Wind Farms Warm Earth By 0.72 degrees C (1.3 degrees F) at Night

www.foxnews.com...
Wind farms are warming the earth, researchers say

New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Even more of a reason to look at Solar as being the most viable, that is, for now. But, the war is far from over, and the battle of designing such renewable energy solutions has only just begun...

"Smaller turbines can avoid this problem," Dabiri said. "However, this presents a tradeoff, because wind speed decreases as you move closer to the ground; so the smaller turbines would experience lower incoming wind speeds on average."

That means a smaller turbine makes less power.

Dabiri said Zhou's findings may mean taking a second look at the trade-offs with renewable energy. "It shows that we need to think carefully about the unintended environmental consequences of any large-scale energy development," Dabiri said, "including green technologies."

I don't understand why the mentioned solution of smaller turbines was even brought into the conversation. Obviously smaller turbines calculates into less power. It would only seem to me, that the placement of these turbines is what truly needs to be addressed.

If the wind speeds decrease as you move closer to the ground, would it not make sense then to place these turbines higher in the air?

Analysts say wind power is a good complement to solar power, because winds often blow more strongly at night while solar power is only available during daytime hours. But Zhou and his colleagues found that turbulence behind the wind turbine blades stirs up a layer of cooler air that usually settles on the ground at night, and mixes in warm air that is on top.

If it is the turbulence of these blades stirring up layers of air(cooler air on ground, warm air on top)... again, would the solution not be found in the placement of these turbines, as in elevation above ground level?

There's much more to this story, and I suggest reading the entire article. This research seemingly shoots down any notion of wind farming as being one of the available options towards combating global warming, but much more data is warranted before drawing such conclusions.

I'm sure the great minds at the companies who develope these technologies will be able to find a solution to this problem. So for now, it seems to not be the 'Death of Wind Power', it's just another blowback for the green energy initiatives, but I can't see any reason for this being any sorts of a fatal shot. More information and data is obviously required to stop such progressive undertakings in regards to addressing the worlds power demands and global warming.

If I was a gambling man, I'd put all my money on solar, and wait until more information is gathered as to the effects of wind technologies. I can only imagine that the issues brought forth in this article are nothing new, if anybody has information in regards to these problems with the designs... I would appreciate it if you could include them in a response.

If the temperature does not exceed that of what a car does, then I am not interested in hearing the complaints. What about the heat from cooking equipment, shall we stop cooking too? I hate this sort of stuff, especially when there are similar things going on that far exceed this smaller perceived issue. Al Gore at it again.

there has been so much hot air blown on the subject its a wonder someone hasn't called for a stop to it...

oh wait, they did
Algore can't legally claim an inCONvienient truth is a documentary anymore

eta
they aren't increasing the temp just redistributing different temerature air masses which means other areas where the heat is being drawn from are going to be cooler.
I think the title is slightly misleading as the earth hasn't warmed up in total

so they heat up the ground a little at least where not green housing the planet or using nuclear power but y complain
the scientist arent going to change anything there probably paid to lie about much worse things than 0.70 degrees c
i live off hydro electric power TVA no environmental problems here tornados a bit but i doubt u can link that to the dams
but u cant put hydro electric power everywhere cause theres not a powerful river near everywhere
so if we cant use oil/wind/water/sun to power our world what can we use

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


I believe I have been saying this in the "green" threads for a couple of years now, and taking a lot of flack for it!

Seriously. There is no such thing as "renewable" energy, because our energy consumption is inefficient and wasteful, and all forms of energy production are really just ways of harnessing energy from nature. We harness it, and then we inefficiently transmit it, and then we inefficiently consume it for our own purposes, and some natural process suffers because of it, and the waste product is always heat.

The only "green initiative" that is of any use whatsoever is energy conservation!

Solar power derived from rooftops in hot, sunny climates is serves a double duty of providing cooling shade, creating electricity, and helping conserve energy to cool the building below, but the actual production of the solar cells is still not ideal.

Wind energy is far from green.

Hydro-electric is far, far from green.

Tidal and Wave-action generation has far-reaching consequences including the possibility of changing the ocean currents or even changing the earth's rotation.

All energy comes from either the sun or gravity. Fossil fuels come from the sun, radioactivity comes from the sun or geothermal sources (gravity). Solar, Atmospheric, Oceanic, or Geological sources all come from combinations of solar and gravity.

There is a known limit of solar energy striking the earth. There is a known limit of stored energy on the earth. Our consumption is increasing exponentially, and we will eventually reach and exceed that known limit. We will also eventually use up the millions of years of stored energy.

Will we totally rape the earth to the point that it looks like our moon or Mars? Or will we embrace energy conservation as the only possible solution at some point and put a cap on energy production?

Originally posted by Skewed
If the temperature does not exceed that of what a car does, then I am not interested in hearing the complaints. What about the heat from cooking equipment, shall we stop cooking too? I hate this sort of stuff, especially when there are similar things going on that far exceed this smaller perceived issue. Al Gore at it again.

I can only imagine that there is a huge difference between the energy or heat of a car and the heat from a higher layer of air is drastically different. Plus that heat from the car, rises... the issue with these turbines is different, because it's actually taking warm air that has already risen, and brings it back down to the surface. Especially considering the volume of air being displaced due to turbulence.

I'm obviously no expert on the subject, so maybe someone with the proper knowledge in this subject could speak as to these relationships.

It would seem to me, that you are comparing apples and orages.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS



Such nonsense, warming up the earth.

Wind farms only cover a tiny little bit of surface of the earth, now they might warm up that tiny bit of surface but not the earth obviously.

Seems to be oil industry propaganda to me.

It's not warming up the earth any more than buildings and roads are on the same sized piece of surface.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS

 

Such nonsense, warming up the earth.

Wind farms only cover a tiny little bit of surface of the earth, now they might warm up that tiny bit of surface but not the earth obviously.

Seems to be oil industry propaganda to me.

It's not warming up the earth any more than buildings and roads are on the same sized piece of surface.

edit on 30-4-2012 by RandomEsotericScreenname because: (no reason given)

I'd imagine that the main concern is not about the effect on a global scale, but more or less the immediate impact on the surrounding areas.

Yes, it's true that wind farms only cover a small portion of the surface of the Earth, but there impact isn't necessarily only directly below the turbines themselves, but down wind.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the developement of these farms is still young, and that there will be an increasingly amount of these farms to be constructed in the future.
Which is reiterated in the following section of the article:

FAA data shows that the number of wind turbines over the study region has risen from 111 in 2003 to 2358 in 2011, according to the study.The warming could hurt local farmers, who have already suffered through a killer drought over the past few years. Texas agriculture contributes $80 billion to the state's economy, second only to petrochemicals, according to the Texas Department of Agriculture.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


I am no expert either, but heat is heat, right? When we are considering global warming as a whole does it really matter where the heat is being generated from, it still has the same impact regardless of where it is, right?

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


that's what they are saying..... only the area around the wind farms heats up. it's definitely a better option than nuclear or coal but i think if wind farms were expanded more and more and more it might become a problem. i don't think they are a good long term solution to our energy problem. solar seems to be the way to go but there's got to be a better way to make the solar cells..... i think that's being worked on.

other then some barings in the machines,( insignificant) where is the heat coming from?
where ever it is goming f rom
it isn't from co2

Okay, pardon me while I scream.

ahh... I'm back.

Okay. We can't use Nuclear for Fukushima reasons. Check. I agree!

Okay. We can't use Coal because it pollutes...well..okay, kinda. Pollution control works well too. Sorta-Check

Okay. Natural Gas is our petro solution the Enviro movement will temporarily permit us... That's something!


but... We can't use Wind because birds committ suicide by the blades. Stupid birds..but we suffer. Whatever. Now add to that, they raise temps?? Oookay.. I'll put aside entirely how they can even suggest that as a theory with such a short timeline of these being in existence to go by. How many years of different conditions and seasons? Yeah... uh huh.. But Okay Okay... Fine.. Now wind is off limits too..


Solar! Ahh.. Yes .. SOLAR! But ..wait.. Localized increases in ambient temperature is enough to bitch about Wind?? Has anyone rubbed a couple brain cells together for what endless fields of BLACK PANELS in sunlight will do to the surrounding area? Oh if WIND turbines increase temperature, we ain't seen anything yet.


So Pray tell...... If Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar have problems....and Geothermal just blows half the plant sky high from pressure now and then... Someone, please tell me, what ARE we permitted to use to power ourselves?? I'd ask about going back the candles, but I'm sure the wax and process of burning it are ALSO pollutants to SOMEONE's thinking in SOME way, so heck....just what *IS* left when people make it their crusade in life to find ways for NOTHING to work?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


You are exactly right. We have to stop using so much electricity. That is the only long-term solution. There is no such thing as a renewable source of power or a green source of power. All of them have unintended consequences, and all of the electricity we generate is mostly lost to waste and heat during transmission anyway. We lose it at the generation plant, we lose it in the transmission lines, we lose it at the transformers, we lose it in the lines to the house or factory, and we lose it in the components of every device we operate. We are just giant energy wasters, and that is even before we actually use the stuff up for extremely important things like nightlights and reality television.

reply to post by pasiphae


Well leave it to FOX to come up with a title that is completely ripped out of context.

So obvious.

reply to post by Skewed


Really heat is not heat it's lhe absence of cold. Cold exist heat is just a lack of cold. (Dreged up from some long ago physics class )

Wind farms dont make much sense to me. I live in the north of England, it gets really windy here! Why we feel the need to make more wind by installing huge ugly fans is beyond me.

reply to post by mikellmikell


Right, thanks for arguing semantics.
I am aware that there are different forms of heat and ways to create it. How the heat is generated, within the context of this post is irrelevant.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Wind farms do not warm the earth.

In order to warm the earth, they would have to generate heat.

They do NOT generate heat.

They push air. Hot and Cold. Nothing more.

This is the most blown out of proportion propaganda I have EVER read.

DO NOT DRINK THE WORM!

I think the title of the article is a little misleading, as most people are probably going to assume that the wind farms are adding to "global warming" (or whatever you want to call it). But the wind farms are not warming the atmosphere at all, as in fact, they would be cooling it slightly. They are not creating extra heat, just moving heat from the air down to the ground at night, so there is not a net gain, just a redistribution of heat.

This may have unintended consequences, such as drying out soils in drought prone areas. I'm not sure if this would have any measurable effect in terms of climate though. But there are always going to be consequences of electricity production, that is certain.

On a side note...

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Really heat is not heat it's lhe absence of cold. Cold exist heat is just a lack of cold. (Dreged up from some long ago physics class )

I think you've got that the wrong way around. Heat is a form of energy, and what we perceive as "cold", is merely a lack of heat. In a thermodynamic process, it is the transfer of heat which is of importance. You can add or remove heat from an object. Absolute zero is a complete lack of heat, and you cannot add cold to it. Therefore, cold is a lack of heat.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


Spot on

The effects are local and have minimal impact on global temperatures...

Sensationalist journalism.

Peace