Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Unintended Consequences for Midwest Wind Power

By Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com
June 20, 2006   |   33 Comments
Likely Political Opposition to Cape Wind Results in Widespread Impact on U.S. Wind Power

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"It is truly unfortunate that Cape Wind opponents are having such a harmful effect on the entire wind industry."

-- Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for Cape Wind
33 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 33
June 20, 2006
If I understand this correctly. We are putting a stop to all wind turines that are located in the midle of the states. Not on the borders or in international waters.
I live in Michigan there is a wind turbine at the bridge. Which is a border to Canada. But we can not install a wind turbine in Wiscosin or Illinois. What is up with that?
Comment
2 of 33
June 20, 2006
If our leadership were really informed about wind and other renewable energy sources, they would quickly realize it is imperative we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Our national security is directly tied to our thirst for fossil fuels. Obviously politics are getting in the way of sound reasoning concerning this issue. If our military systems are not capable of distinguishing between a non-moving object like a windtower and an aircraft or missile, then we have much more to worry about than we think.
Comment
3 of 33
June 20, 2006
"Needless delay" is the applicable term here. Ted probably did not realize the damage that the Warner Ammendment would do to the entire wind energy industry, but nevertheless, he is responsible for the harm that has resulted from the misuse of his political power.

I am not saying that Ted was in any manner guilty of treasoness behavior but am only pointing out that his stance has led to:

1. Halting of renewable development so necessary to national economy and new farm development in the midwest

2. The expansion of a proven non-polluting energy source which is sorely needed

I am sure that given the chance to speak out, Ted Kennedy will make the neccessary efforts to correct the mistake that he has so unwittingly promulgated so that the damage may be repaired and that his reputation as an honest individual and good leader may be quickly restored.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
4 of 33
June 21, 2006
I turned 60 last week, and reflected back
on when I was 18, and proud to be
an American, and thought our best days
were ahead of us. Ah, the good ole'
days!
This stupidity over deploying wind power
is just one of many examples why at our 230 birthday in a week or so, it is time for the Revolution, Part II. (non-violent, of course)

Think about it--We are such a failed Corporate
Welfare State that we can even put up windmills without them blocking it for some
absurd reason.
Comment
5 of 33
June 21, 2006
Good job Geoff. Thats one of the best ideas yet. But can Cap wind be moved to a better location? Would it suet the needs and delays of the project?
It is time to switch into to gear and no longer grind the gears on this project.
Comment
6 of 33
June 21, 2006
It was foolish of the Cape Wind developers to continue the project in the face of so much opposition. It generates a huge amount of negative publicity and makes people scared that wind turbines are going to be forced on their community. Now they have caused politicians to make legislation that threatens the entire U.S. wind industry. It's the politician's fault for passing the harmful legislation, of course, but what do you expect from politicians - they're the champions of NIMBY to please their electorate and they have business and personal concerns (like land in the Cape Wind case) that affect their motives. The Cape Wind developers should have pulled out long ago.

Wind developers should not give up at the first sign of opposition, but a high profile, vicious fight like the Cape Wind project damages the whole industry by generating negative publicity and inspiring legislation that negatively affects wind development.
Comment
7 of 33
June 21, 2006
3. It must be understood that the FAA is obssessed with safety, by definition. It takes them ten years to define what kind of computer they need to solve a problem. By then, the problem base has shifted by several generations, in recent history. The FAA and DOd have no incentive to correct the problem. Ergo, the Wind community must do it. Meanwhile, numerous costly projects are on hold.
Comment
8 of 33
June 21, 2006
The AWC study is quite instructive, but one must ba able to understand it. English majors need not apply. The problem is caused by wind turbines, but AWC is trying to hack the radar processing to correct the problem.

1. The author of the British study rederred to stealth technology, but brushed it aside. No one so far has identified what the blades are made of, but we must assume a metallic base. Fiberglass is transparent to all wavelengths of radar including the RSS. so why wasn't fibreglass tested for its interference properties?

2. Carbon composite is stronger and more flexible than metallic blades. I would predict that it would be much less reflective, probably absorbing the radar energy.
Comment
9 of 33
June 21, 2006
Cris's information is a little stale. The FAA renewed the "NO HAZARD" ruling in 2005. They still want to look at the radar issue, but any concerns about the physical presence of the turbines are done and over with.

The FAA seemed happy at the time to allow Cape Wind to be built, and deal with mitigation of radar problems afterwards -- for example by having the windmills make scheduled turns to face the dominant winds, rather than letting them all turn individually whenever they wanted to. Such would affect the total capacity factor realized, but not by enough to affect the econic viability of the project.

http://www.capewind.org/downloads/FAA_Notice_of_Affirmation.pdf
Comment
10 of 33
June 21, 2006
2nd piece...
But now that more information is coming out about the concerns of the local airports up there -- regarding flight path risks to aircraft negotiating that area when flying on instruments in occluded weather situations, then perhaps more study and consideration is needed. Relocating Cape Wind to another site not quite in the middle of so much commercial air traffic (it sounds like the northeast equivalent to O'Hare in Chicago !!) might be more cost-effective...? And new technology for tapping wave energy is coming on strong, so perhaps switching to wave generation devices might be more cost-effective and environmentally (and politically) friendly ?? Put the turbines under water and take advantage of the currents there...
Comment
11 of 33
June 21, 2006
A NASA friend has indicated to me that wind turbine blades can be equipped with imbedded wiring to make them 'antennas' to either virtually make them completely 'invisible', or -- alternatively -- "very visible" to radars of all types. They also can be switched on and off (discretionary) to 'hide them, if desired. It's a technical issue that's already been resolved many years ago.
Comment
12 of 33
June 21, 2006
Cliff. Thank you very much for your information on the radar interference. I did not realize the extent to which the interference occurred or the possible harm that might result.

My answer is to test the blades of the wind turbines with the material used for stealth aircraft and also to relocate the turbine farm to a safer, more distant area.

Secondly, Massachusetts has good ocean power available so may be able to use wave and ocean current power to satisfy its energy needs. I believe that renewable energy development and national security are not at odds but both serve our national interests.

I have been mistaken in thinking that the issue was basically political.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
13 of 33
June 21, 2006
Ted Kennedy Should be put out of office.
Comment
14 of 33
June 21, 2006
Why is it that the argument about wind farm radar interference always turns to insults and accusations about Kennedy? The British MOD did not make this issue up. These radar interference issue are very serious. Is there anyone out there that has any intelligent comments about the radar interference issue? Perhaps someone could read the reports at www.windstop.org and let me know what they think the possible solutions might be. Enough with the Enquirer type mentality, this is a serious issue for the wind industry.
Comment
15 of 33
June 21, 2006
iF A VERY LARGE TURBINE MANUFACTURER WAS UNABLE TO FILL ORDERS IMMEDIATELY, MIGHT THEY PULL SOME STRINGS TO DELAY APPROVAL FOR INSTALLATIONS, TO KEEP CUSTOMERS FROM GOING TO OTHER SUPPLIERS?
Comment
16 of 33
June 21, 2006
"Ted Kennedy will make the neccessary efforts to correct the mistake that he has so unwittingly promulgated so that the damage may be repaired and that his reputation as an honest individual and good leader may be quickly restored. "
First of all, you don't promulgate a mistake, you make one.
Honest individual? Mr. Chappaquiddick who
lied to officials about his actions when he killed
his secretary after drunkenly driving off a bridge at night and waiting until he sobered up before reporting the accident? Honest , philandering husband Ted Kennedy, most of whose extended family spend a good deal of their inherited wealth on criminal defense lawyers?
Comment
17 of 33
June 21, 2006
After observing the changes made by the FAA due to noise concerns, which required aircraft
leaving Reagan National Airport to fly a
wiggly path up the Potomac and avoid
Rosslyn high rises that tower above any
conceivable wind turbine, it's obvious that the FAA has no problems re tall objects near the flight path of airplanes. The idea that those turbines are invisible to airplanes, but an eyesore to the residents is the ultimate lie by the opponents of the project, who are in a distinct minority. First it was concern for the birds, which was shot down by the Audabon Society, and now its concern for bigger, more intelligent mechanical birds. These concerns are nothing more than red herrings and deserve to be viewed as such. When planes crash, the reason is virtually never because they run into some big object they didn't see
or know about from their maps.
Comment
18 of 33
June 21, 2006
Remember, "Renewable Energy is Homeland Security"? What is Mr. Warner thinking?

Lobbyist and politicians are working hard to ruin our great country. I have the feeling that campaign finance reform is once again at the core of this.

Kudos to Michael Vickerman for speaking out on this issue.
Comment
19 of 33
June 21, 2006
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
20 of 33
June 21, 2006
The lesson to the wind industry is that politics in the U.S. has devolved to the point that lies are routinely used to justify the government's actions. The government is for sale, entrenched industries have largely bought it, and the American people suffer the consequences!
Can wind towers that are less than 400' tall interfere with radar and flight paths? Sure, if you believe that WMDs in Iraq are a justification for seizing their oil fields.
Comment
21 of 33
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
22 of 33
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
23 of 33
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
24 of 33
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
25 of 33
June 22, 2006
Though I think Ted Kennedy has ended up on the wrong side of this issue, his involvement is secondary.

The men who have authored every one of these bills ham stringing wind power in recents years are members of the GOP from coal and oil producing states. Lamar Alexander, Warner, Young and Stevens. They have no vested interst in having wind power plants displace coal, oil or natural gas buring plants.

The Republicans have had control of Congress since the early 90's and the presidency for the last 6 years.
This is all about politicians protecting their own self interests with backing from the energy lobbies.
Comment
26 of 33
The only sure way in getting people to change their minds is hitting them in the pocketbook. When windpower can reduce the cost of making electricity you won't be able to put up windwills fast enough. In the mean time the oiil people hold the high cards in this money game. Alex
Comment
27 of 33
June 22, 2006
Let me get this straight. High rise office buildings and electrical transmission lines pose no threat to our radar, jet planes, and helicopters, but wind turbines (which actually threaten entrenched power industries, with their deep pockets and numerous lobbyists) do? How naive does one have to be to believe this sort of assertion?
While the Canadian federal government is subsidizing wind farms on their great plains area, the U.S. federal government has put a stop to the development of all wind farms on its Great Plains area. Should we assume that the Canadians are corrupt and incompetent?
The existence of a web site such as windstop.org would seem to be further evidence of the ability and willingness of vested interests to halt a competitive energy source by any means possible, moral or otherwise.
As time go by, we can look for lobbyists to find ever more creative ways to prevent American energy independence.
Comment
28 of 33
June 26, 2006
The issue may be political in nature but we still have to insure the safety of our commercial airline flights. I think this may be done by technical advances but it would be wrong to presume that left unstudied, the radar problem does not exist. Remember the saying that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.

I know of no airline flights in the entire world that have been adversely affected by the presence of wind turbines but this does not mean that the possibility does not exist. We must be responsible in advancing in technology and this leads to the proposal that any large wind farms (400 foot height) should be no closer than perhaps a dozen miles from any international air port.

Present considerations should be for radar interference as well as height limitations to incoming/outgoing flight paths. I do not know my above proposal is justified but I think that there are sufficient areas to extract wind power away from heavy air traffic.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
29 of 33
June 27, 2006
With some adaptations to radar software there are no major problems left:

http://www.bwea.com/aviation/radar.html

http://www.bwea.com/aviation/ams_report.html
Comment
30 of 33
June 29, 2006
continued- The radar interference created has been found over, behind and in front of the wind turbine arrays. The Cape Wind project is in the middle of 3 airports with over 400,000 flights a year in some of the foggiest airspace in the world. The FAA ignored the British Studies, but the DOD has not. Cape Wind is a perfect example of a very dangerous location that should have been abandoned long ago. It's poor location has caused way too much damage to the US wind industry. The UK reports are available at www.windstop.org
Comment
31 of 33
June 29, 2006
The FAA approval on the Cape Wind project was issued over 4 years ago, prior to the UK Arms Warfare Studies which were made public in 2005-2006. The MOD has been conducting tests of the BAE software designed to filter the wind farms out of the ATC radar screens. The UK has found that target sorties have dissapeared off radar at 24,000 feet above wind farms, transponder signals off by 10,000 feet ---continued
Comment
32 of 33
July 3, 2006
I wish to thank Jan for posting the above web sites for the radar studies. After careful reading, I can still think of no good reason that wind farms cannot coexisit with radar. It may mean re-designing the nacelles to be more egg shape and for the sides to taper from the bottom up by 10 degrees and it may mean that the blades should be coated with radar absorbing material but there is no real need to arbitrarily blanket out all wind farm development near radar stations.

Therefore, I must agree with Glenn Anderson that the blocking of the windfarms must be more political than technological. If the wind farms are out of the 25 degree cone on either side of the runway center-line (50 degreees in each direction), then 260 degrees still remains available for wind turbine farms.

Each wind farm-radar proposal must be looked at separately. Any blanketing of all wind farm development cannot be justified.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
33 of 33
July 3, 2006
The RAF study mentioned has a list of "Major Recommendations" which seem pretty straight-forward. They come at the end of the study, and do not seem to give any rationale for the halting of development of all wind farms in the middle north of the United States.
b.) "ATS be limited within 5 nm of the boundary of a wind turbine farm"
f. "planning applications for wind turbine farm developments be dubject to scrutiny within a cone 25 degrees either side (complete arc of 50 degrees) of the runway centre-line to a range of 25 nm"
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

Solaire Generation Session Solar Idaho Department of Commerce Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Endurance Wind Power AREDAY Rich Hessler Solar Business Development
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