Use 2000w to produce 4000w....

[HempKat]

It is when a person considers the minuscule amount of energy we obtain from these things, but if they started to seriously tap into these energy sources, you would see changes. I think maybe like a half of a percentage of the energy used in the US comes from these sources.

BTW, hydro power, ones that can actually provide serious amounts of energy, need you to dam up huge rivers. Extend the analogy to sunlight, wind, etc.

You can't extend the analogy because solar and wind are nothing like a moving body of water.

I can't say what the actual percentage nationwide is but there are laws now that require electric companies to generate a certain percentage from reknewable sources and in my area (Mid Atlantic region of the country) the local electric company gets 30% of it's energy from solar and wind.

 

[Frozenguy]

No I'm saying that wind farms such as we have them today do not extract so much energy from the air as to change weather patterns. They are not stopping the wind nor are they altering the wind's source, they aren't even really pulling energy from the wind but rather wind makes them move and that movement is what generates energy. A windmill probably has even less of an impact on the wind then a tree of similar size because of the fact the blades move.

If the windmills are generating electricity (energy) they are extracting that energy from somewhere. It is energy from the wind.
All that air is mass. The mass is moving. When you have moving mass you have kinetic energy. As you suck the kinetic energy from the system, you reduce the velocity. Reduce the velocity enough and it goes to zero.

The wind gets velocity from pressure differences caused by differences in temperature caused by various energy transfers (the sun's rays).


We ARE reducing the energy of the wind with a windmill. How much? I don't know but it is more than likely insignificant at this point. But it exists.

If we were to power our modern world with wind farms as opposed to oil, we would observe a measurable effect no doubt.


And the fact that the blades move is what extracts the energy.

A tree does not reduce the overall velocity of wind. It will reduce it locally on some spots, but other spots it speeds up averaging out to the same volumetric flow rate. The momentum and energy are conserved when wind hits the tree for the most part. The leaves do move! That is energy being taken away from the wind.

I'm not saying a tree is better or not. I'm just pointing out the differences in energy extraction and conservation.

 

[HempKat]

If the windmills are generating electricity (energy) they are extracting that energy from somewhere. It is energy from the wind.
All that air is mass. The mass is moving. When you have moving mass you have kinetic energy. As you suck the kinetic energy from the system, you reduce the velocity. Reduce the velocity enough and it goes to zero.

The wind gets velocity from pressure differences caused by differences in temperature caused by various energy transfers (the sun's rays).


We ARE reducing the energy of the wind with a windmill. How much? I don't know but it is more than likely insignificant at this point. But it exists.

If we were to power our modern world with wind farms as opposed to oil, we would observe a measurable effect no doubt.

I never said it had no impact just not as much has been suggested. Yes the resistence caused by the windmill would affect the wind just like the resistence of a tree or a cliff or a building all of which are greater because those things don't move, well trees move some but you get the point. In all cases though wind doesn't just stop it redirects because wind isn't a solid like a brick sort of thing. Also when we use windmills they're not siphoning energy directly out of the wind. The wind hits the blades which are shaped such that when the wind redirects around them the blades move, that movement then turn things inside the windmill (likely magnets and coils because when a coil is moved thru a magnetic field electricity is created) it's those things that create the energy rather then energy being syphoned directly from the wind.

Another significant point is nobody anywhere is suggesting we provide all the world's power via windmills it's just not a sufficient enough source to do that and if we tried then yeah we might actually have enough windmills to significantly alter the wind.

 

[Frozenguy]

In all cases though wind doesn't just stop it redirects because wind isn't a solid like a brick sort of thing. Also when we use windmills they're not siphoning energy directly our of the wind. The wind hits the blades which are shaped such that when the wind redirects around them the blades move, that movement then turn things inside the windmill (likely magnets and coils because when a coil is moved thru a magnetic field electricity is created) it's those things that create the energy rather then energy being syphoned directly from the wind.

That energy has to come from somewhere. And it comes from the disruption of conservation of momentum and energy.

Air is a fluid and you change the velocity of the wind as it passes over a specially formed surface. That difference in velocity changes it's energy. No energy is 'created'. It goes from kinetic (wind) to mechanical (turbine) to electrical (generator). It comes from the wind.

Another significant point is nobody anywhere is suggesting we provide all the world's power via windmills it's just not a sufficient enough source to do that and if we tried then yeah we might actually have enough windmills to significantly alter the wind.

I was just using an extreme example to state my point.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

You can't get more out than you put in without effecting other parts of the equation

exactly. I would not buy this thing. If it were real it would be in every home in the USA. not that it could never be done, but so far the technology has been suppressed by oil, gas, electric, and coal companies.

 

[HempKat]

That energy has to come from somewhere. And it comes from the disruption of conservation of momentum and energy.

Air is a fluid and you change the velocity of the wind as it passes over a specially formed surface. That difference in velocity changes it's energy. No energy is 'created'. It goes from kinetic (wind) to mechanical (turbine) to electrical (generator). It comes from the wind.

No it comes from the windmill turning, causing coils to pass thru magnetic fields which in turn creates energy. The impact to the wind is the same as any object the wind hits, such as trees, cliffsides, mountain ranges, buildings. Like I said before if what you're trying to suggest were true we'd be building wind farms in strategic locations to control the weather.

I was just using an extreme example to state my point.

The point made on the back of a scenario that will never come to pass is a meaningless one.

 

[Frozenguy]

No it comes from the windmill turning, causing coils to pass thru magnetic fields which in turn creates energy. The impact to the wind is the same as any object the wind hits, such as trees, cliffsides, mountain ranges, buildings. Like I said before if what you're trying to suggest were true we'd be building wind farms in strategic locations to control the weather.

No you're wrong. You're right about the specific way the turbine generates electricity, but you fail to realize what powers that tubine, to power that generator. It is the wind. That is why they call it a windmill and not a magicthingymill.


The only reason the wind mill turns is because of the wind. How can you say the wind is not the cause? The power coming from the windmill turning is coming form the wind directly!!!!! It doesn't just turn on it's own. And when it turn, due to the wind, it takes energy from the wind.

And the wind hitting a moving windmill turbine as opposed to a cliff side is NOT the same. They effect the wind in very different ways. Go google potential flow theory to possibly help understand why.

And just because you can 'effect the weather' with windmills (On a massive scale) doesn't mean it's feasible. Plenty of other more advanced/efficient technologies to manipulate weather.

The point made on the back of a scenario that will never come to pass is a meaningless one.

First off that is not true. It is to show that yes, even at this point we are effecting the weather. And with the crazy environmentalists, you never know what they want. I have encountered plenty of people that think trading oil for wind/solar/hydro is a good idea! When in fact an appropriate balance/use of all forms (Depending on location/need etc) is probably best.

EDIT:Why would someone neg rep this post? lol

 

[seeyouaunty]

The wind is powered by the sun (and moons movement), and they're fairly renewable for the next couple of billion years lol.

I don't understand you sticking to your guns Frozenguy, what is the point of your argument? Seems like nitpicking to me.

btw wouldn't slowing the wind down a little be a good thing? Who's saying that would be a bad thing? Most of the climate change worst case scenarios seem to involve high windspeeds, ie more speed = bad. So windmills might have a double-whammy positive effect, awesome

Note: The shape of trees is governed by the golden ratio (phi) like so many other things in nature, and it turns out that trees provide the maximum wind resistance compared to any other shape. With that in mind windmills really are not going to be much of a factor in slowing down the wind IMO.

 

[Frozenguy]

I don't understand you sticking to your guns Frozenguy, what is the point of your argument? Seems like nitpicking to me.

Because when people claim windmills move on their own without effecting the energy level of other systems, I feel inclined to say something.

btw wouldn't slowing the wind down a little be a good thing? Who's saying that would be a bad thing? Most of the climate change worst case scenarios seem to involve high windspeeds, ie more speed = bad. So windmills might have a double-whammy positive effect, awesome

That is a completely different animal. And correlation does not equal causation.

Note: The shape of trees is governed by the golden ratio (phi) like so many other things in nature, and it turns out that trees provide the maximum wind resistance compared to any other shape. With that in mind windmills really are not going to be much of a factor in slowing down the wind IMO.

Not going to be much of a factor. That is exactly what I said. Thank you lol. But they are a factor, however insignificant, and can become a much bigger significant factor as our wind generated power requirements go up.




One can see the transformation of energy before your very eyes.
As the wind blows and the tree bends, it acts as a spring. The tree takes kinetic energy from the wind and turns it into potential energy. When the wind passes, the tree takes this potential energy (that used to be the wind's kinetic energy) and straightens itself out. The wind left the spot of the tree with less energy than it had before encountering the tree.
Another transformation of energy between systems.


The guns I'm sticking to is that nothing is free. The tree bent because it took energy from the wind. Wind does not have infinite energy. But you already know that.

 

[Anti]

The guns I'm sticking to is that nothing is free. The tree bent because it took energy from the wind. Wind does not have infinite energy.

I agree with you on this point.

However all estimates that I have seen say things like "if we used wind, solar, tidal and other renewable energies to produce 100% of the energy that is currently powering the globe right now... we would have a negligible impact on the amount of sunlight, wind and tidal energy available to the rest of the environment. Somewhere in the scale of less than 5%.

Realistically, if we put solar on things that are already absorbing sunlight (the roof of your house for example) the impact to the environment will be lower.

You are right that it won't be 0.

But it will be far less of an impact than our current drilling, raking, fracking, processing, transporting, dumping is having now.

There is definitely a transfer of energy when wind energy moves a turbine, but it is a negligible percentage of the total energy and has about as much effect as a tree blowing in the wind.

 

[Frozenguy]

I agree with you on this point.

However all estimates that I have seen say things like "if we used wind, solar, tidal and other renewable energies to produce 100% of the energy that is currently powering the globe right now... we would have a negligible impact on the amount of sunlight, wind and tidal energy available to the rest of the environment. Somewhere in the scale of less than 5%.

Realistically, if we put solar on things that are already absorbing sunlight (the roof of your house for example) the impact to the environment will be lower.

You are right that it won't be 0.

But it will be far less of an impact than our current drilling, raking, fracking, processing, transporting, dumping is having now.

There is definitely a transfer of energy when wind energy moves a turbine, but it is a negligible percentage of the total energy and has about as much effect as a tree blowing in the wind.

I agree!
I can't agree with the 5% simply because I don't know. It sounds reasonable though.

But also what I was saying but never quite did, is that our population is not done nor is our energy requirements.

Oil was fine back in the day and we didn't have any of the 'problems' we face today. But our population is huge now.

I can see how it's nitpicky, but I imagine we will have the same magnitude of problems with solar/wind/hydro etc in the future with a population of 11+ Billion (that is an example population).

And also the environmental impact of making the solar panels isn't good. And many of the solar plants evaporate ungodly amounts of fresh water.

But now we are getting into the pros and cons of various energy forms which is an endless debate and different thread lol.

I think we have established there is no 'free energy' in wind. Which is what got my panties all in a sandy bunch.

And for the record, as I've said before, I am a fan of 'renewable' energy in the sense that all forms of energy have an ideal use/application. I want development of these technologies to continue. We need them all for a well balanced functioning civilization IMO.

 

[HempKat]

No you're wrong. You're right about the specific way the turbine generates electricity, but you fail to realize what powers that tubine, to power that generator. It is the wind. That is why they call it a windmill and not a magicthingymill.


The only reason the wind mill turns is because of the wind. How can you say the wind is not the cause? The power coming from the windmill turning is coming form the wind directly!!!!! It doesn't just turn on it's own. And when it turn, due to the wind, it takes energy from the wind.

Apparently you want to pointlessly argue so much that you fail to read and or comprehend what I've posted. How can I fail to realize that the wind moves the blades when I just finished explaining that the wind moving the blades causes coils to pass thru magnetic fields and it's that movement of the coil thru the magnetic field that creates electricity. Tell you what you're the one saying that windmills syphon energy from the wind and that they can kill the wind so why don't you provide proof of your claim rather then suggesting imaginary scenarios that will never happen to try to support your claim?

And the wind hitting a moving windmill turbine as opposed to a cliff side is NOT the same. They effect the wind in very different ways. Go google potential flow theory to possibly help understand why.

And just because you can 'effect the weather' with windmills (On a massive scale) doesn't mean it's feasible. Plenty of other more advanced/efficient technologies to manipulate weather.

I never said they effect the wind the same, what I said was that in neither case do they kill the wind only redirect it. Obviously a cliff being essentially an immovable object to the wind is going to have a greater impact then that of a windmill which is designed to be moved by the wind. See the cliff being immovable forces the wind to have to stop or dramatically slow down as it is forced to move in a direction different then the one it wants to go in, this is called resistance. The windmill however, being designed to be able to be turned by the wind does not stop the wind nor does it force it to change direction since the blade moves allowing the wind to pass more or less on the same path it was on. Oh and please enlighten us all on this more efficient/advanced technology for manpiulating the weather.

First off that is not true. It is to show that yes, even at this point we are effecting the weather. And with the crazy environmentalists, you never know what they want. I have encountered plenty of people that think trading oil for wind/solar/hydro is a good idea! When in fact an appropriate balance/use of all forms (Depending on location/need etc) is probably best.

EDIT:Why would someone neg rep this post? lol

Sure it's true, nobody anywhere is talking about replacing energy produced by oil, with nothing but windmills. Since nobody is planning on doing that, it's not going to happen. So talking about what would happen in your opinion if we did do something that nobody is going to do is pointless. Of course now you go and change your argument (likely because even you see how riddiculous your original argument was) by including solar and hydro along with wind. Oil is a finite source of energy. This means one day it won't be there and so guess what, on that day we will have to get by on whatever is out there even if its Wind/Solar/Hydro. So planning to do what we will inevitably have to do is a good idea. Finding excuses as to why we shouldn't and just going on as we are without change until we're forced to change is what is the bad idea.

As for the neg rep, you'll have to ask the person who gave it to you but my guess it's because they don't appreciate all these pointless arguments you keep making.

 

[HempKat]

Because when people claim windmills move on their own without effecting the energy level of other systems, I feel inclined to say something.

Yeah, here's the problem though, nobody said anything like that. You just read that into what was being said to justify your pointless argument. What has been said time and time again by several people, in several different ways, is that the amount of impact on the energy level of the winds is so slight as to be not worth mentioning. That's what it means when people say negligable.

 

[Frozenguy]

Tell you what you're the one saying that windmills syphon energy from the wind and that they can kill the wind so why don't you provide proof of your claim rather then suggesting imaginary scenarios that will never happen to try to support your claim?

See? Why should I not argue this? How is this pointless? Windmills do 'siphon' energy from the wind. They do, plain and simple.
And wind does not have infinite energy so if you build a windmill good enough, or you build enough of them, you CAN 'stop' the wind! The proof is in the math and phyhsics. A whole branch of dynamics is devoted to it. It is called FLUID DYNAMICS.

Apparently you want to pointlessly argue so much that you fail to read and or comprehend what I've posted. How can I fail to realize that the wind moves the blades when I just finished explaining that the wind moving the blades causes coils to pass thru magnetic fields and it's that movement of the coil thru the magnetic field that creates electricity.

Read this below, I said the wind pushes the blades, that push the turbine that rotates the generator and you said no. That the windmill just turns and rotates the generator. That is how I read it. I guess I dont see the point of YOUR post (below) then.

That energy has to come from somewhere... It goes from kinetic (wind) to mechanical (turbine) to electrical (generator). It comes from the wind.

No it comes from the windmill turning, causing coils to pass thru magnetic fields which in turn creates energy. The impact to the wind is the same as any object the wind hits, such as trees, cliffsides, mountain ranges, buildings. Like I said before if what you're trying to suggest were true we'd be building wind farms in strategic locations to control the weather.

Yeah, here's the problem though, nobody said anything like that. You just read that into what was being said to justify your pointless argument. What has been said time and time again by several people, in several different ways, is that the amount of impact on the energy level of the winds is so slight as to be not worth mentioning. That's what it means when people say negligable.

I've been saying that. I guess I missed where you said that.

But what you say contradicts. You say windmills effect the wind a little (negligible amount), but then you say that they don't siphon energy from the wind?

I was very confused by your posts..

If you agree windmills extract energy SOLELY from the wind, and that is the SOLE energy used to convert into electricity, I'll be ok Oh and if you agree that wind has only finite energy, then I'll be fine

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

xXx

 

[Frozenguy]

I never said they effect the wind the same, what I said was that in neither case do they kill the wind only redirect it.

This is where I got that from:

Yes the resistence caused by the windmill would affect the wind just like the resistence of a tree or a cliff or a building all of which are greater because those things don't move, well trees move some but you get the point.

The fact that the trees/wind move means that they are taking energy from the wind. The cliff does not take energy from the wind even though it is a 'bigger resistor'.

I never said they effect the wind the same, what I said was that in neither case do they kill the wind only redirect it. Obviously a cliff being essentially an immovable object to the wind is going to have a greater impact then that of a windmill which is designed to be moved by the wind. See the cliff being immovable forces the wind to have to stop or dramatically slow down as it is forced to move in a direction different then the one it wants to go in, this is called resistance. The windmill however, being designed to be able to be turned by the wind does not stop the wind nor does it force it to change direction since the blade moves allowing the wind to pass more or less on the same path it was on. Oh and please enlighten us all on this more efficient/advanced technology for manpiulating the weather.

Yes you identified resistance but guess what. Wind speeds up as it goes around/over buildings. It does not slow down. Where did you get your information from?

The fact that the windmill moves, means the wind is losing energy. I read your post as though you say otherwise. You're using your own logic and I'm using logic that has been developed over the past century.

 

[ixnay007]

"Extending the analogy" to either solar or wind isn't logically possible. Putting a dam on a river blocks up the entire flow - a windmill will extend perhaps 30'-50' into the air, might be up to 20' or so wide, and only marginally disrupts the airflow that powers it. Even if there are a great number of them and they are placed closely together, the wind currents extend several thousands of feet above them. A bank of solar panels may shade a tiny portion of the earth, but certainly not as effectively as any kind of a building or almost any other type of structure. As the sun moves, the shadowed area changes, and the shadowed area is still subject to radiant heat as well as absorbing heat from the uncovered, adjacent ground.

Wind travels at different speeds at different levels, removing energy here at ground level removes some of the net total, the more you remove, the more things are altered.

If the ground is heated all the day, fields like this

http://www.nalengineers.org/Img/SolarPanelsPhoenix.jpg

will remove energy that would have heated the ground and caused the movement of air currents.

The scale I mentioned before was wrong, 14 percent of US power is from renewable resources, nearly half of that is hydro, wind is about 1% the rest is filled with solar and geothermal, biofuels, etc.

US energy needs will only increase, and I think that renewable resources are the best way to get energy, I'm just saying that it isn't free, there is always a cost, sometimes one you can't even see.

 

[HempKat]

See? Why should I not argue this? How is this pointless? Windmills do 'siphon' energy from the wind. They do, plain and simple.
And wind does not have infinite energy so if you build a windmill good enough, or you build enough of them, you CAN 'stop' the wind! The proof is in the math and phyhsics. A whole branch of dynamics is devoted to it. It is called FLUID DYNAMICS.

Well then it should be easy for you to find and present the proof that supports what you're saying rather then just insisting it's out there. The best built windmills cause less resistence to the wind so a windmill built such that it can stop the wind is a poorly built windmill. Likewise enough windmills to stop the wind is self defeating since the wind is required to make them work.

Read this below, I said the wind pushes the blades, that push the turbine that rotates the generator and you said no. That the windmill just turns and rotates the generator. That is how I read it. I guess I dont see the point of YOUR post (below) then.

What you've been saying is that the energy comes from the wind or that windmills siphon energy from the wind and this is misleading. The best built windmills are the ones that have the least impact on the wind because the wind is the driving force of it but the blades do not suck (siphon) energy from the wind as you keep saying. If you disconnect the generator from the blades the windmill produces nothing even though it's interaction with and impact on the wind is the same. Therefore the wind is not really where the energy is coming from, at least not in the direct sense you keep implying. The energy is coming from the generator with assistance from the wind.

I've been saying that. I guess I missed where you said that.

But what you say contradicts. You say windmills effect the wind a little (negligible amount), but then you say that they don't siphon energy from the wind?

I was very confused by your posts..

Funny, you say you missed where I said that the impact on the wind was negligable but then go on to reference where I said it "You say windmills effect the wind a little (negligible amount), but then you say that they don't siphon energy from the wind"

If you agree windmills extract energy SOLELY from the wind, and that is the SOLE energy used to convert into electricity, I'll be ok Oh and if you agree that wind has only finite energy, then I'll be fine

I can't agree with that because that's not correct. Windmills extract nothing from anywhere. If they extracted the wind's energy then the wind would be significantly less when it passes. The wind powers the generator that creates the energy but it's all done in a way that has no significant impact on the wind. The wind blows past the blades and just keeps on moving. I do agree that the wind has a finite source of energy but only because the sun will eventually die billions of years from now. To us however and for the purposes of this discussion wind does have a virtually infinite supply of energy. It doesn't blow just a certain distance and die off. Rather it's in a constant state of flux increasing and decreasing according to the environment it's in.

 

[lost in a sea]

personally i agree with frozenguy but who cares its not important here, i think some reasoning has been misinterpreted somewhere,, agree to disagree,,

 

[HempKat]

Wind travels at different speeds at different levels, removing energy here at ground level removes some of the net total, the more you remove, the more things are altered.

If the ground is heated all the day, fields like this

http://www.nalengineers.org/Img/SolarPanelsPhoenix.jpg

will remove energy that would have heated the ground and caused the movement of air currents.

The scale I mentioned before was wrong, 14 percent of US power is from renewable resources, nearly half of that is hydro, wind is about 1% the rest is filled with solar and geothermal, biofuels, etc.

US energy needs will only increase, and I think that renewable resources are the best way to get energy, I'm just saying that it isn't free, there is always a cost, sometimes one you can't even see.

Who said it was free though? I don't recall anyone here saying wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, etc are free. I have heard people in favor of these things incorrectly imply they were free but not in this thread. Therefore it seems as if you and Frozenguy are just itching to jump on any discussion of such energies assuming that because some people who favor these things thought wrong that everyone who favors these energies must also share the same incorrect understanding of them.

I doubt anyone though really thinks they're totally and truely free but rather in comparrison to petroleum they seem like they are. Such as Solar is free in that it doesn't have to be mined or drilled for and that nobody can control the sun to control the supply and demand of solar energy. People that make that point aren't including the costs of building and maintaining the equipment needed to make use of solar energy. Of course when people talk about drilling for oil how often do you hear people factor in the costs of all the extraction equipment or the cost of the refineries to convert crude into a more useable form.