Does wind turbine energy consume inappropriate energy?

[vampares]

Prevailing winds travel from the west to the east in on all parts of the globe. This is true, say, roughly somewhere 70% to 95% of the time in the global atmosphere.

 

The moon raises/moves billion of gallons of water daily as tidal movement. The same force is likely responsible for the movement -- or non-movement -- relativistically, of the atmosphere because the earth revolves substantially faster than the moon's orbit (regardless of whether it goes forwards or backwards).

 

Solar energy is responsible for some acceleration of particles in the atmosphere on that daily basis, ((the word for this)), but tidal forces are undeniably controlled by primarily by lunar forces.

 

SO, if energy is extracted to from this system: wind against a stationary earth-bound resistance of rotational consumption

 

1. Does this slow the earths revolution about its axis?

2. Does it slow or accelerate the orbit of the moon?

3. Does this draw the moon closer or farther?

4. Does it draw the earth into or away from the sun?

Edited July 3, 2012 by vampares

[FarmForest Research]

Prevailing winds travel from the west to the east in on all parts of the globe. This is true, say, roughly somewhere 70% to 95% of the time in the global atmosphere.

 

The moon raises/moves billion of gallons of water daily as tidal movement. The same force is likely responsible for the movement -- or non-movement -- relativistically, of the atmosphere because the earth revolves substantially faster than the moon's orbit (regardless of whether it goes forwards or backwards).

 

Solar energy is responsible for some acceleration of particles in the atmosphere on that daily basis, ((the word for this)), but tidal forces are undeniably controlled by primarily by lunar forces.

 

SO, if energy is extracted to from this system: wind against a stationary earth-bound resistance of rotational consumption

 

1. Does this slow the earths revolution about its axis?

2. Does it slow or accelerate the orbit of the moon?

3. Does this draw the moon closer or farther?

4. Does it draw the earth into or away from the sun?

 

This should answer your question..

 

 

J

[Joatmon]

It's very fortunate that we stopped using sails to move large ships and improved our chances of survival by moving onto coal burning steamships!

[vampares]

OK maybe the modest amount of resistance isn't nearly enough to alter the earths orbit. Over time the mega-watts would add up.

 

IDK if it is of any coincidence but the wind has a tendency to bounce off of the US west coast lately particularly the Californian west coast. With a loss of wind come a loss of precipitable water.

 

The precipitable water connection is another major global force that might be factored in. 1 inches of rain per acre is roughly 27,000 gallons of water. Which is almost 100,000 kg. Lifted force is 1,000,000 newtons.

 

 

Work = mass x acceleration x distance

 

one turbine = 3 megawatthour = 10,800 megajoule

 

 

The atmosphere has a mass of about 5x10^18 kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface.

 

238,351 megawatthour global wind capacity in 2011. This global trend, loosely extrapolated to a cubic equation or some function, controls being:

time, power consumption, competition and cost, availability of wind, desirability/aesthetics/enviro, industry investment, reliability

 

The tangent on the data indicates the rise is steady. 600 megawatthours is not unreasonable.

 

 

I think the earth orbit question is rather valid. I think it would require a sphere of relatively small size to generate tidal energy. (Think Titanic). On the global spectrum this is certainly more reliable. What percentage of energy can be subject to the unreliability of wind? Yet this source of energy is rarely used.

 

In regards to the impact of turbines on the atmosphere, I have read that they are turbulent. Turbulence would have an impact on things, clouds for instance.

 

The video is kind of funny because a few wind turbines in a stiff breeze seems benign. It could be a crude and sloppy way of getting around the undesirability of tidal generators.

 

 

ONE might say, "What energy is given to me" rather than "What energy is available"

[too-open-minded]

Athough I don't understand your theory, I respect it. You can look at things from a different perspective, a lot of people either cant or wont. Your going to get 99 things wrong before you get 1 right, atleast a man named Albert Einstein said that.

 

But I respect what Joatmom said to, If were going to worry about problems energy is causing. Lets worry about the big ones first.

 

Unless you can somehow prove to an educated person or peoples this will butterfly effect into something, by all means try to prevent this problem. I just don't understand it so I cant believe it as it is not relevant to me, I'm a highschool dropout. Tell you what once after I start college in the fall and am more educated in physics and forces, Ill be able to give you a valid opinion.

[Janus]

OK maybe the modest amount of resistance isn't nearly enough to alter the earths orbit. Over time the mega-watts would add up.

 

Two things:

Nothing that we do on the Earth(that does not involve throwing stuff away from the Earth at better than escape velocity) can alter its orbit.

 

The orbital energy of the Earth is so large that even if all[i/] of the World's energy consumption came at its expense, after 100 years, the Earth would have moved less than 3 meters closer to the Sun.

 

 

I think the earth orbit question is rather valid. I think it would require a sphere of relatively small size to generate tidal energy. (Think Titanic). On the global spectrum this is certainly more reliable. What percentage of energy can be subject to the unreliability of wind? Yet this source of energy is rarely used.

 

 

 

Tidal action between the Earth and Moon has no effect on the Earth's orbit, just the Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit.

 

Now the Earth's rotational kinetic energy is ~2.58e29 joules. The total yearly World energy consumption is only 4.7e20 joules

 

It would take about 64 years at this rate for the Earth's period of rotation to increase by 2 milliseconds( again we are assuming that all the World's energy use comes at the expense of the Earth's rotation).

 

Normal tidal interaction already increases this period by 2 milliseconds per century.

 

Since we would never come anywhere close to extracting that much energy from the Earth's rotation via wind turbines, even if they had such an effect, we are not talking about something that we need to be concerned about.

[vampares]

Athough I don't understand your theory, I respect it.

 

I'm not proposing any specific theory yet. I'm just questioning the potential impact this technology *could* have on the earth. My numbers and attempt for data are somewhat slim and miscalculated as well.

 

Two things:

Nothing that we do on the Earth(that does not involve throwing stuff away from the Earth at better than escape velocity) can alter its orbit.

 

The orbital energy of the Earth is so large that even if all of the World's energy consumption came at its expense, after 100 years, the Earth would have moved less than 3 meters closer to the Sun.

 

 

Tidal action between the Earth and Moon has no effect on the Earth's orbit, just the Earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit.

 

Now the Earth's rotational kinetic energy is ~2.58e29 joules. The total yearly World energy consumption is only 4.7e20 joules

 

It would take about 64 years at this rate for the Earth's period of rotation to increase by 2 milliseconds( again we are assuming that all the World's energy use comes at the expense of the Earth's rotation).

 

Normal tidal interaction already increases this period by 2 milliseconds per century.

 

Since we would never come anywhere close to extracting that much energy from the Earth's rotation via wind turbines, even if they had such an effect, we are not talking about something that we need to be concerned about.

 

The moon having significantly less mass than the earth (mass is 0.0123 Earths -- or 1.2% !!!), I would think it would be the most effected ultimately: by harmonics, or just gravitational 'fling'. It is the source of the quasi rotational drag (the other possibility would be diurnal warming).

 

I'm not close minded to the possibility that wind energy could be producing an optimal effect on the planetary orbits of the earth and it's satellite. If it were the case I'd even suggest enhancing the adjustments, however minute.

 

It's very fortunate that we stopped using sails to move large ships and improved our chances of survival by moving onto coal burning steamships!

 

I've ridden a ferry across the English Channel which blew more black smoke (a teacher of mine calls this "bunker-C"). It's basically tar. I have some understanding what effect this has on the environment. It's been discussed i.e. carbon footprints, global warming -- I have expectations and a few gripes. But the ultimate long term effects of wind energy haven't been discussed.

 

And of course those sails are provided energy by wind. Where part of my concern lies is in the constant large scale wind energy draw (in contrast a 180,000 lb jet airliners create plenty of disturbances but they tend to be more chaotic). Even trees block wind. But this sort of energy draw might include some harmonic components from usage demand without the harmonics of a natural organism designed to be in harmony with the earth, sun and moon . . . the wind, the rain, the heat and the cold.

Edited August 22, 2012 by vampares