This same question can be asked relative to geothermal power production.

Is it unreasonable to assume that each thermal unit converted to power represents the incremental reduction of the liquid core?

What effect does this have on geo-field?

What function does geo-field play in preventing atmospheric stripping by the solar wind?

When have we ever fully considered the effects of our human footprint?

Given the relatively poor efficiency of present power production, distribution, and end use; doesn't it make more sense to work the efficiency component of the equation rather than bulling head long into increased production?

In the end it doesn't matter what the "consensus" is of the scientists and engineers. What matters is the economic forcing inputs that drive the direction of human endeavor. It is as much a question of collective values and our willingness to look beyond the next 4th fiscal quarter than any "consensus" of the long term effects our technologies have on our little space ship. The status quo clearly indicates our inability to plan strategically. We remain, instinctual cave men; with rockets.

Gavilan

There was a time when people used to die of epidemics. Then came invention of medicine. Most of these epidemic were controlled. Now we find that almost all medicines are having side effects. Do we stop taking medicine because it has side effects.No we got solutions for reduction of side effects.

Similarly from stone age to modern time we came across various power sources. Use of coal and oil for energy generation came next. Now we find that the coal and oil are polluting the atmosphere. Then what is the solution? ( i )Conserve use of power by technology improvement ( ii )go for alternative power. Then we invented nuclear power, solar power, wind power, oceanic waves power.They are less harmful to universe but still it may have some side effects. So wee need to find solutions . It is a never ending process . if we do not find solution our grand children will find it since their generation and there future generations has to survive.They will invent super conductors and generate energy from CO2. Do not worry there is still hope for saving the world.

I had thought about this, and concluded that it is a matter of energy balance. Wind power is really inefficient solar power. The sun puts energy into the atmosphere, and we pull a minute amount out of the atmosphere in the form of wind power.

I think it would take a heck of a lot of windmills to cause any measureable effect, but I agree that the unintended consequences are worth exploring...but hey, if we are pulling energy out of the atmosphere, that has to counteract global warming right?

I would be more concerned with bird extinction than wind turbines. You see we have a frightening number of animal extinctions occurring annually.

So (and I find the original question rather absurd), if birds experience a mass extinction then their flapping will no longer contribute to the wind generation that occurs at lower levels. As well as all the other negative events of a bird extinction, which seems, to me, more likely.

Has anyone else been thinking along these lines, and, if so, what is the current consensus?

no.

I raised this issue last year and (asked would the Earth come to a stand still) most people said no but I wonder? The thing with wind powered generation is that it costs a fortune and returns very little in the way of use-able power because of the losses in the cables the very few days it can give any output and only a few percent of sites can generate power at the same time. Like all this nonsense the planners do not have a clew about how to get the best from this technology. Also the energy expenditure far out weighs the likely output. At present the british idiots are going to ruin our coastline in order to place several hundred of these turbines when it is already proven that the pay back is in the minus range for over twice their expected useful life time. Just try explaining the obvious to loony politician who is driven not by good sense but by short term greed.

I don't think that the wind energy will be depleted as there is so much of it.

But I am saddened that not enough is being done to make sure that the windmill blades do not kill birds that fly into them though!!

I agree. Compared to the total energy of the wind, the amount we could remove via windmills is minuscule.

As I understand it, only small windmills cause problems with birds. The large ones have such low RPMs that the birds can avoid them easily. Although the tip velocities are relatively large, they can be seen and heard from sufficient distance for the birds to avoid them. I stopped twice under large windmills in Denmark, and saw no dead birds below. Although there was some noise, I had to turn off the car's engine to hear it. I wouldn't mind having one near my home.

Dick

I must admit, the article I read did not mention size! I was imagining something far worse....I am also somewhat relieved...

Its a good point that you make and I am grateful to you for the trouble & time.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/15293/Helicopter-Ejection-Seats-via-Main-Rotor-area can we use this technology?

Where I come from Trees are very large and probably slow the wind much more than any windmill.

I doubt that windmills have much effect at all.

Topography is millions of times more causal. The five miles of the lower atmosphere deal with mountain ranges, desert updrafts, cold and warm bodies of water, and ranges of humidity.

Will it have an effect? Yes but so does a butterfly and in a chaos system we have yet to come to an understanding why the butterfly may sometimes have more effect.

now that I have muddied the waters with my 2 cents

Brad

I think, (and that is what we all can have: our own opinion), that all renevable energy comes from the sun, and that human technology only can collect a very small, neglicable fraction of the total powerinput to earth. The problem is, that we humans use energy stored away for millions of years on a short time, and that shifts the balance of earths atmospere due to emissons of CO2 and other global warming gasses. I have recently attended a course in cooling technique, where a lot of emphasis was layed on collecting used and polluted refrigirants, because of their heavy impact to ozonlayer. I think, that I have to start with my self and what I can do, so that I can show a good example for others to follow. Therefor, I will commit myself to use energy and dispose pollution to a minimum.

The climate conference in Bali is a good example of what to do and what not to do: the words are good, and the meanings are good, but the outcome is very limited due to politicians with personal greed and countries ruled by access to cheap energy (fossil) and not-existing environmental concern. When the outcome of such summits becomes practical and makes common sense, then I believe in the words and in the earths future. Now these politicians sits in large, airconditioned luxury rooms, eating luxury food, driving large, luxury cars and travels in CO2-emitting aeroplanes. Where are the real visions? Where are the willingness to effectively reduce emissions today? Could or would they start with themselfes?

I can start with my self; I have plans for a little household windmill, and improve insulation on my house, I drive eco-rally everyday to save gasoline and all this adds up to a greater awareness of the use of energy=emissions. What are you planning?

In the deepest respect of other opinions, moe

And from my recollections of Aalborg (been there at least 4 times), you probably don't spend more than 20 or 30 minutes commuting each day (quite probably less). Here in California it is not at all unusual to spend between one and two hours each day on the road between home and work! Fortunately, I am able to do most of my work at home, which compensates somewhat for my wife's commute.

Hi dkwarner, I dont want to argue about who commute the shortest or longest; my point was generally, that if we all use some common sense to minimize use of energy, resources could last longer and global warming could be less. But I feel, that you think about your energyconsumption, and thats the first step to begin to minimize it.

I spend about 1-1½ hour commuting every day and then driving between workplaces about 1-2 hours a day making fiber patches. I live north and work south of Aalborg. May I ask: what were your (general) business in Aalborg? And are you planning on coming here again?

Regards, moe

Well put Moe, you show a deeper understanding of the problems than a lot of others, more power to your elbow....

I am not quite "as good" as you, but we try and burn wood pellets for most of our heating and keep the hot water temperature down to only 52°C (gas). Our gas usage has halved over the last 4 or 5 years (but not the bills!). I have now mostly CFLs, FLs and LED lighting and even our Christmas tree lighting this year is only LED, no lamps!!

We cook mostly on induction hobs which (according to some hype) save about 80% of the electricity over a normal resistive stove top. I personally feel that it is probably nearer 40% in reality....but still a good saving.

I still have a couple of places to attend to lighting wise, but in the next 12 months, there will be nothing left to save in the house!!! I do expect to have a couple of spots still with incandescent lighting unless some new and better CFLs or LEDs are designed for those areas.....yard lighting being one for example......FLs do not like minus temps and starting.

LEDs are supposed to be just around the corner for those difficult areas, hopefully not too expensive.....but for areas only lit for short times, the modern lamps are too expensive for and will never amortize(?). (Is that English?)

Thanks for the replies to my originating contribution.

Much of the content of these replies, to date, has drifted away from the somewhat simpler thread that emanated, not from the mind of a philosopher, but from the mind of a 'nuts and bolts' mechanical engineer.

The following sentences, extracted from selected replies to date, are starting to look in the direction that I first intended:

• 'The sun puts energy into the atmosphere, and we pull a minute amount out of the atmosphere in the form of wind power.'

• 'I don't think that the wind energy will be depleted as there is so much of it.'

• 'Compared to the total energy of the wind, the amount we could remove via windmills is minuscule.'

• 'Where I come from Trees are very large and probably slow the wind much more than any windmill. I doubt that windmills have much effect at all. Topography is millions of times more causal. The five miles of the lower atmosphere deal with mountain ranges, desert updrafts, cold and warm bodies of water, and ranges of humidity.'

• 'I think, (and that is what we all can have: our own opinion), that all renewable energy comes from the sun, and that human technology only can collect a very small, negligible fraction of the total power input to earth.'

These statements are all subjective and non analytical. Is there any objective quantitative metrological type material and thought out there?!

Please refer particularly to the third sentence in my originating statement, which, put another way, is asking:

How much energy is there in atmospheric currents?

To what extent can such currents be deprived of their natural energy before a locality starts to experience changes to its weather patterns, such deprivation being possibly caused at some distant time in the future when wind turbines, of, as yet inconceivable, individual generation capacity and number, have been installed by energy demanding humanity?

Put the blinkers on and please just address the two preceding paragraphs!

No the data is there but the analysis is still at the 1987 level. The current models don't predict any better than they did 20 years ago. Published in Science.

We don't seem to have a handle on chaos systems. If we can't quantify the weather well enough to predict it for tomorrow how can you extrapolate the effect of the energy removed by a windmill? You can work from the windmill (X)kw x (n)Efficiency by mechanical energy removed from the wind = what? Cause is quantified but effect is not. Find that answer and go down in history as the hero of weathermen.

Yes the ice is melting, yes sea level is rising. As a kid we raced cars on the lake Ice, now it rarely ices over.

The glaciers I played on as a kid are gone.

You may get a study on windmill impact but don't hold your breath the money is going to global warming impact.

Satellite data says the Sun's output has risen by 10% but short term measurements only tell us there is fluctuation.

An Israeli scientist published only 90% of the Sun's rays reach the Earth do to pollution in the upper atmosphere. ( It does not look like the 110% output was accounted for but I don't know)

You are asking for a base quantity, effect quantity, impact correlation, of a dynamic chaos system that we don't understand well enough to more than vaguely predict the obvious or X billion tones of human released CO₂ vs natures regular CO₂ .

So given that, take the Sun's output on the Earth and Atmosphere + Earths heat output, see if you can correlate a wind energy coefficient and subtract the energy removed by windmills. This will give you a vague % of energy absorbed from the total energy Well. Now realise that the energy removed from the wind system is converted to work and mostly heat fed back into the heat/wind system. Add that back in to the mix but defuse the location from the windmills back to the population.

And this you ask from engineers not climatologist(who statistically are sill a 1987 levels).

Sorry but that is the limit to my dust in the wind knowledge of this matter.

Brad

There will always be some environmental group who objects to any large-scale source of power. They are really anti-people and anti-technology.

Wind is constantly being made by differences in atmospheric temperature and pressures caused by solar heat. It is totally renewable and the surface-level winds are but a tiny fraction of the total. Only only someone with complete insanity and being a habitual worry-wart would think it could be depleted. Then he admits that no one has published any discussion of this, as if he has come up with a new objection to technology that no one has thought of. Perhaps the truth is that his fears are so unfounded that reasonable people reject his view. His ponderings on the point have revealed no rational answer because the question is irrational. Then he seeks comfort by finding others who are as irrational as he in order to form a "consensus", as if having a "consensus" will make the irrational become rational.

A consensus believed the Earth to be flat, they were wrong. A consensus believed the sun and the planets went around the Earth, they were wrong. However by having a consensus they were able to persecute, destroy and eliminate dissent. Sounds a lot like the global warming alarmists. Why is it that "environmentalists" view every change in the environment as evil and insist on maintaining the status quo as they see it at the moment? The Earth is constantly changing despite any efforts on our part to stop it. The environmentalists of their time were unable to stop the Little Ice Age of medieval times. Now that we are warming up from that some think we can prevent the warming too. They were just as wrong then as they are now.

The main problem with using the wind to generate electricity is what happens when the wind stops. No electricity. So you have to store the electricity or the power from it in some way which can be expensive and inefficient when compared to other ways of making electricity. Wind power is not reliable in general and while it may supplement other methods at times, it cannot be counted on as a steady source of power.

I obviously caught Taganan on a 'bad hair day'.

Taganan, assuming the 'he' used throughout your input, #18, refers to me, I am glad I do not have to regularly tolerate your boorish and, obviously, self centered attitude toward your fellow human being, particularly one whose thoughts do not coincide with those of yourself.

Just to set the record straight, I am not a 'greeny' or 'environmentalist'. In retrospect, my choice of the word 'consensus' was unfortunate, especially given the way you have homed in on it.

I am not saying that 'no one has published any discussion on this' nor am I offering 'new objection'. In fact, I had no intention of forwarding any objection! All I am trying to do is extend my understanding on a topic of personal interest.

I will try once again to ask my uncomplicated question, the answer to which I have not sort in any other forum or via any personal study:

• 'What energy is contained in the earth's atmospheric currents?'
• 'Is there any quantitative data available? If so, from where?'