military blocks windpower installations

[gcol]

The UK times newspaper is continuing with the story in a very calm and matter of fact way. NATO, Europe, is becoming very concerned.

 

Quote: "The Ministry of defence is now objecting routinely to all wind farms within line of sight of radar stations, irrespective of distance. There is currently no known technical solution" (my own added emphasis).

 

"Britain discovered the blind spots during tests over a Welsh hill farm in 2004. Pentagon experts were invited to observe subsequent trials."

[Phi for All]

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.

There's medication that will keep your knee from jerking like that.

[john5746]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7227967.stm

 

I don't have links to the actual data, but looks like the British already have tests completed. Maybe they can overcome the problems, but until that happens, it appears to be a risk.

[swansont]

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.

 

Ah, but it appears that it's also the turbulence that they create that contributes to the false readings. But there are wind farms that don't appear to cause problems. And what early-warning systems do we have in Illinois, anyway? Are we worried about an attack coming from Indiana?

[Severian]

Presumably the military will soon be adding wind turbines to all battleships to make them invisble to radar?

[gcol]

Presumably the military will soon be adding wind turbines to all battleships to make them invisble to radar?

 

That was supposed to be a big secret.....big whirly things on the superstructure, to disguise the ships as...you guessed it, harmless wind turbines. but moving through the water at 30 knots? Back to the drawing board, matelots.

[Phi for All]

Ah, but it appears that it's also the turbulence that they create that contributes to the false readings. But there are wind farms that don't appear to cause problems.

That's what concerns me. There have been farms next to bases that don't have problems (most of them, from what I read). Now the industry is booming, generating more requests for licenses already this year than all of last year. Is the proliferation at fault? It could be, either because the sheer number is producing unprecedented effects or because [WARNING, POSSIBLE PC COMMENT] someone is losing too much energy revenue to these windy pioneers [still unsure why market pressure comments are considered "PC"]

 

And how is the turbulence created different from the high winds these areas usually produce?

And what early-warning systems do we have in Illinois, anyway? Are we worried about an attack coming from Indiana?

Ask the Illinois militia. They've been trying to take back the terra haute for years.

[Pangloss]

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.

 

What difference does it make where the study comes from? I'm still the one paying for it.

 

 

Presumably the military will soon be adding wind turbines to all battleships to make them invisble to radar?

 

The turbines can be seen on radar. What can't be seen are objects in the blind spots they create.

 

I suppose they could add big picket ships with giant wind turbines to hide the battle fleet behind them. Which of course would be silly because the presence of the picket ships would give it away.

 

This is science, folks. Why do the anti-science jokes come flying out when the subject becomes the application of science by the military?

[Phi for All]

The turbines can be seen on radar. What can't be seen are objects in the blind spots they create.

I just thought of something. If the blades turn because of the wind, how is their turbulence stronger than the wind?

[swansont]

I just thought of something. If the blades turn because of the wind, how is their turbulence stronger than the wind?

 

The wind is fairly smooth — comparitively good streamlines. The blades disrupt that, giving you more extreme pressure differences over shorter length scales.

[Saryctos]

There's medication that will keep your knee from jerking like that.

 

I can assure you it was not a knee jerk response. I haven't been posting a whole lot in the past few months, but I read this forum every day. If I have something to say in response to the OP on the 2nd page of replys you can assume I've read it a few times.

[swansont]

That's what concerns me. There have been farms next to bases that don't have problems (most of them, from what I read). Now the industry is booming, generating more requests for licenses already this year than all of last year. Is the proliferation at fault? It could be, either because the sheer number is producing unprecedented effects or because [WARNING, POSSIBLE PC COMMENT] someone is losing too much energy revenue to these windy pioneers [still unsure why market pressure comments are considered "PC"]

 

One of the conjectures was that the original legislation was meant to derail the project off of Nantucket. Which would take pressure off of Kennedy, for example, since as a democrat he's supposed to be in favor of green projects. But not if it's ugly and in his field of view, apparently. This legislation gives some cover to that apparent conundrum.

[ParanoiA]

I can assure you it was not a knee jerk response. I haven't been posting a whole lot in the past few months, but I read this forum every day. If I have something to say in response to the OP on the 2nd page of replys you can assume I've read it a few times.

 

Not to mention is was the most calm and sensible "knee jerk" response I've ever read...

[Phi for All]

I can assure you it was not a knee jerk response. I haven't been posting a whole lot in the past few months, but I read this forum every day. If I have something to say in response to the OP on the 2nd page of replys you can assume I've read it a few times.

My comment was a bit flip, mostly because you used the phrase, "Why is this even worth talking about?" I don't like it much when someone tries to undermine the validity of something I've invested the resources in to discuss here.

 

And it seemed like a knee-jerk reaction because you stated that the turbulence messing with the radar was an actual fact, something that even the FAA and the military are only wondering about. You claimed to have read the whole thread but you seemed to have missed that fact. They want to do studies, remember?

[gcol]

I had the impression that it was not the atmospheric turbulence caused by the rotating blades that was the real problem, but rather scattering effect of the metal blades caused by the varying angle from root to tip to achieve cyclic pitch, rotating. (awkward sentence, hope you know what I mean). Some supporting evidence for this seems anecdotal regarding plastic blades having less effect. Imagine having a very large array of radar reflectors whirling around.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, build two radars. One radar can cover the blind spot of the other, leaving only a very small area near the wind farm blind.

[ParanoiA]

This is one of the funniest threads I've read. Why don't you guys go work for the military? I mean, obviously they're soooooo stupid and you guys have more than proven that they're incompetent, over complicating things.

 

It reminds me of how conservatives deny global warming without having done any research or critical thinking on the subject...

[swansont]

So, build two radars. One radar can cover the blind spot of the other, leaving only a very small area near the wind farm blind.

 

I don't think that solves the whole problem — it's not a gap in the coverage, it's a volume of disturbance, so anything inside that volume would be masked. And radar systems are a tad pricey, I'd guess.

 

Why don't you guys go work for the military?

 

What makes you think some of us guys don't?

 

It reminds me of how conservatives deny global warming without having done any research or critical thinking on the subject...

 

The discussion might be read as a bit of an indictment of the reporting, which did not go into much technical detail. The discussion reflects some questions we wished the reporters had asked.

[Pangloss]

This is one of the funniest threads I've read. Why don't you guys go work for the military? I mean, obviously they're soooooo stupid and you guys have more than proven that they're incompetent, over complicating things.

 

It reminds me of how conservatives deny global warming without having done any research or critical thinking on the subject...

 

Naw, ya think?

[gcol]

This thread has prompted discussion in a direction I had not anticipated, and generated unexpected heat. I did not expect the emphasis to be on the technical problems, which is why I put it in politics.

 

I saw it as an example of the law of unintended consequences, or how good intentions can go wrong. But perhaps I erred in not being specific enough in my opening post.

 

The point is that wind farms of the scale necessary to make a significant energy contribution have a huge environmental impact. an impact that, when push comes to shove, is bound to cause considerable resistance

 

Wind farms were originally joyously promoted as part of a low-impact scenario to counter energy and carbon dioxide problems. The practical problems of implementation are only now becoming slowly apparent. I used the military example as a high profile and unexpected one, to avoid the usual circular arguments that would have occured had I used nature conservation, ornithologists and general nimbyism as initial examples

[iNow]

I think the issues raised in this thread serve as a good example of the different forms of resistance this wind farm approach must overcome.

 

 

Behavioral inertia sucks when lack of change is going to result in further damage.

[Pangloss]

I think the issues raised in this thread serve as a good example of the different forms of resistance this wind farm approach must overcome.

 

 

Behavioral inertia sucks when lack of change is going to result in further damage.

 

I prefer an optimistic view. Attention to this issue will prompt society to work out issues that will eventually need to be worked out anyway, and raise the prominence of wind power in the process.

 

You can't have wind turbines everywhere, after all. What are you going to do, shut down all runways because the open space is needed for wind turbines? Plop them down around Old Faithful? Chop down old-growth forests to make way for wind turbines? Of course not. Wind power will always represent some sort of compromise.

 

These objections are partisan and PC, not forward-looking and relevent. The thing that's bothering people is the word "military". Replace it with "the extremely endangered yellow-bellied throat-warbler" and the thread would never have been started.

[iNow]

These objections are partisan and PC, not forward-looking and relevent. The thing that's bothering people is the word "military".

Ummm... no.

 

That would not be an accurate characterization of what's bothering me specifically on this issue. It has nothing to do with the word, concept, or industrial complex known as the military.

[gcol]

These objections are partisan and PC, not forward-looking and relevent. The thing that's bothering people is the word "military". Replace it with "the extremely endangered yellow-bellied throat-warbler" and the thread would never have been started.

 

Is it your point of view then that the yellow-bellied throat warbler is dispensible, whereas the red blooded military hawk is sacrosanct? I suppose it is arguable, though amusing.

[Pangloss]

Is it your point of view then that the yellow-bellied throat warbler is dispensible, whereas the red blooded military hawk is sacrosanct?

 

No, I am questioning the motives of the objections raised in this thread, suggesting they are being raised because of the nature of the conflict, not the importance of alternative energy, and would not have been raised had the problem been something more progressive and politically correct in nature.

 

 

And iNow, I remind you of your own words:

 

I think the issues raised in this thread serve as a good example of the different forms of resistance this wind farm approach must overcome.

 

That clearly suggests a belief that the problem here lies in the nature of what's stopping the wind turbines from going up.

 

You can't have wind turbines everywhere, after all. What are you going to do, shut down all runways because the open space is needed for wind turbines? Plop them down around Old Faithful? Chop down old-growth forests to make way for wind turbines? Of course not. Wind power will always represent some sort of compromise.