Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Renewable Energy and Global Warming? Are Solar and wind helping?
Where I am coming from:: GW / Climate change is undeniable and Man Made.
I'm looking for thoughts from people who are knowledgeable in areas like Physics, Meteorology and Earth Sciences or generally know how the Earth and Nature work.
Solar and Wind energy seem to be the only two renewable sources that take energy directly out of the air. What makes me wonder is that I think they may be benefiting the environment more than we realize.
In addition to being clean energy sources they may be removing a lot more energy out of the environment then we realize, as they have been put in by the world on a massive scale. I tend to think wind turbines and solar panels probably dissipate nearly 100% of the energy that hits them. If the CO2 and pollution that we pump in the air is somewhat the same amount of energy as what we take out, we might have already found a way to compensate?
What do you think?
By the way renewable energy output has gotten to be almost even with nuclear energy output at 9%, much to the chagrin of the energy monopolies.
Ok Qaiser lets try to make this simpler, and Greg but the thing is if we can still convert it to energy then the energy existed. Energy is energy and if we're saying there's extra energy in the atmosphere I think getting rid of it or using it is a little less energy in the environment, nomatter if its at ground level or not.
We say our problem is that the CO2 mixed with the pollution we pump into the atmosphere heats up the atmosphere.
Ok that energy is already in the atmosphere. Now since solar and wind take whatever forms of energy they are and convert them into energy we use.
Now energy is energy. The physics law of conservation of energy has to apply here. In other words you dissipate some at the ground level and you've dissipated the total energy in the atmosphere, at the time, by that amount.
You can actually see it with wind turbines in water where fog develops because you actually cooled the surrounding air. You've also created a down draft that could be bringing some CO2 d
I meant to say the downdrafts created by turbines might bring CO2 down to ground level where it can be absorbed by plants trees or oceans.
P.S. You jokesters are real funny.
There're solutions for bird and bat problems. Change the color of turbines, for instance.
No renewable energies can be developed by any company and any country thats what you're all afraid of losing your monopolies, but forget it there future is written. Good luck getting nuclear plants running again, they take to much collaboration, effort and money to bring. Plus we haven't built any of them in 30 years. Where do ya think we'll get the nuclear experts?
Mtrstude, thanks but one thing you're saying it ultimately gets released back but thats true for everything, ultimately it will go back but what if the next time it does its CO2 free which is our ultimate goal. Maybe we can continue with our reduction in energy usage so it won't go back so quickly.
Pindar, well they must be helping somewhere cause we're putting them up everywhere and we've stabilized our CO2 output in the last 3 years and Global CO2 output was down 1.3% in 2008 could be that it was due to the global recession. But still there's more amunition to fight the folks that say GW is not due to humans.
But I can't believe CO2 is all at ground level. Even if it is heavy the wind can still fling it around like it was nothing. That goes agains everything including NASA which has the atmospheric CO2 at 331 PPM. http://climate.nasa.gov/
You know whats really strange is that the people that are right are getting the thumbs downs and the people that haven't a clue are getting the thumbs ups? Whats up with that? Well then to all the people getting the thumbs down, I commend you! You struck a cord with the denialists, great job!
Pindar I'm not talking about the UK if thats what you're talking about. Where did you get that figure?
Here's the EIA's figure. Winds contribution in the U.S. may be small but its not 0, more like around 0.8% in the U.S.
The only brainwashing being done is by the money flows. Pindar I don't join anybody for the purposes of joining them. If I happen to be on the same stance as them its because they and I both see the obvious.
Show me the evidence, but thats the problem isn't it! The GW / Climate change denialists have no evidence to show and no way to disprove the facts and true observations.
Lalu are you talking about the 9% figure Lalu? Why don't you check the graph on the EIA link I posted. That has renewables at 8% vs 9% for nuclear and that was for 2009.
"Worldwide wind energy production at the end of 2009 was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage."
10 Answers
- MTRstudentLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
The short answer is 'no', they aren't taking energy out of the air in the long run because whilst wind absorbs energy that was already in the atmosphere it is then used up as electricity, which is ultimately given out as heat and returned to the atmosphere. The net effect is zero.
Renewable energies emit less CO2, even once you include building and maintaining them. This slows global warming.
In terms of absorbing heat, it's a bit more complicated than that. Power stations burn fuel and cause a bit of global warming that way: usually 2-3 units of heat for each unit of electricity (including the electricity which eventually heats the atmosphere).
The effect of solar panels depends on where you put them and their efficiency. If they are 10% efficient and you put them on shiny 90% reflective ice, then they actually mean you absorb 9 units of heat for every unit of electricity you make and they increase global warming - the ratio is 3 times worse than a fossil fuel or nuclear power station. But on the plus side, the carbon savings are a much, much bigger effect.
If you put a solar panel on a dark asphalt surface and you don't change the reflectivity of the surface, then you're getting power for 'free' in heat terms - you're not absorbing any more and your ratio is 1 unit of electricity for 0 units of extra heating...
(I did a physics masters in solar cells and I'm now doing a PhD in climate science - I did the maths already for a solar power system's effect on global warming, e-mail me if you want it)
George Orwell is spreading his ignorance once again. Atmospheric temperatures here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Did-global-warming...
Of course, the atmosphere isn't the only part of the globe. Trillions of tons of ice have melted since 2000 and sea levels have continued to rise as more heat goes into the oceans. In George Orwell's world, more energy in the climate system isn't global warming though.
- PindarLv 71 decade ago
No,they ain't helping in the slightest,this winter in the UK power companies have struggled with the demand,the official figures for the contribution by wind farms is so small it's classed as 0%. So no billions are being spent on a white elephant. Zero point energy using magnets has been around for at least 50 years but the technology has been suppressed.
Oh and by the way you don't need downdrafts to get co2 to ground level,being the heaviest element of the atmosphere it collects near the ground anyway.
YOU ARE NOT READING WHAT I WROTE, The 0% contribution figure is an OFFCIAL figure released by the Energy department of the government, not my opinion or a figure pulled from a hat, but an analysis based on power usage and power station figures. Please try to unbrainwash yourself, join the many who oppose the few.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Where are you Mars. Because on earth natural global warming ended 15 years ago and was never man made. Unless you consider the fact that man global warming exist only in computer models and computer models are man made. Then I guess you can call AGW man made. To answer your question no solar and wind power are not helping because there is nothing to help. Wind is turning out to be detrimental to bird and bat populations so it's a negative.
I also don't see how you figure "chagrin of the energy monopolies" Who do you think owns the wind and solar plant. They are also owned by energy monopolies.
- Anonymous5 years ago
I think government "privatizing" of the US military, and huge Pentagon cost over-runs and losses on contracts to companies like Kellogg Brown & Root and the mercenary company formerly known as Blackwater, are much more AMUSING as forms of government corruption. So I do support real "green energy" development as an environmentalist, and and I am frankly proud to see renewable energy become a source of traditional American pork barrel politics and government cost overruns. I think that this shows that the environmental movement is growing up, learning the way the world really works. But I believe that unnecessary highway construction -- and STRIP MINING OF ENTIRE MOUNTAINS, and the huge military cost overruns that Republicans prefer are still much better in terms of entertainment value. And IMO, almost NOTHING compares to the wonderful political sleaze that's traditionally been associated with the oil & gas industry, especially in the American South. "Solyndra" is OK, as scandals go. But when will the Green groups be able to boast of their own Teapot Dome Scandal? When will some solar energy developer be able to brag that he's monopolized almost an entire American energy sector, the way that John D. Rockefeller did for several years running with Standard Oil? When will we see really great international scams involving solar energy, like the CIA's toppling of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 on behalf of the biggest oil companies? Until "green energy" scams reach that world class status, I think, we just have to face the fact that sustainable and renewable power sources just haven't caught up with petroleum.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
energy production costs money. nuclear power is probably the way to go. the energy density is extremely high. solar and wind power is not efficient. it also requires lots of space. since it,s exposed to the weather, it requires a fair amount of maintenance. if you feel energy monopolies will not get involved in renew-ables, you are mistaken. i,m betting on a combination, with nuclear dominating.
Source(s): i do research. - Anonymous1 decade ago
You would have to stop the energy arriving on the planet by putting the solar collector between the planet and the sun, once the energy is here you can transform it but you are stuck with it.
- 1 decade ago
Wake up! The so called climate scientists have been are liars. The climategate emails show the are liars. Wake up stop believing in the lies!
- 1 decade ago
plz make it simpler .i think energy should be used directly from enviroment which is from air or solar is very safe as wel...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
by the way... ???!!! oKey...
