 | DrumBeat: June 13, 2009 | The Oil Drum | Right Sizing the Economy: Can Herman Daly's Prescription for a Steady State Economy Accomplish this Task? |  |
| Aleklett: Australia highly vulnerable to oil shortages | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | Peak Oil In The Australian, Once Again | |
79 comments on Floating Offshore Wind Power Update
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
79 comments on Floating Offshore Wind Power Update
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
Actually, it is just the opposite, this is at the heart of the problem. The temperature difference between the equator and the northern hemisphere will probably increase.
Just because you keep on ignoring this reference, doesn't make your doom theory including the end of thermodynamic laws more true:
http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm
Ocean surface currents redistribute heat around the world and have a profound effect on the world’s climate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current ferry huge volumes of warm salty tropical water north to the Greenland coast and to the Nordic Seas. Heat radiating off of this water helps keep the countries of northwest Europe, which are at the same latitude as Labrador and Greenland, relatively comfortable places to live.
Many scientists, however, are warning that the North Atlantic might cool down, perhaps by the turn of the century. Paradoxically, global warming would be to blame. Rising temperatures may trigger events that could not only slow the supply of tropical water flowing north, it could disrupt the entire ocean circulation pattern.
Even if this was the case: Future generations hopefully won't just sit on their lazy behinds or just invent new useless financial instruments and they hopefully will produce something too.
This is what was built during World War II with manufacturing technology and materials from the 1930's (no high strength lightweight composite materials) without knowing which side will win the war or despite knowing which side was about to win the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
Building a few 1,000 new offshore wind turbines with today's technology and today's population every year doesn't sound like a big deal. Most people actually do like jobs.
Massive infusions of fresh water from the melting of the Greenland ice cap will dilute the salt content of the northern Atlantic Ocean for millennia and stop the world wide circulations of the seas that you reference. Things that always have been will change drastically and unpredictably. Yes, things that have been since the dawn of civilization will change. That is what climate change is all about. This is what makes it so fearful. References from past studies will not hold true and are not applicable as a prediction of the future. That is what change is.
If this were to take place, let us call it the north atlantic freshening mode, the relative cooling of the north atlantic region would slow the melting. This implies a fairly strong negative feedback mechanism exists for this mode. A negative feedback will act to limit the amplitude of the change. This mode, if it is indeed real would rduce the albedo driven polar amplification, but not likely eliminate it.
How so? Sea water is warmer than ice, so the melting wouldn't seem overly effected. This is especially true since the ocean currents run from the Pacific through the Arctic Ocean to the Atlantic, as do the winds, in general.
Still, if you can explain how this might slow melt, it'd be interesting. After all, the Younger Dryas *did* happen.
Cheers
There are two arguments taking place here on TOD with respect to the 'peak wind' issue. This is how they appear to me:
- One argument has wind power as a replacement for conventional fossil fuel power stations. The effect of adding wind turbines is that coal and nuclear energy can be replaced with a non- polluting, no FF input source.
- Two argument has wind power as an augment along side increasing conventional fuel power station capacity. There is no replacement, wind power is used to leverage bureaucratic climate 'quotas' or to add to overall capacity.
The first argument suggests that FF power is a wasting asset. In this case, having some alternative is better than the 'no alternaitve' or carbon alternative such aw diesel generators. If wind is not quite as effective as nameplate output might suggest, it would still provide power, some time, that power managed effectively would be very useful.
The second argument takes place in a more or less economic context. If there is less wind power the payback period becomes longer. Extended long enough and the turbines become uneconomical. Wheher the turbines generate electricity or not is unimportant, it is the finance dynamic that matter. In this context, turbines are concentrated money. If the turbines cannot pay for themselves they are a wasted asset.
As the energyfinance crisis deepens, the near term issue of financiability of an asset will become sxtremely important for a little while, then not matter at all. If power can be had, even on- and- off, it will be a good thing, Even if there is a drop off in wind - and there is certainly no concsensus about that taking place - the wind will not stop completely.
In the land of no electricity, the man with the 'slowly turning' windmill is king.
In the land of no electricity, the man with the 'slowly turning' windmill is king.
Yes, but in that world, there is a lot less people.
the wind will not stop completely.
How do you know that? How can a man know what the future of climate will be?
It is concrete and steel that is the real investment; we can only put a limited amount of carbon into our air; that is the limiting factor; that is the real investment. Every once of concrete and steel must count toward the future, none can be wasted. The scales of our existence must be wisely balanced. New money can always be printed, but atmospheric carbon has a finite limit.
I don't know if there will be more or less people. I don't have control. It's equally likely ... there will be more or there will be less. More or less power is different. Small groups can decide if there will be more or less power and how that power will be utilized. This ia really the appeal of wind, even more than PV and certainly moreso than hydro or nuclear. Wind is the 'small is beautiful' power source. I believe part of the problems that are reported with wind have to do with the fact that wind is inherently decentralized - the utility monopolies have difficulties gaining total control of it. I suspect this is behind a lot of the 'load balancing' issues and may be behind the 'peak wind' argument, as well.
The new- design turbines are an object form, once the form is mastered ... it can be reproduced and improved. I suspect with the right tools, wind turbines could be made - and should be made - locally in fairly small shops. A floating turbine as described in the article could be built by any shop that can build ocean going boats, for instance. A ship to lay the power cord would be the only large vessel really needed to erect one of these or even much larger turbines.
The oil industry makes very large platforms. They can make turbines as well.
In any case there is no guarantee of success, but failure is guaranteed by not making any attempts.
As for the wind stopping, this is unlikely. Not because I know or don't know; I am not a wind expert and I don't care to be. But physics doesn't change, the Earth still orbits around the Sun, it rotates on its axis; there is heat on one side of the planet and fierce cold on the other. This means there will probably be wind. The effect of the sun heating the ground faster than the ocean means there will be wind from the ocean toward the land on days with no clouds. It's reasonable to consider there will be wind, even in a warmer world ... or a hot one for that matter.
As for accounting, the current method measured everything with money and the money managers always measure against what they need for themselves, first. Reduce the influence of money managers, which is a form of tariff, and get to necessities - substituting (fill- in- the- blank) energy development for smaller priorities and there will be adequate resources. It's true, there are few resources to waste, but this has been the case from the very beginning of the industrial revolution. There is a lot of 'fat' in consumer society that can be cut with the resources directed to more useful investments. For instance, the last fifteen years has seen a massive investment in luxury vacation lodging, all over the world. Each hotel and resort represents 5 or more wind turbines and the all important wires that connect them to users. The resources for new power could be as simple as not building any more luxury hotels and building wind turbines instead.
There will be less people. We're in a massive population overshoot that was driven at first by the fossil nitrates of the Atacama desert and then later by fossil fuel produced synthetic ammonia. I think now even if we had the wisdom to approach the problem on a war footing, which won't be politically popular until every beachfront home in the U.S, is washed away, we still face receding horizons. The massive deflation we face makes new projects less likely and so it goes until we're down to the solar max for the planet. That's two billion if we're on our renewables game like action superheros and less than a billion if we go at it the way we've always done.
The wind is a consequence of differential temperatures across the globe. Even if all the snow/ice were to melt, there would still be significant temperature differences, as available solar energy is much less at the poles -and at high lattitudes there is a lot of solar heating in the summer, but little to none in the winter. So winds will still blow, although at perhaps slightly reduced speeds. We know enough about plantary climate to confidently predict that much.
Janap,when you ask how someone knows that the wind will not stop blowing completely,you betray an unfortunate lack of acquaintance with the basic physics that drive our weather.
Now it is very possible that the DIFFERENCE between polar temperatures and tropical temperatures will diminish,especially if the reflective ice all melts, but the temperatures simply CANNOT equalize for a couple of very simple reasons.
The facts that the earth is a sphere and that it is tilted on it's axis means that the relative amount of sunlight reaching the surface varies a great deal(ever heard of the midnight sun,or the days that last for days above the Arctic Circle?)from equator to either pole.There are other variables but they are not as important.
Even if the earth were stationary,the polar regions would receive either more or less energy than the tropics,and the resulting temperature differences would create high and low pressure systems and the wind will blow.
Now if the thermohaline circulation collapses,it will undoubtedly play hell with the weather and the climate(they are not the same thing) but THINK.The thc moves heat from the tropics toward the arctic areas.If it stops,the effect will be to increase,not decrease,the temperature differential,WHICH IS WHAT MAKES THE WIND BLOW.
You are in over your head,but don't let that bother you, we all learn things here.I've learned the hard way myself more than once.
The ground heats and cools faster than the oceans. This means that in areas bordered by land/sea, there will be wind. Venus, with an average surafce temperature of 460 degrees C, and a variation of about 30 degrees C, has some of the strongest winds in the Solar System.
The Earth is a sphere, (effectivly) by a single point-source of light. This means that the Poles will necessarily recieve less energy than the Equator. The difference in recieved energy means a difference in temperature. This temperature differential will remain, even if the relative difference is reduced.
Every orbital body we know of that has a persistent atmosphere has winds. We could therefore deduce, with a very small margin of error, that Earth will always have wind while it has an atmosphere.
Your errors are in equating conditions in the North Atlantic with conditions around the globe and in speaking as if the THC is the only variable.
Neither are accurate. Arctic Amplification pretty much guarantees a gradual equalizing between the tropics and the Arctic even if there is regional cooling in Europe due to the slowing or shutting down of the THC.
Cheers
My sense is, without even wasting a napkin doing calculations, that the pulse of cold, fresh water coming out of the arctic ice melt is something that takes an age to start moving again, even in a warmer world. We're out of the Holocene and into the Ohshitocene, but thermal inertia still exists :-)
Well, anything is possible and there are flips that happen in as little as two years that have global consequences, so... But if we're talking a more gradual change, AA might keep things pretty well correlated. Besides, I'm not so sure the sea ice melting has much of an affect, given a lot of the melt is already from the bottom up. The melt water from the continent/Greenland, though...
Cheers
THC is not the only variable but the ocean conveyor belt in the Atlantic is a very significant variable (efficient and very powerful distribution of heat energy from south to north and vice versa).
Without the ocean conveyor belt in the Atlantic equalizing of heat energy will be reduced.
Since most wind turbines are built on the Northern hemisphere, the Atlantic THC is particularly relevant concerning wind power.
Anyway, just assuming wind conditions would in fact change significantly in 100 years from now, does that mean the world shouldn't erect wind turbines with a lifespan of 20 years?
We can only take planning for the future so far. Make your best guess and go for it. It is a great argument for micro-wind development, however.
Cheers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090611142354.htm
Related: Rapid Climate Change, Monsoons
That is a very nice reference re: WWII production. I've cobbled one up myself on a couple of occasions but it's good to have one solid reference like that.