Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

New Interference on the Horizon for U.S. Wind Power Development

By Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com
June 15, 2006   |   26 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"We have several thousand wind power megawatts in the ground within radar view. They're working OK together. Does that mean they'd be put in today if we had today's rules? Probably not."

-- Gary Seifert, Idaho National Laboratory, Program Manager, radar specialist
26 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 26
June 15, 2006
"By all accounts, the original Congressional language was aimed at one project."

i.e Cape Wind. Chalk one up to Senator Kennedy (D-Massachusets). As near as I can figure he would risk de-railing the wind industry and its promise of an alternative to fossil fuels rather then cave on Cape Wind. I don't know why. Is he that concerned that sipping cocktails on the Cape Cod "Kennedy Estate" he might with opera glasses have to confront the specter of windmills? Windmills producing environmentally bengin power without taking up so much as an inch of Massachusets land. Kennedy has been adamant and consistent in oppostion to Cape Wind for years on end, if this new legislation harms or destroys the wind industry in the US, you know who to blame.
Comment
2 of 26
June 15, 2006
If it's not Senator Kennedy pretending to be concerned about the environment in order to protect the view from his summer home, it's John Warner (R-VA) pretending to be concerned about national defense in order to "protect" the coal industry. They both sound like slimey attempts at last minute hatchet jobs on projects that are no-brainers to go ahead based on any reasonable analysis.
Comment
3 of 26
June 16, 2006
Let me get ths straight. We go for energy independence and build small local infrastructure. We do this so we are not dependent on Iraq. (shorthand for all third world oil). We do this so 2500 more kids re not killed and 20 thousand maimed for life.
Now pretty boy Warner is helping the military have more of ours go to the slaughter .
I am fimly convinced that the problem in this country is too many under-employed english majors turned lawyers turned over employed politicans.
Comment
4 of 26
June 16, 2006
I suspect if some folks ponied up 1,000 gratuitous shares of Cape Wind stock to each of the Messrs. Kennedy, Warner and Romney, they would suddenly become the strongest missionaries FOR the project. Whaddaya think ??
Comment
5 of 26
June 16, 2006
You mean to tell me that our highly sofistcated radar systems cannot tell the difference between a wind mill and a plane? I am expected to beleive this? Come on Air force, FAA, HLS are you really going to oppose the development of a natural resource that will help with America's energy independence and security? Though there may be a few adjustments required to our radar systems, I am confident we have the resources to accomplish the task!
Comment
6 of 26
I'ts heartning that there is resistance to wind energy as it shows that that powers to be are now afraid that wind energy has reached the tipping point and it cannot be stopped. Alex
Comment
7 of 26
June 16, 2006
Excellent technical reporton the impact of wind farms on radar:
British Wind Energy Association
http://www.bwea.com/aviation/ams_report.html

The main problem is the doppler effect caused by the blades, which mimics moving aircraft.
This can be mitigated by plot filters, which are interposed between the signal processing function of the radar and the controller

.... Paradox
Comment
8 of 26
June 16, 2006
SECONDLY:
Australia has their own low frequency 'over the horizon' radar in central Australia.
http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
This can follow trucks moving along the coastal highway 1,000 miles away.
The USA would have similar radar.
There is no controversy, nor movement to ban wind farms in Australia because they interfere with this radar.

UK Study:
Wind Farms Impact on Radar Aviation Interests
http://www.bwea.com/aviation/radar.html
It say's: "Single wind turbines do not create a significant 'radar shadow'"

This sums it up:
" .... said initial radar concerns in Europe were widely overblown and in some cases politically motivated"

.... Paradox
Comment
9 of 26
June 16, 2006
Many years ago, I was a radar technician in the Australian military ....

All aircraft radars since at least the 1960's have a feature called "Moving Target Indication". Basically, they filter out the static objects, and only show the moving objects on the radar screen. I expect the moving turbine blades would probably appear to the radar as static objects.

Regarding
"...... that line of sight with radar can be broadly interpreted to an infinite distance from a radar facility. And the U.S. military .... long-range radar systems with considerable range that could easily pick up signals from distant wind projects"

FIRSTLY:
Standard civilian and military radar operates at microwave frequencies which are, in the true sense of the word, line of sight. This means, that due to the curvature of the earth, at 250 miles range, the radar cannot see below 40,000 feet.

Many wind farms would be below the radar.

continued ....
Comment
10 of 26
June 16, 2006
Don't forget good old Lamar Alexander (R. TN). Never saw a windmill he did not like. Last I knew wind mills ground grains.
Comment
11 of 26
June 17, 2006
One aspect not covered by the UK reports is that ATC uses two types of radars: primary (covered in the reports) and secondary. Secondary surveillance radar (SSR) sends out a lower energy "interrogating" pulse, and equipped aircraft carry a transponder which returns a coded reply. Currently ATC uses both primary and SSR, so that monitoring can .be done for both cooperative and non-cooperative aircraft. Since all aircraft in the vicinity of significant airports, or at high altitude, are now required to carry transponders, ATC universally uses SSR as its' principal means of monitoring traffic, and there is a move to turn off some of the primary radars for cost reasons. (Some will be retained for non-cooperative traffic).

The effect on SSR of wind turbines was not considered in the UK reports, but it should be much less than the effect on primary radar, which would mean that the effect of wind turbines on ATC would be very minimal.
Comment
12 of 26
June 17, 2006
About 20 years ago, before I was retired, my company sold radars to the Danish Navy for monitoring ship traffic in the Baltic. We had a problem with false returns being generated from numerous wind turbines near the shore; the returns were coming through Doppler filters used to monitor airborne traffic, a
secondary requirement of the radar. We eventually had to use an area map to ignore returns from the area of the wind turbines; this was not much of a problem, since the principal purpose of the radar was to observe ship traffic.

The UK reports cited in some of the comments give a thorough assessment of the problem, noting that current radar equipment can generally continue to follow returns of interest even through the area of wind turbines.

Incidentally, I noticed a few years ago that wind turbines were being installed in the Baltic adjacent to Copenhagen airport; I assume that they coexist without difficulty.
Comment
13 of 26
June 18, 2006
The radar excuse is becoming a joke. We are told of the impending energy shortage but that for security reasons, the wind turbines cannot be used. It sounds like putting the back of the donky in the front.

It certainly is strange that European countries have been able to solve the problem but that our country cannot seem to make the grade. What are we going to protect if we do not have adequate energy resources later on? Suppose coal and oil begin to run down in a few decades. Does this mean that we have to start burning wood? Let's get real and solve the problem instead of continuing to make excuses.

Our leaders tell us that we need additional energy supplies, then raise up this barrier to wind power that is idotic when you really think about it.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
14 of 26
June 18, 2006
It is hard to believe that today's sophisticated radar systems cannot differentiate between spinning wind turbine blades and an aircraft. First, the wind turbine is not moving; second the wind turbine does not have a transponder as does an aircraft; third, radar systems are computerized and can be programmed to ignore known returns; fourth, wind has been used for over 100 years to pump water in many places and never have I heard of one of these creating a radar interference. So where is the problem, other than the NIMBY syndrome?

Richard Molby (WB7NZG)
Comment
15 of 26
June 19, 2006
If there is a concern with wind farms and radar, positioning of the wind turbines radially with respect to the radar might help. This means that instead of being in parallel rows, the turbines would be aligned according to the radar as being at the center of the circle with the turbines along the radius. This would simplify getting rid of any interference.

Another technical solution would be to coat the blades with the same material as the stealth planes, if this could be done. The radar signature should be decreased.

However, I think that the main problem is in the minds of the people who are trying to block wind energy development. In that case, the only cure is for them to reasses their reasons for being our leaders because it seems as if they are not representing our best interests.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
16 of 26
June 20, 2006
Just to say look at the red tape the white house has to go through for trying to hush the global warming. The system still works it does not matter how big you are. If you are doing something wrong sooner or later you get caught.
Comment
17 of 26
June 20, 2006
I agree with Adrian. The thing to do is to coat the blades with the special solution. Also to install the filters on the dopler. I also believe that a little tweaking of the blades and speed to which they travel can be regulated to either jump the spot or to give off a signal so the radar does know it is a wind turbine. It is a bummer when you look at a screen and see all of the ghost images.
But I believe we can over come the problem. It is something th at needs to be dealt with ASAP. We all need to work together and to get it solved soon.
By no means do I believe that the goverment or any other is just trying to bolster the project. If they are they will be severly punished.
Comment
18 of 26
June 21, 2006
One more observation... Actually, if I read the UK Arms Warfare Documents correctly, the radar interference was recorded up to 24,000 feet above the wind farm. I also noticed a comment about transponder signals being off by as much as 10,000 feet.
The Cape Wind Towers are only 73 feet below the flight paths of the commuter airlines.
As a helicopter pilot, and after reading the MOD studies PDF files at www.windstop.org, (I could not find them elsewhere), It would appear that a site like Cape Winds is a serious problem.
I think we have to stop making the political accusations and insults and start taking this radar issue very seriously.
Comment
19 of 26
June 21, 2006
(continued from above)
This should be a lesson to our entire wind industry and the FAA to carefully choose the right site and pay attention to the serious and real objections of local aviation, defense and navigation interests so as to prevent the back log that the US wind industry is now faced with. We also need to remeber, it only takes one bad site decision by one developer to effect the future of the entire wind industry.
Comment
20 of 26
June 21, 2006
(continued from above) We can not simply blame politics, If the FAA had made the right decision on the hazard level of the poorly chosen Cape Wind project, this would probably not have become such a national issue.
In the UK, Planning Policy 22 requires that wind farm developers first get the approval of the MOD(DOD) and the CAA(FAA) prior to filing any formal applications.
In the end, the US wind industry can only blame the insistance to pursue such a hazardous site to local aviation by the Cape Cod developer. He was told over 3 years ago the the 3 airports, local air lines and the Air Traffic Controllers Union were strongly objecting to the siting of this massive project. All 3 airports have filed formal appeals with the FAA since the beginning of this project in 2002.
(continued below)
Comment
21 of 26
June 21, 2006
continued from above) Nantucket and Barnstable. According to the local Air Traffic Controllers Union which also objected to the wind farm, there are over 400,000 flights a year through this airspace. It is also considered some of the foggiest waters and air on the east coast.
In MAY 2006, the three airports formally requested that the FAA immediately suspend the 4 year old FAA approval, and look at the merits of the project under the new FAA/DOD action team standards. These turbines will be in the "line of sight" of all three airports, the DOD early warning radar systems and PAVE PAWS. Pave Paws is one of only 3 intercontinental early warning systems in the US. The Cape Cod location is responsible for the entire eastern coast of the US.
Comment
22 of 26
June 21, 2006
The Cape Wind radar issue was raised as the result of a faulty FAA "NO ADVERSE" decision which was rendered on the Nantucket Sound project over 4 years ago. The initial FAA approval was for 351 turbines covering 3 sites in an an area close to 70 square miles in the middle of Nantucket Sound. Nantucket Sound is a small ocean lake surrounded by Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Sound. The original 2002 FAA approval was issued prior to the availability of the UK MOD Arms Warfare radar interference studies which have been publicly published at opposition sites such as www.windstop.org. The Cape Wind project, 130 turbines, 427 feet tall, 24 square miles (the size of the island of Manhattan,NY) is located in the middle of 3 of the busiest Massachusetts airports, Martha's Vineyard, continued (see below)
Comment
23 of 26
June 26, 2006
I think the technical issues for radar will be solvable once we make the necessary efforts to correct them. We cannot let the entire wind industry in the US collapse because of this problem because then we are faced with even more serious difficulties: generation of non-polluting, inexpensive energy to keep our country running.

I do believe that the issue should be taken seriously and should be studied intently so that we can come up with good solutions. The fact is that wind turbine energy is becoming economically feasable. We never solved pollution problems associated with fossil fuels but we do now have the opportunity to prevent radar interference with wind turbines.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
24 of 26
June 30, 2006
2.) Again without knowing the specifics, it does not seem reasonable to assume that every single wind farm project in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota, and Illinois is going to be located adjacent to an airport and/or a radar installation. Is that why they have all been stopped?
3.) Given the government's record for misdeeds over the last several years, it is difficult not to worry that "politics as usual" is involved. While the American public appears to be waking up, there still seem to be non-stop efforts to mislead. Everyone wants to think that the government operates in our best interests, but given everything that is at stake, and given what has happened for the past several years, is it safe to assume that politicians can be trusted?
Comment
25 of 26
June 30, 2006
1.) Cliff's anaysis seems very well researched and sound. No one should want wind turbines so close to airports that there is less than 100' clearance for aircraft. Likewise, wind turbines and radar installations should not be sited adjacent to each other. Nevertheless, and admitting I am not familiar with the specifics of the Cape Wind project, it seems reasonable that simply relocating any proposed wind farms away from airports and radars should be attainable.
Comment
26 of 26
July 15, 2007
Would it be possible for the rotating blades to deflect and concentrate microwaves from cellphone/internet towers (or anything else thats flying thru the airwaves) in an area enough to produce concentrated low frequency pulses which might affect the people living near a farm.There has been evidence suggesting adverse health effects from microwaves being modulated by power line frequencies or harmonics/beats/etc.in lab tests on the effects of unnatural electromagnetic vibrations/forces we routinely create and take for granted.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Upsolar Renewable Energy World Africa Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency Green Power Conferences Zep Solar Rich Hessler Solar Business Development AllEarth Renewables
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters