-scale wind power over the US using a high resolution mesoscale model. The diurnal and seasonal cycle of the climate response to wind power is roughly consistent with recent observations of the climate impacts of wind farms. A scenario that generates 0.46 TWe of wind energy over the windiest 1/3 of the US warms the Continental US by an average 0.24ºC.
From efficiency Wind farms take ( say) 40- 50 % of the available power.
A plausibility argument:
Wind is part of what is cooling land.
So with less wind , the land WILL be hotter.
That heat is part of the climate change problem.
This is further confirmation of your incompetence.But let’s take that energy balance : clouds particularly stratoform reflects the sun back into space, so anything that affects cloud formation increases energy falling on earth, and climate change. Wind pushing cloud up over coastal hills causing precipitaton must be affected by wind level reduction, and therefore altar the amount of energy falling, so your simplistic energy balance doesn’t cut it. To farmers anyhthing that pushes up temperatures or reduces rainfall can be serious. That micro climate change is also climate change, not just the limited stereotype greenhouse gas view of it.
This may have been your intention but this thread has turned out to be pseudoscience nonsense as wind turbines end up violating the 1st law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.What is certain and beyond doubt is reducing wind levels is affecting local climate- the question of how MUCH..
that's what the thread is about.
Explain why wind turbines do not radiate heat into the environment?Wind turbines do not radiate heat back into the environment directly. However, research has shown that wind farms can alter the nearby rainfall and temperature ². For example, a study by Vautard and colleagues shows that doubling the present wind capacity by 2020 would result in changes in rain and temperature at the level of a couple of percent changes in rain and a few tenths of a degree of temperature ². Another study found that the climate around a large wind farm in Texas was affected by the presence of the turbines, with a warming of 0.5°C at night in the region directly under the farm ².
Would you like to know more about this topic?
Source: Conversation with Bing, 21/04/2023
(1) Wind Power Found to Affect Local Climate - Scientific American. Wind Power Found to Affect Local Climate.
(2) Wind Farms Cause More Environmental Impact Than ... - SciTechDaily. Wind Farms Cause More Environmental Impact Than Previously Thought.
(3) Environmental Impacts of Wind Power - Union of Concerned Scientists. Environmental Impacts of Wind Power.
Wind turbines do not radiate heat into the environment because they convert the kinetic energy of wind into mechanical energy and then into electrical energy. This process does not produce heat as a byproduct. However, as I mentioned earlier, wind farms can alter the nearby rainfall and temperature through their impact on the local climate .
Is there anything else you would like to know?
Problem number 1, You are using energy balance as the basis of all that follows in your post.I’m not interested in your CV and if my post is simplistic nonsense then you would have had no problems in answering the question.
Avoiding the question is an answer in itself and since you do not have the competence here it is in the hope you might actually learn something.
Since the engineering design for wind turbines is to maximize the work w so the wind energy within the Betz limit is entirely converted to mechanical energy requires the condition the heat q = 0 in the equation ΔE(system) = q + w.
In other words wind turbines do not to exchange heat with the Earth’s thermal reservoir.
If wind turbines were able to radiate heat into the environment as per your greenhouse analogy and still maximize w, requires the creation of energy.
This violates the 1st law and the conservation of energy and is unavoidable in your greenhouse analogy.
And who are these individuals at Harvard, they are clearly not Miller and Keith the authors of the Harvard paper as their model is based on high wind conditions.
From their paper;
This contradicts your opening post.
This is further confirmation of your incompetence.
What you are describing is a totally different thermodynamic system to that of a wind turbine.
The wind’s kinetic energy loss from wind turbines does not involve clouds, hills or rainfall.
Here is an illustration that describes the thermodynamic system.
![]()
Notice anything in the picture?
There is no heat loss or gain with a thermal reservoir the as the wind’s energy loss is entirely converted into mechanical and electrical energy.
I suppose you think the illustrator is also exhibiting “simplistic nonsense”.
This may have been your intention but this thread has turned out to be pseudoscience nonsense as wind turbines end up violating the 1st law of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy.
Furthermore your disingenuous attempts to justify pseudoscience by riding on the coattails of the Harvard researchers has backfired as their model is based on “more wind” not “less wind”
You have failed to make the case and this thread should be banished to the other forum where other pseudoscience ideas such as the Earth being flat are discussed.
No "decrease" in wind is an illdefined statement. Wind pressure? Wind velocity? Wind temperature? Which.That's not how wind moves. It moves through the windmill around the windmill and over the windmill and behind it. There's no decrease in wind.
Adequate study would be needed to determine how many wind turbines it would take to disrupt earth's wind velocity.No "decrease" in wind is an illdefined statement. Wind pressure? Wind velocity? Wind temperature? Which.
If energy is removed the wind must slow. Therefore there is a pressure change to compensate velocity change just to maintain constant massflow. Allowing for adiabatic action, temperature will also change at least in the short term, short range. And if wind velocity changes across a humid surface, so will temperature change in consequence due to different evaporative cooling. It is all changing. As various studies show.
I am interested in the macro scale effects. Taking such a lot of energy must have knock on consequences in at least local climate change. If cloud and precipitation are effected, so that reflection of energy into space also changes , and it is hard to predict the consequences.
My worry is people are diving into this without adequate study of the unintended consequences.
A fundamental flaw in your argument is your suggestion, whether you are aware of it or not, wind turbines from an open thermodynamic system.Problem number 1, You are using energy balance as the basis of all that follows in your post.
But the total amount of energy in the system as whole is not a constant independent of wind, since the interaction of wind with cloud formation will increase or reduce the total energy reaching earth surface, rather than reflected into space. You do not need any other problems to discount your conclusion..
Adequate study would be needed to determine how many wind turbines it would take to disrupt earth's wind velocity.
I wouldn't say impossible since the world's largest manmade dam can slow the earth's rotation a fraction but still.
What is the difference between an open and closed thermodynamic system?I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any specific information on whether a wind turbine is considered a closed or open thermodynamic system. Would you like me to search for something else?
Source: Conversation with Bing, 22/04/2023
(1) First Law of Thermodynamics - an overview - ScienceDirect. First Law of Thermodynamics - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.
(2) Thermodynamic Analysis of Wind Energy Systems - ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331801268_Thermodynamic_Analysis_of_Wind_Energy_Systems.
(3) How Do Wind Turbines Work? | Department of Energy. How Do Wind Turbines Work?.
(4) Closed Cycle Gas Turbine: An Easy-To-Understand Explanation. Closed Cycle Gas Turbine: An Easy-To-Understand Explanation | Linquip.
(5) Difference between Open Cycle Gas Turbine and Closed ... - TutorialsPoint. Difference between Open Cycle Gas Turbine and Closed Cycle Gas Turbine.
(6) How a Wind Turbine Works - Text Version | Department of Energy. How a Wind Turbine Works - Text Version.
(7) Closed Return Wind Tunnel - NASA. Closed Return Wind Tunnel.
(8) Modeling and Control of a 600 kW Closed Hydraulic Wind Turbine with an .... Modeling and Control of a 600 kW Closed Hydraulic Wind Turbine with an Energy Storage System.
(9) Home Wind Turbines: Pros, Cons, and How Much They Cost - OVO Energy. Home Wind Turbines: Pros, Cons, and How Much They Cost | OVO Energy.
Apply this answer to a wind turbine. Is it an open or closed system?An open system is a type of thermodynamic system that can exchange both energy and matter with its surroundings¹. On the other hand, a closed system can exchange only energy with its surroundings, not matter¹. The boundary of an open system is not fixed and can change over time, while the boundary of a closed system is fixed¹.
Is there anything else you would like to know?
Source: Conversation with Bing, 22/04/2023
(1) Know About Open System in Thermodynamics - Vedantu. Know About Open System in Thermodynamics.
(2) The laws of thermodynamics (article) | Khan Academy. The laws of thermodynamics (article) | Khan Academy.
(3) Thermodynamic system - Wikipedia. Thermodynamic system - Wikipedia.
(4) Difference between open and closed systems | Definition, properties .... Difference between open and closed systems | Definition, properties, comparison.
(5) What is the difference between an “open” system & a “closed” system .... What is the difference between an “open” system & a “closed” system? | Socratic.
What is remarkable about this answer it gave no internet references.A wind turbine converts the kinetic energy of wind into mechanical energy and then into electrical energy. In this process, the wind turbine exchanges energy with its surroundings but does not exchange matter. Based on this information, a wind turbine can be considered a closed thermodynamic system.
Is there anything else you would like to know?
Earthquakes can do it too, when there's a shift in mass it effects earth's rotation.Maybe we should build so many wind turbines that the Earth rotates the other direction. <eye roll>
(I stole this idea from the Ph.D. Dissertation of Amy Wong (U. Mars, 3012) )
You continue with blinkered vision, so your model is not useful at all.A fundamental flaw in your argument is your suggestion, whether you are aware of it or not, wind turbines from an open thermodynamic system.
They do not as will become evident in my response.
First of all it is not about the total energy of the system but the change of energy ΔE of the system.
Secondly for closed thermodynamic systems ΔE(system) is a constant, for open systems it is not.
Do you understand the differences between closed and open thermodynamic systems?
Here is a simple diagrammatic explanation.
![]()
It has been explained to you in previous posts where energy is exchanged in the form of heat and work with their respective reservoirs, ΔE(system) is a constant due to the 1st law of thermodynamics.
It should be self evident the thermodynamic system of a wind turbine is closed as there is no mass transfer from or to the environment.
A parcel of air at a velocity V₁ containing N molecules, will have a velocity V₂ after passing through a wind turbine but the number of molecules remains unchanged.
So not only is heat not exchanged with the environment as wind energy is converted into mechanical energy, but wind turbines form a closed thermodynamic system where changes to the external environment such as clouds do not effect ΔE(system).
Your premise is therefore entirely wrong.
Incidentally why don't you respond to @Bradskii post #47.