2 ms·
It’s valid in that everything has an effect, but it’s not really a concern. One reason is that, as other commenters pointed out, the total volume of wind and s
by snowwrestler 5y ago
It’s valid in that everything has an effect, but it’s not really a concern.
One reason is that, as other commenters pointed out, the total volume of wind and solar is currently tiny compared to the energy delivered to the Earth’s surface from the sun. So the size of the effect is not large enough to be noticeable, or probably even measurable.
The other reason involves the mechanics of how wind and solar work.
Solar (photovoltaic) converts electromagnetic energy that would otherwise heat the atmosphere, directly into electricity. But, it converts probably less energy than you think (solar panels still get hot in the sun, i.e. they still radiate in the infrared). And, once the electricity is used by people to do work, the energy is converted back into atmospheric heat. No heat is lost; energy can’t be destroyed.
Wind turbines do absorb energy from the wind, but only from the wind they can reach, which is mostly regional. There is a boundary layer close to the Earth’s surface (below a few thousand feet above mean ground level) where air movement is relatively slow and chaotic. That’s what we experience as “wind” and what wind turbines can reach. But most atmospheric heat transport happens via extremely powerful and persistent air currents higher in the atmosphere. You may have heard of the “jet stream” for example. Wind turbines in high enough concentration could conceivably have a regional effect on wind patterns (just like tall buildings do) but it’s basically adding a small amount of local chaos to a part of the atmosphere that is already small and chaotic, like adding a couple new rocks to the bottom of a river. You might create some new little eddies along the bottom, but you’re not meaningfully affecting the main flow.