If we threw all the money we have spent on "renewable" energy at trying to crack fusion - we'd have probably cracked it by now.
Fusion is currently the best hope we have to cater for the worlds energy needs - but the money that is being spent on it relative to "renewable" is a joke.
I agree that too little is being spent on fusion research but there's no need to compare it with the money spent on renewables which do produce energy now.
"Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels."
Edit: I should point out that the wind farm array they modelled covered 10% of the global land surface!
Well, we haven't yet because we've never done anything on a large enough scale to create such an effect, as far as I know.
So you think that increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~40% over pre-industrial levels hasn't had any effect? You think that pumping CFCs (compounds that did not exist in nature) into the stratosphere had no effect?
If we threw all the money we have spent on "renewable" energy at trying to crack fusion - we'd have probably cracked it by now.
Fusion is currently the best hope we have to cater for the worlds energy needs - but the money that is being spent on it relative to "renewable" is a joke.
I'm all for spending more money on fusion research, but I can think of better places to divert it from.
I agree that too little is being spent on fusion research but there's no need to compare it with the money spent on renewables which do produce energy now.
Well - if you have a finite pot of money, spending on one will inevitably impact spending on another.
From a political point of view however - its better to be seen to be doing something now - even if its impact is tiny, than to pour money down a black hole with no immediate return/benefit. That's why renewable energy currently gets the lions share of the cash - politicians only think in chunks of time measured in general elections.
Well - if you have a finite pot of money, spending on one will inevitably impact spending on another.
From a political point of view however - its better to be seen to be doing something now - even if its impact is tiny, than to pour money down a black hole with no immediate return/benefit. That's why renewable energy currently gets the lions share of the cash - politicians only think in chunks of time measured in general elections.
Governments spend trillions. I fail to see why the money for extra fusion research should come from renewables rather than say the war in Afghanistan or higher rate tax relief on pensions.
"Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels."
Edit: I should point out that the wind farm array they modelled covered 10% of the global land surface!
I thought as much.
I DO understand that it'd require a huge number of WTs though.
So you think that increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~40% over pre-industrial levels hasn't had any effect? You think that pumping CFCs (compounds that did not exist in nature) into the stratosphere had no effect?
Erm, I don't think it's likely to interfere with wind flow like a herd of WTs might.
It was WTs we were discussing, right?
Erm, I don't think it's likely to interfere with wind flow like a herd of WTs might.
It was WTs we were discussing, right?
Putting more energy into the climate system can certainly be expected to affect atmospheric circulation, probably rather more profoundly than even an infeasibly large number of wind turbines can achieve by converting kinetic energy into heat.
But you were replying to this, which I assumed was making a more general point:
Since it was posted in reply to what I wrote about WTs, I just assumed it was about that.
Whereas I assumed the point was that a frequent claim of the people who deny the science of global warming is that Man is too insignificant to affect the environment - a claim which is often reversed when Man does something to the environment that they don't approve of.
Since it was posted in reply to what I wrote about WTs, I just assumed it was about that.
it was kind of about both. I was kind of saying that (as some people on here have pointed out in the past) seeing as man is meant to be so insignificant that anything we have done so far to the planet (taking down rainforests, pollution, extinctions, co2 etc etc) has not / will not have an effect, then why would wind turbines be any different.
Their real purpose is to save the Earth from doom. The speed of the Earth's rotation is reducing and over the years this will result in less and less gravity being available to hold things in place.
Before that happens the wind turbines will be switched from being driven by the wind to being driven by electricity. They will all be made to point in same direction and used as propellers to boost the speed of the Earth's rotation.
The atmosphere which the "propellers" would blow against is part of the same spinning system as the firm earth below.
To adjust the Earth's spin relative to Space, there would need to be friction against the vacuum of Space, which there isn't*.
A good short/medium term solution but, let's face it, there's a limited supply of nuclear fuel too.
On the subject of WTs, I can't help wondering what, if any, effect their mass adoption might have on the weather and the stuff that relies on it.
As anybody who's ridden a bicycle with a dynamo attached will know, generating power DOES put a load on the thing that's doing the generating.
While we're only using a tiny number of WTs (relatively speaking) they're probably not creating much of an effect but I wonder if the same will be true if they're adopted on a mass scale?
It's possible they'll screw up wind currents, crop pollination, rainfall, insect and bird migration and any number of things that rely on wind for their proper function.
There is enough to power nuclear plants for a long time and new sources of raw materials will be found. I'd be interested to see how many wind farms are built if the subsidies stop; none I would guess; this has already happened in parts of Scandanavia and Europe.
Just thought I'd point out that wind has provided 5.9% of UK energy over the past 24 hours. That's a lot of gas and coal not being burned.
Though that's quite a high figure and it's often very much less than that. I haven't been keeping an eye on the NETA reports as much as I used to, but there are days when wind energy is producing next to nothing, and not infrequently that's during extremely cold, still weather in the depth of winter, just when the power is most needed.
Just thought I'd point out that wind has provided 5.9% of UK energy over the past 24 hours. That's a lot of gas and coal not being burned.
That's not neccesarily true.
They have the capacity to generate 5.9% of the country's power.
That doesn't mean they're doing it on a regular basis though.
That rather depends on how windy it is.
Which, in turn, means that you can't actually reduce the output from any of the regular power stations in case they're called upon to provide the extra 5.9% of power on calm days.
I seem to recall reading that one country (Denmark, Sweden, Holland or somewhere) was very proud of the fact that they've managed to meet the EUs target of having summat like 20% of their leccy produced by WTs.
Alas, it turns out that the number of conventional power stations that've been closed as a result of all this green energy is, erm, zero.
They have the capacity to generate 5.9% of the country's power.
That doesn't mean they're doing it on a regular basis though.
That rather depends on how windy it is.
Which, in turn, means that you can't actually reduce the output from any of the regular power stations in case they're called upon to provide the extra 5.9% of power on calm days.
I seem to recall reading that one country (Denmark, Sweden, Holland or somewhere) was very proud of the fact that they've managed to meet the EUs target of having summat like 20% of their leccy produced by WTs.
Alas, it turns out that the number of conventional power stations that've been closed as a result of all this green energy is, erm, zero.
What smudge's dad says is perfectly true. Go to the NETA website and select "Generation by fuel type (table)" from the menu at the left. However, as I said, 5.9% is quite a high figure and it's often lower.
What smudge's dad says is perfectly true. Go to the NETA website and select "Generation by fuel type (table)" from the menu at the left. However, as I said, 5.9% is quite a high figure and it's often lower.
Fair do's. I was assuming the 5.9% was simply based on the number of WTs around.
Even so, the fact that 5.9% of leccy came from WTs doesn't actually mean we saved much in the way of conventional fuel or avoided much pollution since the power stations need to be kept running just in case the wind dies down.
TBH, I wonder whether the regular power stations are happy about being forced to operate like this?
Seems like they are, in effect, forced to keep running in case they're needed to support the WTs but they're not being paid unless they're actually shoving juice into the grid.
Obviously, you could just say "Tough luck. It's your choice to generate leccy like that" but I'm not sure it's wise to take that stance with a private company that supplies a basic utility.
Still, OTOH, I suppose they're making enough that they can afford to absorb a few percent loss per day.
I seem to recall reading that one country (Denmark, Sweden, Holland or somewhere) was very proud of the fact that they've managed to meet the EUs target of having summat like 20% of their leccy produced by WTs.
Alas, it turns out that the number of conventional power stations that've been closed as a result of all this green energy is, erm, zero.
If the wind turbines are running the conventional power stations are burning less fuel and therefore carbon emissions are reduced.
I don't see why you have a problem with this, no one is suggesting the grid is powered entirely or mostly off wind turbines. The point is to to emit less carbon dioxide and it doesn't matter what the percentage is at any one time as long as you can power the grid.
They have the capacity to generate 5.9% of the country's power.
That doesn't mean they're doing it on a regular basis though.
That rather depends on how windy it is.
Which, in turn, means that you can't actually reduce the output from any of the regular power stations in case they're called upon to provide the extra 5.9% of power on calm days.
I seem to recall reading that one country (Denmark, Sweden, Holland or somewhere) was very proud of the fact that they've managed to meet the EUs target of having summat like 20% of their leccy produced by WTs.
Alas, it turns out that the number of conventional power stations that've been closed as a result of all this green energy is, erm, zero.
as I mentioned before the madness of duplication
surely better to spend the billions from WT and have the most efficient power stations and the best house efficiency
A good short/medium term solution but, let's face it, there's a limited supply of nuclear fuel too.
On the subject of WTs, I can't help wondering what, if any, effect their mass adoption might have on the weather and the stuff that relies on it.
As anybody who's ridden a bicycle with a dynamo attached will know, generating power DOES put a load on the thing that's doing the generating.
While we're only using a tiny number of WTs (relatively speaking) they're probably not creating much of an effect but I wonder if the same will be true if they're adopted on a mass scale?
It's possible they'll screw up wind currents, crop pollination, rainfall, insect and bird migration and any number of things that rely on wind for their proper function.
Well, we haven't yet because we've never done anything on a large enough scale to create such an effect, as far as I know.
It just occurs to me that the power of the wind can be quantified and if you've got a sufficient number of WTs all generating a squillion gigawatts of leccy then, obviously, it requires that you suck more than a squillion gigawatts (cos no system is 100% efficient) of energy from the wind.
And that's energy that was previously used to do other stuff in nature.
I don't think stuff at ground level would mess with high altitude weather currents (though it might, for all I know) but it seems undeniable that sucking huge amounts of energy out of the wind at ground level would reduce the efficiency of other things that the wind does at ground level.
*EDIT*
I should say, I'm certainly not saying anything bad WILL happen.
Just speculating.
The effect of wind turbines on the weather will be absolutely zero. They are simply not of sufficient size or density to have the slightest effect.
Mountain ranges affect the weather quite considerably. They break up and funnel wind, can cause heavy orographic rain, and warm air in certain conditions to the lee of the mountain (the fohn effect). Huge buildings in built up areas can have some effect as well, by sheltering certain areas and funnelling the wind in others. Huge cities have a considerable effect on temperatures as well, especially in Summer, as heat islands build up. This can cause minimum overnight temperatures to be much higher than in the surrounding countryside.
The effect of wind turbines on the weather will be absolutely zero. They are simply not of sufficient size or density to have the slightest effect.
Mountain ranges affect the weather quite considerably. They break up and funnel wind, can cause heavy orographic rain, and warm air in certain conditions to the lee of the mountain (the fohn effect). Huge buildings in built up areas can have some effect as well, by sheltering certain areas and funnelling the wind in others. Huge cities have a considerable effect on temperatures as well, especially in Summer, as heat islands build up. This can cause minimum overnight temperatures to be much higher than in the surrounding countryside.
You gotta love when people pipe up with stuff like this even though one of the major supporters of WTs has conceded that it's accepted that they CAN create an adverse effect.
You gotta love when people pipe up with stuff like this even though one of the major supporters of WTs has conceded that it's accepted that they CAN create an adverse effect.
If the wind turbines are running the conventional power stations are burning less fuel and therefore carbon emissions are reduced.
I don't see why you have a problem with this, no one is suggesting the grid is powered entirely or mostly off wind turbines. The point is to to emit less carbon dioxide and it doesn't matter what the percentage is at any one time as long as you can power the grid.
Are they?
It's more complex than a simple case of 5% less load = 5% less fuel burned.
I'm sure there ARE reductions in emissions as load decreases but it probably won't be as much as people assume.
I don't have any real problem with alternative energy. In fact I'm all for it.
It's just that I've become rather cynical of the viability of and motivation behind some of the currently fashionable schemes.
"Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels."
Edit: I should point out that the wind farm array they modelled covered 10% of the global land surface!
So you think that increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~40% over pre-industrial levels hasn't had any effect? You think that pumping CFCs (compounds that did not exist in nature) into the stratosphere had no effect?
Comments
I agree that too little is being spent on fusion research but there's no need to compare it with the money spent on renewables which do produce energy now.
Here you go:
"Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in the atmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regional to global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales. Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it would deliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between the climate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels."
Edit: I should point out that the wind farm array they modelled covered 10% of the global land surface!
So you think that increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration by ~40% over pre-industrial levels hasn't had any effect? You think that pumping CFCs (compounds that did not exist in nature) into the stratosphere had no effect?
Well - if you have a finite pot of money, spending on one will inevitably impact spending on another.
From a political point of view however - its better to be seen to be doing something now - even if its impact is tiny, than to pour money down a black hole with no immediate return/benefit. That's why renewable energy currently gets the lions share of the cash - politicians only think in chunks of time measured in general elections.
Governments spend trillions. I fail to see why the money for extra fusion research should come from renewables rather than say the war in Afghanistan or higher rate tax relief on pensions.
I thought as much.
I DO understand that it'd require a huge number of WTs though.
Erm, I don't think it's likely to interfere with wind flow like a herd of WTs might.
It was WTs we were discussing, right?
But you were replying to this, which I assumed was making a more general point:
Since it was posted in reply to what I wrote about WTs, I just assumed it was about that.
it was kind of about both. I was kind of saying that (as some people on here have pointed out in the past) seeing as man is meant to be so insignificant that anything we have done so far to the planet (taking down rainforests, pollution, extinctions, co2 etc etc) has not / will not have an effect, then why would wind turbines be any different.
The atmosphere which the "propellers" would blow against is part of the same spinning system as the firm earth below.
To adjust the Earth's spin relative to Space, there would need to be friction against the vacuum of Space, which there isn't*.
*In the current understanding of what Space is.
There is enough to power nuclear plants for a long time and new sources of raw materials will be found. I'd be interested to see how many wind farms are built if the subsidies stop; none I would guess; this has already happened in parts of Scandanavia and Europe.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
That's not neccesarily true.
They have the capacity to generate 5.9% of the country's power.
That doesn't mean they're doing it on a regular basis though.
That rather depends on how windy it is.
Which, in turn, means that you can't actually reduce the output from any of the regular power stations in case they're called upon to provide the extra 5.9% of power on calm days.
I seem to recall reading that one country (Denmark, Sweden, Holland or somewhere) was very proud of the fact that they've managed to meet the EUs target of having summat like 20% of their leccy produced by WTs.
Alas, it turns out that the number of conventional power stations that've been closed as a result of all this green energy is, erm, zero.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Fair do's. I was assuming the 5.9% was simply based on the number of WTs around.
Even so, the fact that 5.9% of leccy came from WTs doesn't actually mean we saved much in the way of conventional fuel or avoided much pollution since the power stations need to be kept running just in case the wind dies down.
TBH, I wonder whether the regular power stations are happy about being forced to operate like this?
Seems like they are, in effect, forced to keep running in case they're needed to support the WTs but they're not being paid unless they're actually shoving juice into the grid.
Obviously, you could just say "Tough luck. It's your choice to generate leccy like that" but I'm not sure it's wise to take that stance with a private company that supplies a basic utility.
Still, OTOH, I suppose they're making enough that they can afford to absorb a few percent loss per day.
If the wind turbines are running the conventional power stations are burning less fuel and therefore carbon emissions are reduced.
I don't see why you have a problem with this, no one is suggesting the grid is powered entirely or mostly off wind turbines. The point is to to emit less carbon dioxide and it doesn't matter what the percentage is at any one time as long as you can power the grid.
Windfarms and nuclear energy are the way forward for now.
as I mentioned before the madness of duplication
surely better to spend the billions from WT and have the most efficient power stations and the best house efficiency
The effect of wind turbines on the weather will be absolutely zero. They are simply not of sufficient size or density to have the slightest effect.
Mountain ranges affect the weather quite considerably. They break up and funnel wind, can cause heavy orographic rain, and warm air in certain conditions to the lee of the mountain (the fohn effect). Huge buildings in built up areas can have some effect as well, by sheltering certain areas and funnelling the wind in others. Huge cities have a considerable effect on temperatures as well, especially in Summer, as heat islands build up. This can cause minimum overnight temperatures to be much higher than in the surrounding countryside.
You gotta love when people pipe up with stuff like this even though one of the major supporters of WTs has conceded that it's accepted that they CAN create an adverse effect.
Like I said ~ ZERO effect.
"Conceded that it's accepted" lol
Rock on Si :cool:
Are they?
It's more complex than a simple case of 5% less load = 5% less fuel burned.
I'm sure there ARE reductions in emissions as load decreases but it probably won't be as much as people assume.
I don't have any real problem with alternative energy. In fact I'm all for it.
It's just that I've become rather cynical of the viability of and motivation behind some of the currently fashionable schemes.
You really are so desperate to take every opportunity to argue with me, aren't you?
Here, take it up with njp:-