World-wide Windfarms: A Crazy Concept or Not?
As a primer to rational debate on windfarms and so-called renewable energy, Cameron Rebigsol offers readers an insight into the main issues in a new PROM paper, now available here for open public review.
The title of the paper is ‘Windfarms, an Ingenuous Engineering Concept that will Rejuvenate Our Climate―only if Properly Operated’
Public policy in many western nations is to curb the worst effects of man-made global warming. To meet tighter CO2 emissions targets we are encouraged to invest in, and welcome, a profusion of windfarms.
The reasoning is that humanity can somehow apply itself to fix global climate change from running out of control. The most vocal promotion comes the experts who tell us we can reduce our carbon footprint, or more specifically, human emissions of carbon dioxide as the first culprit and methane, the second, as supposed drivers of global warming.
According to the ‘experts’, if the industrial production of carbon dioxide is not forcefully curbed or even terminated, the end of our civilization is only a matter of time (some notable doomsayers tout “10 years to save the planet”). Many methods have been proposed and advocated by politicians and celebrity activists, including even the complete elimination of fossil fuel usage, closing coal and petroleum mining, even Hollywood nutjob Leonardo di Caprio demanding the banning of beef farming.
Meanwhile, Boris Johnson (photo, right) UK Prime Minister (February 4, 2020) announced Britain was to ban the sale of all petrol and diesel cars after 2035.
As an alternative to the dreaded fossil fuels, other sources of energy are being heavily promoted, such as nuclear energy. But nuclear suffered a setback following the Fukushima 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents. Tidal power isn’t fairing so well either. In Britain, Swansea Bay (along with the rest of the Bristol Channel) has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world. This offers a potential for electricity generation using tidal lagoons. But ambitious plans for a tidal lagoon power plant suffered a setback in June 2018 when the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy announced that the Government would not approve the plan due to high costs.
That leaves solar energy, geothermal energy and wind energy. The last three forms are also called renewable energy. In terms of cost and time factors, wind energy is often portrayed as most feasible and thus the most favored form among the three. It is said that:
“the cumulative capacity of installed wind power worldwide reached some 596.6 gigawatts in 2018. The installed wind turbines installed by this time could cover over five percent of the world’s electricity demand” https://www.statista.com/statistics/268363/installed-wind-power-capacity-worldwide/
Here are two questions such experts have never clearly answered in their manic drive to foist wind energy on us in such a large scale:
(1) What is the actual evidence (not computer models) that fossil fuels, if not replaced, will cause dangerous global warming?
Their usual answer is that CO2 is a ‘greenhouse gas’ that supposedly ‘traps heat.’ (it doesn’t)
(2) What makes wind power advocates so confident that this form of energy, if widely harnessed, will not lead to the demise of our civilization?
Let’s consider now some data that should encourage those experts to reconsider their advocacy. The data shows that the pace of so-called global warming is more in tune with the scale of our wind-power harvesting than with the increase of CO2 level in air.
In 1996, the global level of CO2 is 362 ppm, in 2019, 417 ppm, an increase of 15{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} (https://www.co2.earth/). However, in 1996, the global wind power cumulative capacity is 6 gigawatts, and in 2018, near 600 gigawatts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_by_country#/media/File:Global_Wind_Power_Cumulative_Capacity.svg
Therefore, the scale of wind power harvesting has increased by 100 times!
If we postulate a simple ‘cause and effect’ argument here we could apply the doomsayers’ own reasoning to infer correlation equals causation.
By that, I mean a simple and direct reasoning therein naturally comes out by itself.
It is that the energy we ‘steal’ from the wind is the energy the wind must lose in its self-propelling process. The wind that is so crippled must have its capability jeopardized in heat carrying. So inevitably, the more energy we steal from the wind, the less heat we can dump to outer space, or in turn, more heat seems likely to be accumulated in our atmosphere. Is that no less a feasible proposition than the absurdity of claiming the trace gas, carbon dioxide, is our climate’s control knob?
For more complete reasoning, please read Rebigsol’s new PROM paper ‘Windfarms, an Ingenuous Engineering Concept that will Rejuvenate Our Climate―only if Properly Operated’
As we delve deeper into the proposition, we can argue that wind power harvesting directly leads to the damage of two major heat exchange mechanisms between the Earth and the outer space in each hemisphere. Global warming as a result of such damage naturally follows.
The ever-intensified global warming and the weakened circulation of the natural currents widen the water containing capability of the air between two zones that is separated by the latitude of 45oN.
Gradually, more rain carrying storms are brewed in the zone below the 45oN but ever more scorching drought is developed in that above the 45oN. If a reader refers to the eight figures from Fig. A1 to Fig D2 in reference [II] in the article, he would be able to tell what an extreme situation is in the making by our “intelligence” of energy replacement― Europe and Russia will soon become bone dry.
The alarming state revealed by these figures should be enough to leave a great population there to have many sleepless nights to come. All these so resulted come from the inescapable reason: the ever more stubborn stagnancy of air circulation, all due to our exceedingly “intelligent” wind power harvesting.
The article (due for future publication) also explains that nature does develop stagnancy by itself on its atmosphere circulation, but after certain limit, its weather pendulum may swing to the side of self-extrication and restore the swiftness of the circulation. However, after we harvest its circulation energy, we more and more constrain this pendulum towards the side of stagnancy. By tapping the wind, we diminish its cooling, moderating impact on climate.
Fortunately, as the article explains, we can resolve this difficulty by taking advantage of all the wind turbines that have been installed and thus help the climate return to more ideal condition. All we need to do is to convert each wind turbine in all those wind farms into a motorized fan. Doing so, we just return the energy we have improperly harnessed back to the wind. Such conversion should be technically effortless.
What makes the matters problematic is the politics: who pays the cost of operating any mitigation?
This is an issue beyond what this author can suggest. However, if we are to believe in the catastrophic climate outcome resulting from our cynical ‘business as usual’ attitude of doing nothing, how much time is left to find a practicable solution?
We are bombarded daily with, for example, claims that the Arctic ice sheet is at the verge of collapse. Once gone – thanks to the high value of specific latent heat of state conversion between water and ice – recovering the polar ice cap will need all our extra effort. Will time be on our side?
Before the wind turbines can save us all in their new role as cooling fans, Europeans and Russians, beware!
The full PDF of Cameron Rebigsol’s new PROM paper can be downloaded here.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
The use of wind power is a crap solution to a non existent problem.It is just another way to make money from hysteria induced through ignorance. By arguing against it you accept the premise that we need to do something (even though those efforts are futile) about a non existent threat. Instead of replying to the stupidity and impracticality of their “solutions” (If your making money off them they are not impractical or stupid) you should concentrate on their total lack of evidence or science to support these boondoggles. Their efforts are to try and get as much money as possible before the effects of the Grand Solar Minimum reveals to everyone that they are idiots and charlatans
Herb
Reply
Barry
| #
Well said, at 62 I didn’t think I would live long enough to see the end of this hoax but I am now hopeful with the GSM people will eventually see that this is just a very elaborate money grab. Politicians trying to get policies in place to tax a problem that doesn’t exist. We have an elaborate carbon tax in Canada now all based on bad science,problem now is getting rid of that tax will be an issue that no politician will tackle. This is how they keep winning, over time they will change the name from carbon to fresh air and you can’t argue that.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
The economics of windmills is that only through government subsidies can the things exist….killing birds and bees and bats and making low frequency sounds that bother humans and whales. However, Spain may have the most absurd subsidy situation when the utility is able to run diesel generators to power flood lights to illuminate solar panels at night because there is profit.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
After a decade of dedicated research into the Carbon climate hoax and every possible “sustainable” green energy myth, I am disappointed to see this PROM at PSI.
REJECT AND REMOVE this New Think propaganda
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
“To meet tighter CO2 emissions targets we are encouraged to invest in, and welcome, a profusion of windfarms.”
Already off the rails. As CO2 cannot do what they claim (no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can warm Earth’s surface) and is indeed plant food and has no downside, everything that follows here is pure misinformation, political agenda and propaganda. The goal of destabilizing our energy supply is clear. They claim to be trying to create a useful energy supply but
YOU CANNOT BUILD A RELIABLE ENERGY SUPPLY FROM UNRELIABLE ENERGY SOURCES.
It’s that simple.
The material, expense, land and environmental foot print, maintenance, infrastructure, short lifetime, and unrecyclability of wind and solar are a disaster in every possible way!
Reply
Ken Irwin
| #
“According to the ‘experts’, if the industrial production of carbon dioxide is not forcefully curbed or even terminated, the end of our civilization is only a matter of time”
Curbing or terminating carbon dioxide production WILL end our civilization – immediately reducing us to the existence that Hobbes described as “nasty, brutish and short” – that is the end of civilization.
Reply