• 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.

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

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
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.
When I get a respectful answer, I give a respectful answer:

We are talking about how that system is modified by extracting energy from it as reduced velocity, and because that can impact moisture take up it is also a question of how that impacts cloud formation. That change is permanent since the energy does not reinvent Something ends up colder (micro property) or wind velocity lower (macro property). Worsecan be the feedback:
Anything that can mess with cloud formation changes the impacted energy so like a heatpump can cause a change out of all proportion to stimulus.

Anyone who ever analyzed weather patterns knows small changes in initial condition can make massive changes in pattern development..
We had problems with it every time it was part of our work: radar propagation , on structure distortion in high winds and on modelling a vortex shedding flow meter.

Proof of that: If you look at the app "weather radar" you can often see a totally different prognosis for the "today" cast from the "Now cast" when referring to exactly the same time. And if they are not different just look at a different weather app, and there will be big differences in low pressure propagation of weather, so big difference in forecast

So it doesnt take much to have influence.
And that is my worry - we are rushing headlong into something ill understood.

Here is my worry: A paper written by industry funded directly by the offshore windmill industry , or by those with vested interest to say "all is well", in a sector where political factors dont want there to be a problem, is not going to conclude "problem" since it is unlikely to look very hard for problems!.

If they had asked inseteda "then what has been changed by windmills because something MUST have done, either micro or macro, they then might have found where the energy deficit manifests. A matter of asking the right questions.

Reality is as the propagation occurs over long distance the difference become immeasurable not least because noticing whehter anything has changed depends on comparing a base line, and the base line for this is a hard problem because no two times are really comparable.


You say "no evidence".

Very Early on in this conversation I pointed out that there are those who speculate that offshore windfarms can divert the path of and development of hurricanes in gulf of mexico. A paper was written somewhere. The industry cannot have it both ways. No impact vs mega impact.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,466.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
When I get a respectful answer, I give a respectful answer:

We are talking about how that system is modified by extracting energy from it as reduced velocity, and since it can impact moisture take up whether and how that impacts cloud formation. That change is permanent since the energy does not reinvent Something ends up colder (micro property) or wind velocity lower (macro property). Worse is the feedback:
Anything that can mess with cloud formation changes the impacted energy so like a heatpump can cause a change out of all proportion to stimulus.

Anyone who ever analyzed weather patterns knows small changes in initial condition can make massive changes in pattern development..
If you look at the app "weather radar" you can often see a totally different prognosis for the "today" cast from the "Now cast" when referring to exactly the same time. And if they are not different just look at a different weather app, and there will be big differences in low pressure propagation.

So it doesnt take much to have influence. And that is my worry - we are rushing headlong into something ill understood.

A paper written by industry funded directly by the offshore windmill industry in a sector where political factors want there to be no problem, is not going to conclude no problem since it is unlikely to look for the problems.

If they had asked "then what has been changed by windmills because something MUST have done, either micro or macro, they then might have found where the energy deficit manifests. A matter of asking the right questions.

Reality is as the propagation occurs over long distance the difference become immeasurable not least because noticing whehter anything has changed depends on comparing a base line, and the base line for this is a hard problem because no two times are really comparable.


You say "no evidence".

Very Early on in this conversation I pointed out that there are those who speculate that offshore windfarms can divert the path of and development of hurricanes in gulf of mexico. A paper was written somewhere. The industry cannot have it both ways. No impact vs mega impact.

Even when you're talked to respectfully, you respond rudely and arrogantly, so that's doubtful.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that once energy in the wind is lost, it's lost forever. That would be true if there wasn't a way for the wind to continue and reform. Wind does that, because Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system. There will always be wind, therefore it will not slow down on the whole, hence why it's near enough impossible to study if wind speeds across the world has slowed down at all.

And your whole "Oh, there's a paper somewhere which says what I say" schtick... we've seen you do this before. If anyone asks you for it, you'll refuse to provide because you think it's plagiarism to even give the title of the paper for some asinine reason, and you just throw a hissy fit if anyone asks again.

If you want to say that windmills have an actually serious impact on the world wide climate, don't speculate. Do the actual research and present your findings, instead of just making halfbaked claims on here and then get [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]y when someone does the thing you're too scared to do and then go off and call them liars or call us idiots or any other insult against our intelligence when we actually follow the evidence presented to us.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,632
16,330
55
USA
✟410,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Your entire argument is based on the idea that once energy in the wind is lost, it's lost forever. That would be true if there wasn't a way for the wind to continue and reform. Wind does that, because Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system. There will always be wind, therefore it will not slow down on the whole, hence why it's near enough impossible to study if wind speeds across the world has slowed down at all.
The "purpose" of wind (or perhaps, better, its "function") is to even out the differential and diurnal heating and cooling of the atmosphere. There is always new wind being generated and wind being dissipate, in roughly equal parts. The dissipation comes largely in the form of thermalization at the end of the turbulent cascade, but there is some transfer of wind energy to surfaces that push on them. The wind patterns do detectably slow and speed the rotation of the Earth by pushing on mountains, etc. (The effect is tiny and does not produce secular changes in the rotation rate, just a transfer bwetween the atmosphere and the planet of angular momentum.)
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,466.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
The "purpose" of wind (or perhaps, better, its "function") is to even out the differential and diurnal heating and cooling of the atmosphere. There is always new wind being generated and wind being dissipate, in roughly equal parts. The dissipation comes largely in the form of thermalization at the end of the turbulent cascade, but there is some transfer of wind energy to surfaces that push on them. The wind patterns do detectably slow and speed the rotation of the Earth by pushing on mountains, etc. (The effect is tiny and does not produce secular changes in the rotation rate, just a transfer bwetween the atmosphere and the planet of angular momentum.)

I would say that there's a significant difference between that and the claim that windmills are slowing wind down across the globe.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,632
16,330
55
USA
✟410,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I would say that there's a significant difference between that and the claim that windmills are slowing wind down across the globe.

Indeed. I did a little googling about 'wind speeds" and "climate change" and "turbines" (not mills, argh) and all that came up were some studies suggesting a slightly lower mean global windspeed caused by climate change might reduce the effectiveness (slightly) of electrical generation. No engineering studies about the impact of turbine wakes on the usefulness of other, downstream turbines.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,466.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Indeed. I did a little googling about 'wind speeds" and "climate change" and "turbines" (not mills, argh) and all that came up were some studies suggesting a slightly lower mean global windspeed caused by climate change might reduce the effectiveness (slightly) of electrical generation. No engineering studies about the impact of turbine wakes on the usefulness of other, downstream turbines.

So he is being like Don Quixote then.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
When I get a respectful answer, I give a respectful answer:

We are talking about how that system is modified by extracting energy from it as reduced velocity, and because that can impact moisture take up it is also a question of how that impacts cloud formation. That change is permanent since the energy does not reinvent Something ends up colder (micro property) or wind velocity lower (macro property). Worsecan be the feedback:
Anything that can mess with cloud formation changes the impacted energy so like a heatpump can cause a change out of all proportion to stimulus.

Anyone who ever analyzed weather patterns knows small changes in initial condition can make massive changes in pattern development..
We had problems with it every time it was part of our work: radar propagation , on structure distortion in high winds and on modelling a vortex shedding flow meter.

Proof of that: If you look at the app "weather radar" you can often see a totally different prognosis for the "today" cast from the "Now cast" when referring to exactly the same time. And if they are not different just look at a different weather app, and there will be big differences in low pressure propagation of weather, so big difference in forecast

So it doesnt take much to have influence.
And that is my worry - we are rushing headlong into something ill understood.

Here is my worry: A paper written by industry funded directly by the offshore windmill industry , or by those with vested interest to say "all is well", in a sector where political factors dont want there to be a problem, is not going to conclude "problem" since it is unlikely to look very hard for problems!.

If they had asked inseteda "then what has been changed by windmills because something MUST have done, either micro or macro, they then might have found where the energy deficit manifests. A matter of asking the right questions.

Reality is as the propagation occurs over long distance the difference become immeasurable not least because noticing whehter anything has changed depends on comparing a base line, and the base line for this is a hard problem because no two times are really comparable.


You say "no evidence".

Very Early on in this conversation I pointed out that there are those who speculate that offshore windfarms can divert the path of and development of hurricanes in gulf of mexico. A paper was written somewhere. The industry cannot have it both ways. No impact vs mega impact.
Oh the irony overload of claiming you provide respectful answers, this is the sort of comment Don Quixote’s sidekick Manuel Doltote would make.

Here is some very basic fluid mechanics in the hope to you might actually learn something.
First of all wind in the form of a stream tube is modelled as a cylinder.

Stream0.png

One of the most basic equations used in fluid mechanics is the continuity equation which is the conservation of mass and states the mass flow rate entering the cylinder equals the mass flow rate exiting the cylinder.

Mass flow rate = ρV/t

Where ρ is the density of the fluid, V is the volume and t is the time.
For low wind speeds, air can be considered to be an incompressible fluid hence ρ is constant.

Rewriting the mass flow rate = ρV/t = ρAxv/x = ρAv

Where v is the flow velocity, A is the cross-sectional area and x is the length of the cylinder.

The only thing you seem to comprehend in this thread is the velocity of the downstream wind tube is less than the velocity of the upstream wind tube.
The continuity equation still applies when the wind goes through the turbine.

The mass flow rate for the upstream wind tube = ρA₁v₁.
The mass flow rate for the downstream wind tube = ρA₂v₂.

Hence ρA₁v₁ = ρA₂v₂
A₂ = A₁v₁/v₂
Since v₂ < v₁, A₂ > A₁

Stream.png

The diameter of the upstream wind tube can be no larger than the diameter swept out by the rotor blades hence for a windmill which reduces the wind velocity by 50% the diameter of the downwind stream tube is doubled.

Stream2.png

What all of this means is that the scene of the action is at or near ground level for both temperature change and on the rare occasions the formation of wake clouds near the surface and is far divorced from your global effects.

Secondly is this nonsense of wind effects being permanent.
If you had even the vaguest comprehension of fluid mechanics you would be aware of the role of Reynolds number Re and how it totally destroys your argument.

Re = puL/μ

ρ is the density of the fluid, u is the flow speed, L is a characteristic length and μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid.

Stream1.png

As has been explained previously upstream wind has a low Reynolds number and as the diagram shows can be modelled as having a laminar flow where the velocity profile increases with increasing distance from the ground.

Wind going through the turbine has a very high Reynolds number dominated by turbulent flow which results in the following.

(1) The formation of vortices and eddies, regions of high TKE (turbulent kinetic energy), which breakdown to a larger number at smaller scales where TKE is conserved. The process continues until a scale is reached where the action of viscous forces results in converting the TKE of the smallest vortices and eddies into heat which explains the temperature variations at and near the surface.
(2) Turbulence mixing of the downwind stream tube with the external environment eventually eliminates the velocity deficit.

Thirdly and most importantly is the evidence presented in this thread which shows the velocity deficit declines with distance before disappearing.

1723839959978.png
Ignoring the evidence is not how a professional scientist would react, a crank clinging onto a pet theory is a more accurate description.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Even when you're talked to respectfully, you respond rudely and arrogantly, so that's doubtful.

Your entire argument is based on the idea that once energy in the wind is lost, it's lost forever. That would be true if there wasn't a way for the wind to continue and reform. Wind does that, because Earth is not a closed system. It is an open system. There will always be wind, therefore it will not slow down on the whole, hence why it's near enough impossible to study if wind speeds across the world has slowed down at all.

And your whole "Oh, there's a paper somewhere which says what I say" schtick... we've seen you do this before. If anyone asks you for it, you'll refuse to provide because you think it's plagiarism to even give the title of the paper for some asinine reason, and you just throw a hissy fit if anyone asks again.

If you want to say that windmills have an actually serious impact on the world wide climate, don't speculate. Do the actual research and present your findings, instead of just making halfbaked claims on here and then get [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]y when someone does the thing you're too scared to do and then go off and call them liars or call us idiots or any other insult against our intelligence when we actually follow the evidence presented to us.
Go back to school. Start with energy balance, you still don’t get it.
fact.
I prefer them to non scientist speculation as per this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Indeed. I did a little googling about 'wind speeds" and "climate change" and "turbines" (not mills, argh) and all that came up were some studies suggesting a slightly lower mean global windspeed caused by climate change might reduce the effectiveness (slightly) of electrical generation. No engineering studies about the impact of turbine wakes on the usefulness of other, downstream turbines.

And that’s the problem.
The result of ( such as) wind reduction caused by wind farms on moisture take up, so cloud formation isn’t dealt with.
The industry ( even politicians ) wants to say it’s all good. It’s called vested interest

Meanwhile there are those looking at / speculating on the bigger picture. As I am.


referring to such as


control of hurricanes is not second order!

I give up on the rest of the posters, they don’t even understand energy balance, no point in responding .

but im sure as a scientist you will accept the possibility Is worth considering even if ultimately discounted .

the difficulty with all of this is establishing a base line ( before picture as control )on which to compare experimental results - which is obvious to such as you and I , also mentioned in a variety of papers. So experimental results are far from definitive
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,466.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Go back to school. Start with energy balance, you still don’t get it.
fact.
I prefer them to non scientist speculation as per this thread.

If all you've got is (very poor) insults, that's a very tacit admission that I'm right and you can't come back with an actual response.
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,818
1,642
67
Northern uk
✟664,611.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If all you've got is (very poor) insults, that's a very tacit admission that I'm right and you can't come back with an actual response.
Read the post to hans. 149.

from now on I’m only talking to those who understand basic science.

you need to go back to school, you clearly don’t understand energy balance
capable scientists think windmills can even control hurricanes, yet you want to say they have no effect!
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,466.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Read the post to hans. 149.

from now on I’m only talking to those who understand basic science.

you need to go back to school, you clearly don’t understand energy balance
capable scientists think windmills can even control hurricanes, yet you want to say they have no effect!

Wow, a speculative opinion piece that is based only on models and not at all on actual real world evidence. How amazing.... not. But yeah, they seem capable. At least they can back up their findings a lot better than you can. Models are better than claims, after all.

Buddy, do not preach to me about not understanding, because with all of your blather about energy balance, which is a bloody biological concept not a physics concept, unless you're referring to the conservation of energy, which is a wholly and totally different thing, I'm still coming off as knowing more than you do.

Yes, wind turbines have an effect on the wind. On a LOCAL and MICRO scale. On a global scale, you'd need an absolutely sod-off MASSIVE wind-farm to approach anything near to causing global wind speeds to drop to seriously effect climate change.

Though you can't even accurately describe a greenhouse, so what do I know?
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,632
16,330
55
USA
✟410,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
So he is being like Don Quixote then.
Boy that article took a turn at the the end with Don Quixote attack on "futile academic theorizing, utterly divorced from reality". (CEI based economist, why should I be surprised.)
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Boy that article took a turn at the the end with Don Quixote attack on "futile academic theorizing, utterly divorced from reality". (CEI based economist, why should I be surprised.)
Do you believe a never ending velocity deficit is pseudoscience because I get the impression our self professed genius is trying to rope you in by driving a wedge between those who understand science like yourself and those that supposedly don't like @Warden_of_the_Storm and myself.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

control of hurricanes is not second order!

I give up on the rest of the posters, they don’t even understand energy balance, no point in responding .

but im sure as a scientist you will accept the possibility Is worth considering even if ultimately discounted .

the difficulty with all of this is establishing a base line ( before picture as control )on which to compare experimental results - which is obvious to such as you and I , also mentioned in a variety of papers. So experimental results are far from definitive
Trying to recruit @Hans Blaster with flattery?
I read your the link and it is truly laughable how a self professed genius can be totally oblivious the paper contradicts the very notion of wind effects being permanent.

Let's look at the table which blows your nonsense out of the water (pardon the pun).

Paper.png

The 28D² spacing area is based mostly on a rotor diameter of D = 127m and a 7D downwind X 4D crosswind turbine spacing.
The modellers have considered the velocity deficit would recover over short distances minimizing the deleterious effects on the downwind turbines otherwise the downstream turbines are irrelevant and a single line of turbines with a 4D spacing would be adequate.

The model itself borders on science fiction with the number of turbines considered, also the turbines have a cutout wind speed of 50 m/s making then useless for category 3, 4 and 5 hurricanes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,632
16,330
55
USA
✟410,713.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
And that’s the problem.
The result of ( such as) wind reduction caused by wind farms on moisture take up, so cloud formation isn’t dealt with.
Nothing you linked provide any reference to moisture take up (evaporation) or cloud formation.
The industry ( even politicians ) wants to say it’s all good. It’s called vested interest
I'm not interested in "conspiracy theories".
Meanwhile there are those looking at / speculating on the bigger picture. As I am.


referring to such as

I looked at the forbes article, the "Stanford" paper, and one other link inside the Forbes.

In those simulations, a hurricane model was done with and without a "wind farm". For the offshore wind farm the models were modified with a term to remove wind flow KE from the system and add turbulent KE. In at least one model a "roughening" was added to account for the wind turbines as obstacles. The parameters of the wind farms were included as a fairly simple sub-grid model based in part on simulations like the ones posted earlier of the detailed flow around a small wind farm.
control of hurricanes is not second order!
It wasn't really "controlling" a hurricane, but partially disrupting it, or diminishing an effect of it. Hurricanes are giant convective engines powered by the rising of warm moist air that condenses at altitude. Disrupting the organized flow can have an impact on that engine. The primary result was for the rain to precipitate out preferentially in the vicinity of the wind farm with less rain on shore. The model in the non-Nature paper (the non-Stanford one, I think) had more detail (shocked, no wait, not shocked that a Nature paper has insufficient detail of the methods), had a resolution on the surface of about 10 km x 10 km. Much smaller than a hurricane, but much larger than a wind turbine (or even its wake). Better resolved models are going to be needed to show the impact of wind farms on hurricane damage.
I give up on the rest of the posters, they don’t even understand energy balance, no point in responding .
I'll wait my turn then.
but im sure as a scientist you will accept the possibility Is worth considering even if ultimately discounted .
At some point I'm going to need some evidence, and for your main claims about wind farms impacting evaporation, or leaving a permanent "dent" in the wind field, or other environmental damage, you haven't provided any.
the difficulty with all of this is establishing a base line ( before picture as control )on which to compare experimental results - which is obvious to such as you and I , also mentioned in a variety of papers. So experimental results are far from definitive
I don't think you could make a baseline with hurricanes. Each is effectively a unique event. Comparative numerical simulation is likely to remain the best tool.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Read the post to hans. 149.

from now on I’m only talking to those who understand basic science.

you need to go back to school, you clearly don’t understand energy balance
capable scientists think windmills can even control hurricanes, yet you want to say they have no effect!
In my explanations of why windmill effects are not permanent, I should have included another subject entropy.

I'm sure even you have heard of it, thermodynamic systems tend to higher entropies.
A 'permanent' downstream wind tube free of dissipation through turbulence mixing is in a state of low entropy and since the system is open requires energy from the external environment to remain permanent.

So instead of blathering on continuously about 'energy balance' where does the energy specifically come from to maintain a low entropy state?

If you are true to form this will remain like all my other questions unanswered and provide further confirmation you are a phoney way out of your depth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And that’s the problem.
The result of ( such as) wind reduction caused by wind farms on moisture take up, so cloud formation isn’t dealt with.
The industry ( even politicians ) wants to say it’s all good. It’s called vested interest

Meanwhile there are those looking at / speculating on the bigger picture. As I am.


referring to such as


control of hurricanes is not second order!

I give up on the rest of the posters, they don’t even understand energy balance, no point in responding .

but im sure as a scientist you will accept the possibility Is worth considering even if ultimately discounted .

the difficulty with all of this is establishing a base line ( before picture as control )on which to compare experimental results - which is obvious to such as you and I , also mentioned in a variety of papers. So experimental results are far from definitive
Let's see what GPT-4o makes of this post.

CritiqueX.png
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
5,745
4,677
✟347,540.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In my explanations of why windmill effects are not permanent, I should have included another subject entropy.

I'm sure even you have heard of it, thermodynamic systems tend to higher entropies.
A 'permanent' downstream wind tube free of dissipation through turbulence mixing is in a state of low entropy and since the system is open requires energy from the external environment to remain permanent.

So instead of blathering on continuously about 'energy balance' where does the energy specifically come from to maintain a low entropy state?

If you are true to form this will remain like all my other questions unanswered and provide further confirmation you are a phoney way out of your depth.
To promote fairness GPT-4o commented on my post.

CritiqueXX.png


I apologize to the poster for calling him a phoney who blathers considerably.
 
Upvote 0