News Release - Feb 1st, 2007

 

Stopping the Arctic Thaw – a New Calculation by Michael Lucking

This article is about calculating the number of wind turbines required to reduce the winds that are transporting extra heat into the arctic and causing the arctic thaw.

 

The Problem

But first, Let us review the problem with the arctic thaw.  The arctic is a powder keg of global warming accelerants that will add to warming as the arctic thaws and this will lead to a climate flip.  There is the loss of reflective surface area (ice and snow) and there is thawing peat which gives off CO2 but the King Kong of these accelerants is the release of methane.  Geologists have estimated that there is 400 billion tons of methane trapped in the permafrost.  If that amount of methane were released into our atmosphere, it would have 11 times more global warming power than our current CO2 rise.  There is a further 10,000 billion tons of methane in the bottom of the ocean. 

 

My knowledge of geology is minimal so I can not add to this information about the methane held in ice crystals in the arctic.  I have read the internet articles and lightly investigated some references.  I believe it to be true because it has not been refuted by my energy peers.

 

If it is true, we are headed for a climate flip.   Life on earth can not survive 11 times more warming.  Trees and oceans are stressed with today’s temperature rise.  There is now an urgency to stop this arctic warming.  Stopping the thaw of methane is one battle we can not loose.

 

I formed my opinion a year ago and I returned to re-evaluate my position of believing that 400 billion tons of methane is trapped in the permafrost.  As yet, I have not seen one reader comment in any of the energy magazines that I read that refutes these numbers.  There are some readers like me, but I think most readers are in denial or feel so overwhelmed and frozen that they can not act.  It is too horrible to believe, I guess. 

 

I think it is time for everyone to snap out of it and deal with it.  Also, Please! No one should be holding back on posting information - pro or con.

 

The Solution

The arctic is thawing because the winds have doubled (frequency + intensity - MIT research) and this has resulted in more heat transfer into the arctic. In my previous article, “Stopping Runaway Climate Change”, I made the case for the increased winds being the cause of the arctic thaw.  Another year has passed and I still find that wind is the best candidate for causing this increased warming of the arctic.

 

Previously, I used a tree substitution method to estimate the number of wind turbines required. This time I borrowed a formula from the ventilation industry and modified it to use for the earths wind system.

 

The solution to stopping the arctic thaw is to install enough wind turbines to reduce the winds which will reduce the heat transfer into the arctic that is causing the arctic thaw.  There are other solutions (see background info) but none that so easily, economically and safely stop the heat transfer into the arctic.

 

Like the fish in the ocean, the wind is a finite resource.  Extract enough energy from the wind and it will slow.  There is an optimum number of wind turbines to be installed for power generation.  This is probably a similar number required to stop the transportation of heat into the arctic to stop the arctic thaw.

 

Stopping the arctic thaw - The Calculation

It should be noted that in our climate, on average, 4% of the winds energy is kinetic (wind speed) and 96% of the winds energy is heat (temperature plus humidity).  Wind turbines make electricity from the kinetic energy of the wind.  When the wind hits a turbine blade, some of the winds’ kinetic energy gets converted to pressure and this pressure pushes the blade and makes electricity. 

 

The formula that I borrowed from the ventilation industry is of a particular make and model of HRV (heat recovery ventilator) that has similar flow velocities to earths’ at the hub height of a wind turbine. This HRV is 75% efficient has a “Performance Ratio” of 23:1 which means that for every 23 watts of heat transferred, there is 1 watt of electricity used to move the air. This is a ratio formula which is very valid and well tested by an independent research company commissioned by the Government of Canada.  I then modified this formula so that it can be applied it to wind turbines and our climate. 

 

Modifying the HRVs “Performance Ratio” of 23:1 to get a “Performance Ratio” for earth.

 

1.      The formula was used in reverse.  Instead of adding watts to make the air move, watts were removed to slow the air.

 

2.      15 degrees C was used for the average temperature difference between the 49^th parallel and the tree line.  This is 75% less temperature difference than specifications for the HRV.

 

3.      Heat transfer is the energy lost to the earth’s surface as the winds push north.  The remainder is the heat that makes it past the tree line.  I estimated the heat transfer of the wind to surface to be 85%.  The remainder would then be 15%.  A further 1 degrees C was added to the formula to account for the loss of heat transfer because the earths’ surface temperature has risen 1 degrees C.  This adds 7% to the remainder which would then be 22%. 

 

 

The performance ratio of earth was then calculated to be 5.1:1 after reworking the formula and putting in the new values. (23 x 22/75 x .75 = 5.06) This means that for every 1 megawatt a wind turbine produces, 5.1 megawatts of heat does not get transported to the arctic.

 

For this calculation, a 3 megawatt wind turbine was chosen.  Its’ output average is about 1 megawatt which is 35% of its’ rated capacity when installed in Canada, so each 3 megawatt wind turbine will reduce heat transfer into the arctic by 5.1 megawatts.

 

NASA says that Greenland lost 224 km3 (cubic kilometers) of ice last year.  To thaw this amount of ice requires 2,400 gigawatts of energy.  From looking at the map, I estimated the ice surface area of Greenland to be 6% of the total the ice surface area of the arctic and therefore, I estimate that Greenland would have 6% of the total yearly ice thaw of the arctic, therefore 48,000 gigawatts of energy is needed for the total yearly ice thaw of the arctic.

 

Each wind turbine will stop 5.1 megawatts of heat from reaching the arctic therefore 9.4 million wind turbines will stop 48,000 gigawatts of heat from reaching the arctic which is enough to stop the arctic thaw. 

 

Conclusions:

There IS a number of wind turbines that will slow the wind to lower levels. It is the law of thermodynamics.  The electrical energy produced must equal the loss in the winds’ kinetic energy (when friction losses are included).

 

9.4 million wind turbines are near the middle of my original estimate of 5 to 20 million wind turbines. (see my previous article, “Stopping Runaway Climate Change”) 

 

Accuracy of the Calculation:

I write with a very matter of fact style.  That is just because I am a poor writer.  In fact, I look at my calculation and can see the strong and weak sections.  All calculations have an error factor.  NASA says their error factor for the Greenland ice melt is +or- 18%.  NASA's error factor is included as one of the many error factors in my calculation.  The clinical definition of error is to add up all the maximum errors of all the variables.  That is a little like flipping a coin and it comes up heads 15 times in a row.  It is more likely that there will be a mixture of high and low errors that cancel each other out. So, in reviewing the possible errors of the many variables, I would say an error factor of + or - 50% is reasonable.  This gives a range of 4.7 to 14.1 million wind turbines.

 

The wind is a finite resource.   MIT has measured average, global wind speeds so they can measure the reduction in wind speed after many wind turbines are installed.   It is less accurate to calculate the reduction of the wind speed before wind turbines are installed.

 

As a manufacturing expert, I have 2 comments on manufacturing wind turbines.  A wind turbine that sells for $1 million today can sell for $200,000 to $300,000 tomorrow if the wind turbine is re-designed and the plants retooled for mass production.  Economies of scale will also reduce the cost. 

No wind turbine manufacturer will want to participate in saturating their own markets but it is required to slow the wind.  Governments will have to step up and direct the mass production of wind turbines.  Government financing is only needed to redesign, retool and bridge finance materials for mass production.  Regular financing will be available for a $200,000 to $300,000 wind turbine because at this low cost, it has a fantastic payback period.

My estimate to redesign, retool and bridge finance materials for the mass production of 1 million wind turbines per year is $300 billion.  This can be done in 5 years.

 

The end of article.

 

Background info

The following notes did not fit the article but add important technical details. Wade in, if you care or if you dare. 

 

1. The Energy Balance of the Arctic

 

My calculation can be framed within a total, arctic, energy balance.  All the parts of this balance have been listed. I was only able to include little data in these sections.

 

Prior to global warming, the arctic had an energy balance.  All the energy going into the arctic was equal to the energy leaving.  With this balance, there were seasonal temperature changes but the net, yearly temperature change was zero and the net loss, yearly, of ice was zero.

Now that we have global warming, there is more energy entering the arctic. This extra energy is accounted for in the energy balance by melting ice and an increase in air temperature.

 

Energy In (going into arctic region) = Energy Out (leaving the arctic region)

 

The ways that energy goes into the arctic:

 

1. Solar radiation

In the dead of winter, the arctic gets no direct solar radiation. 

 

2. Wind

The winds have doubled (frequency + intensity as measured by MIT) The wind is clearly the big contributor to arctic warming.

 

3.  Arctic ocean currents

I saw a TV documentary about a Canadian research vessel in the Arctic Ocean.  They were dropping thousands of bottles with messages into the water to see which way they would go.  The idea being that anyone finding a bottle, could phone in its’ location.  This indicates to me that Arctic Ocean currents are probably not a big factor in increased arctic warming.

 

4. Greenhouse effect

Low frequency radiation gets bounced back to the surface when it hits greenhouse gasses.  This effect is increasing, like the rest of the earth, but how much does it account for the higher rate of arctic warming?

 

The ways that energy leaves the arctic:

 

1. Low frequency radiation from the earth’s surface to space

Again, the greenhouse effect has an influence.

 

2.  Reflected solar radiation from ice and snow to space

Reduced ice and snow cover results in increased absorbed solar radiation.  This is an effect of arctic warming not the cause.  It has become a contributor to arctic warming. 

 

2. More about air flow and heat transfer

 

It should be noted that the energy of air can be broken down into 2 amounts. 

a. The heat of the air which is a function of air temperature and humidity

b. the kinetic energy of the air is its’ speed.  By far, the biggest energy amount is in the heat of the air.

 

The HRV that my company manufactured had a performance ratio of 46:1.  This means that the homeowner recovers 46 watts of heat for every 1 watt of electricity that is used to run the fan.  Some of my HRV competitors had a lower performance ratio of 23:1.  They were using a bigger (more watts) air mover called a blower and using it with a more restrictive duct system and achieving the same flow rate (at a higher air speed).  If one builds a duct system with a 7” main trunk (header) and 6” and 5” branches, it will have ½ the resistance as a duct system with a 6” main trunk (header) and 5” and 4” branches.  At this point, I could go on about how the government should have chosen our system over theirs and all the lobbying and corruption but that’s another story.  I used a competitor's HRV performance ratio of 23:1 because it has closer air speed to the earths at the hub height of a wind turbine. In addition the ratio of 23:1 includes resistance.  The earths’ resistance is very low per kilometer but then the distance from the 49^th parallel to the tree line must be multiplied by resistance per kilometer.

 

In addition to using this formula in reverse, I had to do two more adjustments to use it for wind turbines and our climate.  The first adjustment was to change the reference temperatures from 0 deg. C and 20 deg. C for the home to 0 deg. C and 15 deg. C for the average arctic and southern temperatures.

 

The second was to use the remainder of heat transferred instead of heat transferred. As the winds track north, heat is transferred to the earths’ surface.  For my calculation, the remainder of this heat that makes it to the arctic is used.  For temperature differences and resistance values of the earth’s surface, I used 2 geographical reference points.  I used the 49^th parallel and the tree line. Most of us Canadians live on or just north of the 49^th parallel. I am familiar with the weather at this Latitude.  The tree line which roughly follows the Arctic Circle is a good geographical reference point because it is where the trees end and the permafrost begins.  Trees are a resistance to air flow and they also are an aid to air mixing (heat transfer).  Precipitation is also an aid to air mixing.

 

With the wind turbine, electricity is being produced which slows the wind which results in a loss of heat transfer into the arctic.  Knowing the loss of heat transfer into the arctic from 1 wind turbine, allows us to calculate how many wind turbines we need to stop the yearly loss of arctic ice.

 

Heat transfer efficiency- HRV and earths’ surface

 

In an HRV, heat transfer is done inside a heat exchanger core as the outside, fresh air flow and inside, exhaust flows pass in opposite directions.  The heat exchanger core has thin plastic tubes or plates that are barriers and keep the air flows separate. These barriers are spaced 2 to 3mm apart.  The air is only inside the heat exchanger for a second or two but that is enough time to transfer 75% of the heat.  It should be noted that inside that heat exchanger, all the heating, cooling, freezing, thawing, condensing and evaporation is happening just like in the weather outside.  

 

The heat transfer of the weather system is very different from the HRV.  Increased winds have increased penetration of winds into the arctic.  Warm storms from the south are tracking farther north which is defrosting the permafrost and cold winds from the north are spilling farther south which occasionally gives us snow in Texas. Penetration is not a consideration in house ventilation. Penetration is fixed to the interior volume of the house.

 

With deforestation, the winds are traveling farther north before heat is transferred.  This means further penetration. Trees act as heat sinks and aid in the heat transfer process. Observe a tree in cold weather.  A cold wind cools the tree.  The wind shifts and a warm saturated wind may deposit condensate (water) on the tree. The wind shifts again and the condensate on the tree freezes and the tree turns white.  This is a visual indication of the heat transfer done when the tree acts as a heat sink. Heat transfer is from air to ground by a combination of mixing and heat sinking.  

 

The winds are penetrating farther north. Whatever heat that is not transferred to ground by the time the winds get to the tree line is the heat that enters the arctic.

 

Heat transfer in the weather system is a combination of mixing and heat sinking to the trees and the earths’ surface (water or land).  If the winds speeds are low, heat will be transferred at a lower latitude before penetrating north.  There will also be less penetration north with low wind speeds.

 

The jet stream is a good indicator of this penetration because the jet stream follows the trench created by the hot/cold fronts below.  Over the years, I have noticed wilder fluctuations of the jet stream. 

 

3. Using the formula in reverse (Motor and generator – equal and opposite)

 

These days, a motor is a generator and a generator is a motor.  It is the electronic controls that decide whether it is a motor or a generator.  A good example is the hybrid car.  The motor/generator in a Honda Insight (hybrid) generates when braking and powers when accelerating.  The electronic controls are so quick in the Insight, they can switch the motor/generator back and forth to smooth the power output of the Insight’s three cylinder gas engine. 

 

I determined that the generator of the wind turbine and the motor of the HRV’s fans to be of similar efficiency.  However, neither my fan supplier - Rotron or the turbine manufacturers give efficiency numbers on their websites.  I would guess these to both be about 80% efficient.  Blade speeds are similar so inefficiencies of “air on blade” should cancel each other out.  Tesla Motors uses a reworked motor and they publish an efficiency range of 85% to 95%. 

 

Electricity powers the fan motors of an HRV and the blades slice through the air and create a pressure on the trailing edge of the blade. This pressure is converted to air flow (kinetic energy).  In an HRV, electricity powers the fans, which move the air, which results in a heat transfer in the heat exchanger and a saving of energy for the home owner.

 

When the wind hits the wind turbine blades its’ kinetic energy gets converted to pressure and pushes the blades.  This results in electricity being produced.  There is also a pressure drop through the wind turbine and a loss in wind speed.

 

This HRV formula is the ratio of transferred heat (energy) compared to the electricity (energy) supplied to the fans of a high efficient, residential HRV (heat recovery ventilator).  The ratio is 23:1.  This is a government tested result. 

 

The 5.1:1 ratio for the wind turbine contains a heat transfer efficiency of 85% to the surface so the remainder is 15% + increased surface temperature of 1 deg. C. or 7% which gives us a remainder of 22% which is the total heat that makes it to the arctic. 22% is consistent with today’s temperature increase in the arctic. 

 

4. Resistance of earths’ surface

 

I was not able to find a good way to measure or calculate the earths’ resistance or pressure drop per kilometer.  The resistance of the earth per kilometer is a very low number but when multiplied by the distance between the two reference latitudes, the resistance becomes much bigger.  To pick a similar resistance, I used my competitors’ HRV because it puts out a similar velocity to the winds at hub height of the wind turbine. 

 

I am still using the basic formula for flow (water or air). 

Flow = the root of pressure/resistance

The wind turbine guys in Newfoundland tell me that a wind turbines’ output will average 40% of its’ rated capacity in Newfoundland and 30% in Ontario.  A 35% rated capacity was used for this calculation. 

 

5.  Miscellaneous

 

Some of the information is measured results.  MIT measured the doubling of winds since 1970.  NASA measured the annual loss in the Greenland ice. Measuring is the most accurate way to determine effectiveness of wind turbines but we have to install many wind turbines before we can do some measuring.

 

One big change from this article to the previous article is that I have moved the wind turbine in the formula from being a resistance to being a generator of negative pressure.  Saying a wind turbine acts as resistance to air flow is OK but I think it is better to say that a wind turbine adds negative pressure to air flow so this changes its’ position in the formula from resistance to pressure loss. I know the climate people are accustomed to using barometric pressure in their weather predicting to define the weather.  In the ventilation business, we use pressure/resistance tables to select fans or blowers. It is different. We use pressure to define the kinetic energy output of a fan or wind turbine. 

 

Example 1. Air is flowing and hits the side of your house.  The kinetic energy gets converted to pressure and enters through any cracks you have in the side of your house. 

 

Example 2. Air is flowing and hits the wind turbine blade.  The kinetic energy gets converted to pressure and pushes the blade.  The result is that there is a pressure drop through the wind turbine and electricity is produced. 

 

This is the heart of my new calculation. It is important to point out the difference.  When air flows it gains kinetic energy and looses pressure.  That is why high winds have low pressure because they have gained in kinetic energy

 

Latent heat of evaporation and thawing

Latent heat of evaporation has a cooling effect and thawing of ice has a cooling effect

 

According to NASA, the relative humidity has remained the same with global warming and I tend to agree. So, I got out my psychometric chart to see what effect evaporation has on the temperature rise due to global warming. At 20 deg C and 50% RH, the energy of temperature rise is about equal to the energy of humidity rise. 

 

Well, IF there was no evaporation, the global temperature rise would have been 1.4 deg. C which is double the .7 deg. C. that it has been.  That is a big IF because evaporation must increase with warming because of our abundance of water. 

 

The Antarctic does not have the Methane problem.  It was two scientists in the 18^th and 19^th century that determined that the winds spin from the equator and the northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere are different wind systems. So I think we can treat arctic warming as a northern hemisphere problem.

 

Other solutions for stopping the arctic thaw:

1. Solar screen

My quick estimate is 17 years and a few trillions dollars to build a solar screen with a size = the cross sectional area of the moon.

 

6. About the author - Michael Lucking

 

Here is a list of my air flow and heat transfer experiences. This knowledge gives me a different perspective about the arctic thaw than the weather people.  I have been able to by-pass individual storms and look with a more thermodynamic overview.

 

Pre-1969 trained as an instrumentation and controls technologist.  Part of this training included air flow physics and measurement.

 

1970 on, worked as a mechanic/technician on air controls (this was a pre-computer chip era) in pulp mills and other plants.  Air powered sensors sent air signals to air powered controllers that computed with air and sent signals to air actuators.

 

In 1980, founded and ran an HRV manufacturing company and managed the company until the HRV technology was sold in 1990.  This Company did a lot of R&D into air flow, heat transfer and HRV manufacturing.

 

1982 to 1999, designed and built 4 plastic, thick sheet thermoformers with pneumatic power.

 

1985, founded and ran microprocessor control (for HRV) manufacturing company.

 

2002, consulted to consortium on a next generation HRV   

 

 

 

News Release - Nov 25, 2005

 

Financing required for Building and Testing my super-conductor power transmission cable=$1.2 Million by: Michael Lucking

First,I made a discovery of the sub-atomic particle that makes magnetism

About ten years ago, I was working on some new concepts for wheel motors and I decided to go back and revisit my high school physics book on magnetism. The book had a picture of a bar magnet with the "lines of force" as shown by the iron filings that had been sprinkled on top. I immediately saw "flow", not "lines of force". The only possible "flow" would be that of a sub-atomic particle. Thus began my 10 year, part-time, investigation into this MSAP (magnetic sub-atomic particle). It took me a week to figure out that everyone else saw "lines of force", not flow. I do admit to some confusion, at this time, because of magnetic particle accelerators. These are actually other particles that are being accelerated by MSAPs. About a year ago, I googled "magnetic particles" again but this time I found one MSAP believer.

After ten years of testing and analyzing: bar magnets, electro-magnets, inductance, electronics, super-conductors and the earths' magnetic field, I would say that there is very strong evidence of the existence of the MSAPs. The thing about MSAPs is that all these magnetic examples are a lot clearer when defined with MSAPs. It is only the earths' magnetic field that I am having problems solving and that may be because I lack knowledge in that area. I have recently been working on "what the MSAP looks like"
Here are some of my conclusions and new definitions.

1. The terms "lines of force" and "magnetic fields" are just fancy ways of saying "magic" because nobody has explained them. (Gravity is also magic because nobody has explained gravity either). With MSAPs, magnetism is explained and the new definition of magnetism is: the attraction of a MSAP to the spaces between molecules in some solid molecular structures (metals). This attraction of MSAP to metal now becomes the "magic" part. Magnetism now becomes a lot more like gravity because both deal with the attraction of particles.

2. Whenever there is a flow of electricity, it is a flow of electrons and MSAPs. The exception to this is in a super-conductor material which is at a very low temperature. There are many elements and compounds that are super-conductors when they are at their critical transition temperature (known as Tc). At this low temperature, the MSAP is trapped inside the super-conductor and it can not flow. This means that a flow of electricity in a super-conductor is a flow of electrons only. In a super-conductor, there is no flow of MSAPs and therefore no heat and no inductance.

3. The elements (metals) with FCC (face centered cubic) molecular structures are particularly interesting because the spaces between the molecules are lined up to form channels with xyz directions. Copper, Aluminum and Lead (Pb) are the most common FCC elements.

Then, 8 years later, I was able to design a super-conductor power transmission cable
With 20/20 hindsight, I ask myself the question. Could I have designed this cable without knowledge of the MSAPs? My answer is: probably not. Without the understanding of MSAPs, I would have lacked the clear vision and confidence to do the job. Understanding how a super-conductor works is made very simple when described with MSAPs.

So, I encourage everyone to drop their belief in magic ("lines of force" and "magnetic fields") and start believing in and using MSAPs

Building and testing my super-conductor power transmission cable
My super-conductor power transmission cable is primarily a cooling system design for a super-conductor power transmission cable. I could have selected one of many different elements or compounds for the super-conductor, but I chose lead (Pb) because lead (Pb) is easy to fabricate and it has the highest Tc rating of all the elements (7 degrees Kelvin). Successful test results would be if the cooling costs were less that 1% of the value of the electricity being transmitted.

The loss for Quebec Hydro to transport electricity from Churchill Falls in Labrador to Quebec is 5% to 6% depending on load. This is a relatively low loss because voltages and currents are very high. Most transmission of power has a loss of about 10%. If Quebec Hydro were to use a super-conductor power transmission cable with a loss of 1% of the value of the electricity being transmitted, they would save $100M per year. The rough cost to build and test my super-conductor power transmission cable is about $1.2M. After we test lead (Pb), we may conclude that it is not the best choice of materials. These test results would still be very valuable in selecting another element or compound for testing because it is mainly the cooling system we are testing. For more information on superconductors click on the following link
www.superconductors.org/Type2.htm