Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jackim | Hacker News Reader

Here's a study that evaluated exactly what you're looking for, if I understand correctly: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/htm

In summary, if the entire Earth was powered by wind, it would result in a net loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere of ~0.007%.

View on HN

Looks like some far more competent folks have pretty thoroughly looked into it. I'll sleep better knowing I'm not the wind's sole protector

Although that would be a cool job description.

If we increase our energy consumption 100-fold this estimation of net loss in wind would approach 1% which sounds bad. I guess we might need wind protector after all.

That's a pretty big "if".

Is it? Given current energy consumption growth it's just 100-150 years away

Edit: From covering the entire surface of the earth, which is the bigger if. (Should have read the context)

I'd really hope wind has a bus factor of more than one though.

I know it's bad form to just offer an unexplained video link, but your phrase "the wind's sole protector" reminded me of this delightfully understated French commercial that illustrates why the wind has so few people looking out for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mTLO2F_ERY

Aren't trees and tall buildings in cities doing a million times more then if the whole world was powered by the wind?

Very likely, yes. Until wind farms dwarf the scale of our cities and forests, I doubt there's any reason to worry.

Besides, don't we usually consider trees to be good things? They block a lot more wind than any wind turbine.

I think once we solved the storage of energy from solar panels the wind won't really be needed. I still would love to see tidal generators that work but I guess it is to much upkeep.

Don't forget that CO2 is heavier than O2, [1]. So if we don't keep that wind going, all the CO2 will sink to the bottom of the atmosphere, pushing the O2 up. I'm not sure if that is a linear process (x percent less wind meaning x percent less oxygen).

[1] https://www.quora.com/Which-is-heavier-oxygen-or-carbon-diox...

Don't worry about pushing up O2 all them airliners will suck it up.

Even in "still" air, the individual molecules have random velocities due to temperature - on the order of 100 m/s. Combined with the fact that there are more mixed configurations than unmixed configurations (entropy of mixing), this randomness effectively stirs the atmosphere without the need for the bulk motion of the wind.

You mean CO2 would concentrate at tree level to be more easily absorbed and converted back into oxygen, rather than in the upper atmosphere where it heats the earth? I'm not sure I see the downside.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com