Pentagon’s New Enemy: Wind Turbines

[The Straight Story]

Pentagon’s New Enemy: Wind Turbines

It’s energy security vs. national security. The Department of Energy vs. the Department of Defense.

Out West in California, the U.S. military is raising a stink about the many wind farms cropping up in the desert, claiming the towering turbines could interfere with radar systems. Although the military acknowledges that no serious incidents have yet occurred, turbine opponents claim that the wind projects also can cause blackout zones on radars used by the commercial airline industry, bringing the Federal Aviation Administration in on the side of the Pentagon.

Defense and FAA officials have managed to stop the development of new wind farms in substantial numbers—about 9,000 megawatts of proposed projects were lost or delayed in 2009.

http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Pentagons_New_Enemy__Wind_Turbines_100829

[blue sky at night]

1. we will have to drag them screaming and kicking into...

the future. can someone get these guys some first-aid for their knuckles.......???

[hack89]

2. The Navy is planning their own wind turbines

on the Newport RI naval base. Not everyone in the DoD is resistant to change.

[PacerLJ35]

20. There are a number of bases that use wind energy

Dyess AFB in Abilene, TX, runs on wind energy.

But the wind farms still need to be done smartly. Just because it's good energy doesn't mean we should plant them everywhere. Even at Dyess AFB, we constantly worked with the energy companies to ensure they didn't erect the turbines directly in our departure and arrival corridors, which they attempted to do in several cases.

If this wind farm does indeed interfere with a military RAPCON, they should be moved. For what it's worth, some segments of our airspace is controlled entirely by military controllers...they manage both military and civilian traffic moving through the area. Why? Not because the military wants a firm grip on the airspace, but because having two separate ATC systems would be too complex and create problems.

[FormerDittoHead]

3. ...and of course, the military has NOTHING to do with the oil industry...

I mean, the US military, being the world's largest single customer for the oil industry, would NOT create any cozy relationships...

:sarcasm:

[Canuckistanian]

4. Ridiculous

Most wind turbines are below the horizon line for most radars. Besides, the sophisticated radars of today can easily filter out the tiny, minute bursts that a turbine would reflect.

And did you notice the language used? They "could" interfere with radar. They "can" cause blackout zones. And "no serious incidents have yet occurred" Of course not. Because the "zones" that would be affected are not useful for aircraft tracking or are such narrow blockages that no plane would "lost" to radar for more than a second.

Also, turbine blades are increasingly being made with fiberglass and epoxy composites - they're simply not reflective to radar pulses. And if it becomes a REAL problem, turbines blades can be coated with an RF-absorptive material to greatly reduce the problem.

This is just more anti-renewable energy propaganda.

[TheMadMonk]

8. Not entirely true. Larger turbines are beginning to poke well up into the air.

And situating them along ridgelines only raises them higher. Turbines do have the potential to intrude on radar, and in fact I believe they have done so in the past. And while filtering out direct return pulses is almost certainly doable, dealing with scatter from the moving blades is equally certainly not such an easy task.

And no matter how much of the blade is replaced with composite materials, the tip will always be metal to deal with lighning strikes.

Modern radars also see more than metal. They can see flocks of birds, clouds, rain, and in all probability, carbon reinforced epoxy resin.

It is more a military fear than a civil aviation one. Wind turbines can create zones of airspace where the radar return is unreliable. Safety of civil aviation can be ensured by declaring no fly zones or floors on flight levels. The military has to deal with enough bugger factors already to welcome any new ones with open arm. A field of turbines might give an enemy somewhere to play hide and seek from radar guided weapon systems if not actual detection. Yes it's low probability, but that's how the military mind likes to think.

It probably doesn't help that a few early installations ended up close to military ranges with the thinking that they would cause less interference to aviation which was already banned from the surrounding airspace. Early turbines did seriously fuck with low altitude radar and the military has a long memory and doesn't easily let go of an idea once it gets it.

[Canuckistanian]

24. It's still in a zone where you can expect ground clutter

In which case, the radars can be relocated.

You never hear about the military OR civilian air authorities complaining about skyscrapers or antenna towers - and yet they would cause the same or worse ground clutter effect, although not time-varying as a moving turbine blade would.

There are remedies to these sorts of engineering problems. Discouraging wind turbine construction is not the normal fix for these sorts of problems. That's all I'm saying.

[PacerLJ35]

21. Couple things...

One, these wind turbines are huge...many of the newer ones require notifying the FAA (anything taller than 199 feet above ground level requires a notification to the FAA) since it could pose an obstacle to air traffic.

Two, having too many towers in one area could indeed pose a problem for radar systems. As I stated above, military radar controllers don't just control military aircraft...they also control civilian traffic as well. Our air traffic control system relies on both FAA and DoD controllers for EVERYONE.

Three, the military is not "anti-renewable energy". The last base I was at (Dyess AFB) was certified a green facility since it used 100% wind energy for its electrical needs.

[Canuckistanian]

23. I never said the military was anti-renewable energy

Just the writer and publisher of this article.

[david13]

5. It is not that. It is that they like air pollution. They are against clean

energy. They think it is "un-Merican".
dc

[ladjf]

6. They have an agenda. We just don't know what it is. nt

[onethatcares]

7. check out the water supply at Camp Lejuene

that might tell you what their agenda is.

Peace

[ladjf]

9. How about just telling me about the water supply? nt

[Liberal_in_LA]

10. more info please

[Angry Dragon]

11. I am listening.....................

[onethatcares]

12. there have been many cancers attributed to said water supply

for years the U.S.Marine Corp has staunchly denied that there was a problem with the water supply. meanwhile boots were coming down with cancers of the throat, stomach, and other related items.

this info is readily available thru google. The St.Petersburg Times ran an in depth story on it about 6 months ago.

Hopefully, you guys aren't going thru any of those problems.

[Angry Dragon]

13. Thank you for the information

[unblock]

14. the pentagon is the criminal arm of the oil industry

[ladjf]

16. If you are correct, it would make sense why the Pentagon is stonewalling

the wind turbine initiatives. What leads you to believe that the Pentagon is in cahoots with the oil industry? (I'm not doubting your theory. Just interested if there is some solid evidence that it is true.)

[unblock]

17. i've just noticed that our overseas military efforts so often seem to help the oil industry...

disrupting iraq's oil supply sure made the oil companies some ginormous profits!

plus, i've talked to plenty of people in both the military and the oil industry and they pretty much all think that the military should be all about protecting oil on the grounds that it's a strategic military asset and the key to the "american way of life".

[ladjf]

19. I had noticed that connection between oil and Pentagon. However,

I might have naively blamed it on the politicos for ordering them to serve. Now that you have mentioned it, if the politicians can order them to fight for oil in Iraq, they could also order them to try to block wind technology, one of the most promising of the alternate energy technology.

[ThoughtCriminal]

15. Well...

They MIGHT be giants.

[unblock]

18. they might the rain / they might be snow / they might be something else in the snow ...

[PacerLJ35]

22. FACTS on this issue...please read before jumping to conclusions

Fact 1:

Wind turbines that are used in commercial power production are very tall. The FAA requires notification of any obstacle that is over 199' above the ground level. This is done because any obstacle higher than that could pose a hazard to aircraft and other aviation systems (such as air traffic control radar, etc).

Fact 2:

Military air traffic control radar doesn't just control military traffic. The National Airspace System (NAS) is divided up into regions of responsibility. The ARTCCs (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) control traffic above 11,000 feet, but localized approach and departure control agencies control all traffic under those altitudes. Many approach/departure controls are actually military RAPCON centers (Radar APproach CONtrol). Civilian approach/departure control centers are called TRACONs (Terminal RAdar CONtrol).

For example, if you were to fly into the panhandle of Florida, your airline flight is likely going to be handled by a military RAPCON controller, not a civilian TRACON controller. They do not have TRACON and RAPCON controllers working the same airspace because that would create communications and coordination problems...so when there is a military controller working an area with a large military base or bases, the civilian traffic is controlled by military ATC.

Fact 3:

The military is not "anti-renewable energy". There are several bases that are certified as "green", such as Dyess AFB in Texas. It runs entirely on wind energy. Other bases like Nellis AFB, Luke AFB and more have a mix of wind and solar energy initiatives.

Conclusion:

Before piling on to attack the military, consider that there may very well be safety of flight issues with this wind farm. When I flew out of Dyess, we had to constantly monitor and work with the energy companies to keep them from building wind farms that would impede the safe departure and arrival of our aircraft. The civilian airport was also working those very same issues as well. Large obstacles such as a wind farm can have negative consequences if they are not planned properly.