Options

Introduction: Dave Santos

edited December 2020 in Chat

Hi Folks,

Am interested in Category Theory application to classification of Airborne Wind Energy Systems (AWES), which is a Work Package in process by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) for the International Energy Agency (IEA). There are many ways to define computable knowledge-based engineering ontologies, and many researchers have specific skills, but Categorical Diagrams are especially intuitive, powerful, and rigorous for knowledge representation teamwork.

With regard to Green Mathematics and Azimuth's Values Commitments, AWE, also known as "Kite Energy", has tremendous potential to perhaps resolve the Holocene Extinction (or make it worse) because no other renewable energy source is so vast, dense, and ubiquitous as Upper Wind. The futurisms are mind-blowing, from game-changing green-energy super-abundance, to decisive climate geo-engineering, to levitating civilization en-masse for a techno-utopian Golden Age (Aerotecture).

Its a mathematical engineering-physics wonderland to contemplate "polymerizing the sky" by directly embodied metamaterial topologies at extreme-scale, with analog-QM phonon dynamics, sonic relativity, and so on. These dynamics apply to any geophysical flow; wind, water, solar wind, etc.. Precise AWES Categorization may inform a Multi-Physics Multi-Solver Sim, to run on an exaflop supercomputer NREL will have access to in 2022.

A starting puzzle, a Rabbit Hole Entrance into exotic AWE science-

A large ship tows another by a polymer rope (hawser) a few cm in diameter. The towed ship's drag and velocity amount to 10MW of thermodynamic work, yet the polymer rope conveying 10MW remains cool to the touch(!) Explain this mechanical superconducting (conservation of energy) according to Phonon QFT or thermodynamics. Extra points for a Feynman or Categorical Diagram.

"We might extend the application of [wind] power to the heights of the clouds, by means of kites."

John Etzler, 1833

Comments

  • 1.

    Working thru Fong and Spivak's 7 Sketches text, in the present context, an AWES has a layered structure comprising a Preorder. A Monotone Map may start with Wind, then Kite, then Bridle, then Tether, then Anchor. Expanded Hasse Diagramming could show the Tether-fibers, typical multiple Bridle Lines, and even define Multi-Kite Parallel Networks.

    Its rather cool that these physical kite objects embody mathematical objects like lines, surfaces, braids, knots, and so on. The Wind and Anchoring Media are Fields in 4Space. Energy flowing across the Kite Preorder is primitive Information under Shannon Energy-Information Equivalence, but its not some invisible nano world buzzing at THz frequency, but our familiar world, at our own scale and time.

    Clues to the starting Puzzle- The Power in the tow-rope is a Frozen Wave, just as a surfer rides a wave that is static to herself (Galilean Relativity). Thermodynamic Temperature occurs at various scales; at the scale of the tow-rope, the effective temperature is near absolute zero.

    Comment Source:Working thru Fong and Spivak's 7 Sketches text, in the present context, an AWES has a layered structure comprising a Preorder. A Monotone Map may start with Wind, then Kite, then Bridle, then Tether, then Anchor. Expanded Hasse Diagramming could show the Tether-fibers, typical multiple Bridle Lines, and even define Multi-Kite Parallel Networks. Its rather cool that these physical kite objects embody mathematical objects like lines, surfaces, braids, knots, and so on. The Wind and Anchoring Media are Fields in 4Space. Energy flowing across the Kite Preorder is primitive Information under Shannon Energy-Information Equivalence, but its not some invisible nano world buzzing at THz frequency, but our familiar world, at our own scale and time. Clues to the starting Puzzle- The Power in the tow-rope is a Frozen Wave, just as a surfer rides a wave that is static to herself (Galilean Relativity). Thermodynamic Temperature occurs at various scales; at the scale of the tow-rope, the effective temperature is near absolute zero.
  • 2.

    Situating Airborne Wind Energy semantically, in Natural Language, in relation to other Renewables, as a basis for more formal Ontological Composition- Monoidal Categories of Solar, Hyrdro, Biomass, and a new categorical distinction made between Surface Wind, and Upper Wind resources. This also rounds out Introduction of the AWE Application Domain. As shared in the IEA Work Package Group-

    Subject: Upper Wind compared to all other Renewable Energy Sources

    Airborne Wind Energy (AWE), aka Kite Energy, opens up a vast new source of renewable energy, Upper Wind, a spatially, qualitatively distinct resource from Surface Wind few even think about. Its a far larger, denser, and more consistent resource. AWE technology is a branch of aviation, rather than hardware bolted atop a pole. Its not purely hypothetical. Airborne species have used tailwinds to thrive for over a hundred million years, and jet transport reduces fuel use considerably the same way. Already, kite sports flourish, rapidly supplanting fuel intensive activities like water-skiing and snow-skiing. How far could energy kites take us?

    Solar and Conventional Wind Energy are roughly equivalent resources, as macroeconomic performance metrics show. One or the other may be favored at any given time or place, with no overall dominance of one or the other. They have comparable deployment limits in terms of capital cost and area use. Hydro-energy from all sources has similar economic performance limits as Solar and Surface Wind. Solar, (surface) Wind, and Hydro are roughly equivalent, and taken together are not quite enough to power civilization at its desired level of prosperity without severe inroads on habitats and terrible impacts on ecosystems. It may be these are inherently not enough to reverse a catastrophic slide into a mass-extinction outcome (Biomass can be disregarded as a primary renewable energy solution, due to grave trade-offs).

    The Upper Wind Energy Resource is most easily compared to Surface Wind, the basis of Conventional Wind Energy. Up to about 10km high, kinetic energy increases faster than pressure-density deceases. By comparison, surface wind, solar, and hydro are mostly two-dimensional resources crowding the same space that ecosystems and civilizations require. Wind towers, mean global terrain elevation, and ocean currents all average around 200m in effective vertical extent. Solar has an advantage of thinness, and perhaps most south-facing roofs should be solar energy surface. Airborne Wind Energy is also inherently thin-surfaced, with a more vertical orientation than solar, but with far less surface footprint required. On a practical spatial basis, AWE looks to be an overwhelmingly superior renewable energy technology.

    Geophysical estimates put total potential Upper Wind Energy >100 times what surface turbines can access. ~2% of this energy could completely power civilization at current levels. In fact, global warming has pumped excess energy into Wind, an energy bonus in effect under the seat cushions. AWE challenges are enormous, but the rewards even more so- even the very survival of humanity and Mother Nature. We may even become an airborne civilization in a new Golden Age, techno-utopians living in the sky (Aerotecture). Our we may go extinct, simply because we failed to mobilize AWE in time. Either way, its quite exciting.

    Comment Source:Situating Airborne Wind Energy semantically, in Natural Language, in relation to other Renewables, as a basis for more formal Ontological Composition- Monoidal Categories of Solar, Hyrdro, Biomass, and a new categorical distinction made between Surface Wind, and Upper Wind resources. This also rounds out Introduction of the AWE Application Domain. As shared in the IEA Work Package Group- Subject: Upper Wind compared to all other Renewable Energy Sources Airborne Wind Energy (AWE), aka Kite Energy, opens up a vast new source of renewable energy, Upper Wind, a spatially, qualitatively distinct resource from Surface Wind few even think about. Its a far larger, denser, and more consistent resource. AWE technology is a branch of aviation, rather than hardware bolted atop a pole. Its not purely hypothetical. Airborne species have used tailwinds to thrive for over a hundred million years, and jet transport reduces fuel use considerably the same way. Already, kite sports flourish, rapidly supplanting fuel intensive activities like water-skiing and snow-skiing. How far could energy kites take us? Solar and Conventional Wind Energy are roughly equivalent resources, as macroeconomic performance metrics show. One or the other may be favored at any given time or place, with no overall dominance of one or the other. They have comparable deployment limits in terms of capital cost and area use. Hydro-energy from all sources has similar economic performance limits as Solar and Surface Wind. Solar, (surface) Wind, and Hydro are roughly equivalent, and taken together are not quite enough to power civilization at its desired level of prosperity without severe inroads on habitats and terrible impacts on ecosystems. It may be these are inherently not enough to reverse a catastrophic slide into a mass-extinction outcome (Biomass can be disregarded as a primary renewable energy solution, due to grave trade-offs). The Upper Wind Energy Resource is most easily compared to Surface Wind, the basis of Conventional Wind Energy. Up to about 10km high, kinetic energy increases faster than pressure-density deceases. By comparison, surface wind, solar, and hydro are mostly two-dimensional resources crowding the same space that ecosystems and civilizations require. Wind towers, mean global terrain elevation, and ocean currents all average around 200m in effective vertical extent. Solar has an advantage of thinness, and perhaps most south-facing roofs should be solar energy surface. Airborne Wind Energy is also inherently thin-surfaced, with a more vertical orientation than solar, but with far less surface footprint required. On a practical spatial basis, AWE looks to be an overwhelmingly superior renewable energy technology. Geophysical estimates put total potential Upper Wind Energy >100 times what surface turbines can access. ~2% of this energy could completely power civilization at current levels. In fact, global warming has pumped excess energy into Wind, an energy bonus in effect under the seat cushions. AWE challenges are enormous, but the rewards even more so- even the very survival of humanity and Mother Nature. We may even become an airborne civilization in a new Golden Age, techno-utopians living in the sky (Aerotecture). Our we may go extinct, simply because we failed to mobilize AWE in time. Either way, its quite exciting.
  • 3.

    Agree that this is an interesting topic. Possible progress is either on the technology side or on the geophysics side, especially in understanding upper-atmospheric wind in the first place. See the long thread on QBO in the forum.

    Comment Source:Agree that this is an interesting topic. Possible progress is either on the technology side or on the geophysics side, especially in understanding upper-atmospheric wind in the first place. See the long thread on QBO in the forum.
  • 4.

    Thank You, Paul.

    Agreed, your admirable epic QBO-ENSO topic has a lot of cross-relevance to AWE geophysics. I have been reading it, but will take some time to finish. I studied ENSO-SO in the '90s, and its great to update knowledge. Of course, the challenge here is to compose our raw data mines into formal Category Theoretic data structures.

    Two aspects of common interest that occur to me here. Much of the energy in QBO-ENSO is not just solar-driven, but part of geostrophic balance of rotational energy of Earth expressed as Coriolis Force. Perhaps you can point me to applicable QBO-ENSO analysis.

    Another intersectional interest is in the atmospheric ITCZ. For now, AWES Theory hardly knows what to do with this grand kinetic engine, with more vertical than horizontal convection. ITCZ dynamics are clearly a strong factor in QBO-ENSO expression.

    Perhaps we can start a cross-domain ontological correlation process by defining shared higher abstractions, like the fundamental physics of oscillation and shared geophysics. We may also need to define a new AWE topic outside of chat, and also put relevant discussion in in your QBO-ENSO topic.

    Comment Source:Thank You, Paul. Agreed, your admirable epic QBO-ENSO topic has a lot of cross-relevance to AWE geophysics. I have been reading it, but will take some time to finish. I studied ENSO-SO in the '90s, and its great to update knowledge. Of course, the challenge here is to compose our raw data mines into formal Category Theoretic data structures. Two aspects of common interest that occur to me here. Much of the energy in QBO-ENSO is not just solar-driven, but part of geostrophic balance of rotational energy of Earth expressed as Coriolis Force. Perhaps you can point me to applicable QBO-ENSO analysis. Another intersectional interest is in the atmospheric ITCZ. For now, AWES Theory hardly knows what to do with this grand kinetic engine, with more vertical than horizontal convection. ITCZ dynamics are clearly a strong factor in QBO-ENSO expression. Perhaps we can start a cross-domain ontological correlation process by defining shared higher abstractions, like the fundamental physics of oscillation and shared geophysics. We may also need to define a new AWE topic outside of chat, and also put relevant discussion in in your QBO-ENSO topic.
  • 5.

    "Agreed, your admirable epic QBO-ENSO topic has a lot of cross-relevance to AWE geophysics. I have been reading it, but will take some time to finish."

    Most of the thread is exploration, which is like watching someone make sausage. The finished product is in chapters 11 and 12 of Mathematical Geoenergy, https://geoenergymath.com/2018/11/02/mathematical-geoenergy-update/

    The text is available via any university library port or one can go through sci-hub of course with the DOIs 10.1002/9781119434351.ch11, or ch12

    and all the modeling software is available on https://github.com/pukpr/GeoEnergyMath/wiki/Laplace's-Tidal-Equation-modeling

    Comment Source:> "Agreed, your admirable epic QBO-ENSO topic has a lot of cross-relevance to AWE geophysics. I have been reading it, but will take some time to finish." Most of the thread is exploration, which is like watching someone make sausage. The finished product is in chapters 11 and 12 of Mathematical Geoenergy, https://geoenergymath.com/2018/11/02/mathematical-geoenergy-update/ The text is available via any university library port or one can go through sci-hub of course with the DOIs 10.1002/9781119434351.ch11, or ch12 and all the modeling software is available on https://github.com/pukpr/GeoEnergyMath/wiki/Laplace's-Tidal-Equation-modeling
  • 6.
    edited December 2020

    Is there an Open-Access version of the Wiley Chapter? My affiliations do not get past the Pay Wall.

    Just catching on that this Forum is not just Category Theory oriented, but "Green Math" generally. So I'll be invoking Engineering Physics and math formalisms from Network Theory, Topology, Knowledge Representation, and so on...

    Comment Source:Is there an Open-Access version of the Wiley Chapter? My affiliations do not get past the Pay Wall. Just catching on that this Forum is not just Category Theory oriented, but "Green Math" generally. So I'll be invoking Engineering Physics and math formalisms from Network Theory, Topology, Knowledge Representation, and so on...
  • 7.
    edited December 2020

    Ok, I see the DOI sci-hub "hint" now. Thanks for hooking me up with Alexandra Elbakyan.

    Great geophysics; QBO is an interesting animal.

    Let me ponder it.

    Comment Source:Ok, I see the DOI sci-hub "hint" now. Thanks for hooking me up with Alexandra Elbakyan. Great geophysics; QBO is an interesting animal. Let me ponder it.
  • 8.
    edited December 2020

    Ok, a guess that the QBO wind band is a torsion-spring oscillation resonating at its fundamental harmonic as its kicked by stochastic inputs of other atmospheric processes, like the daily breaking gravity wave front in the upper stratosphere above the QBO, and also the lunar tidal energy input.

    As the QBO rolls over the ITCZ, it would create line vortices anchored in the Trade Wind Belts, and these would wind up and unwind in synchrony with the QBO. These should be hidden in the data.

    Comment Source:Ok, a guess that the QBO wind band is a torsion-spring oscillation resonating at its fundamental harmonic as its kicked by stochastic inputs of other atmospheric processes, like the daily breaking gravity wave front in the upper stratosphere above the QBO, and also the lunar tidal energy input. As the QBO rolls over the ITCZ, it would create line vortices anchored in the Trade Wind Belts, and these would wind up and unwind in synchrony with the QBO. These should be hidden in the data.
  • 9.
    edited December 2020

    "Ok, a guess that the QBO wind band is a torsion-spring oscillation resonating at its fundamental harmonic as its kicked by stochastic inputs of other atmospheric processes, like the daily breaking gravity wave front in the upper stratosphere above the QBO, and also the lunar tidal energy input."

    I would place a different spin on that. Pure physicists invariably first seek the eigenvalue or resonant frequency explanation to some phenomena, whereas the actual explanation is often the more mundane application of "engineering physics". Consider that no one thinks of conventional tides as being a resonance in the ocean dynamics, but the obvious result of a cyclic gravitational forcing from the moon and sun. It doesn't matter how fancy the DiffEq physics formulation is -- as long as there is a cyclic stimulus forcing the equation, any linear response will be similar to the forcing, aka the forced response. In other words, the forced response will have exactly the same frequency components as the input (while any natural response will dampen over time).

    So in the case of QBO, the observed cycle is an obvious consequence of the two nodal cycles -- the 27.212 day nodal cycle of the moon amplified by the 365.242 day annual nodal cycle of the sun.

    365.242/27.212 - integer(365.242/27.212) = 0.422 is the aliased beat frequency and the reciprocal of this is 28.4 months, which precisely matches the average QBO period measured since 1953. Each nodal cycle is essentially a complete ITCZ back-and-forth crossing and the 28 month value are when both the sun and moon are aligned with maximum north or south declination.

    So QBO is just an atmospheric tidal cycle, but you won't find this simple explanation anywhere in the literature. Trying to create further discussion for this model, which is why I submitted this short ideas paper https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2020-74/

    If this gets some acceptance, it's going to pop all the preconceptions on how to proceed. Just now I found a Physical Review Letters paper on QBO published a few days ago -- "Multimodal Excitation to Model the Quasibiennial Oscillation" https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.234501

    "The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) of stratospheric winds is the most striking example of mean-flow generation and reversal by the non-linear interactions of internal waves. Previous studies have used an idealized monochromatic forcing to investigate the QBO. Here we instead force a more realistic continuous wave spectrum. Unexpectedly, spreading the wave energy across a wide frequency range leads to more regular oscillations. We also find that different forcing spectra can yield the same QBO. Multi-modal wave forcing is thus essential for understanding wave—mean-flow interactions in nature."

    This is some sort of stochastic resonance that they appear to be claiming as a mechanism, but they need to show why that is more parsimonious and plausible than a tidal forcing.

    Comment Source:> "Ok, a guess that the QBO wind band is a torsion-spring oscillation resonating at its fundamental harmonic as its kicked by stochastic inputs of other atmospheric processes, like the daily breaking gravity wave front in the upper stratosphere above the QBO, and also the lunar tidal energy input." I would place a different spin on that. Pure physicists invariably first seek the eigenvalue or resonant frequency explanation to some phenomena, whereas the actual explanation is often the more mundane application of "engineering physics". Consider that no one thinks of conventional tides as being a resonance in the ocean dynamics, but the obvious result of a cyclic gravitational forcing from the moon and sun. It doesn't matter how fancy the DiffEq physics formulation is -- as long as there is a cyclic stimulus forcing the equation, any linear response will be similar to the forcing, aka the forced response. In other words, the forced response will have exactly the same frequency components as the input (while any natural response will dampen over time). So in the case of QBO, the observed cycle is an obvious consequence of the two nodal cycles -- the 27.212 day nodal cycle of the moon amplified by the 365.242 day annual nodal cycle of the sun. 365.242/27.212 - integer(365.242/27.212) = 0.422 is the aliased beat frequency and the reciprocal of this is 28.4 months, which precisely matches the average QBO period measured since 1953. Each nodal cycle is essentially a complete ITCZ back-and-forth crossing and the 28 month value are when both the sun and moon are aligned with maximum north or south declination. ![](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/9858/ViIcq9.png) So QBO is just an atmospheric tidal cycle, but you won't find this simple explanation anywhere in the literature. Trying to create further discussion for this model, which is why I submitted this short ideas paper https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2020-74/ If this gets some acceptance, it's going to pop all the preconceptions on how to proceed. Just now I found a Physical Review Letters paper on QBO published a few days ago -- "Multimodal Excitation to Model the Quasibiennial Oscillation" https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.234501 > "The Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) of stratospheric winds is the most striking example of mean-flow generation and reversal by the non-linear interactions of internal waves. Previous studies have used an idealized monochromatic forcing to investigate the QBO. Here we instead force a more realistic continuous wave spectrum. Unexpectedly, spreading the wave energy across a wide frequency range leads to more regular oscillations. We also find that different forcing spectra can yield the same QBO. Multi-modal wave forcing is thus essential for understanding wave—mean-flow interactions in nature." This is some sort of [stochastic resonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance) that they appear to be claiming as a mechanism, but they need to show why that is more parsimonious and plausible than a tidal forcing.
  • 10.
    edited December 2020

    The Earth-Moon orbital oscillation is itself a mass-energy resonance, and if QBO is indeed coupled , there is no contradiction.

    An interesting thing about Earth-Moon orbital and Earth rotation energy is that its fossil momentum from the Big Bang. While global wind kinetic energy is commonly solely accounted to solar energy, its actually ~half Big Bang kinetic energy, via the Coriolis Force, under Geostrophic Balance.

    Tides are somewhat resonant. The gedanken is to imagine if the Moon was gently removed, the tides would damp away rather than suddenly stop.

    Comment Source:The Earth-Moon orbital oscillation is itself a mass-energy resonance, and if QBO is indeed coupled , there is no contradiction. An interesting thing about Earth-Moon orbital and Earth rotation energy is that its fossil momentum from the Big Bang. While global wind kinetic energy is commonly solely accounted to solar energy, its actually ~half Big Bang kinetic energy, via the Coriolis Force, under Geostrophic Balance. Tides are somewhat resonant. The gedanken is to imagine if the Moon was gently removed, the tides would damp away rather than suddenly stop.
  • 11.

    "The gedanken is to imagine if the Moon was gently removed, the tides would damp away rather than suddenly stop."

    The better gedanken is the sudden angular momentum change applied during a tsunami. It's better because there is actually some observational data to go along with it

    Of course the natural response damps away rather quickly and the forced response returns with exactly the same phase as prior to the tsunami. IOW, I don't know of any tidal charts that need reworking due to a tsunami.

    Any extra resonance is due to special boundary conditions, such as in the Bay of Fundy, which can be treated as a transfer function that amplifies the tidal frequencies.

    The entertaining aspect of the QBO behavior is that there are observations of perturbations in the 28 month cycle, such as the frequently cited 2016 QBO anomaly. It's informative because if QBO was only a natural resonance, then it would lose phase coherence with the QBO time-series prior to 2016. Yet, in 2020 it seems to have regained it's synchronization. The only way that can happen is if it is a forced response, synched to the stimulus, as with tides.

    Like I said, there seems to be an infatuation with eigenvalues in the analysis, and no one wants to consider the obvious mundane mechanisms. Case in point is that a prestigious journal such as Physics Review Letters publishes the complex resonance model for QBO. They do say this though:

    "... including low-frequency, planetary scale waves which may also be an important source of momentum for the QBO [37].

    [37] T. J. Dunkerton, “The role of gravity waves in the quasibiennial oscillation,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 102, pp. 26053–26076, Nov. 1997.

    I have a dialog going with @tim_dunkerton on twitter and I will check to see what he has to say.

    Comment Source:> "The gedanken is to imagine if the Moon was gently removed, the tides would damp away rather than suddenly stop." The better gedanken is the sudden angular momentum change applied during a tsunami. It's better because there is actually some observational data to go along with it ![](https://i1.wp.com/imageshack.com/a/img923/8262/HxJK3w.png) Of course the natural response damps away rather quickly and the forced response returns with exactly the same phase as prior to the tsunami. IOW, I don't know of any tidal charts that need reworking due to a tsunami. Any extra resonance is due to special boundary conditions, such as in the Bay of Fundy, which can be treated as a transfer function that amplifies the tidal frequencies. The entertaining aspect of the QBO behavior is that there are observations of perturbations in the 28 month cycle, such as the frequently cited 2016 QBO anomaly. It's informative because if QBO was only a natural resonance, then it would lose phase coherence with the QBO time-series prior to 2016. Yet, in 2020 it seems to have regained it's synchronization. The only way that can happen is if it is a forced response, synched to the stimulus, as with tides. Like I said, there seems to be an infatuation with eigenvalues in the analysis, and no one wants to consider the obvious mundane mechanisms. Case in point is that a prestigious journal such as Physics Review Letters publishes the complex resonance model for QBO. They do say this though: > "... including low-frequency, planetary scale waves which may also be an important source of momentum for the QBO [37]. > [37] T. J. Dunkerton, “The role of gravity waves in the quasibiennial oscillation,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 102, pp. 26053–26076, Nov. 1997. I have a dialog going with @tim_dunkerton on twitter and I will check to see what he has to say.
  • 12.
    edited December 2020

    Nothing wrong with QBO Eigenmodes, but if there were, I had not invoked them yet B-)

    As for the lament, "no one wants to consider the obvious mundane mechanisms", well I willingly consider whether any mechanism is truly obvious or mundane in physics. Is not QBO in turn "forcing" a tiny wobble in the Moon's orbit? Yes it is.

    Regarding "tidal charts that need reworking due to a tsunami"; lets not be unduly fatalistic. If tide tables someday do forecast tsunamis accurately, that will save a lot of lives. There is indeed a weak tsunami correlation to tides, apparently caused by the variable crustal loading of water mass near fault zones.

    As far as harvesting wind energy at planetary scale, estimates still vary wildly as to what the total kinetic energy of Earth's wind is, and how much could be sustainably extracted to power civilization. Of course very complex estimation is required, especially as to when and where kinetic energy is extracted. Wind Energy Extraction is also a geoengineering factor, with the possibility of controlling climate, for better or worse, and even reversing harmful climate change. This is the geophysical green math I would like to explore here. Thanks for any new numbers on these topics.

    Here is a classic starting reference in AWE-

    Archer, C. L., and K. Caldeira, 2009: Global assessment of high-altitude wind power. Energies,2(2), 307–319, doi: 10.3390/en20200307

    Comment Source:Nothing wrong with QBO Eigenmodes, but if there were, I had not invoked them yet B-) As for the lament, "no one wants to consider the obvious mundane mechanisms", well I willingly consider whether any mechanism is truly obvious or mundane in physics. Is not QBO in turn "forcing" a tiny wobble in the Moon's orbit? Yes it is. Regarding "tidal charts that need reworking due to a tsunami"; lets not be unduly fatalistic. If tide tables someday do forecast tsunamis accurately, that will save a lot of lives. There is indeed a weak tsunami correlation to tides, apparently caused by the variable crustal loading of water mass near fault zones. As far as harvesting wind energy at planetary scale, estimates still vary wildly as to what the total kinetic energy of Earth's wind is, and how much could be sustainably extracted to power civilization. Of course very complex estimation is required, especially as to when and where kinetic energy is extracted. Wind Energy Extraction is also a geoengineering factor, with the possibility of controlling climate, for better or worse, and even reversing harmful climate change. This is the geophysical green math I would like to explore here. Thanks for any new numbers on these topics. Here is a classic starting reference in AWE- Archer, C. L., and K. Caldeira, 2009: Global assessment of high-altitude wind power. Energies,2(2), 307–319, doi: 10.3390/en20200307
Sign In or Register to comment.