snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Questionable Quotes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08 October 2013, 01:23 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,336
Heavt breathing Rep. Joe Barton on wind power

Comment: US Rep Joe Barton, member of House Committee on Energy, quoted as
saying: "Wind is a finite resource and harnessing it would slow the winds
down, which would cause the temperature to go up."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08 October 2013, 04:59 AM
Gutter Monkey's Avatar
Gutter Monkey Gutter Monkey is online now
 
Join Date: 13 December 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,233
Heavt breathing

As reported by Time magazine!

Quote:
2. That said, Barton has used the threat of global warming to combat something he hates even more: wind energy. In a 2009 hearing, Barton implied that wind is a "finite resource" and that harnessing it would "slow the winds down" which would "cause the temperature to go up."
http://content.time.com/time/politic...997963,00.html

http://grist.org/article/2009-04-20-...blicans-bring/

I think this article from the Washington Monthly has the actual quote:
Quote:
"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08 October 2013, 05:21 AM
Skeptic's Avatar
Skeptic Skeptic is offline
 
Join Date: 16 July 2005
Location: Logan, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 1,466
Default

Quote:
Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler.
Actually, it's the other way around. Hot air rises, cooler air takes its place.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08 October 2013, 06:17 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,383
Default

Well, it's true, except that you'd have to do something like cover the entire earth in a 20 km thick layer of wind turbines for that to happen.

Incidentally, that's approximately on the same magnitude as the amound of wind turbines needed to replace other energy sources.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08 October 2013, 08:10 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 18,924
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
[...] cover the entire earth in a 20 km thick layer [...] Incidentally, that's approximately on the same magnitude as the amound of wind turbines needed to replace other energy sources.
Citation needed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08 October 2013, 02:59 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,440
Default

This article on a TVA wind farm says the turbines develop 1.8 megawatts each. Wikipedia says that worldwide energy consumption in 2008 was 143 petawatts. That works out to about 8 million turbines of that size, or about 1 turbine every 7 square miles.

ETA: Of course, that assumes that there are no other methods of generation electricity.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08 October 2013, 08:44 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 17,462
Default

That, of course, assumes similar wind-generation capacity across the world. Those TVA turbines are at the top of a ridge where one can expect a lot of wind most of the time. Most areas are much less reliable. And after a certain point of concentration of turbines, you really do get interference of the turbines with each other, as the wind is reduced and redirected by pushing past the blades.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08 October 2013, 09:16 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,440
Default

Sure, but turbines can be concentrated a lot more than 1 per 7 square miles. The site I linked to has 18 turbines on a 2 mile long ridge. And at 78m tall, it would take about 4,000 of them to reach 20 km high. At that level of stacking, you could put about 1% of all the required turbines on that one 2 mile long site.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08 October 2013, 09:22 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 5,054
Default

More importantly, it assumes that the turbines are operating at 100% speed 100% of the time, which is pretty unlikely. If the net efficiency (including transmission losses) is 10% you would need roughly one tower per square mile.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08 October 2013, 09:39 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 17,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Sure, but turbines can be concentrated a lot more than 1 per 7 square miles. The site I linked to has 18 turbines on a 2 mile long ridge. And at 78m tall, it would take about 4,000 of them to reach 20 km high. At that level of stacking, you could put about 1% of all the required turbines on that one 2 mile long site.
Wind turbines at 20 km would not be very effective, what with the air being so thin.

ETA: But if you are going to build 20 km tall towers, you could get kickass solar power generation up there.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08 October 2013, 09:46 PM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, La.
Posts: 11,195
Default

Quote:
Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource,
If only the Earth had something to provide energy to power the wind from an outside source. Like, some source of heat to keep the air masses moving. Like maybe we could put a great big ball of fire in space, or something...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08 October 2013, 10:01 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,440
Default

Sure, there would be some loss of efficiency. But 4,000 turbines per square mile over 57.5 million square miles would be 280 trillion turbines. They could be 0.1% as efficient as the ones in my link and still provide over 3 times the energy that the earth uses.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08 October 2013, 10:05 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,336
Shout

Quote:
Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense.
"Just because this isn't happening, and won't happen, doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged about it."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09 October 2013, 06:27 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Citation needed.
Just a rough guesstimate.

The thing is, wind turbines won't stop the wind significantly, simply because they are so darn ineffective. They just remove very little momentum from the moving air.

I saw a calculation done a decade or so ago, which showed that if Sweden were to replace our nuclear reactors with wind turbine, we would need to cover the entire Skåne, Blekinge, Halland and Småland (ie, everyting below lake Vättern) with turbines. Yet, nuclear power is less than half our power production, we have roughly as much hydroelectric power, and some small amount of fossil fuels on top of that.

Despite that, we have some uneducated weed hippies who believe Sweden should build wind turbines...

Wind energy might make you feel good and environmentally friendly and all that, but it's useless if you want to make any significant impact.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
U.S. Capitol Tour with David Barton snopes Politics 7 24 August 2012 01:50 PM
Go green? Wind turbine failures Jenn Fauxtography 47 30 March 2011 01:59 AM
The wind always blows from the east liebeslied Science 25 21 May 2008 05:43 PM
Emerald City in 'Gone with the Wind' snopes Entertainment 2 02 February 2008 04:04 AM
Mosquitoes can't fly against wind stronger than 2 MPH? black roses19 Science 2 27 July 2007 12:19 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.