3 ms·

The amount we can extract is tiny compared to the volume of energy put into the air every day by the sun. At a certain scale it could definitely become an issu

The amount we can extract is tiny compared to the volume of energy put into the air every day by the sun. At a certain scale it could definitely become an issue and change the local environment and reduce wind speeds, we have seen that with some of the biggest solar farms where the air temperature is changed and the shade increases vegetation and wildlife so presumably wind speed reductions will have some effect. But compared to the CO2e it saves from being emitted its absolutely worth it currently.

vlovich123 1y ago
> But compared to the CO2e it saves from being emitted its absolutely worth it currently. Funny. That’s a huge part of the argument made to justify that burning fossil fuels is OK. The problem with letting small problems linger while you scale is that suddenly you have a huge problem you can’t do anything meaningfully about because suddenly it’s a critical part of your economy.
- Dylan16807 1y ago
  "It reduces CO2 emissions" is being used to justify burning fossil fuels? And is "a huge part" of the argument? I think you explained yourself wrong.
  - vlovich123 1y ago
    No, it’s being used to say that ignoring the problems with Wind farms scaling to a huge scale (and fossil fuels is massive and wind has made less than a noticeable dent) means that you’ve solved one set of problems for another and hopes the second set isn’t as bad. I didn’t say the only alternative is to go back to fossil fuels. I personally think that nuclear has much better and cleaner scaling properties with fewer issues than wind and solar (for example it still remains generally true that the only countries that have meaningfully reduced CO2 emissions are those that have offset it using nuclear while solar and wind have a very poor record) .
    - KennyBlanken 1y ago
      Please look at a chart of per-MWhr generation costs. Wind and solar are a fraction of the cost of nuclear (with solar plunging by the day, almost) and nuclear is only getting more expensive as time goes on despite being a decade or two away from being a 100 year old technology. In the US nuclear plants are being phased out and wind/solar projects are replacing them at a ratio of roughly 6:1...with huge savings for grid operators and customers. It's so cheap, even with storage system costs it's still cheaper. That's where utilities are focused: expanding energy storage and better transmission grid infrastructure. Those, and renewable energy, increase grid reliability.
      - DrScientist 1y ago
        Of course it does depend on how you measure cost. If you just measure generation costs then you are missing the other key element of a nation grid - it always working - and that characteristic costs as well, not just the electrons provided. So those improved transmission and storage investments need to be put on the renewables total costs. Nuclear also has significant decommissioning costs. However the biggest cost here is probably that required to adapt to the effects of climate change if we don't take steps.
      - vlovich123 1y ago
        As pointed out, the cost is only a fraction if you ignore the lack of batteries. Solar & Wind today can only be used economically for peak load. Baseload requires batteries and nuclear & fossil fuels remain more economical.
    - Dylan16807 1y ago
      If the only similarity is ignoring some problem somewhere then those two are massively different and it's not "funny" in the way you're implying.
    - pjc50 1y ago
      > wind has made less than a noticeable dent https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu... Almost 30% is not nothing.
grues-dinner 1y ago
> The amount we can extract is tiny compared to the volume of energy put into the air every day by the sun. Here's a study in how much wind power you can extract before adding more wind turbines doesn't produce more power overall. At the 100m mark (as opposed to the whole atmosphere up to the jet streams), they calculate 250TW. Total human electricity generation is well under 5TW (30PWh/yr, out of around 180PWh/yr of total energy), so we could supply all electricity from wind and still leave 98% of the "extractable" global wind potential in the air, which is itself less than all wind energy because of the Betz limit. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208993109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208993109

vlovich123 1y ago

> But compared to the CO2e it saves from being emitted its absolutely worth it currently. Funny. That’s a huge part of the argument made to justify that burning fossil fuels is OK. The problem with letting small problems linger while you scale is that suddenly you have a huge problem you can’t do anything meaningfully about because suddenly it’s a critical part of your economy.

Dylan16807 1y ago
"It reduces CO2 emissions" is being used to justify burning fossil fuels? And is "a huge part" of the argument? I think you explained yourself wrong.
- vlovich123 1y ago
  No, it’s being used to say that ignoring the problems with Wind farms scaling to a huge scale (and fossil fuels is massive and wind has made less than a noticeable dent) means that you’ve solved one set of problems for another and hopes the second set isn’t as bad. I didn’t say the only alternative is to go back to fossil fuels. I personally think that nuclear has much better and cleaner scaling properties with fewer issues than wind and solar (for example it still remains generally true that the only countries that have meaningfully reduced CO2 emissions are those that have offset it using nuclear while solar and wind have a very poor record) .
  - KennyBlanken 1y ago
    Please look at a chart of per-MWhr generation costs. Wind and solar are a fraction of the cost of nuclear (with solar plunging by the day, almost) and nuclear is only getting more expensive as time goes on despite being a decade or two away from being a 100 year old technology. In the US nuclear plants are being phased out and wind/solar projects are replacing them at a ratio of roughly 6:1...with huge savings for grid operators and customers. It's so cheap, even with storage system costs it's still cheaper. That's where utilities are focused: expanding energy storage and better transmission grid infrastructure. Those, and renewable energy, increase grid reliability.
    - DrScientist 1y ago
      Of course it does depend on how you measure cost. If you just measure generation costs then you are missing the other key element of a nation grid - it always working - and that characteristic costs as well, not just the electrons provided. So those improved transmission and storage investments need to be put on the renewables total costs. Nuclear also has significant decommissioning costs. However the biggest cost here is probably that required to adapt to the effects of climate change if we don't take steps.
    - vlovich123 1y ago
      As pointed out, the cost is only a fraction if you ignore the lack of batteries. Solar & Wind today can only be used economically for peak load. Baseload requires batteries and nuclear & fossil fuels remain more economical.
  - Dylan16807 1y ago
    If the only similarity is ignoring some problem somewhere then those two are massively different and it's not "funny" in the way you're implying.
  - pjc50 1y ago
    > wind has made less than a noticeable dent https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-mu... Almost 30% is not nothing.

grues-dinner 1y ago

> The amount we can extract is tiny compared to the volume of energy put into the air every day by the sun. Here's a study in how much wind power you can extract before adding more wind turbines doesn't produce more power overall. At the 100m mark (as opposed to the whole atmosphere up to the jet streams), they calculate 250TW. Total human electricity generation is well under 5TW (30PWh/yr, out of around 180PWh/yr of total energy), so we could supply all electricity from wind and still leave 98% of the "extractable" global wind potential in the air, which is itself less than all wind energy because of the Betz limit. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208993109 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1208993109