jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (77 posts)

Wind farms can cause warmer temperatures

  1. CMHypno profile image90
    CMHypnoposted 4 years ago

    So do you think they are a good idea?



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn … study.html

    1. ptosis profile image80
      ptosisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I just read it - and it proves to be that "going green" is not going to stop making it hotter!

      Wind farms mixing up the cooler ground air with the upper warmer air pushed average temp in the past decade by almost 2 degrees F  - well this is Texas  .. or hell ( is there a difference?)

      Humans are affecting the planet but not as much as the great precession.

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6543876_f248.jpg

      http://voices.yahoo.com/2012-maya-aztec … 52638.html

    2. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did this article get reprinted from "The Onion"?

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Did this article get reprinted from "The Onion"?

    4. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And, a change in a localized temperature around a wind turbine is NOT climate change. This is no more climate change than having a bonfire or a background grill causes climate change.

      Circulating the immediate air is just that: Circulating the the air.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image84
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Two useful links to this conversation, (which I feel needs to be revived, it's too important for us to let misinformation go about unheeded):

        http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/about/index.htm  about the effect on temperature that city buildings cause.
        http://www.ias.unu.edu/urban/index.php/ … te-change/   further science about cities and climate change.

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting articles and fact-driven.

          Yet, we don't see anyone calling for curtailment of operation of or construction of urban buildings. In fact, there are increasing numbers of people claiming that a revitalization of urbanization is the "solution" to climate change.

          My sense is that alternative energy---including windmills, have become the target of the so-called "right" because, quite simply, they represent progress and movement away from the fossil fuel industry.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Progress how?  Higher prices, forcing usage reductions and uncomfortable homes?  Dead birds?  Ugly scenery?  Massive use of raw materials and labor to build both windmills AND power plants? 

            Question: has anyone ever looked at the rate of return; how many years it will take to replace the fossil fuels used on making those things, from digging ore to trucking them down the road to stringing wire to to years of maintenance way off the beaten path, in terms of how much fossil fuel they save after being built?  We absolutely know they cost more money than they "save", but what about fossil fuels?  Do they actually save any or is that a net loss, too?

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ah...wilderness!

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well you have to wonder, don't you?  The gasohol greenies absolutely insisted it was good for us all, it was progress to put the stuff in our gas.  And it costs more fossil fuels to do so, but it pads the pockets of the greenies making the claim, so we're still doing it even as more and more people understand the real costs of that "progress".

                Are windmills the same?  Has anyone every looked into it?

            2. HollieT profile image88
              HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Domestic cats kill birds at the rate of knots
              Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
              In some parts of Europe the cost of the energy produced by wind farms is lower than that of nuclear energy.
              The problem perhaps lies with the organisations who are accepting the subsidies for wind farms and amassing huge profits from them.

      2. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's not quite correct, mbug. Circulating air is not the same as heat retention at ground level. The negative effects of global warming are seen at ground level when the average temperature exceeds that of recorded average temps. Anything that raises the temperature - is contributory because heat is not being allowed to escape. It's interrupting the natural cooling cycle.

        It has nothing to do with ozone depletion, however, but it could be detrimental to areas with high wind farm populations.

        The only reason I'm iffy on wind farms is due to the large amount of birds killed by them. I've walked in some of the biggest wind farms in Wyoming and the ground was littered by fowl in various states of decomposition. That's why some have named them "eagle killers."

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Birds...really? The #1 killer of birds: The household cat. The #2 killer of birds: Automobile windshields. Any concerned public calling for curtailment of cat populations and/or car windshields?

          And no, there is very little scientific evidence to support claims that wind turbines raise temperatures or affect cooling cycles. And what does exist suggests affects to be in the same range as affects from power lines.

          1. HowardBThiname profile image89
            HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's apparent that you've never walked beneath the turbines in a large wind farm. I'm not talking about the little birdie your cat caught. This is about protected migratory species chopped up by the hundreds. How many Canadian Geese has your alley cat taken down? How many eagles?

            That's what I thought.

            I'm curious about your claim that power lines affect natural cooling cycles to a like extent as that of wind farms. Please be so kind as to link us to your 'evidence.'

            I hope you realize that you're undermining your own desire to back all wind farms  - all the time - by making the power line assertion, seeing as the energy from the turbines must be transferred via power lines.

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Whatever...and what makes you so sure that I have never "walked beneath turbines [on] a large wind farm"?

              The bottom-line is that every alternative energy technology---every new and innovative technology, has been met by uninformed and misinformed critics and by those critics invested in maintaining (generally for personal  financial gain) the so-called "status quo".

              After all, telegraph lines were supposed to make men sterile; telephone lines make is all sterile; television cables make us all wish we were just all sterile.

              1. HowardBThiname profile image89
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                While I can't prove you have not walked on a wind farm - your post about small birds and cats leads me to believe you have not seen the carnage from large migratory birds.

                You could be correct when you say that new energy technology has been met with uninformed criticism. But, in the same vein, there is a lot of misinformation being pumped in the media about the fossil fuel industry.

                I've never heard the "sterile" stories, but I'll take your word for it. My position is that people should take the time to learn about a topic before insisting one way or another about its effects.

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe I just don't care about birds...wink

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Met by the naysayers, but pushed and promoted by those with a very definite finger in the financial pie.  Maybe, just maybe, the naysayers are right to take a close look at such obvious conflict of interest.

                When the man wanting to sell me a windmill tells me it will save the world if I will only give him money, I generally think twice before opening the pocketbook.

                1. psycheskinner profile image79
                  psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The vast majority of people promoting renewable energy make no financial gain.

                  In fact as I support a wind farm project in India (giving turbines to isolated villages to improve their quality of life) I make a considerable loss.

                  Every energy source has down sides, anyone who says otherwise is a fool.  But that does not make them all equal--some have worse downsides than others.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image84
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ....and being able to take a balanced view of the various technologies helps.  There is so much emotion displayed when people argue, that any factual information quickly gets a back seat and lost in the noise.

                    Yes, there are people who's only motivation is to make more money out of an enterprise, regardless of how it effects anyone else.  Yes, there are conservative-minded people who don't want to risk anything new, period.  Yes there are people who will cry "Ban it" when the slightest thing goes wrong with new technology.  But look at history.

                    Steam engined trains suffered huge and horrific crashes in the early part of the 20th century.  The scenario of great metallic monsters, belching smoke and steam, crashing into each other and throwing the passengers about and out the windows, could have caused people to say, "Ban steam trains."  Yet modifications to the mechanics and signaling systems brought about improvements and - we all learned to live with them.   

                    Come back to the current situation where, because of a couple of sensational mishaps, nuclear power has been given a bad name and banned from consideration as an "alternative."   If sufficient effort was put into research and innovation, with a large task force of scientists and engineers giving it their attention, maybe this could be a legitimate part of our desire for electricity  -  along with some wind power and some solar power, etc.

                    Take a similar attitude to coal-fired power stations and we can include that as part of our "energy matrix" too.  It all depends on courage and commitment to find solutions to any problem.... just call it "opportunity" rather than a problem.

                    Let's not be too narrow minded.... let's keep options and our vision open to new ideas.

                  2. HowardBThiname profile image89
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Agreeing with and "promoting" are two different animals. Most people agree that our world will be a better place to live if we keep it clean and the air healthy to breathe.

                    But when it comes to the actual promotion of wind farm technology or another much-ballyhooed solution, there is often someone very different behind the push. You might "support" wind farms, but do you support increasing the cost of energy to such an extent that people die because they cannot afford to heat houses in winter or cool them in summer?

                    Currently, there is a run on LP (propane) for heating rural homes. Already, we've seen people catch their houses on fire trying to use hot plates to warm up a room because they could not afford the cost to fill their propane tanks.

                    It's great to want to do something to help the world in general. But, it's another thing completely to try and force your agreement on those who might suffer because of it.

                    I'm thinking of installing a wind turbine - a different cylindrical type - but I don't advocate getting rid of a very inexpensive source of energy that allow even the poor to heat and cool their homes. Coal.

              3. jonnycomelately profile image84
                jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                mmmmm.... people will believe anything, won't they?   Especially when it's got anything to do with their potential for reproduction.  You will even get individuals imaging they can become sterile from visiting an X-Ray department at the hospital (with I can assure you is NOT possible).

    5. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I guess we should just go back to burning coal.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What do you mean, "go back" to burning coal? Coal-fired energy is increasing worldwide. The US saw a small decrease in 2009, but then it increased again.

        Coal use is second only to crude. That's why it's so important not to pull the rug out from under cheap coal energy - at least not until we can come up with something else reliable and cost efficient on a widespread basis.

        1. profile image0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Define "cheap".

          There are costs associated with fossil fuels that are not included in the per unit pricing.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image84
            jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            For example, the emissions from a coal-fired power station can contain more radioactive particles than you would ever get from the running of a nuclear powered station.
            If a lot more research is put into the technology of coal that might change things for the better.

            1. profile image0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But, at the end of the day, coal (like oil) is still a finite resource.

              I have NO idea why there is any resistance to solar, wind, and hydro power. It makes no sense to me.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                People resist change. They are comfortable with how things are for the most part, oil etc. is currently the easy option. People like ease and the status quo.

              2. HowardBThiname profile image89
                HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think I'd say it's "resistance." I just think since we can't store energy on the grid, those sources are still not quite ready to replace fossil fuels.

                And, of course, the cost.

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think you're not understanding how the grid works.

                  Energy produced by alternative sources (wind, solar, hydro, etc.) is transferred to the grid. Whether you have a wind farm or one wind mill or one solar panel in your backyard you can transfer energy to the grid.

                  The more energy transferred from alternative producers,  the less energy that is produced using fossil fuels.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think YOU know how a grid works.  The grid is "full" so to speak, at all times.  When the wind suddenly blows and additional power is put into the grid, it has to be taken off line somewhere else.  You must close the hydro gates, throttle down the gas plant or cool the reactor of a nuke plant. 

                    Then the wind dies and that power is needed again, but re-starting isn't always so simple.  The nuke plant takes hours or days to re-start.  The gas is quicker, but the hydro is shut down because you had to spill all the water while the wind was blowing.

                    So when you start talking about thousands of small alternative sources they generally cause more trouble and cost than they are worth, fossil fuels or not.  The grid works best with constant sources of power - it's bad enough that demand varies but when the source does too it is enormously difficult just to keep things running.

                2. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's the problem, though. Unless renewable technologies aren't organized and put into place starting in the very near future, there simply won't be the resources left to build the new infrastructure that will be needed to put in the new system.

                  What will most likely happen is that the resources will be used up, or at least past the critical point, before people really start realizing there's an actual problem. They may even see the problem, but think it will be solved "somewhere down the line" perhaps with new technology. And then there are those, like big corps who are profiting from those needed resources now, who are greedy and just don't care.

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image89
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The idea that we're "running out" of fossil fuels is promoted by organizations with their own agendas. Granted, we have a finite amount, but we haven't even made a dent in our resources to date. A conservative estimate is that we have at least 200 years of fossil fuel resources before we reach depletion.

                    So - we have some time. We do need to continue to work to develop RELIABLE alternative sources of energy - but what we have - to date - is not adequate. Sure - "organize" them, but don't expect to "put them in place" until you can do so without pricing consumers out of the market.

                    Who have we helped if we implement an energy resource that is so expensive and sporadic that demand far outweighs supply and people can no longer heat and cool their homes? That's what we're looking at right now. The alternatives are not yet cost-effective or reliable enough to replace fossil fuels.

                    I don't know if you remember when Obama was first running for office but he made a comment that his environmental agenda would bankrupt the fossil fuel industry. Since he's been in office - he's come to understand that in doing that - he would leave the citizens without an affordable source of energy for their homes. So - he backed off and drilling has actually increased.

                    Sometimes, it's better to look past the rhetoric to what's actually happening. We hear a lot about carbon emissions, ozone depletion and climate change, but we only hear what special interest groups want us to hear.

                    Livestock, for example, are one of the biggest contributors to methane gas - but because it's more popular to bash fossil fuels - you rarely hear anything about the amount of methane produced globally from livestock sources.

                    It's all really about money right now. So, it's important to take time and research the data before prematurely implementing alternative programs.

              3. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Solar is very expensive and takes a lot of land.  Wind is very expensive, takes a lot of land and kills animals.  Hydro is cheap, but kills fish. 

                You cannot, for instance, transfer power to the grid from a windmill and do it cheaper than the utility can purchase power from a coal plant.  The cost then goes up, and people get hurt when they cannot afford the power you want to sell.  I know - it's happening in my state right now.

                And when people are hurt by that increase, when they cannot maintain a comfortable home or even, sometimes, a livable one, they don't care one iota about fossil fuels being used.

                1. profile image0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Huh?

                  Hydro-power harnesses things like pre-existing waterfalls to produce electric. I live in western New York---think Niagara Falls. ALL of our electric is produced by the Falls, and in fact, we export the extra power.

                  As for wind power, did you know that windmills are put up on farm land and animals graze below them? There are extensive wind farms in California (and other places including New York) that have been in place for over 20 years producing power and living harmoniously with animals and farms.

                  Solar does NOT require land. In fact, you can have solar panels on your roof top and supply enough energy to power a home. Solar panels can be, and are, installed on rooftops not only of private homes, but of commercial buildings including city buildings.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Huh? yourself.  Very, very few "natural" waterfalls are used for hydro power, including Niagara - the falls have been heavily modified for power production.  I live in the NW, where a great deal of power comes from dams (it does take some kind of spillway to force water through the turbines - just watching it fall doesn't produce much).  There is even a 1 or 2 mile section of cliff, called "thousand springs", that is a hydro plant.  As a result of that plant the "thousand springs" is now the "half dozen springs" - the modifications have shut off hundreds of springs shooting out from the cliff wall.  Huge natural beauty shut off forever from people seeing it in exchange for a few kilowatts of power. 

                    Sometimes windmills are put on farm land, sometimes not.  And when they are it takes valuable real estate that could be used for farming to support the windmill and maintenance vehicles going to them.  And yes, they do kill thousands of birds each year; the tips of those blades are moving at speeds far, far beyond what any bird has ever seen and they do not recognize the danger.  The result is dead birds, but of course killing animals is a small price to pay for power.

                    Solar panels absolutely require space.  You can put a few on your roof to charge a battery, but that's about all.  I helped wire an apartment complex that had the roof covered with solar panels; payback is in the decades, not months or even years and does not include maintenance.  There is a remote commercial swimming pool near me that operates totally from solar; the panels cover several acres but are necessary to run the pumps and one small freezer selling ice cream.  A few panels do virtually nothing to provide power in amounts used by people today.  Solar plants don't even use them, but other methods for heating a liquid to drive a turbine.

                    And at the end of it all, none of those are dependable.  Droughts shut off most hydro (not Niagara, I presume).  Darkness absolutely kills solar production and the wind doesn't always blow.  And every time any of those things happen we are kicked right back onto the fossil fuel plants; plants that could have been upgraded and made more efficient with a fraction of the money spent on the new dam, the windmills and solar panels sitting there doing nothing.

                  2. HowardBThiname profile image89
                    HowardBThinameposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Solar still requires huge cells if you intend to have any energy for a cloudy day. On a residential basis - solar is typically only supplementary. Same as a home wind generator.

                    Once your home's cells expend their stored energy - you better hope you're still connected to the energy grid.

  2. eternals3ptember profile image60
    eternals3ptemberposted 4 years ago

    I find that people have this amazing ability to read something and somehow go "Oh, that supports my claim!" I... I... I have to ask...... Did you read the article? Did you? Honestly? Honest to God, did you read the whole thing?

  3. eternals3ptember profile image60
    eternals3ptemberposted 4 years ago

    I'm sorry, that outburst was uncalled for

  4. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

    "Wind farms can cause warmer temperatures"

    They will also speed up or slow down the rotation of the Earth depending on which way they are facing.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image84
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      lol   lol   lol

    2. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      At least that way we will have better control of our environment.

    3. profile image0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly!

  5. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Um, yes, there is quite a lot of 'looking into it'.  Every tech has up and down sides but renewable methods win overall.  And yes, using less energy should be part of the plan too.

 
working