Is there a limit to wind power?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the limitations of wind power extraction and its potential environmental impacts. While wind farms are proliferating globally, the extraction of energy from wind is not limitless and may affect local and global climates. The Betz limit indicates that no more than approximately 60% of wind energy can be harnessed, and factors such as turbine placement and wind speed significantly influence efficiency. Concerns are raised about the cumulative effects of wind energy extraction on weather patterns and local temperatures, although these impacts may be too subtle to detect. Overall, while wind energy presents a significant resource, its extraction must be balanced with ecological considerations.
  • #121
I'm surprised to hear that the building of hydroelectric dams has had a measurable effect on the Earth's speed of rotation.
However what does 'measurable' mean?, has it actually been measured?, and what are the numbers?
Do you have a link to this kind of research?.
Or even theoretical numbers based on a reliable source might persuade me.
What I need to be persuaded of is that large scale construction projects on or near the surface of Earth could alter the rate of Earth's rotation on a scale comparable to that which the Moon produces.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
rootone said:
I'm surprised to hear that the building of hydroelectric dams has had a measurable effect on the Earth's speed of rotation.
However what does 'measurable' mean?, has it actually been measured?, and what are the numbers?
Do you have a link to this kind of research?.
Or even theoretical numbers based on a reliable source might persuade me.
What I need to be persuaded of is that large scale construction projects on or near the surface of Earth could alter the rate of Earth's rotation on a scale comparable to that which the Moon produces.
Here is a linkhttp://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?product=CEL&SID=Y2BdCthPKMeqDIKaF7B&UT=WOS%3AA1995TM72800025&SrcApp=Highwire&action=retrieve&Init=Yes&SrcAuth=Highwire&Func=Frame&customersID=Highwire&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord
If you have a google there is quite a lot of info on the subject.
 
  • #123
It's a pity that I can't see the details without having to subscribe, but based on the abstract, I don't have a problem to accept that large scale construction could cause significant environmental impact.
That is something which I have never doubted, and for example changes to polar drift was mentioned as being measurable.
Bear in mind that I am not seriously proposing covering the entire surface with windmills or anything else.
Simply doubting that the amount of mass displacement involved would alter the Earth's rotation to a degree comparable to which the moon alters it.
 
  • #124
Buckleymanor said:
You are probably wrong about the consiquenceis if windmills were constructed in enormous numbers if you consider that the construction of dams in the northern hemisphere allready has a measurable effect on the angular speed of the earth.
Are you referring to the .06 microseconds that the Three Gorges Chinese Hydro-electric project is calculated to have increased the length of Earth's day? I am not aware that this has actually been measured.

This is the calculated change in the Earth's angular speed due to raising 39 trillion Tonnes of water 175 metres. How many 60 m. 100 Tonne windmills do you reckon it would take to have a similar effect, assuming they were placed within 30 degrees of the equator? It would have to be at least a few trillion windmills or about 1,000 windmills for each person on the earth.

AM
 
  • #125
OmCheeto said:
Given the complexity of the problem, I'd say that "taming hurricanes with strategically located wind farms", is about as doable, as herding cats.

Maybe if one could rely on the butterfly effect .. and trap the butterfly in Tiananmen Square before it has time to beat it's wings ...
 
  • #126
OmCheeto said:
I'm sure lots of studies have been done. I can't find the webpage I looked at yesterday stating that one study says there would be little effect, and another study says there would be disastrous effects. Everyone has their model.

Here's one from MIT done almost exactly 5 years ago:

Odd that there are not "lots" of studies referenced in this thread...

In fact I have found very few ... which is really what prompted the question in the first place.
 
  • #127
Skeptik22 said:
Odd that there are not "lots" of studies referenced in this thread...

In fact I have found very few ... which is really what prompted the question in the first place.

There are probably lots of reasons for the lack of "Windmill effects on Global and Local Climates".

1. Climate modeling is complicated enough without additional variables.

2. No one had to worry about it before now.

HISTORY OF WIND ENERGY
  • 1990–More than 2,200 MW of wind energy capacity is installed around California, creating more than half of the world’s capacity for wind power.
  • 1992–The Energy Policy Act authorizes a production tax credit of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) of wind-power-generated electricity and re-establishes a focus on renewable energy use.
  • 2000–The cost of wind-power-generated electricity is between 4 to 6 cents per kWh.
  • 2004–The cost of electricity from wind-generated sources drops to 3 to 4 cents per kWh.
  • 2007–Wind produces enough energy to power roughly 2.5 million homes and makes up 5% of the renewable energy used in the United States.
  • 2008–The U.S. Department of Energy publishes their 20% Wind Energy by 2030 initiative.
  • 2012–The amount of wind energy produced in the United States reaches the point of being able to power 15 million homes and becomes the number-one source of renewable electricity.
  • 2013–Jose Zayas, Wind Program Director, announces Wind Vision, a new initiative to revist the findings of the 2008 report.
  • 2015–The Wind Vision Report is released showing that 35% wind energy is possible by 2050.

I'm not even going to bother calculating what fraction of energy wind supplied in 1990.
BP conveniently collected some data for us: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Energy-Economics/statistical-review-2014/BP-Statistical_Review_of_world_energy_2014_workbook.xlsx

wind.production.1995.2013.png

y axis is in megawatts​

and didn't bother either. As it looks like zero, compared to today.3. There are worse things in life than minor localized climate change.

I'm sure there are more. You should learn to use the PF search engine. There are scores of threads on this topic.
Can this satisfy the world's energy needs? High-altitude wind power
etc, etc, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #128
Just because a question is difficult doesn't mean we should not ask it .. or try to find an answer ...

The charts of installed windfarm "capacity" are readily available and have been referred to in the thread at least a couple of time now.

What is not so obvious is whether anyone has tried to correlate changes in climatic patterns with this existing data ...

Could one show a relationship between say.. increased occurrences of extreme weather events ... with the increase in windfarm activity.

Probably not, as OMCheeto suggests it is too difficult ...

so ...

at what point would any effect be detectable?There seems to be an assumption in the thread that any changes will be detrimental .. this may not be so ... it will depend on one's frame of reference...
 
  • #129
Skeptik22 said:
...
at what point would any effect be detectable?
...

Finally! A question.

It will be detected, when you see a blade of grass move.
 
  • #130
anorlunda said:
I think A.T. gave the correct answer in post #4.
If there was no windmill, 100% of the wind energy must eventually dissapate in the form of heat.

When there is a windmill, we produce electricity, but 100% of that energy also eventually dissapates as heat.

Unless the locations and timing of the two kinds of dissipation are widely different on a global/historic scale, the net effect on climate must be zero regardless of how much wind power is used.
Is this "proof" of climate change?

Fossil fuels are effectively the conversion of incoming solar energy to chemical.. over the whole earth.. over a long period of time ... Industrialisation has resulted in this being converted back to heat over a short period .. therefore it result in climate change ...

Sorry .. not really on topic ...
 
  • #131
Skeptik22 said:
Is this "proof" of climate change?

Fossil fuels are effectively the conversion of incoming solar energy to chemical.. over the whole earth.. over a long period of time ... Industrialisation has resulted in this being converted back to heat over a short period .. therefore it result in climate change ...
...Interesting question. Let's work it out.

1. Human energy consumption heats only the atmosphere:
It takes 1KJ to raise the temperature of 1Kg of air by one Kelvin. The earth's atmosphere has a total mass of 5 x 1018. So to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere (assuming no increased radiation into space and no heating of the Earth surface) would require 5 x 1018KJ of energy.

Combustion of one Kg of petroleum releases about 5 x 104 KJ of energy. So raising the temperature of the atmosphere by one Kelvin/Celsius degree would require burning about 1014 Kg of petroleum or about 3 x 1012 barrels of oil and retaining all that heat in the atmosphere. The entire world burns a bit less than 108 barrels a day or about 3 x 1010 Kg per year. That is enough to raise atmospheric temperature by 1/100th of a degree C/K in a year if the heat was retained entirely in the atmosphere.

Since the world consumes about 2 x 105 terrawatt-hours per year and one terrawatt-hour = 3.6 x 1012 KJ, the world uses about 7 x 1017 KJ of energy annually. That is enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere by about 1/10th of a degree C/K if all of that energy was produced from a source other than the sun (ie. nuclear or fossil fuels).

2. Comparison to total Insolation/heat radiated

Of course, we know that the Earth and surface water/oceans take up heat from the atmosphere and the Earth's atmosphere radiates energy into space. We know that without heat being added by non-solar sources, the Earth is in a state of thermal equilibrium so it radiates as much energy as it receives from the sun. So let's compare the amount of heat added to the Earth by human non-solar energy to the total amount of heat added by the sun.

Total solar insolation of 1.3 KW/m2 over the cross-sectional area of the Earth 1.3 x 1014m2 = 1.7 x 1014 KJ/sec. Since there are 3600x24x365 = 3.15 x 107 seconds in a year, this amounts to about 5 x 1021KJ per year, or about 10,000 times as much energy as humans contribute from all sources and 100,000 times as much as the heat contributed from burning petroleum.

Conclusion

While the heat from non-solar energy sources used by humans is significant, it represents a tiny, insignificant fraction of the solar energy received by the Earth and which is radiated into space.

AM
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes OmCheeto
  • #132
Andrew Mason said:
...raise atmospheric temperature by 1/100th of a degree C/K in a year if the heat was retained entirely in the atmosphere.
Right, if the atmosphere was inside a giant insulated oven with the door closed. It is not. The oven door is open. Received or generated heat is constantly being transferred into space, and the surface constantly seeking its black body temperature of -18 deg C (albedo included). The way to raise the temperature then of such a would be cold world is to effectively close the oven door, i.e. add some kind of insulating mechanism which slows heat transfer: water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide ...
 
  • #133
Skeptik22 said:
Is this "proof" of climate change?

Fossil fuels are effectively the conversion of incoming solar energy to chemical.. over the whole earth.. over a long period of time ... Industrialisation has resulted in this being converted back to heat over a short period .. therefore it result in climate change ...

Sorry .. not really on topic ...
That's not what climate change is, and yes, let's keep it on topic.
 
  • #134
OmCheeto said:
Earthling annual energy consumption: 5 x 1020 joules in 2010
This number seems way to low. From here I get that the world used 13,217 Mtoe In 2013 . 13,217 Mtoe http://www.iea.org/statistics/resources/unitconverter/ 153,714 Terawatt hours. There are 8,765.81 hours in a year. From this we can reason that human civilization is run on around 17.5 Terawatts. That is a lot of power, and it is increasing every year as people all around the world escape poverty.

There is a lot of kinetic energy in the Earth's winds, but we can only sustainable harness so much of it. According to one of my http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8322 the total kinetic energy dissipation in the atmosphere vary from 340 TW to 3600 TW. So maybe if we could harness between 5 and .5 percent of that we could power civilization with wind, but doing so would be extremely difficult for a number of reasons. Also, you really can't say for sure that it wouldn't effect the weather negatively. Fluid dynamics is incredibly complex, and we are talking about major changes to a very large and complex system. Some people on the thread seem a little too dismissive of any potential problems.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #135
Evanish said:
Om said:
Earthling annual energy consumption: 5E20 joules in 2010
This number seems way to low. From here I get that the world used 13,217 Mtoe In 2013 . 13,217 Mtoe http://www.iea.org/statistics/resources/unitconverter/ 153,714 Terawatt hours.
per google calculator:
153 714 terawatt hours = 5.5E20 joules

There are 8,765.81 hours in a year. From this we can reason that human civilization is run on around 17.5 Terawatts. That is a lot of power, and it is increasing every year as people all around the world escape poverty.

There is a lot of kinetic energy in the Earth's winds, but we can only sustainable harness so much of it. According to one of my http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8322 the total kinetic energy dissipation in the atmosphere vary from 340 TW to 3600 TW. So maybe if we could harness between 5 and .5 percent of that we could power civilization with wind, but doing so would be extremely difficult for a number of reasons. Also, you really can't say for sure that it wouldn't effect the weather negatively. Fluid dynamics is incredibly complex, and we are talking about major changes to a very large and complex system. Some people on the thread seem a little too dismissive of any potential problems.

There are always problems. But one has to balance whether one wants to live in a modern, sustainable world, or, become a worm eater. (Shroom eater, if one is vegan).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #136
OmCheeto said:
per google calculator:
153 714 terawatt hours = 5.5E20 joules
It seems my "way to low" was overstated.

OmCheeto said:
There are always problems. But one has to balance whether one wants to live in a modern, sustainable world, or, become a worm eater. (Shroom eater, if one is vegan).
I want to live in a modern sustainable world powered predominately by nuclear power. The problems needing to be overcome for a nuclear world seem far more manageable to me.
 
Last edited:
  • #137
Evanish said:
...
I want to live in a modern sustainable world powered predominately by nuclear power. The problems needing to be overcome for a nuclear world seem far more manageable to me.

That's why I joined the navy back in 1977! They said I could be a "nuke". And I became a "nuke". Then stuff happened. Then I decided it was not a good idea to put all my stones in one pot, or something like that.

Wind energy is one of many available sources. I've learned to diversify my energy investments.

Btw, have you seen this thread? "YOU! Fix the US Energy Crisis".

It's a lot of fun. :smile:
 
  • #138
This seems to have reached the level of a bar-room argument .. more about one's favoured source of power for one's toys .. rather than the original question .. and I am probably as guilty as the next person.

Given that this seems to be quite a tricky question .. one would have thought there would be more academic focus on trying to produce an answer.

The one paper which was quoted earlier in the discussion .. which actually attempted to put on number on the total power availability ...had lots of caveats .. is that what physics has come to .. making an educated guess and including a raft of get out clauses .. to prevent further debate?
 
  • #139
Skeptik22 said:
Given that this seems to be quite a tricky question .. one would have thought there would be more academic focus on trying to produce an answer.
This is definitely not how academic priorities are being set.

Skeptik22 said:
The one paper which was quoted earlier in the discussion .. which actually attempted to put on number on the total power availability ...had lots of caveats .. is that what physics has come to .. making an educated guess and including a raft of get out clauses ..
This is what physics always was: making predictions based on assumptions, which might be more or less certain.
 
  • #140
Skeptik22 said:
.. rather than the original question ..

Always a good idea to go back to the OP.

Skeptik22 said:
1. Is there a limit to the amount of energy which can be extracted from the wind?
2. There are a huge number of windfarms springing up around the world..
2.5 all taking energy from the wind.
3. The assumption seems to be that this is limitless and "free".
4. Clearly this is not possible.
5. The question is (I think) - how will the transfer of energy (from the wind) manifest itself on the climate,
5.5 and could the impact be measured?
6. The only research I have seen to date, relates to finding the "best" location for a windmill,
6.5 and some on the effect on local weather conditions.
{numbered for clarity}

My answers:

1. Yes
2. Opinion. Huge, for me, would be if wind farms extended for thousands of kilometers, all over the world. (Mostly along the coasts.)
2.5 Yes
3. Ha! Hahahahaha!
4. Ok. Sorry about laughing at your assumption. Yes, I mean no, you are correct.
5. This strikes me as kind of a rhetorical question. Perhaps it will manifest itself in good ways, and bad ways.
5.5 Everything can be measured.
6. Makes sense to me.
6.5 I would love to see wind farms put up to my east. Those winds are dreadfully bad in the fall. But I just discovered that one of the world's largest wind farms was put up, just there, and I haven't really noticed a change. Not surprising to me. There's still a lot of untapped energy up there.

Skeptik22 said:
This seems to have reached the level of a bar-room argument .. more about one's favoured source of power for one's toys

I hope I haven't given such an impression. I've been adverse to "one trick ponies" for quite some time.

One day, I was setting up my solar powered water pumping system to water down the sand volleyball courts, as they get dreadfully hot in the summer, and burn our feet, when someone walked by and said to me; "Wind power is better".
I thought to myself; "What an imbecile. If it were that windy, no one would be out here playing volleyball!"

On another occasion, someone told me that the only way to make cars more energy efficient, was to make them lighter.
I thought to myself; "What an imbecile. Electric cars are much more energy efficient, and they are heavier!"

Now, the above two examples, might peg me as some "solar" lunatic. Quite the contrary. Do you have any idea how much effort, not to mention the room, it takes to haul 150 watts of solar panels and 400 feet of garden hose out to the river in a 14 foot boat every day? No. Of course not. Only I do. It's a pain in the butt. And that's why I devised a wave powered volleyball court watering system. It would run 24/7! There are always ships running up and down the river making waves. Not to mention the wind generated waves.

But then, I'm sure you'd show up, and ask; "Have you done a study, on the global climate effects, of your wave machine"?
And I'd say; "No. It's not worth my time. Though, I'm sure it has had an effect on the shifting of the sand on the beach, but not enough to worry about".

Ditto with your wind question. We've so far extracted too little energy, to have an effect, IMHO.
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
9K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
19K