The World’s Largest Wind Turbine Has Been Switched On::It’s turbo time.

  • Troy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    In effect, it’s turning the energy it stole back into heat somewhere too, when the energy is used. Thermodynamics always wins.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      A portion of it yes as the material flexes. But it’s not transforming it all to heat, most of it gets transferred through the structure and the building foundations into the ground. That’s my understanding at least, I’m not really sure how converting all the energy to heat would work but maybe I’m not understanding your point.

      • Troy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So, conservation of energy requires that if kinetic energy is removed from the wind, it must be converted to another form. If a building removes energy from the wind (through friction, flexing, transferring vibrations into the ground, etc.), that energy total must be equal to the kinetic energy lost by the wind. Thermodynamics says that any conversion of energy from one form to another results in some of that energy being converted to heat. So there’s some direct heating caused by the process of the wind hitting a building. That heat is largely heating of the air itself. After all, all those molecules had to collide with one another when they ran into the building.

        The noise, vibrations, and other forms of energy conversion will all also end up as heat eventually, as they’re absorbed by the materials. So some indirect heating as well. In the ground, this is basically vibrations due a shuddering building being dampened by the material and turned into heat.

        Now clearly on a windy day a building does not start significantly self-heating due to the wind hitting it. So the total amount of energy absorbed by a building cannot be that substantial. So, if one side of the equation (energy absorbed by building and converted into heat) is very small, then the energy removed from the wind must also be very small. Mostly the wind just changes direction to move around it.

        • thebestaquaman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Close, but not quite. One cubic meter of air at atmospheric conditions is about 40 moles, or 575 grams. Let’s say 600 g to be generous.

          Wind moving at 250 km/h (cat. 5 hurricane) contains about 1.5 kJ of kinetic energy per cubic meter.

          If all that energy is used to heat the same air, it’s temperature is increased by roughly… 3.5 K.

          Now consider the fact that kinetic energy scales as the square of velocity: for a normal windy (say 15 m/s wind), we only get a temperature increase of 0.16 K, which is practically immeasurable.

          For these calculations I didn’t even consider the building, which has a massive specific heat capacity compared to air.

          In summary: Because the thermal energy required to increase temperatures appreciably is of a completely different order of magnitude than the amount of kinetic energy in the wind, the fact that a building isn’t heating up is not a solid argument that only a small portion of the kinetic energy in the wind is being lost when it hits the building. In fact, even if all the energy was lost, you wouldn’t even notice the temperature change, unless you were in a cat. 5 hurricane, in which case the building is probably already gone.