Wind and wave farms could affect Earth's energy balance
Mark Buchanan | 11.04.2011 10:48 | Energy Crisis | Technology
"Studies] yield maximum estimates in the range of 17–38 TW and are notably less than recent estimates that claim abundant wind power availability. Furthermore, we show with the climate model simulations that the climatic effects at maximum wind power extraction are similar in magnitude to those associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. " - Miller, Gans and Kleidon (2011): "Estimating maximum global land surface wind power extractability and associated climatic consequences"
I came across an article on New Scientist the other day that raises concerns that the increased use of wind and/ or wave resourced energy will have negative impacts on the atmosphere, apparently increasing radiative forcings, and retarding ecosystemic services. Following this to the source article in the journal Earth System Dynamics shows a thought-provoking take on the claimed sustainability of wind and wave energy resources.
The New Scientist's article reports that although "the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon's model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide".
"'Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere'," says Kleidon. "'Because we use so much free energy, and more every year, we'll deplete the reservoir of energy.'" He says this would probably show up first in wind farms themselves, where the gains expected from massive facilities just won't pan out as the energy of the Earth system is depleted.
Using a model of global circulation, Kleidon found that the amount of energy which we can expect to harness from the wind is reduced by a factor of 100 if you take into account the depletion of free energy by wind farms. It remains theoretically possible to extract up to 70 TW globally, but doing so would have serious consequences.
Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon's model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide" (Earth System Dynamics, DOI: 10.5194/esd-2-1-2011).
The original paper is available from the Earth System Dynamics journal site:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/2/1/2011/esd-2-1-2011.pdf along with some discussion among reviewers and the authors which makes interesting (but v. technical) reading:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/1/169/2010/esdd-1-169-2010-discussion.html
Read the article on-line at the web address below, and note New Scientist's recent (on-line) update:
"UPDATE, April 6: This article has elicited a considerable amount of interest, and some criticism. We always welcome discussions of the stories we publish. Some readers felt the original headline (Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all) was misleading, so to address these concerns we have changed it. We have also been made aware of a wider debate about Kleidon's research that we did not address in the original article: we will continue to follow this issue and report back on what we find."
In promoting what we currently understand as renewable and safe energies, it behooves us to ensure that the impacts of treatment are not more problematic than the symptoms. Articles of such a nature endorse the value of advocating both energy use reduction - powering down - as well as sourcing energy production renewably.
The New Scientist's article reports that although "the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon's model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide".
"'Large-scale exploitation of wind energy will inevitably leave an imprint in the atmosphere'," says Kleidon. "'Because we use so much free energy, and more every year, we'll deplete the reservoir of energy.'" He says this would probably show up first in wind farms themselves, where the gains expected from massive facilities just won't pan out as the energy of the Earth system is depleted.
Using a model of global circulation, Kleidon found that the amount of energy which we can expect to harness from the wind is reduced by a factor of 100 if you take into account the depletion of free energy by wind farms. It remains theoretically possible to extract up to 70 TW globally, but doing so would have serious consequences.
Although the winds will not die, sucking that much energy out of the atmosphere in Kleidon's model changed precipitation, turbulence and the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. The magnitude of the changes was comparable to the changes to the climate caused by doubling atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide" (Earth System Dynamics, DOI: 10.5194/esd-2-1-2011).
The original paper is available from the Earth System Dynamics journal site:
![](/img/extlink.gif)
![](/img/extlink.gif)
Read the article on-line at the web address below, and note New Scientist's recent (on-line) update:
"UPDATE, April 6: This article has elicited a considerable amount of interest, and some criticism. We always welcome discussions of the stories we publish. Some readers felt the original headline (Wind and wave energies are not renewable after all) was misleading, so to address these concerns we have changed it. We have also been made aware of a wider debate about Kleidon's research that we did not address in the original article: we will continue to follow this issue and report back on what we find."
In promoting what we currently understand as renewable and safe energies, it behooves us to ensure that the impacts of treatment are not more problematic than the symptoms. Articles of such a nature endorse the value of advocating both energy use reduction - powering down - as well as sourcing energy production renewably.
Mark Buchanan
Homepage:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html
Comments
Hide the following 12 comments
LMFAO
11.04.2011 18:54
zombie flesh eater
a few more extractor fans...
11.04.2011 20:53
Baby with 3 heads
This actually is a serious matter to consider
12.04.2011 13:17
Of course, this doesn't mean that nukes are the way to go (and anyway, take too long to build, still have no sustainable solution for storing waste, and use up loads of energy and yield metric tonnes of CO2 in the construction and maintenance phases, let alone incurred through the decommissioning process), yet it should give the wind energy advocates pause to reconsider what the implications are for what is being proposed, especially if there is a large scale adoption of wind (and wave) power.
This does need to be raised - and discussed - amongst advocates. Furthermore, considering how Helen Caldicott seems to be having a very difficult time with her scientific credibility vis-a-vis George Monbiot over at the Guardian (
Dire Straits
Criticism
12.04.2011 19:39
net heating by 4 W/m^2.
But 70TW across the surface of the earth is equivalent heating of 0.1371W/m^2.
Stop scaremongering about renewables and find some real climate policy.
Climate
A serious response !!!
12.04.2011 20:22
As can be perceived by my previous post I also do not believe this as I have a scientific background and am not easily fooled (I believe). So may I propose an experiment that would appease on many fronts.
The Gulf of Mexico is a well known hot bed for hurricanes and gave us the disaster at New Orleans that took many lives. We also had the BP disaster that was a great loss for much of the wildlife in the area and as we are aware BP and others are looking to further their deep sea drilling exploits in the area.
So my proposal is suspend all drilling in the gulf, install as many wind turbines as is needed to make a difference to the weather system and see if there truly is a change, surely any future hurricanes would be decreased in intensity and prove measurable over time. This would further the cause for green energy, increase the reality of electric transport and reduce the consumption of oil. A fair point me thinks. A little crazy maybe but no less crazy than the construction of 500 new nuclear power stations around the world.
Baby with 3 heads
And did you read the paper?
13.04.2011 08:58
Earth Systems Dynamics is a peer reviewed journal discussing some pretty critical issues, and thermodynamics is a well-established paradigm. Because I posted the paper and links, etc., to Indy doesn't mean that I am pro-nuclear power nor that I was scaremongering. What it does mean is that the issue is far more complex than responses here might suggest, and the one respondent who claims to be a "scientist" (which could mean anything from a lab tech to a theoretical physicist working on the LHC) seems to lack any real scientific comeback.
This is a disappointing response from those, many of whom no doubt participated in climate change demos arguing for the superiority of peer reviewed science, and yet when peer reviewed science doesn't support a wholescale transfer to wind/ wave energy, the article is attacked as pro-nuke scaremongering. If you had read the paper, it doesn't make any such claims, but does argue that solar is probably the better option for renewables. Of course, the pollution and finite stocks required to develop PV panels and the relatively low efficiency rate of transforming sunshine into usable energy is another matter, and hopefully a temporary lacuna in the development of meaningful alternatives to fossil and nuclear fuels.
O.P.
No, but i'm reading the one about Solar
13.04.2011 23:11
I repeat my accusations, Climate Change is all about Nuclear Power and 500 new Nuclear Power stations.
Baby with 3 heads
still waiting...
26.04.2011 19:59
As for wave power its going to be same if the wave hits the beach or a floating object. Salters Ducts were doing ok in the 1980s until all reseach got moved to Harwell, when suddenly cables cost a million pounds a metre and it was deemed un-economic. The nuclear scum totally vandalised it.
The seven barage recently got scrapped in the cuts, why no outcry? huh?
Wind power still hasnt been built in large quantities, unlike germany which is already 10 years ahead of us.
Still no geo-thermal bore holes, unlike Japan.
Still no more hydro/river turbines, unlike Austria & Brasil.
Britians going have to build something, because soon the magnox will be scrapped then there will be shortages.
r
still waiting...
26.04.2011 20:00
As for wave power its going to be same if the wave hits the beach or a floating object. Salters Ducts were doing ok in the 1980s until all reseach got moved to Harwell, when suddenly cables cost a million pounds a metre and it was deemed un-economic. The nuclear scum totally vandalised it.
The seven barage recently got scrapped in the cuts, why no outcry? huh?
Wind power still hasnt been built in large quantities, unlike germany which is already 10 years ahead of us.
Still no geo-thermal bore holes, unlike Japan.
Still no more hydro/river turbines, unlike Austria & Brasil.
Britians going have to build something, because soon the magnox will be scrapped then there will be shortages.
r
still waiting...
26.04.2011 20:00
As for wave power its going to be same if the wave hits the beach or a floating object. Salters Ducts were doing ok in the 1980s until all reseach got moved to Harwell, when suddenly cables cost a million pounds a metre and it was deemed un-economic. The nuclear scum totally vandalised it.
The seven barage recently got scrapped in the cuts, why no outcry? huh?
Wind power still hasnt been built in large quantities, unlike germany which is already 10 years ahead of us.
Still no geo-thermal bore holes, unlike Japan.
Still no more hydro/river turbines, unlike Austria & Brasil.
Britians going have to build something, because soon the magnox will be scrapped then there will be shortages.
r
still waiting....
26.04.2011 20:02
As for wave power its going to be same if the wave hits the beach or a floating object. Salters Ducts were doing ok in the 1980s until all reseach got moved to Harwell, when suddenly cables cost a million pounds a metre and it was deemed un-economic. The nuclear scum totally vandalised it.
The seven barage recently got scrapped in the cuts, why no outcry? huh?
Wind power still hasnt been built in large quantities, unlike germany which is already 10 years ahead of us.
Still no geo-thermal bore holes, unlike Japan.
Still no more hydro/river turbines, unlike Austria & Brasil.
Britians going have to build something, because soon the magnox will be scrapped then there will be shortages.
r
still waiting...
26.04.2011 20:03
As for wave power its going to be same if the wave hits the beach or a floating object. Salters Ducts were doing ok in the 1980s until all reseach got moved to Harwell, when suddenly cables cost a million pounds a metre and it was deemed un-economic. The nuclear scum totally vandalised it.
The seven barage recently got scrapped in the cuts, why no outcry? huh?
Wind power still hasnt been built in large quantities, unlike germany which is already 10 years ahead of us.
Still no geo-thermal bore holes, unlike Japan.
Still no more hydro/river turbines, unlike Austria & Brasil.
Britians going have to build something, because soon the magnox will be scrapped then there will be shortages.
r