military blocks windpower installations

[gcol]

The American military is blocking windpower schemes on a "presumption of hazard" basis. The big 'mills interfere with radar. Apparently any windfarm within a 60 mile radius of a radar installation is a defence hazard

 

This appears to be a slow-burner of a story that has recently had a light shone on it (for me) in an article in this mornings U.K. news.

 

I offer no links. Just search "radar windpower", and choose your own prejudice.

 

So, want to save the polar bears and penguins? Don't join the armed forces, their priorities differ from yours....

[ParanoiA]

So, want to save the polar bears and penguins? Don't join the armed forces, their priorities differ from yours....

 

Yeah, that would seem remarkably appropriate.

 

And if it's really a defense hazzard, then I'd have to agree. The logical conclusion being that focus should now be on solving whatever technical problem radar has with windmills that creates a hazzard.

[Pangloss]

I like how the basic rules of science and engineering go out the window when it comes to certain elements of the progressive agenda. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that the progressive agenda is no better than the christian conservative agenda.

[iNow]

I like how the basic rules of science and engineering go out the window when it comes to certain elements of the progressive agenda. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that the progressive agenda is no better than the christian conservative agenda.

 

Are you suggesting that (funding issues aside for the moment) that radar technology couldn't be improved to allow for wind turbine energy?

[gcol]

The story that broke in the UK was that two airforce jets were flying fixed patterns around the 'mills, so that the effect on radar detection could be quantified. All going to plan until some lowly erk (possibly the tea boy)noticed a third aircraft in the vicinity, and inocently asked why it did not show on the radar. Lots and lots of red faces and panic.

 

Then I googled a bit, and was surprised to find such a large military tank trap in the way of alternative energy sources. Protect you from one danger, then dump you in the path of something potentially much worse.

 

Hobson's choice?

[Pangloss]

Are you suggesting that (funding issues aside for the moment) that radar technology couldn't be improved to allow for wind turbine energy?

 

The OP doesn't make that argument, so I reject your question as wholesale slaughter of logic and reason. And if you put any more words in my mouth we're going to have a whole other kind of conversation.

 

Try phrasing your argument in a more congenial way, please.

 

Then I googled a bit, and was surprised to find such a large military tank trap in the way of alternative energy sources. Protect you from one danger, then dump you in the path of something potentially much worse.

 

What's so special about that location for wind energy? I'm not opposed to moving the military around, but just saying "they gotta move because we want wind energy here" is just another example of NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard.

 

Give us the big picture, not the ideological slant.

[iNow]

Try phrasing your argument in a more congenial way, please.

 

Dearest Sir,

 

I humbly ask you to view this simple message. Despite my clear lack of position and intelligence, I beg you to assist me and my little brain with what seems to me to be a troubling issue. You, being the masterful and giving person....

 

 

It's about priority.

 

Clean energy should be a bigger priority, and the radar systems should be upgraded so we can do both a) continue to use the radar AND b) have solar turbines.

[Phi for All]

It seems strange, if this really were a problem, that it wouldn't have been jumped on with steel-toed combat boots some time ago. Wind turbines have been around for a while now. There have been suspicions of energy companies using politicians to help them stop wind farm usage.

 

Is this like the airlines telling you that your cell phones and electronic gadgets must be turned off or it will interfere with the plane's electronics? The airlines claim our devices can cause autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Yet they only ask us to turn them off during take-off and landing and the FAA's proposed testing has been idle promises for years. Would they really allow us to have devices that could take a plane off course? Or do they see this as a way to make $ on airphones and in-flight movies?

 

I suspect money is at the heart of the military / wind turbine issue.

[iNow]

I suspect money is at the heart of the military / wind turbine issue.

 

Ditto that.

[Pangloss]

Evidence?

 

Or is that too much to ask on a science forum, "dearest sirs"?

[gcol]

I suppose the wind farm industry sees the military getting in the way of their profit, so are a bit upset. But citizens who don't want the ugly great things in their backyards, blighting the neighbourhood and blotting the landscape (nimbies, and those that don't want chopped-up birds polluting their lawns)are cheering the military all the way.

 

Adversity makes strange bedfellows and creates strange alliances.

[Phi for All]

Evidence?

Evidence of a suspicion? OK, as long as you'll allow some further conjecture. Hard evidence would be difficult to obtain unless you can get a politician to tell the whole truth behind his motivations.

 

Like the cell phone / airline dilemma, the study of the effects of wind turbines on military aircraft radar will most likely never be done. The Defense Dept report calls for testing each base with unique criterion because of differences in everything from altitude to seismic variance. Studies must first be done to determine how the tests will be conducted. Further tests will determine how each base differs from the norm so the tests can be individualized. If the turbines themselves have differences I'm sure that will require further unique tests.

 

I have only found one instance where a military radar missed seeing a plane but this is being implemented *everywhere* wind turbines are proposed. Many bases already sit next to wind farms and have never reported any trouble that couldn't be immediately rectified with a phone call.

 

This *could* be a case of some influential NIMBYs who didn't realize the ripple effect their protests would cause. Perhaps it's just Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Warner who pulled strings so their backyard view remains unspoiled. But this threatens a booming industry, one that the President claims to support. If no new wind farms can be built until this outrageous study is done it could be the death of wind power (or at least slow explosive growth to give established energy providers time to to get their own plans together).

 

In the past, if there was a problem with a turbine being too tall the military told the company to shorten it. They did. End of story. Why is such a huge deal being made out of such a small problem?

 

The FAA refuses to fund studies to see if cell phones and laptops really do affect aircraft electronics because there are so many components in the cockpit they would have to test for, and the tests would have to be done with all commercially available electronics. So they don't bother with it.

 

The FAA will be the final arbiter in this dispute as well. They have demonstrated that a simple ban is more cost-effective for them than extensive studies aimed at getting to the truth.

 

Evidence that money is at the heart of this legislation? Certainly not in the scientific sense, but there is a whole bunch of money at stake here. Blocking wind farms or funding enormous government testing is generating money for someone big time.

[Pangloss]

The FAA will be the final arbiter in this dispute as well. They have demonstrated that a simple ban is more cost-effective for them than extensive studies aimed at getting to the truth.

 

The FAA will be the final arbiter in THIS dispute? Over wind turbines and the military? Or did I misread that? If not, then I don't see the connection at all. You might as well be saying that the government is wrong because of Watergate, the JFK assassination and the 2000 election fiasco.

 

As it stands, this thread would be nixed if it were in any other forum on this web site aside from Pseudoscience and Speculations. I got no problem with people expressing their opinions, but you all don't accept opinions when they run counter to the politically accepted view in other subjects. Is Politics just the jumping ground now for stuff you're not allowed to say elsewhere because someone might challenge you for evidence?

[Phi for All]

The FAA will be the final arbiter in THIS dispute? Over wind turbines and the military? Or did I misread that?

The military is asking for a say in the matter due to security, but the final decision is in the hands of the FAA. As far as I know, the military bows to the FAA in all things "airy" unless it's military airspace you're talking about.

 

If not, then I don't see the connection at all. You might as well be saying that the government is wrong because of Watergate, the JFK assassination and the 2000 election fiasco.

Oh, stop. Why would that connect? All I'm saying is that FAA and DOD want extensive studies done before approving the same type of wind farms that haven't posed much of a problem in the past. The response seems inappropriately large to the problem and that could signal that something bigger is going on. Being in business I normally gravitate to money as the motivator in such cases.

 

I suppose Argument from Incredulity is an even worse fallacy when government agencies are involved.

 

Remember, like many government agencies, the FAA doesn't initiate investigations on their own. There must be enough complaints (or a few powerful complaints) before they'll take any action.

As it stands, this thread would be nixed if it were in any other forum on this web site aside from Pseudoscience and Speculations. I got no problem with people expressing their opinions, but you all don't accept opinions when they run counter to the politically accepted view in other subjects. Is Politics just the jumping ground now for stuff you're not allowed to say elsewhere because someone might challenge you for evidence?

Well, I'm not going to let the comparisons to other sub-fora distract me here. I will ask what you think would constitute evidence for my suspicions. I stated pretty clearly that my comments were just that and anything I could find to back me up was still conjecture, barring testimony under oath from the politicians involved. Can you say honestly that money is *not* involved here?

 

Part of your problem with my comments could be that the OP is from a British member talking about a British story and I'm only relating the US side of the matter. The US military is touting security measures in the UK and certainly the FAA has no clout there, but the precedence for this was set two years ago here in the US.

[Pangloss]

The military is asking for a say in the matter due to security, but the final decision is in the hands of the FAA.

 

Ok fair enough, I understand now why you brought up the electronic emissions on airliners issue, and I agree that it's relevent.

 

 

All I'm saying is that FAA and DOD want extensive studies done before approving the same type of wind farms that haven't posed much of a problem in the past. The response seems inappropriately large to the problem and that could signal that something bigger is going on. Being in business I normally gravitate to money as the motivator in such cases.

 

Hmm, yeah, we wouldn't want any studies conducted. Somebody might actually be tempted to inject science into the issue! Unforgivable!

 

 

Can you say honestly that money is *not* involved here?

 

No, I'm simply pointing out that it's logical that windmills could interfere with RADAR and the decision should be based on whether or not they do so, and whether no other recourse is possible, not politically-correct opinionating like "well it hasn't been much of a problem in the past, so it must be about money".

[Phi for All]

Hmm, yeah, we wouldn't want any studies conducted. Somebody might actually be tempted to inject science into the issue! Unforgivable!

My point is that the studies are so extensive and expensive that it will be easy for the FAA to claim they don't have the budget if someone with political pressure really doesn't want those wind farms for whatever reasons. That's exactly what happened with the ban on tech gadgets on airplanes. Here is the DOD report on wind farms if you'd like to see it. The testing will be very scientific (if it ever gets done), but that's not my point. The tests will be site specific so every air base (AF & Navy) will need to be tested with a slightly different set of criteria. I can't even imagine how long this will take while the wind farm industry loses ground and revenue.

No, I'm simply pointing out that it's logical that windmills could interfere with RADAR and the decision should be based on whether or not they do so, and whether no other recourse is possible, not politically-correct opinionating like "well it hasn't been much of a problem in the past, so it must be about money".

Really, mine's a "politically-correct opinion?!? I have a completely different definition of politically-correct.

 

I agree that the decision should be based on the facts. I want the decision to be based on facts. I don't want the decision to be blocked because the solution is out of proportion to the problem. And I really don't want a viable energy alternative to be lobbied into extinction by the status quo. That's not progress.

[Pangloss]

Can one or the other not be moved at lesser expense than the cost of the studies?

 

And yes, it IS politically correct to keap on the it-must-be-the-money bandwagon. It is.

[Phi for All]

Can one or the other not be moved at lesser expense than the cost of the studies?

I don't think moving either the bases or the farms is viable, although the farms would be the ones to go if push came to shove. Historically, as I said before, if a base thought some of the turbines were too tall and might affect either their electronic arrays or flight patterns, they called the owners and the masts were lowered. A fifty cent call for the taxpayer (plus the inevitable cost of the paperwork).

 

I think it's more likely that the studies will never get done. The DOD report is just a recommendation; the FAA will probably lift the ban eventually without them, just as they are considering lifting the ban on cell phones on planes. But how many years it will take is the big question.

And yes, it IS politically correct to keap on the it-must-be-the-money bandwagon. It is.

If you say so. I respect your opinion on politics, you know that. I just always thought political correctness was about going overboard trying not to offend a particular group or groups. To me this is about unfair pressure on alternative energies that need all the help they can get to avoid being squashed by competition we'd all like to rely less on.

[Pangloss]

Of course one or the other can be moved. It's simply a matter of money. We move things all the time. Oh the poor farmers, desperately crying out for wind power so they can save the planet! Yeesh.

 

Build them a big solar power plant a couple counties away, throw in a power subsidy, and call it a day. One more mountain reduced to a molehill at the expense of ideological partisanship.

[Severian]

Or is that too much to ask on a science forum, "dearest sirs"?

 

To be fair, if the military want special treatment it should be them who provides the evidence. And "no we can't show you the evidence for reasons of national security" just isn't good enough.

 

The same applies to the airlines and hospitals - if they want to ban mobile phones because they interfere with equipment, where is their evidence?

[ParanoiA]

Evidence?

 

Or is that too much to ask on a science forum, "dearest sirs"?

 

Unsubstantiated belief has is roots in everything, including science. How they cross from "suspicion" to "belief" without any evidence is beyond me, but then again I've never understood when religion did it either.

 

Not that anybody has necessarily done that, as I think most have been careful to label their opinions as suspicion. And since they seem to suspect the same thing, I'd look the other direction. It's a bit convenient for me...

[swansont]

Of course one or the other can be moved.

 

Not to an arbitrary place they can't. Wind isn't available with the same favorable conditions in all places.

 

One question I have is this: are the turbines any more of an interference than a building of similar size?

[gcol]

One question I have is this: are the turbines any more of an interference than a building of similar size?

 

I have read that they are indeed. Their interference is likened to that of moving waves at sea. A scattering effect rather than a fixed shadow.

[Phi for All]

Not to an arbitrary place they can't. Wind isn't available with the same favorable conditions in all places.

 

One question I have is this: are the turbines any more of an interference than a building of similar size?

From what I've read, certain metal blades can cause false radar readings. But there are plenty of turbines that don't use metal and plenty of plans to make them "stealthy" and quieter too. I don't know if buildings of a similar size create such interference anyway.

[Saryctos]

So, want to save the polar bears and penguins? Don't join the armed forces, their priorities differ from yours....

They sure as hell do. If thousands of polar bears and penguins have to die to protect the life of one US Citizen they'd do it in a heartbeat, and I would support them.

 

But seriously, why is this even worth talking about? Something that screws with radar not being built near radar facilities? sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.