Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by menacingly on Monday September 04, 2017 @04:59PM
(#15170832)
Looks like some far more competent folks have pretty thoroughly looked into it. I'll sleep better knowing I'm not the wind's sole protector
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by nkurz on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @02:56PM
(#15178102)
I know it's bad form to just offer an unexplained video link, but your phrase "the wind's sole protector" reminded me of this delightfully understated French commercial that illustrates why the wind has so few people looking out for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by beobab on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @05:41AM
(#15173702)
Although that would be a cool job description.
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by madcaptenor on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @11:44AM
(#15176319)
I'd really hope wind has a bus factor of more than one though.
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by wojt_eu on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @10:20AM
(#15175432)
If we increase our energy consumption 100-fold this estimation of net loss in wind would approach 1% which sounds bad. I guess we might need wind protector after all.
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by namarie on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @12:19PM
(#15176634)
That's a pretty big "if".
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by CuriousSkeptic on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @05:18PM
(#15179204)
Is it? Given current energy consumption growth it's just 100-150 years away
Edit: From covering the entire surface of the earth, which is the bigger if. (Should have read the context)
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by baldfat on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @09:09AM
(#15174716)
Aren't trees and tall buildings in cities doing a million times more then if the whole world was powered by the wind?
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by mcv on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @11:07AM
(#15175927)
Very likely, yes. Until wind farms dwarf the scale of our cities and forests, I doubt there's any reason to worry.
Besides, don't we usually consider trees to be good things? They block a lot more wind than any wind turbine.
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by baldfat on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @12:42PM
(#15176845)
I think once we solved the storage of energy from solar panels the wind won't really be needed. I still would love to see tidal generators that work but I guess it is to much upkeep.
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by amelius on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @06:09AM
(#15173811)
Don't forget that CO2 is heavier than O2, [1]. So if we don't keep that wind going, all the CO2 will sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, pushing the O2 up. I'm not sure if that is a linear process (x percent less wind meaning x percent less oxygen).
[1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-heavier-oxygen-or-carbon-diox...
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by mcv on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @11:09AM
(#15175961)
You mean CO2 would concentrate at tree level to be more easily absorbed and converted back into oxygen, rather than in the upper atmosphere where it heats the earth? I'm not sure I see the downside.
Re:Wind Energy Is One of the Cheapest, and It's Getting Cheaper
by comicjk on Tuesday September 05, 2017 @08:52AM
(#15174611)
Even in "still" air, the individual molecules have random velocities due to temperature - on the order of 100 m/s. Combined with the fact that there are more mixed configurations than unmixed configurations (entropy of mixing), this randomness effectively stirs the atmosphere without the need for the bulk motion of the wind.
In summary, if the entire Earth was powered by wind, it would result in a net loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere of ~0.007%.