6 ms·

> Take wind turbines: they've found that harvesting wind actually increases the temperature in an area. Do enough of this, coupled with channeling the energy in

by seoaeu 6y ago

> Take wind turbines: they've found that harvesting wind actually increases the temperature in an area. Do enough of this, coupled with channeling the energy into heat-producing machines, are we sure this isn't gong to contribute to global warming at scale? That's some anti-renewable energy FUD I hadn't seen before... Yes, we're sure that won't cause global warming. Wind turbine operation doesn't produce greenhouse gases or meaningful change the Earth's albedo.

bostonsre 6y ago
I guess if we theoretically had enough wind turbines, climates could start being impacted due to winds being slowed down but not exactly sure if that would heat the earth more or not. Could an area with lots of turbines have slower wind speeds and have heat dissipate less quickly? It seems plausible, but would think it would even out with a different area getting a little cooler. But yea, don't see how that would cause the earth to warm overall. Also, I assume wind turbines cause some emissions during manufacturing. Not sure going gang busters and making a ton to power bitcoin mining would be great for the planet.
- pcthrowaway 6y ago
  > Also, I assume wind turbines cause some emissions during manufacturing. Not sure going gang busters and making a ton to power bitcoin mining would be great for the planet. Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If we're building wind turbines to replace energy usage that serves a purpose, that's wonderful! Building new infrastructure for energy production so that we can pass it to a bunch of computers that piss it away is still wasteful. Even if it's less wasteful than burning coal to power those computers. Bitcoin and proof-of-work were revolutionary, but now that we have better cryptocurrency technology, we should be moving away from it.
pcthrowaway 6y ago
Since I'm getting downvoted, here's a study on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511830446X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511... Your misunderstanding seems possibly intentional. I'm very much in favour of renewable energy as an alternative to nonrenewable energy. I'm just not in favour of wasting energy for very little purpose. Build solar/wind energy to replace fossil fuels? Great! Obviously I'm in favour of that. Built an insane amount of infrastructure for producing renewable energy so that we can piss it away? That seems incredibly wasteful! Even if renewable energy is much better, there are still externalities to producing energy.
- caf 6y ago
  Regardless of whether it increases the local temperature, it's clearly not increasing the overall temperature because that energy in the wind would have ended up as heat, somewhere, eventually anyway.
- lamontcg 6y ago
  That study says that if you replaced 100% of the power generation of the United States with wind farms concentrated in the middle 1/3rd of the country that it would create localized 0.50C rise in SURFACE temperatures at the wind farms and 0.24C rise in SURFACE temperatures across the whole USA. The authors note very clearly that isn't a global rise in temperature and would be offset by the effects of GHG reduction. Furthermore the wind farm cost is "one time". The effects of GHGs are cumulative. See: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-turbines-generate-more-global-warming-than-fossil-fuels-misrepresents-study-ethan-huff/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-tur...
  - pcthrowaway 6y ago
    But you're comparing this with nonrenewable energy! I'll state for the third time that I'm in favour of replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. What I'm saying is that it's still wasteful, and not cost-free if we're producing insane amounts of energy that don't need to be produced in the first place.
    - lamontcg 6y ago
      Your argument is a bit of a mess though. It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off. That would lower energy demand and prices and we're now in a regime where that makes running carbon-burning plants less attractive and they'd get turned off while any renewables that bitcoin is using would become available. And if I could snap my fingers and replace all the GHGs with wind I would and I wouldn't care about your concerns. And you're trying to argue that I can't make that comparison but I absolutely am. The issues you're bringing up aren't 1% of the problem that we have with GHGs so worrying about perfect renewable energy or overall dropping demand is so much less right now than worrying about getting off GHGs. The localized 0.5C surface warming of wind in that paper just isn't worth talking about at this point. But it isn't totally perfect! Surely you must agree? No. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Perfection.
xmprt 6y ago
Any infrastructure that we build, renewable or not, has an environmental impact. We have to mine resources and disturb natural habitats. If the renewable energy is used to replace existing fossil fuel demand, then that's a great thing. If instead we're using renewables mainly to fill new crypto mining demand, then that's a bad thing. There might be some positive impact by spurring more innovation in renewable research but I don't think it's possible to make such an analysis in a 2 paragraph Hacker News comment.

by seoaeu 6y ago

bostonsre 6y ago

I guess if we theoretically had enough wind turbines, climates could start being impacted due to winds being slowed down but not exactly sure if that would heat the earth more or not. Could an area with lots of turbines have slower wind speeds and have heat dissipate less quickly? It seems plausible, but would think it would even out with a different area getting a little cooler. But yea, don't see how that would cause the earth to warm overall. Also, I assume wind turbines cause some emissions during manufacturing. Not sure going gang busters and making a ton to power bitcoin mining would be great for the planet.

pcthrowaway 6y ago
> Also, I assume wind turbines cause some emissions during manufacturing. Not sure going gang busters and making a ton to power bitcoin mining would be great for the planet. Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If we're building wind turbines to replace energy usage that serves a purpose, that's wonderful! Building new infrastructure for energy production so that we can pass it to a bunch of computers that piss it away is still wasteful. Even if it's less wasteful than burning coal to power those computers. Bitcoin and proof-of-work were revolutionary, but now that we have better cryptocurrency technology, we should be moving away from it.

pcthrowaway 6y ago

Since I'm getting downvoted, here's a study on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511830446X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511... Your misunderstanding seems possibly intentional. I'm very much in favour of renewable energy as an alternative to nonrenewable energy. I'm just not in favour of wasting energy for very little purpose. Build solar/wind energy to replace fossil fuels? Great! Obviously I'm in favour of that. Built an insane amount of infrastructure for producing renewable energy so that we can piss it away? That seems incredibly wasteful! Even if renewable energy is much better, there are still externalities to producing energy.

caf 6y ago
Regardless of whether it increases the local temperature, it's clearly not increasing the overall temperature because that energy in the wind would have ended up as heat, somewhere, eventually anyway.
lamontcg 6y ago
That study says that if you replaced 100% of the power generation of the United States with wind farms concentrated in the middle 1/3rd of the country that it would create localized 0.50C rise in SURFACE temperatures at the wind farms and 0.24C rise in SURFACE temperatures across the whole USA. The authors note very clearly that isn't a global rise in temperature and would be offset by the effects of GHG reduction. Furthermore the wind farm cost is "one time". The effects of GHGs are cumulative. See: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-turbines-generate-more-global-warming-than-fossil-fuels-misrepresents-study-ethan-huff/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-tur...
- pcthrowaway 6y ago
  But you're comparing this with nonrenewable energy! I'll state for the third time that I'm in favour of replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. What I'm saying is that it's still wasteful, and not cost-free if we're producing insane amounts of energy that don't need to be produced in the first place.
  - lamontcg 6y ago
    Your argument is a bit of a mess though. It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off. That would lower energy demand and prices and we're now in a regime where that makes running carbon-burning plants less attractive and they'd get turned off while any renewables that bitcoin is using would become available. And if I could snap my fingers and replace all the GHGs with wind I would and I wouldn't care about your concerns. And you're trying to argue that I can't make that comparison but I absolutely am. The issues you're bringing up aren't 1% of the problem that we have with GHGs so worrying about perfect renewable energy or overall dropping demand is so much less right now than worrying about getting off GHGs. The localized 0.5C surface warming of wind in that paper just isn't worth talking about at this point. But it isn't totally perfect! Surely you must agree? No. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Perfection.

xmprt 6y ago

Any infrastructure that we build, renewable or not, has an environmental impact. We have to mine resources and disturb natural habitats. If the renewable energy is used to replace existing fossil fuel demand, then that's a great thing. If instead we're using renewables mainly to fill new crypto mining demand, then that's a bad thing. There might be some positive impact by spurring more innovation in renewable research but I don't think it's possible to make such an analysis in a 2 paragraph Hacker News comment.