The wind as a finite resource

[ringstrue]

Um no I don't think that even a gazillion wind turbines would change our weather pattern.

But why, if we are ok with FORESTS creating a wind break, and we still say they are good for the earth, is it suddenly bad to have turbines do the same thing?

If anything, people would be happy as hell to have tornado formations interrupted due to turbines "getting in the way" of the wind.

[josieposy]

Umm....

[SusanBAnthony]

Worrying about stopping the wind is silly.

She should send her worry over to the migratory birds instead, since they actually are affected.

[wawa]

ummm...I mean...Wind turbines do technically remove energy from weather. that is in fact what's happening. I imagine it is possible in theory to build enough turbines that you would have a measurable impact on regional weather patterns but I don't think it's actually real world possible.

A turbine per acre over the entirety of the great plans might even be enough to really do something to the weather - becuase dude, that's A LOT of turbines but 99% sure that kind of spacing is not physically possible - typical horizontal turbines need kind of a lot of space so as not to have issues with turbulance from adjacent turbines and for optimal actual efficiency. (since a turbine isn't going to make it so that the weather in the gulf goes screwy, but it can block the wind of downstream turbines) I learned this once upon a time, but I don't remember the actual numbers. But a perfectly square acre is ~200 feet on each side. I'm pretty sure EACH blade on typical wind farm sized turbine can be that long. They're HUGE. And they need to be some multiple of their blade length away from each other - like 10 times.

So even if it were possible that the scenario outlined here would do what it's purported to do, the scenario itself is totally not possible.

[wawa]

and when I say "possible in theory" I mean in like, ideal land where there's also no such thing as friction and all spheres are perfectly round.

[aurora]

Feb 21, 2014 11:49:01 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

Worrying about stopping the wind is silly.

She should send her worry over to the migratory birds instead, since they actually are affected.

Less than 1 of every 10,000 human-caused bird deaths are attributable to wind turbines.  If we want to stop killing birds, we need to stop building buildings, cell towers, driving cars, letting our housecats outside, etc.  We also need to be smart about where we put our wind turbines, but it is much more likely that building more wind turbines will save bird lives by reducing CO2 emissions.


www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

[aurora]

Feb 21, 2014 11:57:24 GMT -5 wawa said:

ummm...I mean...Wind turbines do technically remove energy from weather. that is in fact what's happening. I imagine it is possible in theory to build enough turbines that you would have a measurable impact on regional weather patterns but I don't think it's actually real world possible.

A turbine per acre over the entirety of the great plans might even be enough to really do something to the weather - becuase dude, that's A LOT of turbines but 99% sure that kind of spacing is not physically possible - typical horizontal turbines need kind of a lot of space so as not to have issues with turbulance from adjacent turbines and for optimal actual efficiency. (since a turbine isn't going to make it so that the weather in the gulf goes screwy, but it can block the wind of downstream turbines) I learned this once upon a time, but I don't remember the actual numbers. But a perfectly square acre is ~200 feet on each side. I'm pretty sure EACH blade on typical wind farm sized turbine can be that long. They're HUGE. And they need to be some multiple of their blade length away from each other - like 10 times.

So even if it were possible that the scenario outlined here would do what it's purported to do, the scenario itself is totally not possible.

Wawa is wise.

There absolutely are "microclimate" impacts of turbines - they do extract energy from the wind, and the wind is slower immediately behind a turbine (and also more turbulent since the wind turbine causes it to rotate).  There are ongoing studies about the impacts of turbines on plants downwind of turbines.

There is, however, absolutely no way you could put a turbine on every acre.  Blades on modern wind turbines are on the order of 50 m long (~160 ft) *each* - meaning that turbines span more than 300 ft.  They need to be placed ~8-10 diameters apart because of the slowing effects, so you're talking 1-2 turbines every square km, not every acre, at the densest packing. 

There are some minor slowing effects that take place over tens of km downwind of a large wind farm, so generally you won't put two farms closer than ~50 km from each other (there are always exceptions).

But really, the key factor here is that wind energy is solar energy - every day, the sun warms the atmosphere and generates wind.  Therefore, we can't actually stop the wind as a whole with wind turbines unless we're stopping the sun.  Maybe this argument will work on your friend, mockingbird?

[pixy0stix]

My brain actually hurts reading this.

Super simple answer, the way the blades are designed, the wind does get stopped momentarily by the blades, but then keeps going.

[pixy0stix]

I see others were more technical with their answers, so what wawa and aurora said.

[pixy0stix]

Feb 21, 2014 13:27:59 GMT -5 aurora said:

Feb 21, 2014 11:49:01 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

Worrying about stopping the wind is silly.

She should send her worry over to the migratory birds instead, since they actually are affected.

Less than 1 of every 10,000 human-caused bird deaths are attributable to wind turbines.  If we want to stop killing birds, we need to stop building buildings, cell towers, driving cars, letting our housecats outside, etc.  We also need to be smart about where we put our wind turbines, but it is much more likely that building more wind turbines will save bird lives by reducing CO2 emissions.


www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/

See also my favorite rant, KEEP YOUR DAMN CATS INSIDE!

[pixy0stix]

And really, your answer should just be to him, "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind."

[aurora]

Feb 21, 2014 13:39:03 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I see others were more technical with their answers, so what wawa and aurora said.

But your picture was prettier.

[aurora]

Feb 21, 2014 11:28:08 GMT -5 mockingbird said:

I have brain fog. I need help explaining this to a friend, nicely. I have brain fog, and am not functioning well enough to explain above what I already tried.  This is his last post

ok, but look at like a stretch of trees, even winter bare trees, you put a couple in front of the wind and you don't really notice a change, heck put a couple of dozen and you might notice a small change, but put a few hundred in the way and you'll notice a complete lack of wind,
i'm not saying that the wind turbines would "stop" wind from happening, i'm saying that the wind would slow down AFTER the turbines
the reason i was thinking about this is because i figured that if we put 1 megawatt turbine on each acre of our great plains we'd be able to generate more power then we'd ever need, BUT then those arctic winds serve a purpose, they cool down the winds rising from the south, they're half of what creates our tornado alley, if those arctic winds didn't make it down to oklahoma, alabama and the gulf, the winds coming up from the gulf wouldn't be cooled which would effect the rest of the weather pattern

Sorry - renewable energy and climate are my passions so I have to come back to this again.  Also point your friend to the NPR article I linked last week

www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/16/277911739/warming-arctic-may-be-causing-jet-stream-to-lose-its-way

including the quote

He was making an unknowing reference to the jet stream, which drives the weather over North America and Europe like a high-altitude conveyor belt. But increasingly, the jet stream is taking a more circuitous route over the northern latitudes, meaning weather systems hang around longer than they used to. And a warming Arctic is probably to blame, says Jennifer Francis, a professor at Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences.

In other words, our carbon dioxide pollution (a good chunk of which is from coal and natural gas power plants) is already changing those same weather patterns that your friend is worried about turbines doing.

[wawa]

Feb 21, 2014 13:34:39 GMT -5 aurora said:

Feb 21, 2014 11:57:24 GMT -5 wawa said:

ummm...I mean...Wind turbines do technically remove energy from weather. that is in fact what's happening. I imagine it is possible in theory to build enough turbines that you would have a measurable impact on regional weather patterns but I don't think it's actually real world possible.

A turbine per acre over the entirety of the great plans might even be enough to really do something to the weather - becuase dude, that's A LOT of turbines but 99% sure that kind of spacing is not physically possible - typical horizontal turbines need kind of a lot of space so as not to have issues with turbulance from adjacent turbines and for optimal actual efficiency. (since a turbine isn't going to make it so that the weather in the gulf goes screwy, but it can block the wind of downstream turbines) I learned this once upon a time, but I don't remember the actual numbers. But a perfectly square acre is ~200 feet on each side. I'm pretty sure EACH blade on typical wind farm sized turbine can be that long. They're HUGE. And they need to be some multiple of their blade length away from each other - like 10 times.

So even if it were possible that the scenario outlined here would do what it's purported to do, the scenario itself is totally not possible.

Wawa is wise.

There absolutely are "microclimate" impacts of turbines - they do extract energy from the wind, and the wind is slower immediately behind a turbine (and also more turbulent since the wind turbine causes it to rotate).  There are ongoing studies about the impacts of turbines on plants downwind of turbines.

There is, however, absolutely no way you could put a turbine on every acre.  Blades on modern wind turbines are on the order of 50 m long (~160 ft) *each* - meaning that turbines span more than 300 ft.  They need to be placed ~8-10 diameters apart because of the slowing effects, so you're talking 1-2 turbines every square km, not every acre, at the densest packing. 

There are some minor slowing effects that take place over tens of km downwind of a large wind farm, so generally you won't put two farms closer than ~50 km from each other (there are always exceptions).

But really, the key factor here is that wind energy is solar energy - every day, the sun warms the atmosphere and generates wind.  Therefore, we can't actually stop the wind as a whole with wind turbines unless we're stopping the sun.  Maybe this argument will work on your friend, mockingbird?

I am so proud of myself for remembering that stuff accurately.  Or at least close enough.  My school had a turbine blade sitting on one of their lawns for a week or so as part of a informational campaign about wind power in PA - one of those things that just sticks in your head because it was HUUUUUUUUGE.  

and thank you for the sun part, because I was having the phrase "not a closed system" run through my head over and over, but I couldn't figure out how to articulate why that mattered. Overthinking.