[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c15 = "" innerhtml = "
Affecting the climate in a surprising way
Despite what you may have drive, wind farms do not heat the planet. Current assertions that they stem from a poor reading of a scientific study, which shows no such thing.
The study in question was conducted by Lee Miller and David Keith of Harvard University. The pair simulated what would happen if all the electricity demand in the United States was provided solely by wind turbines. This scenario is not plausible because the electricity grid is easier to manage if it has a combination of sources rather than just one, but let's put that aside: it's a question of the "if if" type, designed only to examine the impact of the surrounding environment.
Miller and Keith estimate that this number of wind turbines would warm the surface over the American continent by 0.24 ° C. The study was published in the journal Joule.
At first glance, 0.24 ° C seems to be very prevalent, especially considering that we must do everything in our power to limit global warming to 2 ° C, or even to 1.5 ° C. But this is where reading errors come into play.
For starters, this warming only occurs in the United States – a relatively small fraction of the Earth's surface. It would take a lot more energy to warm the surface of the planet by 0.24 ° C.
But it's almost useless because wind turbines do not generate extra heat. Instead, they move the existing heat. Normally, the air just above the ground cools at night, but the rotating vanes of the turbine suck the air warmer up and down. Things are warming up just under the turbines at night, but they are also cooling elsewhere. The planet as a whole is not warming at all.
It's very different from what greenhouse gases do. They retain the heat of the Sun, which otherwise would escape into space, thus warming the entire planet.
By using wind turbines instead of fossil fuels such as coal, we are avoiding this long-term warming effect. Miller and Keith clearly explain in their paper that this replaces the temporary, localized warming they describe.
At this point, you might ask yourself what is the purpose of the study. In fact, there are some useful things to tell us, but these are subtle points.
The first is that we will need a mix of zero carbon energies if we want our society to work and avoid dangerous climate change. Putting all our eggs in one basket will result in the unexpected consequences that Miller and Keith have found. It means solar, tidal wave, wave, bioenergy, nuclear, wind, geothermal and all we can think of.
For this reason, anyone who says that "the wind is better than the sun" or that "the sun is better than the wind", or any comparison of this type, is simply stupid. It's like saying that cabbages are a better food than bananas. Different sources of energy will suit different places.
Second, we will need to be smart about where and how to deploy energy sources. If an area is home to endangered wildlife species and sensitive to temperature changes, building a wind farm may be a bad idea because of the localized warming that they cause – or maybe the park could be refitted to reduce the effect. Similarly, much research has been conducted on how to space wind turbines so that they do not interfere, ensuring that the park as a whole captures more energy.
Finally, if climate change occurs on a global scale, the consequences will be local. Any talk about incremental temperature changes can make it seem rather abstract and distant. But the real impacts are floods, storms, rising food prices and widespread droughts – all alarming.
">
Affecting the climate in a surprising way
Despite what you may have drive, wind farms do not heat the planet. Current assertions that they stem from a poor reading of a scientific study, which shows no such thing.
The study in question was conducted by Lee Miller and David Keith of Harvard University. The pair simulated what would happen if all the electricity demand in the United States was provided solely by wind turbines. This scenario is not plausible because the electricity grid is easier to manage if it has a combination of sources rather than just one, but let's put that aside: it's a question of the "if if" type, designed only to examine the impact of the surrounding environment.
Miller and Keith estimate that this number of wind turbines would warm the surface over the American continent by 0.24 ° C. The study was published in the journal Joule.
At first glance, 0.24 ° C seems to be very prevalent, especially considering that we must do everything in our power to limit global warming to 2 ° C, or even to 1.5 ° C. But this is where reading errors come into play.
For starters, this warming only occurs in the United States – a relatively small fraction of the Earth's surface. It would take a lot more energy to warm the surface of the planet by 0.24 ° C.
But it's almost useless because wind turbines do not generate extra heat. Instead, they move the existing heat. Normally, the air just above the ground cools at night, but the rotating vanes of the turbine suck the air warmer up and down. Things are warming up just under the turbines at night, but they are also cooling elsewhere. The planet as a whole is not warming at all.
It's very different from what greenhouse gases do. They retain the heat of the Sun, which otherwise would escape into space, thus warming the entire planet.
By using wind turbines instead of fossil fuels such as coal, we are avoiding this long-term warming effect. Miller and Keith clearly explain in their paper that this replaces the temporary, localized warming they describe.
At this point, you might ask yourself what is the purpose of the study. In fact, there are some useful things to tell us, but these are subtle points.
The first is that we will need a mix of zero carbon energies if we want our society to work and avoid dangerous climate change. Putting all our eggs in one basket will result in the unexpected consequences that Miller and Keith have found. It means solar, tidal wave, wave, bioenergy, nuclear, wind, geothermal and all we can think of.
For this reason, anyone who says that "the wind is better than the sun" or that "the sun is better than the wind", or any comparison of this type, is simply stupid. It's like saying that cabbages are a better food than bananas. Different sources of energy will suit different places.
Second, we will need to be smart about where and how to deploy energy sources. If an area is home to endangered wildlife species and sensitive to temperature changes, building a wind farm may be a bad idea because of the localized warming that they cause – or maybe the park could be refitted to reduce the effect. Similarly, much research has been conducted on how to space wind turbines so that they do not interfere, ensuring that the park as a whole captures more energy.
Finally, if climate change occurs on a global scale, the consequences will be local. Any talk about incremental temperature changes can make it seem rather abstract and distant. But the real impacts are floods, storms, rising food prices and widespread droughts – all alarming.
