Wind turbines

[sendler]

My small town newspaper carried a similar story of wind turbine induced warming. This seems to be viral. They also made similar statements about the warming being 2C whereas carbon warming so far is only 1. As if to say they are like the same thing.
.
Not!
.
The turbines are just mixing any night time air that may be warmer and has risen, with the cooler ground level air and dew. The average temp for the area is really just the same.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

My small town newspaper carried a similar story of wind turbine induced warming. This seems to be viral. They also made similar statements about the warming being 2C whereas carbon warming so far is only 1. As if to say they are like the same thing.
.
Not!
.
The turbines are just mixing any night time air that may be warmer and has risen, with the cooler ground level air and dew. The average temp for the area is really just the same.

Yeah, that was a dumb article, even if true. The turbines don't create warming, only mixing of warm and cool air, which is a good thing. I'd rather nights carry a higher average temperature. Maybe that will reduce the energy requirements to keep homes warm at night.

[freebeard]

I thought the theory was that removing energy from the wind slows the horizontal circulation, stagnating the whole atmosphere. That makes as much sense.

[oil pan 4]

As far as wind turbines go these really suck. These wind turbines have to have a crane lift off the nacelle cover so they can be worked on, they leak oil constantly, these ancient Mitsubishi turbines are a pain to work on.
I have been to this wind farm. So much for rebuilding them.

boom!

This is one of the best wind location in the US. It's got the right combination of everything. Lots of wind, ease of access ( it's right off I-40), it has a transmission line right there and it's own substation for wind turbines. A new wind farm will be built there with less sucky enron wind turbines.
Rest in peices Aragonne Mesa Wind Farm.

[redpoint5]

Crazy there isn't any value in salvaging them. Scrap metal I guess.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I thought the theory was that removing energy from the wind slows the horizontal circulation, stagnating the whole atmosphere. That makes as much sense.

At 33,000-feet, you can just make out a wind turbine from an airliner.
The top of the troposphere ( where the 'climate' is ) goes to 42,000-feet, from which the turbines would be so microscopic as not to exist.
The 'blockage ratio' of the turbines, compared to local wind stream would be meaningless.
Compared to the troposphere it would be below meaningless.
Nice tripe for a lobbyist from the fossil-fuel industry though.

[redpoint5]

Could wind turbines sufficiently extract enough energy that we could measure a sustained overall decrease in wind intensity at the ground level?

[freebeard]

There would be a measurable delta upwind and downwind, at ground level. What aerohead says.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

There would be a measurable delta upwind and downwind, at ground level. What aerohead says.

Just local, or could this have larger effects downstream to the point that perhaps a city receives slightly reduced wind speeds?

Just thinking aloud here, because maybe Kansas wouldn't blow so much if the wind didn't blow so much.

[freebeard]

You're on the right track!

duckduckgo.com/?q=thinking+out+loud+fuller+-sheeran

If they put a dome over Kansas City, with a thermal chimney and/or vertical axis windmill at the summit they could power the whole thing inside it's own footprint.