5 ms·

Sure, instead of destroying climate indirectly by heating atmosphere, let's destroy it directly by blocking wind paths. Last time it happened, it created the l

Sure, instead of destroying climate indirectly by heating atmosphere, let's destroy it directly by blocking wind paths. Last time it happened, it created the largest desert in the world - just look at the effect Himalayas had on Sahara.

bdamm 9y ago
Seems ok to me. If anything we ought to be removing some of the energy we're so enthusiastically adding to the atmosphere.
- abpavel 9y ago
  If you mean temperature, then wind turbines actually increase temperature (friction, inefficiencies...) of locale climate. Solar panels cool the Earth, not turbines. Wind is a byproduct of solar power. Why not derive energy from the primary source (solar) instead of going for secondary (wind). Edit: really curious about downvotes. There is nothing in the above that's controversial. I've also provided data below: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044.. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044.... "Specifically, we discovered that operational wind turbines raised air temperature by 0.18 °C"
usaphp 9y ago
Do you think solar panels also change climate by taking the sunlight away from the otherwise heated earth?
- abpavel 9y ago
  Nothing is going to grow underneath the solar panels. At least with solar panels you can selectivaly decide where nothing should grow. With roofs it's already an easy decision. With wind paths - not so much.
  - eropple 9y ago
    I assume, before posting this very serious set of comments, that you have exhaustively researched exactly how much turbine surface area would be needed to cause climactic impacts and are prepared to show your work, especially around how a sub-percent surface area of the Himalayas would cause such drastic results in a desert a continent away. I would love to see this sterling research I'm certain you have conducted. Please educate all of us so that we can be enlightened as to the turbine menace.
    - abpavel 9y ago
      What's the use? You're in denial mode anyway. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044024 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044... "Specifically, we discovered that operational wind turbines raised air temperature by 0.18 °C"
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > You're in denial mode anyway. I don't think that's the case. > Specifically, we discovered that operational wind turbines raised air temperature by 0.18 °C Yes, and gas turbines, coal plants and cooling towers of nuclear plants raise the air temperature by how many degrees? That 0.18 degrees celsius is just for the slice of wind that moved trough the plane of rotation, it will quickly mix with other air because it is fairly turbulent once it gets behind the mill reducing the air temp quickly back to ambient. The major reason for this is that the air molecules hit the blades causing them (and the blades!) to get heated up. Windmill blades move ~225 Kph at the tips so there is plenty of opportunity for some friction. It would be far more surprising if the air did not heat up. Still, there is net energy extracted from the moving air so any heating is an extremely low priority side effect.
        eropple 9y ago
        This is a good way to look at it, for sure. Everything has fixed and marginal costs. Attempting to hang (trivial) externalities on wind while ignoring those on everything else is...well, it's pretty telling.
jcbrand 9y ago
The Sahara is in Africa and the Himalayas are in Asia. So not much effect I presume. You probably mean the Gobi desert.
- abpavel 9y ago
  Yes, I meant the climate formations moving from the north pole, and Himalayas affecting the amount of precipitation reaching North Africa. Can't find that larticular animation at the moment though.

bdamm 9y ago

Seems ok to me. If anything we ought to be removing some of the energy we're so enthusiastically adding to the atmosphere.

abpavel 9y ago
If you mean temperature, then wind turbines actually increase temperature (friction, inefficiencies...) of locale climate. Solar panels cool the Earth, not turbines. Wind is a byproduct of solar power. Why not derive energy from the primary source (solar) instead of going for secondary (wind). Edit: really curious about downvotes. There is nothing in the above that's controversial. I've also provided data below: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044.. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044.... "Specifically, we discovered that operational wind turbines raised air temperature by 0.18 °C"

usaphp 9y ago

Do you think solar panels also change climate by taking the sunlight away from the otherwise heated earth?

abpavel 9y ago
Nothing is going to grow underneath the solar panels. At least with solar panels you can selectivaly decide where nothing should grow. With roofs it's already an easy decision. With wind paths - not so much.
- eropple 9y ago
  I assume, before posting this very serious set of comments, that you have exhaustively researched exactly how much turbine surface area would be needed to cause climactic impacts and are prepared to show your work, especially around how a sub-percent surface area of the Himalayas would cause such drastic results in a desert a continent away. I would love to see this sterling research I'm certain you have conducted. Please educate all of us so that we can be enlightened as to the turbine menace.
  - abpavel 9y ago
    What's the use? You're in denial mode anyway. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044024 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044... "Specifically, we discovered that operational wind turbines raised air temperature by 0.18 °C"
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > You're in denial mode anyway. I don't think that's the case. > Specifically, we discovered that operational wind turbines raised air temperature by 0.18 °C Yes, and gas turbines, coal plants and cooling towers of nuclear plants raise the air temperature by how many degrees? That 0.18 degrees celsius is just for the slice of wind that moved trough the plane of rotation, it will quickly mix with other air because it is fairly turbulent once it gets behind the mill reducing the air temp quickly back to ambient. The major reason for this is that the air molecules hit the blades causing them (and the blades!) to get heated up. Windmill blades move ~225 Kph at the tips so there is plenty of opportunity for some friction. It would be far more surprising if the air did not heat up. Still, there is net energy extracted from the moving air so any heating is an extremely low priority side effect.
      - eropple 9y ago
        This is a good way to look at it, for sure. Everything has fixed and marginal costs. Attempting to hang (trivial) externalities on wind while ignoring those on everything else is...well, it's pretty telling.

jcbrand 9y ago

The Sahara is in Africa and the Himalayas are in Asia. So not much effect I presume. You probably mean the Gobi desert.

abpavel 9y ago
Yes, I meant the climate formations moving from the north pole, and Himalayas affecting the amount of precipitation reaching North Africa. Can't find that larticular animation at the moment though.