Wind Farms.

[DickieMint]

So the world decides to build masses of wind farms. They are everywhere. Surely, each wind turbine gradualy slows the wind down. Would this eventualy mean that there would be much less wind in the world and therefore we would need to find an alternative energy source. Maybe wave power from the sea but surely the same thing would apply.

[vehelpfulguy]

If we run out of wind maybe we need some huge fans powered by electricity to blow the blades round on the wind farms. :-)

[OBonio]

VHG has just invented the world's first perpetual motion machine!

[Catso]

You're theoretically right DM, energy is extracted from 'the wind' and in so doing, it is slowed down.

However, there's so much energy available, you'd need an awful lot of turbines before you slowed the wind by any significant amount.

Ditto waves. Note the recent complaint from surfers in Cornwall that their waves would be 'stolen' (reduced) by the proposed wave power plant.

(BTW, I'm not being pro wind turbine - in fact I don't think they'll ever produce enough power to be significant)

[Hippy]

The decrease in wind would cause catastrophic climate change leading to thermal runaway, icecaps melting, daily tsunamis, and the end of life as we know it. Not!

[Agent-47]

Also wind farms are ok but you still have to dig 6 ft x 3 ft trenches to lay the cable, so not very eco is it.

[qapmoc]

Yeah but as the world is at ''peak oil'' about now and from now on the supply will be less and less each year (+ more expensive) then any power from another source is going to be needed if it is ECO or not.

[Catso]

Absolutely so, qupmoc. It's not so much a case of eco-power getting cheaper to be feasible as other sources getting more expensive

My personal view is that large-scale windpower just isn't feasible (and it'd clutter the countryside up). For eco-power, I think waves or tides are the best bet.

However, regrettably, I think we're going to have to have nuclear.

[MrPahoehoe]

Nuclear energy is the future. I'm afraid wind/wave is not gonna generate anything like enough to fulfill the needed amounts. Peak hydrocarbon production is around this point in time, but it wont drop off mega-quickly it will gradually wind down, as previously uneconomic discoveries become economic, so there will be chances to change strategies.

With current lifestyles, I'm pretty sure the amount of 'green-energy' installations would not be feesible. Having said that I think as many as possible should be created.

I vote for cold fusion! so all you lazy geniuses get going and make it work.

[Dagman]

With all this global warming and severe weather, wind will probably increase anyways so turbines are good. Mind you, the planet is absolutely massive and even millions of turbines would be ineffective on wind speed.

[mash]

some facts to consider:
Wind is currently the lowest cost renewable in the UK

Nuclear is the highest cost zero carbon generation in the UK

Tidal is proven, has scale and islong lasting but very expensive

Wave Technology is unproven and will have bigissues around, scale, capitol costs and maintenance

Wind resource over the past 10 years in the UK has fallen

Hydro has not been fully exploited. High costs but reliable, long lasting and proven

[shawfarmholidays]

The largest wind turbine on the planet is only 200m high (100m is the norm). This will have a miniscule effect on overall wind as the troposphere where most of the worlds wind and weather occurs is approx 15,000m high. This means even if every square metre of the planet had a 200m turbine on it this would only capture just over 1% of the available wind energy. This does not account for the fact that average windspeed is much slower at 200m compaired to higher up where the jet streams are