It’s time to throw a monkey wrench into the works of proponents of windmill energy utilizing the principles of thermodynamics, specifically the First Law of Thermodynamics. In short, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (in a closed system) can neither be created nor destroyed. It can change states, meaning kinetic energy can change to friction, or light energy to heat, etc. The total amount of energy in the system does not change.
Consider the operation of windmill-driven turbines. Simplistically put, the kinetic energy of particles in the atmosphere spins the turbine, which in turn creates electricity. In effect, the windmill is stealing energy from the atmosphere to be turned into electricity. The problem with this is more profound than one might assume at first glance; kinetic energy in the atmosphere (wind) is a result of different atmospheric pressures exchanging particles in an attempt to bring equilibrium to the system. Example: particles in a high pressure area migrate toward an area of lower pressure, the resultant movement of atmospheric molecules is felt by the observer as wind.
This movement of air particles is what is being tapped to generate electricity from a windmill turbine. As the number of windmills increases, there is more energy required to operate them, thus ever-increasing amounts of energy stolen from the atmosphere. Currently, the minutia of the windmills as compared to the atmosphere’s aggregate kinetic energy produces an immaterial effect. However, it would be unwise to assume that there is no limit to the amount of energy that can be taken from the atmosphere and employed to produce electricity.
I am not a meteorologist, nor a scientist of any kind, but it would seem to me that there are some serious negative possibilities that come with over-utilizing windmill turbines for energy production. As described above, the process of the atmosphere regulating its pressure will be disrupted. If there are windmills taking energy from wind, then more energy will be required for the atmosphere to push past the wind farm and deliver the air particles to their low-pressure destination. Non-scientific extrapolation: this would probably mean increased wind speeds. I cannot even begin to draw the corollaries or tangential impacts that this may have on global weather patterns. It could mean high-altitude air currents (such as the commonly known “jet stream”) are re-directed, thus changing the weather patterns of an entire continent or even the world. There is only so much energy available in the atmospheric system, and borrowing too much can only lead to negative consequences.
Therefore, we could be unknowingly creating more weather-related problems by trying to reduce the alleged global warming effect by replacing energy produced by fossil fuels with windmill turbines. This seems counter-productive. Given the volume of the earth’s atmosphere and the relative area covered by windmill turbines, there is likely no need to worry that this would happen anytime soon, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen sometime in the future; and, that’s what this whole renewable energy thing is supposed to be about – isn’t it?
Bangui Bay Windmills image used in this post courtesy of Flickr user Storm Crypt
10 Comments
Wow, I never came close to thinking about the atmospheric system this way. What would happen if we gradually build resistance to the path of least resistance. This could have profound effects on the “pressure” circuit as you mention. Very interesting.
This is an interesting idea, but the earth isn’t a closed system, so it’s kind of moot. The earth gives off energy to space and gets cooked by the sun. I’m not really sure how much that affects your argument. It’s always good to look out for unintended consequences to good ideas.
It affects is deeply, and is an excellent point.
The energy to create wind is constantly being replenished by those forces you state. That drastically increases the amount of energy disruption required to make an impact and would must definitely have to be figured in to any calculations performed if one were to calculate just how much energy is required to cause tangible change.
Actually, Jake, I just had another thought. The energy exchange you mention is what fuels the atmospheric system at present. And therefore, without a change in the transfer of those energies this point would still be valid. The total amount of energy in the atmospheric system may fluctuate because of those processes, but the system remains the same. Unless something like a serious increase/decrease in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth, or a massive shift in total mass.
As far as my Weather Channel Kung Fu goes, the Sun creates wind by exciting particles of air via with its light and heat radiation. The air then gets funneled between bumpers that function like bowling ally bumpers along the path of least resistance. Now, as you ask Jay, what would happen if we add resistance to those rivers of air?
Also what happens to the system (which isn’t closed on an earthly scale but on a Universal scale) if we take the energy from wind and transfer it into electricity on a large scale?
And Jake you make a great point about unanticipated consequences. Determining said consequences is the key to genius. I think your Feynman quote is appropriate here.
Great point. I never would have thought that windmills could have a negative impact on our planet.
Great post.
What I get out of this is that we should shoot for a piecemeal energy program. Use a little of this, a little of that, just to make sure the resources needed for each solution stay at some sort of equilibrium.
Side note: Its interesting how our efforts to use ethanol as an alternative energy have ended up disrupting the food supply balance and creating skyrocketing grain prices.
Indeed. That isn’t the only reason, though, as the rising oil prices themselves are drastically increasing distribution costs for peddlers of grocery products further driving up the prices on a variety of foods.
A piecemeal approach, as you say, to energy supply is a wise course of action. I’m watching a Modern Marvels episode on History Channel that has a few awesome energy-generating solutions like a huge tower with turbines at the bottom that get turned by the convection of hot air up a funnel that is collected by a low level greenhouse field. Also, Andrew you should be proud of this one, there is a solar tower system being built outside of Seville, Spain that focuses an array of mirrors (Heliostats, I had to throw in the technical term because it is so awesome) on a system of coils filled with water on the sides of the tower which get heated and generate steam, in turn operating a turbine. Cool stuff.
I gotta visit that thing next time I’m in Spain.
And I’m curious what they call heliostats in Spain. Its probably something like solstates or statsoles.
Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s Heliostats, even in Spanish.