4 ms·

Will wind turbines accelerate climate change? edit: during its exploitation I was involved in design of Wind Farms and they affect wind directions at least lo

Will wind turbines accelerate climate change? edit: during its exploitation I was involved in design of Wind Farms and they affect wind directions at least locally. Naturally, they change climate locally. The question is how local is not global enough.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jandrese 7y ago
In terms of pulling out excess energy from the atmosphere then yes. But the effect will likely be too small to measure on a global scale. Note that the acceleration in here will be in the reverse direction. Plus the heat will eventually be re-released back into the atmosphere thanks to thermodynamics. The majority of the savings will come from offsetting carbon emitting sources of power.
- consumer451 7y ago
  Isn't removing energy from our over-energized climate system a good thing? I realize that this is a very simplistic view, but if I am wrong I would love to learn something.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    You are not removing it, it is just converted to heat (in several steps).
    - consumer451 7y ago
      Ok yeah, I guess the only way to remove it for now would be something like solar or wind powered carbon sequestration?
      - kaybe 7y ago
        The current problem we have is the energy imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation, since a growing proportion of the latter is blocked. Any quantity influencing this balance could theoretically be used to get back to the old point. The discussed options are either solar radiation management which lowers the amount of incoming radiation or carbon capture which would allow more outgoing thermal radiation to escape. The first option has ideas such as stratospheric sulfur injections (increasing albedo leading to more reflected incoming sunlight), deploying a sunscreen in space or simply painting areas white. (It should be noted that humanity has been causing albedo changes for a long time simply by changing land cover. Forests have lower albedo than fields, for example.) The problem with the ideas is that they are very unstable. Many need constant renewal and management to be kept active. There are also side effects apparent in the model such as changed atmospheric circulation patterns for some of them, and the ocean acidification due to dissolved CO2 etc are not addressed either. The second option, carbon capture, can be achieved by different means. Basically, carbon needs to be stored in one of the sinks available. The natural sinks are the biosphere (quite small, but increasing it will help) and chemical weathering. If we wait long enough, chemical weathering will lower the CO2 concentrations sufficiently. [0] So one of the ideas here is to increase the speed of the weathering by increasing the surface and availability of the the stone to weather. Others are increasing the biomass sink by planting more of it or fertilizing the oceans so the algae can grow faster and take a part to the ocean floors. Then there is technical carbon sequestration, which needs energy input (you're talking about this, right?). Where the energy comes from shouldn't matter as long as the carbon emission is smaller than the sequestration. I guess all renewable energies and nuclear should work fine. (Maybe there will be a better technology at some point in the future as well, but better not rely on it.) However, now this carbon needs to be stored, which is a problem in itself. Ideas are simply pumping it into the ground, for example depleted natural gas fields (unstable!) or changing it to other forms which needs more energy. (Any energy that can be changed to chemical energy is actually removed from the system, but that will probably not be very much. I'd have to check up on this though, I've found my intuition is not that good yet for these numbers.) There is not a lot of money in it yet, which makes research slow. This is still most probably our best shot. All but one scenarios of the IPCC-1.5°C report have carbon sequestration from 2030 - in 10 years - (in the worst case on the order of half of current emissions!), and the one that doesn't uses biomass capture. We cannot reach a path of <= 1.5°C warming without it. [1] [0] https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b-724x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
- klenwell 7y ago
  I'm curious about the environmental or ecological impact. This is a pretty naive question but: will capturing that energy for human use divert it from other parts of the current ("natural") system where it's being used?
  - krastanov 7y ago
    Energy wise, the orders of magnitude are quite different so I would not worry. After all, we are not worried about the direct heating from the much more prevalent source of electricity (waste heat from oil or nuclear), rather we are worried about the heating from the sun that is exacerbated by the accidental byproduct of burning oil. Habitat destruction from these new technologies: no idea...
- ScottBurson 7y ago
  No, pulling out excess energy from the atmosphere will not accelerate climate change -- quite the opposite, though I don't know that the effect will be significant.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wil421 7y ago
Why would a wind turbine emit greenhouse gasses? During manufacturing? During use? Compared to natural gas, coal, or hydro power?
- sandermvanvliet 7y ago
  Don’t have a link handy but I’ve read somewhere that the gearboxes leak oil that then evaporates. Most likely not the cleanest stuff in there. Edit: Link 1: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/two-reasons-why-gearboxes-leak/ https://www.windpowerengineering.com/two-reasons-why-gearbox... Link 2: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/investigation-launched-hydraulic-oil-leaks-ocotillo-wind-facility https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/investigation-launched-hy... Link 3: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/wind-power-pollution-turbine-oil-seeps-into-the-land-in-mexico https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/wind-powe...
  - creato 7y ago
    Is this really a problem? They probably leak at the same rate as any other machine, which includes almost any other power plant. The total spillage or "evaporation" of all wind turbines is probably not more oil than even a tiny oil spill in an oil field or pipeline. Obviously we should fix a problem here if there is one, but the fact that we're discussing it in the context of larger scale issues is absurd.
    - sandermvanvliet 7y ago
      Most likely not but GP was asking about leakage so hence the links
kaybe 7y ago
Interesting question, seems it's still open but has been found worthy of study. There are probably research groups working on it right now. Review paper (2015): 'Impact of wind-energy generation on climate: A rising spectre' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115016457 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... 'Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale windfarms' https://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.short#sec-2 https://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.short#sec-2 'Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale windfarms' https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-2010.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-201... edit: There's more! 'Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation' https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00245.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-0024... 'Climate Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Farms as Parameterized in a Global Climate Model ' https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/1019 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/1019
- tajd 7y ago
  Hero, thanks. We teach a module on renewable energy at my uni and it's interesting to get the big picture perspective on the use of wind turbines.
- account73466 7y ago
  Thanks for the links! The "green ... greeen!" guys just downvoted me to hell.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    The papers all stress that wind farms are considerably better than fossil fuels no matter what, so 'accelerate' is maybe not the best way to put it. I propose 'influence'. However, the consequences from each technology should still be debatable, and are an interesting question in itself I think. The problems start when questions become political - what are the implications? In the hard sciences we usually don't concern ourselves with that unless we have to, but when discussing sensitive research topics in public one has to be more careful since many people tend to deduce intentions where there were none. (I need to remind myself frequently.) I think your post fell victim to that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jandrese 7y ago

In terms of pulling out excess energy from the atmosphere then yes. But the effect will likely be too small to measure on a global scale. Note that the acceleration in here will be in the reverse direction. Plus the heat will eventually be re-released back into the atmosphere thanks to thermodynamics. The majority of the savings will come from offsetting carbon emitting sources of power.

consumer451 7y ago
Isn't removing energy from our over-energized climate system a good thing? I realize that this is a very simplistic view, but if I am wrong I would love to learn something.
- kaybe 7y ago
  You are not removing it, it is just converted to heat (in several steps).
  - consumer451 7y ago
    Ok yeah, I guess the only way to remove it for now would be something like solar or wind powered carbon sequestration?
    - kaybe 7y ago
      The current problem we have is the energy imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing thermal radiation, since a growing proportion of the latter is blocked. Any quantity influencing this balance could theoretically be used to get back to the old point. The discussed options are either solar radiation management which lowers the amount of incoming radiation or carbon capture which would allow more outgoing thermal radiation to escape. The first option has ideas such as stratospheric sulfur injections (increasing albedo leading to more reflected incoming sunlight), deploying a sunscreen in space or simply painting areas white. (It should be noted that humanity has been causing albedo changes for a long time simply by changing land cover. Forests have lower albedo than fields, for example.) The problem with the ideas is that they are very unstable. Many need constant renewal and management to be kept active. There are also side effects apparent in the model such as changed atmospheric circulation patterns for some of them, and the ocean acidification due to dissolved CO2 etc are not addressed either. The second option, carbon capture, can be achieved by different means. Basically, carbon needs to be stored in one of the sinks available. The natural sinks are the biosphere (quite small, but increasing it will help) and chemical weathering. If we wait long enough, chemical weathering will lower the CO2 concentrations sufficiently. [0] So one of the ideas here is to increase the speed of the weathering by increasing the surface and availability of the the stone to weather. Others are increasing the biomass sink by planting more of it or fertilizing the oceans so the algae can grow faster and take a part to the ocean floors. Then there is technical carbon sequestration, which needs energy input (you're talking about this, right?). Where the energy comes from shouldn't matter as long as the carbon emission is smaller than the sequestration. I guess all renewable energies and nuclear should work fine. (Maybe there will be a better technology at some point in the future as well, but better not rely on it.) However, now this carbon needs to be stored, which is a problem in itself. Ideas are simply pumping it into the ground, for example depleted natural gas fields (unstable!) or changing it to other forms which needs more energy. (Any energy that can be changed to chemical energy is actually removed from the system, but that will probably not be very much. I'd have to check up on this though, I've found my intuition is not that good yet for these numbers.) There is not a lot of money in it yet, which makes research slow. This is still most probably our best shot. All but one scenarios of the IPCC-1.5°C report have carbon sequestration from 2030 - in 10 years - (in the worst case on the order of half of current emissions!), and the one that doesn't uses biomass capture. We cannot reach a path of <= 1.5°C warming without it. [1] [0] https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html https://skepticalscience.com/weathering.html [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3b-724x1024.png https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SPM3...
klenwell 7y ago
I'm curious about the environmental or ecological impact. This is a pretty naive question but: will capturing that energy for human use divert it from other parts of the current ("natural") system where it's being used?
- krastanov 7y ago
  Energy wise, the orders of magnitude are quite different so I would not worry. After all, we are not worried about the direct heating from the much more prevalent source of electricity (waste heat from oil or nuclear), rather we are worried about the heating from the sun that is exacerbated by the accidental byproduct of burning oil. Habitat destruction from these new technologies: no idea...
ScottBurson 7y ago
No, pulling out excess energy from the atmosphere will not accelerate climate change -- quite the opposite, though I don't know that the effect will be significant.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wil421 7y ago

Why would a wind turbine emit greenhouse gasses? During manufacturing? During use? Compared to natural gas, coal, or hydro power?

sandermvanvliet 7y ago
Don’t have a link handy but I’ve read somewhere that the gearboxes leak oil that then evaporates. Most likely not the cleanest stuff in there. Edit: Link 1: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/two-reasons-why-gearboxes-leak/ https://www.windpowerengineering.com/two-reasons-why-gearbox... Link 2: https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/investigation-launched-hydraulic-oil-leaks-ocotillo-wind-facility https://www.eastcountymagazine.org/investigation-launched-hy... Link 3: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/wind-power-pollution-turbine-oil-seeps-into-the-land-in-mexico https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/wind-powe...
- creato 7y ago
  Is this really a problem? They probably leak at the same rate as any other machine, which includes almost any other power plant. The total spillage or "evaporation" of all wind turbines is probably not more oil than even a tiny oil spill in an oil field or pipeline. Obviously we should fix a problem here if there is one, but the fact that we're discussing it in the context of larger scale issues is absurd.
  - sandermvanvliet 7y ago
    Most likely not but GP was asking about leakage so hence the links

kaybe 7y ago

Interesting question, seems it's still open but has been found worthy of study. There are probably research groups working on it right now. Review paper (2015): 'Impact of wind-energy generation on climate: A rising spectre' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032115016457 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211... 'Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale windfarms' https://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.short#sec-2 https://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.short#sec-2 'Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale windfarms' https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-2010.pdf https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-201... edit: There's more! 'Climate model shows large-scale wind and solar farms in the Sahara increase rain and vegetation' https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00245.1 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-0024... 'Climate Impacts of Large-Scale Wind Farms as Parameterized in a Global Climate Model ' https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/1019 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/1019

tajd 7y ago
Hero, thanks. We teach a module on renewable energy at my uni and it's interesting to get the big picture perspective on the use of wind turbines.
account73466 7y ago
Thanks for the links! The "green ... greeen!" guys just downvoted me to hell.
- kaybe 7y ago
  The papers all stress that wind farms are considerably better than fossil fuels no matter what, so 'accelerate' is maybe not the best way to put it. I propose 'influence'. However, the consequences from each technology should still be debatable, and are an interesting question in itself I think. The problems start when questions become political - what are the implications? In the hard sciences we usually don't concern ourselves with that unless we have to, but when discussing sensitive research topics in public one has to be more careful since many people tend to deduce intentions where there were none. (I need to remind myself frequently.) I think your post fell victim to that.