An extensive deployment of wind farms may be considered as introducing an additional source of atmospheric friction. For example, if the entire current demand for electricity in the U.S. were to be supplied by wind, the sink for kinetic energy associated with the related turbines would amount to ≈6% of the sink caused by surface friction over the entire contiguous U.S. land area, 11% for the region identified as most favorable for wind farm development [the region indicated in red in Fig. 5A defined by wind resources >280 terawatt hours (TWh)].

The potential impact of major wind electricity development on the circulation of the atmosphere has been investigated in a number of recent studies (22, 23). Those studies suggest that high levels of wind development as contemplated here could result in significant changes in atmospheric circulation even in regions remote from locations where the turbines are deployed. They indicate that global dissipation of kinetic energy is regulated largely by physical processes controlling the source rather than the sink. An increase in friction caused by the presence of the turbines is likely to be compensated by a decrease in frictional dissipation elsewhere.

Global average surface temperatures are not expected to change significantly although temperatures at higher latitudes may be expected to decrease to a modest extent because of a reduction in the efficiency of meridional heat transport (offsetting the additional warming anticipated for this environment caused by the build-up of greenhouse gases).

In ramping up exploitation of wind resources in the future it will be important to consider the changes in wind resources that might result from the deployment of a large number of turbines, in addition to changes that might arise as a result of human-induced climate change, to more reliably predict the economic return expected from a specific deployment of turbines.

there are some big things to think about here. about siting many huge farms so they don’t shade each other. about how winds will change as climate changes.

but that other part is something a few of us have been wondering, right?

WIND TURBINES EAT ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY.

ATMOSPHERIC ENERGY IS A PROBLEM.

“THEREFORE…”

“ We have a clear conclusion: the non-solar renewables may be “huge” but they are not huge enough. To complete a plan that adds up we must use rely on one or more forms of solar power. Or use nuclear power. Or both.”

To support his claim he miss cites the 2006 Greenpeace study that projects that wind energy could provide 31% of the worlds power by 2050, however the Greenpeace study uses Archer and Jacobson values for potential wind power(X7 times the total world energy demand using just 12% of the land and near coast area), the 31% is what the study thought could be built by 2050.

Just as MacKay’s estimates of UK wind potential or Europe potential, or N America’s potential I quote
“ The bottom line
North America’s non-solar renewables arn’t enough for North America to live on.

his assumptions that wind turbines would be sited at locations receiving average wind rather than the best locations, seem to give a value much lower than these published studies.

http://article.nationalreview.com/ ?q=NTlhOTNiOWFlMmMzNmJkOWM3ZTk5NWJkNTU2Nzk5NWI=

He welcomed an agreement by major economies at a Group of Eight summit in Italy last week to recognize a broad scientific view that world temperature rises should not exceed 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

But he said too little was being done to achieve the limit.

“It’s a step forwards. I wish they would have made some commitments on what would ensure limiting the temperature increase to 2 degrees,” he said.

“In the (2007 report) we said if you want to limit temperatures to that range all we have is up to 2015 as the year when global emissions must peak and they must decline thereafter,” he said.

The Vancouver Park Board says this heat is getting to be a bit much for our trees and adds it’s a good idea to water your trees and shrubs. They’re surrounded by concrete in many cases and don’t get that much water even when it rains.

She points out trees and shrubs are exempt from summer time watering restrictions and adds trees are very important to help keep the city cool.

Forty-thousand trees have been planted in Vancouver over the past decade and not only are they useful, they’re worth millions of dollars.

Park Board arborist Paul Montpellier says unlike unwatered lawns, trees do not rebound well if they go into distress, so it’s important to keep them well watered in the first place.

[UPDATE 3/29: Several commenters have questioned Dr. Nocera's energy math. I've forwarded their comments to him and will update anon.

UPDATE 4/8: I found this response in in-box (I'd forgotten about it; apologies):
From Dr. Nocera -- I have looked at some of the postings. Of course, some are foolish, others are right but misleading. The wind energy is one such case. My calculations was on land 10 meters above the ground....that is the 2 TW (these details weren't in the article). Of course if I go into the jet stream, over the ocean etc, there is more wind energy...the Stanford study which is the absolute limit and ridiculous (getting it to land, etc) is 72 TW but technically correct. Oh, by the way, did I mention that the sun energy hitting our Globe is 180,000 TW - but I never use that number because it is as ridiculous as the 72 TW number. -- Dan]

estimating wind turbine performance by wind speed at 10m is like cutting off a runner’s legs and wondering why she didn’t set a record. “these details weren’t in the article.” who left them out? because there are nasty names for omissions like that.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa