5 ms·

Here's a study that evaluated exactly what you're looking for, if I understand correctly: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/htm http://www.mdpi.com/1996-107

by Jackim 9y ago

Here's a study that evaluated exactly what you're looking for, if I understand correctly: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/htm http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/htm In summary, if the entire Earth was powered by wind, it would result in a net loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere of ~0.007%.

menacingly 9y ago
Looks like some far more competent folks have pretty thoroughly looked into it. I'll sleep better knowing I'm not the wind's sole protector
- beobab 9y ago
  Although that would be a cool job description.
  - wojt_eu 9y ago
    If we increase our energy consumption 100-fold this estimation of net loss in wind would approach 1% which sounds bad. I guess we might need wind protector after all.
    - namarie 9y ago
      That's a pretty big "if".
      - CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
        Is it? Given current energy consumption growth it's just 100-150 years away Edit: From covering the entire surface of the earth, which is the bigger if. (Should have read the context)
  - madcaptenor 9y ago
    I'd really hope wind has a bus factor of more than one though.
- nkurz 9y ago
  I know it's bad form to just offer an unexplained video link, but your phrase "the wind's sole protector" reminded me of this delightfully understated French commercial that illustrates why the wind has so few people looking out for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY
amelius 9y ago
Don't forget that CO2 is heavier than O2, [1]. So if we don't keep that wind going, all the CO2 will sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, pushing the O2 up. I'm not sure if that is a linear process (x percent less wind meaning x percent less oxygen). [1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-heavier-oxygen-or-carbon-dioxide https://www.quora.com/Which-is-heavier-oxygen-or-carbon-diox...
- jonsen 9y ago
  Don't worry about pushing up O2 all them airliners will suck it up.
- comicjk 9y ago
  Even in "still" air, the individual molecules have random velocities due to temperature - on the order of 100 m/s. Combined with the fact that there are more mixed configurations than unmixed configurations (entropy of mixing), this randomness effectively stirs the atmosphere without the need for the bulk motion of the wind.
- mcv 9y ago
  You mean CO2 would concentrate at tree level to be more easily absorbed and converted back into oxygen, rather than in the upper atmosphere where it heats the earth? I'm not sure I see the downside.
baldfat 9y ago
Aren't trees and tall buildings in cities doing a million times more then if the whole world was powered by the wind?
- mcv 9y ago
  Very likely, yes. Until wind farms dwarf the scale of our cities and forests, I doubt there's any reason to worry. Besides, don't we usually consider trees to be good things? They block a lot more wind than any wind turbine.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    I think once we solved the storage of energy from solar panels the wind won't really be needed. I still would love to see tidal generators that work but I guess it is to much upkeep.

by Jackim 9y ago

menacingly 9y ago

Looks like some far more competent folks have pretty thoroughly looked into it. I'll sleep better knowing I'm not the wind's sole protector

beobab 9y ago
Although that would be a cool job description.
- wojt_eu 9y ago
  If we increase our energy consumption 100-fold this estimation of net loss in wind would approach 1% which sounds bad. I guess we might need wind protector after all.
  - namarie 9y ago
    That's a pretty big "if".
    - CuriousSkeptic 9y ago
      Is it? Given current energy consumption growth it's just 100-150 years away Edit: From covering the entire surface of the earth, which is the bigger if. (Should have read the context)
- madcaptenor 9y ago
  I'd really hope wind has a bus factor of more than one though.
nkurz 9y ago
I know it's bad form to just offer an unexplained video link, but your phrase "the wind's sole protector" reminded me of this delightfully understated French commercial that illustrates why the wind has so few people looking out for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY

amelius 9y ago

Don't forget that CO2 is heavier than O2, [1]. So if we don't keep that wind going, all the CO2 will sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, pushing the O2 up. I'm not sure if that is a linear process (x percent less wind meaning x percent less oxygen). [1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-heavier-oxygen-or-carbon-dioxide https://www.quora.com/Which-is-heavier-oxygen-or-carbon-diox...

jonsen 9y ago
Don't worry about pushing up O2 all them airliners will suck it up.
comicjk 9y ago
Even in "still" air, the individual molecules have random velocities due to temperature - on the order of 100 m/s. Combined with the fact that there are more mixed configurations than unmixed configurations (entropy of mixing), this randomness effectively stirs the atmosphere without the need for the bulk motion of the wind.
mcv 9y ago
You mean CO2 would concentrate at tree level to be more easily absorbed and converted back into oxygen, rather than in the upper atmosphere where it heats the earth? I'm not sure I see the downside.

baldfat 9y ago

Aren't trees and tall buildings in cities doing a million times more then if the whole world was powered by the wind?

mcv 9y ago
Very likely, yes. Until wind farms dwarf the scale of our cities and forests, I doubt there's any reason to worry. Besides, don't we usually consider trees to be good things? They block a lot more wind than any wind turbine.
- baldfat 9y ago
  I think once we solved the storage of energy from solar panels the wind won't really be needed. I still would love to see tidal generators that work but I guess it is to much upkeep.