Question. Is extracting wind power causing some climate change problems?

[The Barbarian]

Another one who doesnt get energy balance.
do none of you understand basic physics here?

if you take energy out, the kinetic energy sum has decreased in a closed system.

You're right. But the Earth's atmosphere is an open system, not a closed system.

My message is there could be a problem created by windmills, and nobody knows enough to deny it.

It shouldn't be too hard to do a back-of-the envelope estimate of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere, and then consider the total energy tapped off by wind generators. Would you be interested in working on that?

 

[sjastro]

Here is some further evidence which shows windmill effects are not permanent.

​

A few observations.
(1) Note how scientists and engineers express distance as multiples of rotor diameters.
Typically modern day windmills have rotor diameters of 100 m, and the decrease in the velocity deficit is apparent even at very short distances.

(2) Note how the velocity deficit increases in the near wake region, where the wind passing through the turbine blades results in a reduction of kinetic energy due to conversion into mechanical energy.
The wind slows down creating a lower velocity region in the near wake immediately behind the turbine which creates a low-pressure zone in the near wake and draws air from surrounding areas into the wake, contributing to the reduction in wind speed.

 

[sjastro]

You're right. But the Earth's atmosphere is an open system, not a closed system.


It shouldn't be too hard to do a back-of-the envelope estimate of the kinetic energy of the atmosphere, and then consider the total energy tapped off by wind generators. Would you be interested in working on that?

He is incapable of providing an answer because he is not prepared to admit he does not understand the physics, every time I ask him to show how windmill effects are permanent using fluid mechanics leads to the same old deflection tactics of personal attacks.

The kinetic energy of the atmosphere is anything but a simple back of the envelope calculation unless you make gross assumptions of uniform temperatures and density which is clearly not the case as both are altitude dependent.
The only applicable case is when the wind blows and the velocity deficit has an upper limit known as the Betz limit discussed earlier in this thread.

I have expanded my response to you in post#116 which shows the role of the Reynolds number causing dissipation of the velocity deficit through turbulence mixing backed up with more physical evidence in post#122.
The facts are the reduction and eventual disappearance of the velocity deficit does not violate the conservation of energy.

 

[The Barbarian]

The kinetic energy of the atmosphere is anything but a simple back of the envelope calculation unless you make gross assumptions of uniform temperatures and density which is clearly not the case as both are altitude dependent.

I had assumed that that troposphere was essentially isolated. I supposed that average wind velocities for given areas was known, and that mean temperatures were available. Grossly oversimplified, but my suspicion is that the affect of wind generators even then would not be significant.

But I'm not a physicist, so I'll let you two figure that out.

 

[sjastro]

meanwhile in the real world beyond sastros grade 8 math, if you change convected moisture by slowing the wind all bets are off on cloud formation, and if cloud formation changes , then sun energy incident changes , and so climate will change . The question is how not whether.

My message is there could be a problem created by windmills, and nobody knows enough to deny it.
least of all sastro with tramlined thinking, trying to use big words to impress, or insult, but forgetting the basics, along the way.

Absolutely hilarious here is the grade 8 maths exam I sat a many years ago.

​

As aPROFESSIONAL physicist used to modelling such things, and finding the holes in other peoples assumptions , I think there could be a problem. It is all I have said,

There are too many political agendas and commercial interest to seek the truth. So studies will downplay the problems for now. Until it is so obvious even Sjastro can see it, and so it becomes a fashionable bandwagon.

Capitalizing a misspelt word does not make you a professional scientist, you sir are a phoney an opinion which is shared by a few others in this forum.

 

[sjastro]

I had assumed that that troposphere was essentially isolated. I supposed that average wind velocities for given areas was known, and that mean temperatures were available. Grossly oversimplified, but my suspicion is that the affect of wind generators even then would not be significant.

But I'm not a physicist, so I'll let you two figure that out.

The troposphere isn't isolated, frost can form on the ground even though the air temperature at the surface is above freezing.
This is due radiative cooling, the surface is cooling faster than the surrounding air because it is radiating heat directly into space which has a temperature of near absolute zero.

As an astrophotographer I have had to end sessions when frost formed on the mirrors of my telescope even though the surrounding air temperature was around 1⁰ C.

 

[The Barbarian]

The troposphere isn't isolated, frost can form on the ground even though the air temperature at the surface is above freezing.
This is due radiative cooling, the surface is cooling faster than the surrounding air because it is radiating heat directly into space which has a temperature of near absolute zero.

Yes. I hadn't considered that.

 

[carloagal]

Another one who doesnt get energy balance.
do none of you understand basic physics here?

if you take energy out, the kinetic energy sum has decreased in a closed system.

it doesn’t cone back to original speed unless you put more energy in so something changed permanently.
you describe a perpetual motion machine. Try patent it, see what happens:

it seems sastros inappropriate use of big words has confused our other non scientists here.

meanwhile in the real world beyond sastros grade 8 math, if you change convected moisture by slowing the wind all bets are off on cloud formation, and if cloud formation changes , then sun energy incident changes , and so climate will change . The question is how not whether.

My message is there could be a problem created by windmills, and nobody knows enough to deny it.
least of all sastro with tramlined thinking, trying to use big words to impress, or insult, but forgetting the basics, along the way.

As aPROFESSIONAL physicist used to modelling such things, and finding the holes in other peoples assumptions , I think there could be a problem. It is all I have said,

There are too many political agendas and commercial interest to seek the truth. So studies will downplay the problems for now. Until it is so obvious even Sjastro can see it, and so it becomes a fashionable bandwagon.

For the examples, the Eucharistic Miracles, I know that they were scientifically studied but there are a lot skeptics like Lee Cronin, Massimo Polidoro, Alberto Angela, Dave Farina, Richard Dawkins ecc That are evolutionist and didn't accept miracles. Let's start with Eucharistic miracles of Lanciano that I believe is true but some atheist and agnostic like this scientists could always think that someone could have fabricated it during the middle age, the Eucharistic Miracles of Legnica is very remarkable case but I think that for the finally confirmation the relique need to be confirmed by others scientists for peer review like in Sokolka and for Tixtla some skeptics could always think that someone have put the heart tissue and the bloods in the host and for Buenos Aires they think that someone kill a person and take the heart in agony in the host.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My message is there could be a problem created by windmills, and nobody knows enough to deny it.

You haven't even presented a single shred of evidence to show that windmills create a problem anyway, just baseless claims and when you're called out on them, you act rude and argumentative.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For the examples, the Eucharistic Miracles, I know that they were scientifically studied but there are a lot skeptics like Lee Cronin, Massimo Polidoro, Alberto Angela, Dave Farina, Richard Dawkins ecc That are evolutionist and didn't accept miracles. Let's start with Eucharistic miracles of Lanciano that I believe is true but some atheist and agnostic like this scientists could always think that someone could have fabricated it during the middle age, the Eucharistic Miracles of Legnica is very remarkable case but I think that for the finally confirmation the relique need to be confirmed by others scientists for peer review like in Sokolka and for Tixtla some skeptics could always think that someone have put the heart tissue and the bloods in the host and for Buenos Aires they think that someone kill a person and take the heart in agony in the host.

What does the Eucharist have to do with windmills and climate change??!?!

 

[Hans Blaster]

What does the Eucharist have to do with windmills and climate change??!?!

Nothing. that poster just appears whenever math modeler Mike makes an appearance. He's only got one mode.

 

[The Barbarian]

What does the Eucharist have to do with windmills and climate change??!?!

These kinds of interjections are part of the charm of Christian Forums.

 

[Mountainmike]

You haven't even presented a single shred of evidence to show that windmills create a problem anyway, just baseless claims and when you're called out on them, you act rude and argumentative.

I have in every post,
It’s Sad you don’t understand even the basic physics

1/ windmills slow wind ( sadly neither you nor sastro even understand energy balanc so neither of you is qualified to comment)
2/ that must have impact on water uptake.
3/ that can impact on cloud
4/ cloud can distort rain cycle and mass energy reflectikn back into space,

So there is a potential problem.
Rude and argumentative? look in a mirror,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have in every post,
It’s Sad you don’t understand even the basic physics

1/ windmills slow wind ( sadly neither you nor sastro even understand energy balanc so neither of you is qualified to comment)
2/ that must have impact on water uptake.
3/ that can impact on cloud
4/ cloud can distort rain cycle and mass energy reflectikn back into space,

So there is a potential problem.
Rude and argumentative? look in a mirror,

You've said those things, yes, but a claim is incredible and vastly different to a fact backed up by evidence. You say that windmills are causing climate change problems. In six pages (we'll ignore this one since it is a brand new page), you've shown not a lick of evidence to support that claim.

While in seven pages, it has been shown repeatedly, with evidence in multiple forms, that windmills do not affect climate the way that you say they do.

A potential problem? Only in your own mind, Don Quixote.

And if you want evidence of you being rude and argumentative, I would provide more than willingly, but to do so would be against forum rules. But it's there for all to see.

 

[sjastro]

Here is some more evidence that contradicts this pseudoscience nonsense.
Earlier in the thread when it was about windmills contributing to warming before it morphed into wind deficit being permanent:

I decided to include urban islands as a comparison as the impact on local climate is greater but note how during the daytime windmills contribute to a cooling effect as reported earlier in the thread but conveniently ignored.

The next piece of evidence when the thread did turn and became the wind deficit is a permanent effect, why on earth would wind farms be orientated as follows?

​

An engineering issue for windfarms is the downstream wind tube does not become an upstream effect for the downwind turbines otherwise the efficiency of converting wind energy to mechanical energy is reduced.
So why is the downwind spacing 8-12 rotor diameters; the answer is because the wind deficit drops to sufficiently low levels it doesn't interfere with the operation of the downwind turbines.

This also came up earlier in the thread but again conveniently ignored by the PROFESSIONAL (capitalization for greater dramatic effect) scientist.
There is nothing professional about a scientist who not only ignores the evidence but also the science as to why velocity deficit can never be permanent.
Then there is the unprofessional nature or more precisely the childish nature of resorting to insults as a form of compensation.........

 

[sjastro]

Here is some more evidence that contradicts this pseudoscience nonsense.
Earlier in the thread when it was about windmills contributing to warming before it morphed into wind deficit being permanent:

View attachment 353267​

I decided to include urban islands as a comparison as the impact on local climate is greater but note how during the daytime windmills contribute to a cooling effect as reported earlier in the thread but conveniently ignored.

A further comment on urban heat islands.
Our resident PROFESSIONAL (capitalized for dramatic effect) scientist with the self professed genius level IQ claiming his role in life is to find flaws in mainstream science such as not considering the effects and consequences of moisture uptake and cloud formation for windmills seems to be totally oblivious he is largely describing the effects of urban heat islands.

​

The term urban heat island should be self evident that heating effects are local and not global but there is an indirect global effect where urban islands are concentrations of population with increased energy demands on fossil fuels and greater greenhouse gas emissions due to industry and transportation.
None of this of course is relevant to windmills where the local temperature impact is far less and as our resident PROFESSIONAL scientist has shown is incapable of explaining how windmills cause a global effect within the scope of fluid mechanics and runs away from the contradictory evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

You've said those things, yes, but a claim is incredible and vastly different to a fact backed up by evidence. You say that windmills are causing climate change problems. In six pages (we'll ignore this one since it is a brand new page), you've shown not a lick of evidence to support that claim.

While in seven pages, it has been shown repeatedly, with evidence in multiple forms, that windmills do not affect climate the way that you say they do.

A potential problem? Only in your own mind, Don Quixote.

And if you want evidence of you being rude and argumentative, I would provide more than willingly, but to do so would be against forum rules. But it's there for all to see.

It is called Physics.
Basic laws called energy balance.

So much as you seem to prefer it were not so, windmills are bound by those rules too

Weather, and so climate are a nightmare to predict because of chaotic bhaviour amongst other things (technical, not colloquial meaning if you understand the difference)
I know - I spent a while as part of a bigger problem predicting microwave propagation patterns, thermoclines and the like to exploit for military reasons.

I say there may be a problem because of experience, and it seemed an interesting subject.
If you went back a hundred years there are those who would have said there is no lasting damage from acid entering atmosphere. Hoping it might in your parlance "diffuse away". However the micro effect can and did clearly add up to the macro effects later discovered with all the limestone buildings and sculptures degenerating, and it was too late for many of them by the time the message got through

Clever people project what might happen and what effects can be exploited and where they might lead. It was what I was paid to do.

Those on this forum wait till it hits them on the head seemingly before admit there is a problem! Just because an asteroid has yet to hit them, and there is no evidence of the damage it would do if it did, does not mean it will not kill them when and if it does happen!

I will say it one more time. Slowing the wind alters moisture take up (for example) as any physics student knows (wet bulb temperature and all that) , and that difference could be profound if not catastrophic. To quote the bible: Those that have ears to hear, hear.

But sadly the usual suspects are remarkably willing to argue on subjects even on which you know nothing about. Why?
It is a waste of time talking science here, most of you dont understand any of it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is called Physics.
Basic laws called energy balance.

So much as you seem to prefer it were not so, windmills are bound by those rules too

Weather, and so climate are a nightmare to predict because of chaotic bhaviour amongst other things (technical, not colloquial meaning if you understand the difference)
I know - I spent a while as part of a bigger problem predicting microwave propagation patterns, thermoclines and the like to exploit for military reasons.

I say there may be a problem because of experience, and it seemed an interesting subject.
If you went back a hundred years there are those who would have said there is no lasting damage from acid entering atmosphere. Hoping it might in your parlance "diffuse away". However the micro effect can and did clearly add up to the macro effects later discovered with all the limestone buildings and sculptures degenerating, and it was too late for many of them by the time the message got through

Clever people project what might happen and what effects can be exploited and where they might lead. It was what I was paid to do.

Those on this forum wait till it hits them on the head seemingly before admit there is a problem! Just because an asteroid has yet to hit them, and there is no evidence of the damage it would do if it did, does not mean it will not kill them when and if it does happen!

I will say it one more time. Slowing the wind alters moisture take up (for example) as any physics student knows (wet bulb temperature and all that) , and that difference could be profound if not catastrophic. To quote the bible: Those that have ears to hear, hear.

But sadly the usual suspects are remarkably willing to argue on subjects even on which you know nothing about. Why?
It is a waste of time talking science here, most of you dont understand any of it.

And yet you've done nothing to show that you yourself know a single jot of what you're talking about, nor can you even back up any claim you make. Just stating basic science principles does not count as evidence for anything you've said.

Sjastro has been putting the effort in to describing the science behind windmills and also being showing the effects of windmills on climate and so many of us are going to accept what he says rather than a man who's go to tactic is basically the same as going around and going "I'm much smarter than you, accept what I say! I'm much smarter than you, accept what I say!" Acting like you know something is not the same at all as actually showing that you know something.

Yes, windmills slow wind. BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY AND IN A MINUTE LOCALE. There has been no evidence at all that wind speeds across the world have slowed down because of windfarms around the world, which is what people have been trying to tell you repeatedly but you've just ignored them, so I can throw that Bible verse right back at you, along with a hearty 'medice, cura te ipsum' from Luke 4:23 as well.

Saying that those of us who argue with what you say 'dont understand any of it' (and for someone who's apparently so knowledgeable, your lack of basic grammar is astounding) is nothing to prideful boasting of the worst kind on your part.

 

[Mountainmike]

And yet you've done nothing to show that you yourself know a single jot of what you're talking about, nor can you even back up any claim you make. Just stating basic science principles does not count as evidence for anything you've said.

Sjastro has been putting the effort in to describing the science behind windmills and also being showing the effects of windmills on climate and so many of us are going to accept what he says rather than a man who's go to tactic is basically the same as going around and going "I'm much smarter than you, accept what I say! I'm much smarter than you, accept what I say!" Acting like you know something is not the same at all as actually showing that you know something.

Yes, windmills slow wind. BUT ONLY TEMPORARILY AND IN A MINUTE LOCALE. There has been no evidence at all that wind speeds across the world have slowed down because of windfarms around the world, which is what people have been trying to tell you repeatedly but you've just ignored them, so I can throw that Bible verse right back at you, along with a hearty 'medice, cura te ipsum' from Luke 4:23 as well.

Saying that those of us who argue with what you say 'dont understand any of it' (and for someone who's apparently so knowledgeable, your lack of basic grammar is astounding) is nothing to prideful boasting of the worst kind on your part.

Go back to school

you remove energy from the system and it does not reinvent itself

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Go back to school

you remove energy from the system and it does not reinvent itself

In a closed system, yes. But Earth is not a closed system. The wind constantly generates as long as there is sun to heat the land and the water and pressure in the air, there will always be wind.