Wind Turbines "threat national Security"
Carol J. R. Rae
February 19, 2008
The Greens have been convinced that Wind Turbines are the in-thing:
In truth both the Wind Turbine and the aircraft industry have concealed how wind power really works,that works on the same basis as Radar and communication systems. Its not power effeicent in the slightest. They are all lining their pockets, incease levels of radiation, to put it mildy.
The governments don`t care: The MoD could of stop this waste:
This is a re-print which I thought should not be lost to copy as I suspect it might be buried:
"The TimesFebruary 4, 2008
Wind farms ´a threat to national security´
Magnus Linklater and Dominic Kennedy
Ambitious plans to meet up to a third of Britain´s energy needs from offshore wind farms are in jeopardy because the Ministry of Defence objects that the turbines interfere with its radar.
The MoD has lodged last-minute objections to at least four onshore wind farms in the line of sight of its stations on the east coast because they make it impossible to spot aircraft, The Times has learnt. The same objections are likely to apply to wind turbines in the North Sea, part of the massive renewable energy project announced by John Hutton, the Energy Secretary, barely two months ago. They would be directly in line with the three principal radar defence stations, Brizlee Wood, Saxton Wold and Trimingham on the Northumberland, Yorkshire and Norfolk coasts.
Giving evidence to a planning inquiry last October, a senior MoD expert said that the turbines create a hole in radar coverage so that aircraft flying overhead are not detectable. In written evidence, Squadron Leader Chris Breedon said: "This obscuration occurs regardless of the height of the aircraft, of the radar and of the turbine." He described the discovery as alarming.
The findings were the result of trials carried out in 2004 and 2005 but the MoD appears to have toughened its stance more recently. It now objects to almost all wind farms in the line of sight of its radar stations.
Related Links
The dilemma: defend the Earth or the skies?
Technology will have to clear up fuzzy picture
Winds of war
The change of policy has prompted fury among developers, who had previously been told that there were no defence implications. They have now written a letter of protest to Mr Hutton and Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, pointing out that millions of pounds of investment are at risk.
The MoD says that Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has given a firm direction that radar surveillance capability must not be degraded. It denied that it would make automatic objections, saying: "All wind farm applications are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The MoD is committed to government targets for renewable energy and whenever possible we seek to work with wind farm developers to find a mutually acceptable solution."
It did, however, add: "We look at whether turbines will be in line of sight, ie, if the radar can see the turbine. If it can, we know there will be an effect as we have evidence from trials. We decide whether line-of-site effect is manageable or not."
Squadron Leader Breedon said that not only did the turbines create a radar hole directly over a wind farm but there was also a shadow beyond them that prevented low-flying aircraft being detected. He said: "The MoD trial results were alarming as they confirmed a greater impact than that previously thought. This in turn required a more robust approach to wind turbine assessments."
The British Wind Energy Association said: "This is a very real issue for us, but we are now working with government. We are hopeful of seeing progress on this soon so that we can reach the ambitious 2020 targets for renewable power in the UK."
The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has described the MoD´s protests as holding objections. It has created an Aviation Working Group bringing together the wind energy industry, MoD and Civil Aviation Authority to agree guidelines to solve conflicts.
Have your say
Solution: Replace all of those wind turbines with 1 Nuclear power plant, no problems with RADAR, no bird die-offs and a lot less land usage.
Mike G, GR,
Lets put propellors on the front of all our war planes, a lot cheaper than all that stealth technology...... er hang on .......
Andie Warner, Benfleet, Essex, UK
By changing the designe/shape/face of turbine it might be possible to handle this situation. For example if trubines ( or the fan of turbine) are facing sky instead of radar, it might solve the problem.
Arvin, West Yorkshire, England
Why not move those propellers and turbines underwater?
Water is hundreds of times denser than air and water currents can be concentrated in submarine canyons, water currents tend to be more consistent over a 24hr period too.
Smitty, West Hills, USA /CA
I presume that if radar is inoperative scanning outward, it would also be inoperative on any aircraft coming into UK airspace? Sounds like a potential missile shield to me (sorry, couldn't resist).
Douglas Stamate, North Manchester, Indiana, USA
If the MoD can't deal with windturbines in our country.... what use are they flying over others.
Ollie, Durham, England
Hasn't anyone ever heard of vertical axis wind turbines?
AGG, Colchester, USA/Vermont
People honestly need to stop being afraid.
Bre.C, Vancouver, BC
I worked on long range, ground-based radar in the US Air Force. The first 50 miles or so of radar signal returns are canceled out with Moving Target Indicator processes to eliminate ground clutter. The curveture of the earth also puts low flying objects into the "earth shadow" of the radar signal since it is line of sight only. Any plane flying "behind" these generators would have to pop up to get over them. And that is a feat that planes, like the ones used in the 9-11 attacks can't do quickly. And they were no where near being "low-flying" planes. Have we forgotten that most radar warning has gone airborne with steerable radar on board planes doing sentry duty thousands of feet up. Ground based radar is now called beacon targets.
Paul M, Oklahoma City,
This is a very interesting discussion, especially for me, cause I actually work in Vestas, the biggest windmill manufacturer of the world.
I cannot say that I know anything about radar inteference, but aside from that, I see some comments about the windmill industry and windmills, which I feel are not true:
First of all, there is a tendency to think that there is not enough wind to produce power, but the truth is that windmills are running on an average of 90 % (when they are not broken).
A Life Cycle analyses for a Vestas V90 3 mW Windmill shows that after 6.8 months, the V90 has produced enough power to cower how much is spent on it in its entire life cycle (from raw materials to disassembling the windmill)
Those of you who feel you should update on your knowledge on windmills could go to vestas.com to read more.
About the placement of windmills: You cant "just move them" The foundation below the sea surface is very important. Finding a new spot could cost millions.
Thomas Lund, Kibaek, Denmark
It's worth noting that three low level aircraft were responsible for the damage on 9/11. Let's say that planes took off from coastal Europe with the intention of crash diving into the Bradwell facility, which may be one of the sites for the new generation of nuclear power stations. Also presume that the largest off-shore windfarm to be built in the UK is also situated there, but the military radar is unable to see the planes through the forest of wind turbines, what a pretty pickle!
It's interesting to note that the locals don't want either nuclear or wind. What about a nice LNG terminal, such as that at the Isle of Grain (Rochester, Kent)? Give me a nuke any day!
Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK
If the oil industry can figure out how to build drilling and production platforms at sea, and the electric power industry can follow with wind/ wave farms at sea, can the military & marine engineers figure out how to put militarily effective radar platforms out at sea as well, on the seaward side of the wind farms? Offshore power arrays will be a part of that national infrastructure that will require forward-looking protection as much as anything on-shore.
I suspect wind/ wave farms are the beginning of serious "ocean settlement", when our use of the seas will be both more intensive and more sustainable. Not only will these farms serve as virtual fish hatcheries, they will block further exploitation of these areas by drag-line trawlers.
If we seriously develop more efficient ways to use energy and a variety of ways to generate power, we can build a world where every nation can live well on the resources around it, & those radars will be as useful as medieval castles.
Rick Thurman, Chicago, USA
If the problem is "line of sight" then you don't need radar to spot the airplane. Just open your eyes.
Duh!
Charles Kormos, Tampa, Florida
Dear oh dear! Have any of you considered that this "radar interference" information is simply UNTRUE? This is exactly the modus of misinformation that has been going for decades in the USA, once money is passed from hand to hand under the table from an influential party that would be financially threatened by a change, to a party (such as a military branch) that cannot be argued with as easily. It is the media's responsibility to probe and to DEMAND to examine the details of exactly how this hole in radar coverage is purported to be accomplished. You will soon begin to see that the only "hole" is in the truth here, and in doing so, you will also be able to establish who you can trust in future and, more importantly, who is pushing this egregious issue for their own benefit at the cost of the British public! Don't accept nonsense like this without questioning the sources!
Dennis McKay, Covina, California, USA
Why would you want to create more wind? By installing these BIG props you get just about as much wind as the people who tell us about Global warming. The raising seas will do them in anyway.. Up here in the NW of the USA we have another problem, it called snow. First its' our Governor telling us, we have to do all we can, to prevent Global warming thru a Government decree, now we are in a state of emergency here, because of the cold and snow! What is it?
More whinning by the Liberals again.
Oh, BTW, check out the raising costs of the Windmills these days.
It is all a big scam for your money.
Edith Cox, Seattle,
Many earlier posters have strong opinions on stuff they know nothing about - radar, energy alternatives, and climate change. Engineers are not the equivalent of a character from Bewitched. Physics exists, and it matters. It places important limits on abilities. Can we PLEASE get used to the idea that weaning ourselves from Big Oil will measurably cut our standard of living, and will hurt the environment in ways we won't like?
therealjg, Corvallis, USA
Everyone involved in these alternate energy scams is going to look pretty silly in the future when it is finally realized the folly of it all. Oil is Abiogenic and it will never run out. Why go though all this trouble for nothing...I guess it isn't all for nothing, someone is lining thier pockets.
Hitlery Clintler, Canon City, Colorado, USA
"Why not utlise hydrogen power and the hydrogen fuel cell?" -- tes
tes, "why not" is because the hydrogen is produced from the use of electricity (cannot be drilled for or mined for or otherwise obtained from nature), and it'd make no sense to use electricity to provide hydrogen just to be used to produce more electricity via fuel cells. It'd be inefficient and add some safety factors as well. You wouldn't suggest not raising chickens because you can get chickens at the grocery store, right? They have to come from somewhere in the first place.
As to the folks who say the windmills cannot affect radar, you are obviously not radar or electronic warfare experts. Try looking up MTI, pulse-doppler, and doppler notch/blind-speeds sometime.
Shawn D., Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
The solution is quite simple - mount the radar on the wind turbine structure or structures farthest from the MOD target(s) being protected. The facility to do this plus access could easily be included as a condition in the planning permission.
However, most of your correspondence appears to be unrelated to the effectiveness of the radar, so I expect this suggestion will be overlooked.
Fallon Stuart, Sydney, Australia
Build off-shore radar stations in front of the turbines. Power them from the wind turbines. When the wind isnt blowing no problem because the current ground stations will not detect them due to no doppler from the stationary blades.
Tim, Scotland,
So who is it that's going to attack us with Planes anyway - a country without mid-range missiles? Which enemy is going to get across Europe to bomb us with a Plane? ........ that we're not going to see because of some localised disturbances off-shore?......... er, tell you what, lets not worry about anything past what country may attack us with a Plane who doesn't have missiles much better suited to the job?
Andrew J Iddon, London, UK
Is this the only place the wind blows? For crying out loud move the turbines out of the way. Better yet build more nuclear power plants. We all have to get over this "we have to protect mother earth" crap. I love the earth and want to protect it, but tree huggers have kept us(USA) from building any new nuclear plants. THESE IDIOTS ARE HINDERING ARE PROGRESS. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
BRIAN, NEWBURY PARK, CA
Two things:
First, hats off for the civil dialog. If this was being debated by Americans, we'd have nothing but partisan slogans and swear words. I wish my fellow Americans would adopt a sense of civility again.
Secondly, the military in most Western nations is "in bed" with both manufacturing and energy companies. I'm not saying your MoD would invent a fictitious issue to protect their buddies (though our Pentagon would in a heartbeat.) However, I could easily see any western military blowing a small risk out of proportion especially when their friends have something at stake.
Thanks for letting a yank chime in.
Jack, Dallas, USA
If Mike's calculation is correct (IS IT ??}, i.e." windfarms make no contribution to our energy needs," then why for goodnesss sake are we building them?
John Tuck, Fakenham, Norfolk UK
Recently the Russian Air force has been flexing its muscles close to our borders and has fired missiles from its 'Blackjack' aircraft in the Bay of Biscay.
It would be foolish to lose our surveillance capability for a dubious form of renewable energy.
More importantly for the travelling public in the air it is equally foolish to site large wind farms close to domestic airports if there are radar shadows that might conceal converging aircraft from the Air Traffic Controllers.
In Scotland we have local area plans encouraging places that have been recommended for wind farms but developers go for the easy options. This results in lengthy inquiries that cost millions, draining the Public Purse.
Sadly the Scottish Parliament fails to take the lead and public figures in the environmental money-go-round are beginning to say publicly we should ride roughshod over the planning system. The politicians, too scared of their image, are reluctant to speak out and comment. Sad days
Tom, Lochwinnoch,
As a developer I find it gratifying that there is so much common sense being written here. Wind is not the silver bullet but it is the only viable solution at the moment. Wave and tidal power will undoubtedly be the way to go but the technology is 20 odd yeaqrs behind wind. We have two options 1. Do nothing or 2. Build wind farms as soon as possible and decommission them in 20 years form now when the newer/better technology is available. Remember an onshore wind turbine can be decommissioned and removed in 1 week! How long does it take to decommsiion and remove a conventional fossil fuel power station, how long for a Nuclear Power Station?
Andy Hilton, Catfield, Norfolk
Shriek! How can you be thinking of war and national security at a time when the SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE is at stake due to our over use of fossil fuels? Outrage! Hysteria!
I'm beginning to think there's nothing I can do about this business - it seems pretty clear wind farms are totally inefficient, but despite this and the fact the evidence supporting imminent destruction of the planet due to climate change is far from conclusive, the government seems to be driving ahead with their "green" policies regardless, and taxing us more for the pleasure.
Paranoid, Hartlepool,
Not very good news for the renewable energy industry. turns out that not,only are the wind farms noisy, expensive and inefficient but now they will let terrorists and countries with virtualy no air forces to penetrate our air defences to wreak havoc. Who needs these wind farms, apart communist tree-hugers, since Britain will go nuclear? What we need to do is to spend more money on science and the Armed Forces, instead of giving it to hippies who want us to live in caves and hunt our own food. Let MoD to use these pointless constructions( i.e Offshore wind farms) for target practise!
Jonh Raintall, Cambridge, United kingdom
WIND FARMS! Waste of my (taxpayer) money! They don';t work when there is no wind, they don't work when there is too much wind!They're inefficient and noisy when there is the correct amount of wind! They're unsightly whether there is wind or no!
If ther're going to interfere with the detection of cruise missiles, the most likely low flying aircraft that needs to be detected, and don't forget the Big Bear now has supersonic cruise missiles, then they MUST NOT be built at strategically important sites!
Tony
Helston
Kernow
Tony Smith, Helston, Kernow (Cornwall)
A large windturbine's blade tip can approach speeds of 600Mph and represents a large radar cross section (much greater than an aircraft). Therefore to identify whether your radar plot is an aircraft or windturbine detection (as they're not always present) is higher difficult to decide which is which. If someone can develop a processor to achieve the holy grail of identifying a sole aircraft in the clutter of a large windfarm then he'd be a very rich man indeed! Remeber that the MoD does not object to all windfarms, but once in situe they are there to stay!
Pr N U Clear, MK, Bucks
Forget wind farms: they are ugly and woefully inefficient for producing energy. Here in Northumberland they have been turned off over the last week due to the strong winds, and today when there is no wind, they are not working either.
They power they do produce is all at the wrong time, so you still need continuous 'spinning reserve' to cover. Without subsidies, the wind farm industry woudn't even bother with them.
As for CO2, it is a natural gas, not a pollutant. Climate change was happening long before industrialisation.
Patrick, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
It is worrying that this effect was only discovered 'by accident' and late in the investigation process.
As windfarms spread like a disease across the countryside, one hopes that other issues have been investigated. Like the operation of police and emergency service radios, mobile phones, and the reception of digital television signals.
Fortunately, I'm not an expert in electronics, or wave propagetion, so I'm not aware of any issues in these areas.
Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire
Airport radars are equally affected, so how do you feel about flying un detected in congested airspace, and relying on chance, maybe you won't fly, but lets hope your house is not underneath the flying debris !!
Wind turbine blades are designed to maximise electricity production,not for stealth radar operations, there is no standard size and the speed is as variable as the wind.
There is no standard size that is suitable for all locations.
Individual companies which are foreign , design them to their own specification and not to the MODs.
There may be algorithms to minimise shadow effect,but they will need one for every radar operated by military and air traffic, as yet in the Uk no radars have this! This is a considerable task and by no means proven.
The trials carried out by the military are extensive and carry many recommendations , and the US have come to the same conclusions, and are no longer freely allowing planning permission for Wind farms.
Mr Richard Snook, Wareham, Dorset UK
There are lots of interesting points here regarding the type of radar that the MOD are using, and the difficulties of 'just filtering out' obstructions - its always much easier to tell someone to do it than to be the person actually scratching his head saying 'how on earth could that be done'.
But the main point I wanted to make regards the windmills themselves. Surely its pointless to build windmills, since they dont provide reliable power, and since it takes hours to ramp up and down the output power of fossil fuel or nuclear powered power stations, it seems to me that wind is more or less useless. How can we use a power source that might just stop producing within a few minutes, if theres nothing to fill the gap quick enough? I cant imagine that the UK would accept hours of power cuts every day. Dont imagine that hydrogen can be generated and turned back into electricity, or that batteries can be used - neither is practical yet.
So why are we bothering with windmills?
Pete, London, UK
This brings to the fore the development of sea wave energy or tidal energy.
Don't waste more time and money, concentrate!
Norman, Bushey, Herts
Actually Mike, that's a common myth that has little to no foundation in reality. The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy is equal to the cumulative electricity generated divided by the cumulative primary energy required to build and maintain a turbine. The EROI for wind ranges from 5 to 35, with an average of around 18. EROI is strongly proportional to turbine size, and larger late-generation turbines are at the high end of this range, at or above 35. this number is VERY competitive with conventional power sources
Zachary, Minneapolis, USA
The threats presented to military and civil aviation by wind farm radar interference are very real. One MOD study showed the loss of radar targets all the way to 36,000 feet above. Here in America, our government is ignoring the threat. For example, The proposed 25 square mile Cape Wind project is in the middle of 3 airports with over 400,000 flights a year. The FAA up to now has ignored the objections of the ATC controllers, the 3 airports and the indepth MOD studies. The FAA has now issued a "Presumede Hazard" on the project , and will conduct studies to confirm the interference this spring.
Cliff Carroll, South Yarmouth, USA
Understanding that there is a great deal of wind in the UK, it should not be unnoticed that they are islands surronded by moving water. Why hasn't there been a study into using tidal power or submerged turbines within the off shore currents?
Jim, Detroit,
It stikes me that it should not be for the Ministry of Defence to decide whether the line-of-sight effect is manageable or not. That is an issue on which a planning enquiry should take a view. The Ministry of Defence should present specific evidence of the nature and extent of the effect in the case of each proposed wind farm - just like anybody else.
Steve, Leamington Spa, UK
Crossed wires - I think.
With the looming environmental and economic situation as it is. And energy sources depleting (including uranium) nations will be battling to control these sources, consuming vast amounts of energy doing so, until its all gone. This brings up the question of national security.
This radar problem doesn't sound unsolvable, probably the MOD want some nuclear stations for weapons. So why don't we separate the interwoven issues.
For energy security, its best to have something which doesn't require relying on other countries and is sustainable. Britain has lots of wind, lots of waves and a lot of tide potential, why not use it?
And for national security, the MOD can do what it needs to do, keeping nuclear stations to a bare minimum.
As for monstrosities, there are plenty of visual monstrosities in the environment, but at least turbines don't leave a blot on your health and well being.
Edward, Aberystwyth, Wales
So these "ugly" windmills are worse looking than nuclear power stations with their profile or coal stations with their billowing smoke??? So, were the first lighthouses considered a "blight" on the landscape? How about overland power cables?? I am sure they are absolutely beautiful ! No one likes change. Will you still all object when your power bill triples or when you are forced to shut things down due to frequent brownouts? Good Luck.
Maybe they could be covered in stealth paints like the stealth fighter and bomber.
vsk
vsk, Brooklyn, NY / USA
Since the wind farms haven't been built yet, there is a simple non-technical solution - build in a different location. The industry is so heavily subsidized that the government is going to pay the costs either way.
To Tes in London -
HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE! (barring fusion) It has to be produced for a net loss of energy (immutable law of physics). It is best regarded as a sort of rechargeable battery.
TK, New Orleans, USA
Sounds like the brown stuff is about to hit the rotating blades...
Duncan Tribute, Truro, Cornwall, Great Britain
Mike
You will find that carrying out a life cycle analysis of of wind turbines will show the impact of manufacturing is similar to any other type of turbine, and (because they don't use any fuel), the operational impact is significanlty lower. As such the net environmental impact is lower than for a fossil fuel powered turbine, and the net CO2 emissions are significantly lower - proportionately, CO2 emissions from manufacture are insignificant to CO2 emissions from operation of a fossil fuel powered turbine.
Peter, London,
I didn't know we were discussing the pros and cons of different types of energy resources Mike. As for you Augusto, good argument, might be a 'little' irrelevent but general a good argument. Unfortunately we're not going to be able to maintain current rates of energy use with just solar and wind power.
Would it be too much to ask for the next comment to be on the issue at hand?
Rose, London,
Quite apart from the obvious security AND environmental problems, if you do the TOTAL energy calculation involve in manufacturing, constructing, erecting and maintaining these windmills you would see that there is no such thing as free energy. They are not only a blot on the landscape but they make no sense whatsoever in overall energy costs!
Mike, Lancaster, UK
Wind power is big business in Europe, but it looks like "someone" in the UK has got an interest in pushing nuclear power and they would do everything they can to achieve it, even trying to make us all believe that wind power plants are now dangerous.
Has everybody already forgotten Chernobyl? That was an accident, but today, with the risk of terrorist attacks, it could easily happen again over here. If to that you want to add the health and environmental risk posed by toxic waste, that does not leave us many options. I choose wind and sun power, and other renewable energy sources.
Augusto Casalnovo, London, United Kingdom
I think that we are betting on the wrong horse. We are an island so why not utlise hydrogen power and the hydrogen fuel cell? the proper investment will make this already more efficient and transportable fuel which is cleaner and less in your face as a low capacity giant wind turbine. Isn't there a lobby for the hydrogen fuel cell?
tes, London, UK
i dont get it. will they cover all shore of uk??? so we'll be sort of encircled by rediculous white propellers?
juris, London,
Thanks for the tip-off , Phil.
Right, Komrads, lets attack Denmark.
patrick, The hague, Netherlands
Turbines have been proven to exhibit the behaviour of real aircraft (due to moving blades imparting doppler shift onto returned signal). You can't just "invent an algorithm to filter them out" you risk filtering out aircraft too.
Our enemies are real and more would soon raise their heads if it was declared that we were more interested in the pretty windmills than national security!
Exasperated, Bristol,
To Chris Kirk,
Yes wind turbines are, effectively, the same technology as a windmill. Just as coal and oil fired power stations are the same technology as burning firewood to keep warm in a cave.
This story is just an irrelevant distraction from the big picture. We need to find new sources of power! One of these has to be wind power. It's proven, it's clean and it is renewable. Get on with it
Martin Boddy, Hassi Messaoud, Algeria
As a retired RAF officer this statement is crap, any "radar" that is interferred with by wind turbined would be swamped by ground returns in any case.
No, this is yet another stupid ploy by the Nuk lobby as there are so many billions to be made from kuk power staions and very little money fron wind turbines,
Any aircraft low flying these days fly routes or something like helo's have published information about TV masts , and wind turbines. Anyone not using them should not be flying.
Richard Siclair, Pagham,
Copenhagen? Spotting a Boeing is not the same as spotting an aircraft flying 20ft off the deck.
Remember a coal fired power station produces around 4000Mw, the biggest wind turbine 2Mw but in the UK with a utilisation factor of 27%, So that's about 8,000 of these beasties instead of each power station.
Ken, Kenilworth,
Surely the biggest problem with wind farms is that they're incredibly ugly, expensive to build (without the huge subsidies), and don't produce enough power for even the most modest of power requirements. If we had to rely on wind power the MoD wouldn't have enough electricity to have radar anyway.
I would think the money being used to subsidise these monstrosities would be better spent finding new ways of producing power, instead of relying on what is, in effect, the same technology as a windmill.
Chris Kirk, Loughborough, Leics
So as well as being particularly ugly, unreliably intermittent as a viable source of energy and an inefficient waste of money and time, it will also seem that they're now pose a significant security risk.
Can the Government now stop ruining our land and seascape by building no more of these wretched eyesores?
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
But there must be a diameter size of wind turbine that does not affect radar, so what is it?
Monster turbines I can understand but where is the 'acceptable' diameter and what material can be used for the aerofoils without upsetting radar imaging?
Weaver, Hong Kong,
Climate change is the biggest threat to national and international security, and should take absolute priority.
Jan van Beilen, ZĂĽrich,
The MoD are obviously taking paranoia lesson from America. Surely it can’t be that hard to spot a moving object amongst stationary ones even if they do have moving parts? And what have we got billion pound satellites for? What worry’s me more than our enemies are our friends in the MoD and their serious lack of vision. As others here have suggested, this is just a technical issue and those running the MoD should deal with it or move over and let someone capable do the job.
Mark Sheppard, Retford,
Wind-turbines and wind-farms should ALL be banned unless they can prove, minus subsidies, that kilowatt by kilowatt, they provide good value for money - and are not going to saddle generations to come with blighted landscapes in the Highlands and Lake District, off shore and onshore - when OTHER, cheaper alternatives - be it wave or tidal power, solar or bio-mass - need to be thoroughly explored - before we sink MORE "government -subsidy" (Read taxpayers' cash ) into this one basket.
I G Drummond, LEVEN,
So if the problem is low-level intruders whay can't we put radars on the wind farms looking east, presumably they will be many miles further eastwards and so could see that many miles further?
The situation with the decline of our gas (and oil) fields will become critical in a few years. I think we have only 6.5 years left at current rates of production then we will probably be importing much of it from Russia. They will only have to turn off the gas to cripple most of Europe. See what has already happened world-wide this winter and that's before OPEG is formed.
We need to have sufficient renewable energy to compensate for ALL of our gas imports plus enough to replace most of our oil consumption for transport with either battery or hydrogen. Get building NOW and put the turbines on-shore at the coast if they can be built quicker and more cheaply. Otherwise turn off the lights.
tonyw, London,
Aren't the turbines and masts made mostly of composites, which reduces their radar footprint?. But then why can't the MoD tune the known obstructions out of their systems with an alogorithm just before displaying on their radar screens?
David, Watford, Hertfordshire
This is absurd. The MOD needs to find a technical solution to the wind farm problem. If no technical solution is found then potential tin-pot dictators around the world know that all they need to do to protect themselves from our air-force (that use radars) is to put up a couple of windmills...
Erik, Gatwick, UK
MOd are paranoid about their blastd radar. Whom are they detecting? The Russians? The French? The Chinese? Anyone launching a sneak attack would do so with missiles. Ordinary radar - useless.
Our national security is threatened by our oil and gas supply being cut off-vide Putins bad temper- or running out, which no-one is talking about, but RUN OUT it will in the not too distant future. So lets cut the crap about radar, and get on with rewewable energy QUICK as fusion is still some way off, and use nuclear -fission - as a stop gap.With the increasing demand and diminishing supply of fossil fuel, I dont want to have to run my car - or bus/train at ÂŁ1 a mile thankyou.
Peter Groves, Surbiton, England
While i'm a strong supporter of eco-friendly energy sources, in this insecure world we live in, what with the terrorist threat and Russia's increasing belligerence, they should not compromise national security.
Cameron Gill, Bridgetown, Barbados
The wind farms are more important than the Radar. What does it matter, a few weeks ago Britian was turning back the Rusians probling our defences. In the event of a Nuclear Attack if two bombs/misiles landed on the UK in the right places most of the UK would be dead. Its only a deterant so we can hit back and cause the otherside damage.
The Radar is only usefull for aircraft coming to and throw our shores.
Peter, Hastings, UK
One word to fix all the problems. AWACS.
JP, South West, England
and what about neclear power stations?
riccardo, brussels,
The reader who suggests a difference with Copenhagen Airport is talking out of his field. As far as I know commercial aircraft do not approach airfields at tree height, well only on final approach and that is in line of sight.
What the RAF is talking about is aircraft coming from way out at nearly sea level.
Lloyd, Conwy, UK
National Security won't matter much when you've got 10 feet of water on your bonce.
Nick, Eastbourne, UK
Britain has too many enemies, most of which are imaginary.
Chris, London, UK
It doesn't have to be either/or. If the government is serious about renewable energy it could provide additional funding to the MOD to pay for signal processing upgrades to resolve these masking issues. The problem is technically resolvable.
Radar engineer, Chelmsford, UK
Are you seriously suggesting that this an insurmountable technical problem. Good job we didn't have these people in charge during World War 2....There will be a technical solution they just havn't bothered to look. Leave it another 50 years and there won't be any need for the radar....
bob taylor, Castelnau, France
This information would seem to clash with the practical experience of Copenhagen Airport. Anyone who has visited Kastrup will have noticed the hundreds of modern windmills in the immediate area. Has there been any mention of the Danish wind farms causing problems at this busy hub? No.
There has been substantial research on this subject conducted by government and private sector sources (refer to Spaven Consulting, 2001) in this country and in Europe, let alone elsewhere, and the almost unanimous conclusion is that there are certainly some phenomena caused by wind turbines that appear on radar but these can be filtered out by so-called intelligent systems. Indeed several UK airports live with wind turbines very close at hand with no real problems to report.
Phil, Tallinn, Estonia
No surprise, there were news reports of offshore wind farms causing radar problems several years ago.
Stephen, St. Ives, England
Read all 75 comments
Have your say
Grenade dumped in recycling uni
Green Central Blog
Has oil production peaked?
Kirabati, the world's largest marine protected area
The nation of Kiribati has created the world's largest marine reserve in the centre of the Pacific
Slide Show
Special report
Green motoring
From hybrids to biofuels, we analyse the issues and debates surrounding environmental driving
Environment
Greenest Hits: The 20 most-read climate change stories
Career
Who will save our planet?
How to... be an active eco-worker
How to be a responsible leader
Property
How to go green: a homeowner's guide
The way we will live
Eco homes
Environment
Eco questions: are expensive clothes more ethical?
Easing a guilty eco-conscience in glad rags and why cruising is heading for a bruising
The carbon footprint of meat and environmental red roses
Eco worrier: dip into the archive of green Q&As
Environment
Eco Worrier blog
Share your top tips on green living with Anna Shepard of The Times
The Web
Webwise: An online guide to self sufficiency
With escalating domestic bills and flooding on the rise, it´s time we were more self-sufficient, says Stewart Mitchell
Ways to go green
Climate change: Ten ways to save the world
How to have a guilt-free green Christmas
Energy scams: When going green just doesn't add up
Shrink your carbon footprint
Tips for greener, cheaper homes
Video
Watch Times Online's video of the Bali protests
Video: Going green with Go"
In truth both the Wind Turbine and the aircraft industry have concealed how wind power really works,that works on the same basis as Radar and communication systems. Its not power effeicent in the slightest. They are all lining their pockets, incease levels of radiation, to put it mildy.
The governments don`t care: The MoD could of stop this waste:
This is a re-print which I thought should not be lost to copy as I suspect it might be buried:
"The TimesFebruary 4, 2008
Wind farms ´a threat to national security´
Magnus Linklater and Dominic Kennedy
Ambitious plans to meet up to a third of Britain´s energy needs from offshore wind farms are in jeopardy because the Ministry of Defence objects that the turbines interfere with its radar.
The MoD has lodged last-minute objections to at least four onshore wind farms in the line of sight of its stations on the east coast because they make it impossible to spot aircraft, The Times has learnt. The same objections are likely to apply to wind turbines in the North Sea, part of the massive renewable energy project announced by John Hutton, the Energy Secretary, barely two months ago. They would be directly in line with the three principal radar defence stations, Brizlee Wood, Saxton Wold and Trimingham on the Northumberland, Yorkshire and Norfolk coasts.
Giving evidence to a planning inquiry last October, a senior MoD expert said that the turbines create a hole in radar coverage so that aircraft flying overhead are not detectable. In written evidence, Squadron Leader Chris Breedon said: "This obscuration occurs regardless of the height of the aircraft, of the radar and of the turbine." He described the discovery as alarming.
The findings were the result of trials carried out in 2004 and 2005 but the MoD appears to have toughened its stance more recently. It now objects to almost all wind farms in the line of sight of its radar stations.
Related Links
The dilemma: defend the Earth or the skies?
Technology will have to clear up fuzzy picture
Winds of war
The change of policy has prompted fury among developers, who had previously been told that there were no defence implications. They have now written a letter of protest to Mr Hutton and Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, pointing out that millions of pounds of investment are at risk.
The MoD says that Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has given a firm direction that radar surveillance capability must not be degraded. It denied that it would make automatic objections, saying: "All wind farm applications are assessed on a site-by-site basis. The MoD is committed to government targets for renewable energy and whenever possible we seek to work with wind farm developers to find a mutually acceptable solution."
It did, however, add: "We look at whether turbines will be in line of sight, ie, if the radar can see the turbine. If it can, we know there will be an effect as we have evidence from trials. We decide whether line-of-site effect is manageable or not."
Squadron Leader Breedon said that not only did the turbines create a radar hole directly over a wind farm but there was also a shadow beyond them that prevented low-flying aircraft being detected. He said: "The MoD trial results were alarming as they confirmed a greater impact than that previously thought. This in turn required a more robust approach to wind turbine assessments."
The British Wind Energy Association said: "This is a very real issue for us, but we are now working with government. We are hopeful of seeing progress on this soon so that we can reach the ambitious 2020 targets for renewable power in the UK."
The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has described the MoD´s protests as holding objections. It has created an Aviation Working Group bringing together the wind energy industry, MoD and Civil Aviation Authority to agree guidelines to solve conflicts.
Have your say
Solution: Replace all of those wind turbines with 1 Nuclear power plant, no problems with RADAR, no bird die-offs and a lot less land usage.
Mike G, GR,
Lets put propellors on the front of all our war planes, a lot cheaper than all that stealth technology...... er hang on .......
Andie Warner, Benfleet, Essex, UK
By changing the designe/shape/face of turbine it might be possible to handle this situation. For example if trubines ( or the fan of turbine) are facing sky instead of radar, it might solve the problem.
Arvin, West Yorkshire, England
Why not move those propellers and turbines underwater?
Water is hundreds of times denser than air and water currents can be concentrated in submarine canyons, water currents tend to be more consistent over a 24hr period too.
Smitty, West Hills, USA /CA
I presume that if radar is inoperative scanning outward, it would also be inoperative on any aircraft coming into UK airspace? Sounds like a potential missile shield to me (sorry, couldn't resist).
Douglas Stamate, North Manchester, Indiana, USA
If the MoD can't deal with windturbines in our country.... what use are they flying over others.
Ollie, Durham, England
Hasn't anyone ever heard of vertical axis wind turbines?
AGG, Colchester, USA/Vermont
People honestly need to stop being afraid.
Bre.C, Vancouver, BC
I worked on long range, ground-based radar in the US Air Force. The first 50 miles or so of radar signal returns are canceled out with Moving Target Indicator processes to eliminate ground clutter. The curveture of the earth also puts low flying objects into the "earth shadow" of the radar signal since it is line of sight only. Any plane flying "behind" these generators would have to pop up to get over them. And that is a feat that planes, like the ones used in the 9-11 attacks can't do quickly. And they were no where near being "low-flying" planes. Have we forgotten that most radar warning has gone airborne with steerable radar on board planes doing sentry duty thousands of feet up. Ground based radar is now called beacon targets.
Paul M, Oklahoma City,
This is a very interesting discussion, especially for me, cause I actually work in Vestas, the biggest windmill manufacturer of the world.
I cannot say that I know anything about radar inteference, but aside from that, I see some comments about the windmill industry and windmills, which I feel are not true:
First of all, there is a tendency to think that there is not enough wind to produce power, but the truth is that windmills are running on an average of 90 % (when they are not broken).
A Life Cycle analyses for a Vestas V90 3 mW Windmill shows that after 6.8 months, the V90 has produced enough power to cower how much is spent on it in its entire life cycle (from raw materials to disassembling the windmill)
Those of you who feel you should update on your knowledge on windmills could go to vestas.com to read more.
About the placement of windmills: You cant "just move them" The foundation below the sea surface is very important. Finding a new spot could cost millions.
Thomas Lund, Kibaek, Denmark
It's worth noting that three low level aircraft were responsible for the damage on 9/11. Let's say that planes took off from coastal Europe with the intention of crash diving into the Bradwell facility, which may be one of the sites for the new generation of nuclear power stations. Also presume that the largest off-shore windfarm to be built in the UK is also situated there, but the military radar is unable to see the planes through the forest of wind turbines, what a pretty pickle!
It's interesting to note that the locals don't want either nuclear or wind. What about a nice LNG terminal, such as that at the Isle of Grain (Rochester, Kent)? Give me a nuke any day!
Dwight Vandryver, Scholar Green, Cheshire, UK
If the oil industry can figure out how to build drilling and production platforms at sea, and the electric power industry can follow with wind/ wave farms at sea, can the military & marine engineers figure out how to put militarily effective radar platforms out at sea as well, on the seaward side of the wind farms? Offshore power arrays will be a part of that national infrastructure that will require forward-looking protection as much as anything on-shore.
I suspect wind/ wave farms are the beginning of serious "ocean settlement", when our use of the seas will be both more intensive and more sustainable. Not only will these farms serve as virtual fish hatcheries, they will block further exploitation of these areas by drag-line trawlers.
If we seriously develop more efficient ways to use energy and a variety of ways to generate power, we can build a world where every nation can live well on the resources around it, & those radars will be as useful as medieval castles.
Rick Thurman, Chicago, USA
If the problem is "line of sight" then you don't need radar to spot the airplane. Just open your eyes.
Duh!
Charles Kormos, Tampa, Florida
Dear oh dear! Have any of you considered that this "radar interference" information is simply UNTRUE? This is exactly the modus of misinformation that has been going for decades in the USA, once money is passed from hand to hand under the table from an influential party that would be financially threatened by a change, to a party (such as a military branch) that cannot be argued with as easily. It is the media's responsibility to probe and to DEMAND to examine the details of exactly how this hole in radar coverage is purported to be accomplished. You will soon begin to see that the only "hole" is in the truth here, and in doing so, you will also be able to establish who you can trust in future and, more importantly, who is pushing this egregious issue for their own benefit at the cost of the British public! Don't accept nonsense like this without questioning the sources!
Dennis McKay, Covina, California, USA
Why would you want to create more wind? By installing these BIG props you get just about as much wind as the people who tell us about Global warming. The raising seas will do them in anyway.. Up here in the NW of the USA we have another problem, it called snow. First its' our Governor telling us, we have to do all we can, to prevent Global warming thru a Government decree, now we are in a state of emergency here, because of the cold and snow! What is it?
More whinning by the Liberals again.
Oh, BTW, check out the raising costs of the Windmills these days.
It is all a big scam for your money.
Edith Cox, Seattle,
Many earlier posters have strong opinions on stuff they know nothing about - radar, energy alternatives, and climate change. Engineers are not the equivalent of a character from Bewitched. Physics exists, and it matters. It places important limits on abilities. Can we PLEASE get used to the idea that weaning ourselves from Big Oil will measurably cut our standard of living, and will hurt the environment in ways we won't like?
therealjg, Corvallis, USA
Everyone involved in these alternate energy scams is going to look pretty silly in the future when it is finally realized the folly of it all. Oil is Abiogenic and it will never run out. Why go though all this trouble for nothing...I guess it isn't all for nothing, someone is lining thier pockets.
Hitlery Clintler, Canon City, Colorado, USA
"Why not utlise hydrogen power and the hydrogen fuel cell?" -- tes
tes, "why not" is because the hydrogen is produced from the use of electricity (cannot be drilled for or mined for or otherwise obtained from nature), and it'd make no sense to use electricity to provide hydrogen just to be used to produce more electricity via fuel cells. It'd be inefficient and add some safety factors as well. You wouldn't suggest not raising chickens because you can get chickens at the grocery store, right? They have to come from somewhere in the first place.
As to the folks who say the windmills cannot affect radar, you are obviously not radar or electronic warfare experts. Try looking up MTI, pulse-doppler, and doppler notch/blind-speeds sometime.
Shawn D., Alpharetta, Georgia, USA
The solution is quite simple - mount the radar on the wind turbine structure or structures farthest from the MOD target(s) being protected. The facility to do this plus access could easily be included as a condition in the planning permission.
However, most of your correspondence appears to be unrelated to the effectiveness of the radar, so I expect this suggestion will be overlooked.
Fallon Stuart, Sydney, Australia
Build off-shore radar stations in front of the turbines. Power them from the wind turbines. When the wind isnt blowing no problem because the current ground stations will not detect them due to no doppler from the stationary blades.
Tim, Scotland,
So who is it that's going to attack us with Planes anyway - a country without mid-range missiles? Which enemy is going to get across Europe to bomb us with a Plane? ........ that we're not going to see because of some localised disturbances off-shore?......... er, tell you what, lets not worry about anything past what country may attack us with a Plane who doesn't have missiles much better suited to the job?
Andrew J Iddon, London, UK
Is this the only place the wind blows? For crying out loud move the turbines out of the way. Better yet build more nuclear power plants. We all have to get over this "we have to protect mother earth" crap. I love the earth and want to protect it, but tree huggers have kept us(USA) from building any new nuclear plants. THESE IDIOTS ARE HINDERING ARE PROGRESS. PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
BRIAN, NEWBURY PARK, CA
Two things:
First, hats off for the civil dialog. If this was being debated by Americans, we'd have nothing but partisan slogans and swear words. I wish my fellow Americans would adopt a sense of civility again.
Secondly, the military in most Western nations is "in bed" with both manufacturing and energy companies. I'm not saying your MoD would invent a fictitious issue to protect their buddies (though our Pentagon would in a heartbeat.) However, I could easily see any western military blowing a small risk out of proportion especially when their friends have something at stake.
Thanks for letting a yank chime in.
Jack, Dallas, USA
If Mike's calculation is correct (IS IT ??}, i.e." windfarms make no contribution to our energy needs," then why for goodnesss sake are we building them?
John Tuck, Fakenham, Norfolk UK
Recently the Russian Air force has been flexing its muscles close to our borders and has fired missiles from its 'Blackjack' aircraft in the Bay of Biscay.
It would be foolish to lose our surveillance capability for a dubious form of renewable energy.
More importantly for the travelling public in the air it is equally foolish to site large wind farms close to domestic airports if there are radar shadows that might conceal converging aircraft from the Air Traffic Controllers.
In Scotland we have local area plans encouraging places that have been recommended for wind farms but developers go for the easy options. This results in lengthy inquiries that cost millions, draining the Public Purse.
Sadly the Scottish Parliament fails to take the lead and public figures in the environmental money-go-round are beginning to say publicly we should ride roughshod over the planning system. The politicians, too scared of their image, are reluctant to speak out and comment. Sad days
Tom, Lochwinnoch,
As a developer I find it gratifying that there is so much common sense being written here. Wind is not the silver bullet but it is the only viable solution at the moment. Wave and tidal power will undoubtedly be the way to go but the technology is 20 odd yeaqrs behind wind. We have two options 1. Do nothing or 2. Build wind farms as soon as possible and decommission them in 20 years form now when the newer/better technology is available. Remember an onshore wind turbine can be decommissioned and removed in 1 week! How long does it take to decommsiion and remove a conventional fossil fuel power station, how long for a Nuclear Power Station?
Andy Hilton, Catfield, Norfolk
Shriek! How can you be thinking of war and national security at a time when the SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE is at stake due to our over use of fossil fuels? Outrage! Hysteria!
I'm beginning to think there's nothing I can do about this business - it seems pretty clear wind farms are totally inefficient, but despite this and the fact the evidence supporting imminent destruction of the planet due to climate change is far from conclusive, the government seems to be driving ahead with their "green" policies regardless, and taxing us more for the pleasure.
Paranoid, Hartlepool,
Not very good news for the renewable energy industry. turns out that not,only are the wind farms noisy, expensive and inefficient but now they will let terrorists and countries with virtualy no air forces to penetrate our air defences to wreak havoc. Who needs these wind farms, apart communist tree-hugers, since Britain will go nuclear? What we need to do is to spend more money on science and the Armed Forces, instead of giving it to hippies who want us to live in caves and hunt our own food. Let MoD to use these pointless constructions( i.e Offshore wind farms) for target practise!
Jonh Raintall, Cambridge, United kingdom
WIND FARMS! Waste of my (taxpayer) money! They don';t work when there is no wind, they don't work when there is too much wind!They're inefficient and noisy when there is the correct amount of wind! They're unsightly whether there is wind or no!
If ther're going to interfere with the detection of cruise missiles, the most likely low flying aircraft that needs to be detected, and don't forget the Big Bear now has supersonic cruise missiles, then they MUST NOT be built at strategically important sites!
Tony
Helston
Kernow
Tony Smith, Helston, Kernow (Cornwall)
A large windturbine's blade tip can approach speeds of 600Mph and represents a large radar cross section (much greater than an aircraft). Therefore to identify whether your radar plot is an aircraft or windturbine detection (as they're not always present) is higher difficult to decide which is which. If someone can develop a processor to achieve the holy grail of identifying a sole aircraft in the clutter of a large windfarm then he'd be a very rich man indeed! Remeber that the MoD does not object to all windfarms, but once in situe they are there to stay!
Pr N U Clear, MK, Bucks
Forget wind farms: they are ugly and woefully inefficient for producing energy. Here in Northumberland they have been turned off over the last week due to the strong winds, and today when there is no wind, they are not working either.
They power they do produce is all at the wrong time, so you still need continuous 'spinning reserve' to cover. Without subsidies, the wind farm industry woudn't even bother with them.
As for CO2, it is a natural gas, not a pollutant. Climate change was happening long before industrialisation.
Patrick, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
It is worrying that this effect was only discovered 'by accident' and late in the investigation process.
As windfarms spread like a disease across the countryside, one hopes that other issues have been investigated. Like the operation of police and emergency service radios, mobile phones, and the reception of digital television signals.
Fortunately, I'm not an expert in electronics, or wave propagetion, so I'm not aware of any issues in these areas.
Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire
Airport radars are equally affected, so how do you feel about flying un detected in congested airspace, and relying on chance, maybe you won't fly, but lets hope your house is not underneath the flying debris !!
Wind turbine blades are designed to maximise electricity production,not for stealth radar operations, there is no standard size and the speed is as variable as the wind.
There is no standard size that is suitable for all locations.
Individual companies which are foreign , design them to their own specification and not to the MODs.
There may be algorithms to minimise shadow effect,but they will need one for every radar operated by military and air traffic, as yet in the Uk no radars have this! This is a considerable task and by no means proven.
The trials carried out by the military are extensive and carry many recommendations , and the US have come to the same conclusions, and are no longer freely allowing planning permission for Wind farms.
Mr Richard Snook, Wareham, Dorset UK
There are lots of interesting points here regarding the type of radar that the MOD are using, and the difficulties of 'just filtering out' obstructions - its always much easier to tell someone to do it than to be the person actually scratching his head saying 'how on earth could that be done'.
But the main point I wanted to make regards the windmills themselves. Surely its pointless to build windmills, since they dont provide reliable power, and since it takes hours to ramp up and down the output power of fossil fuel or nuclear powered power stations, it seems to me that wind is more or less useless. How can we use a power source that might just stop producing within a few minutes, if theres nothing to fill the gap quick enough? I cant imagine that the UK would accept hours of power cuts every day. Dont imagine that hydrogen can be generated and turned back into electricity, or that batteries can be used - neither is practical yet.
So why are we bothering with windmills?
Pete, London, UK
This brings to the fore the development of sea wave energy or tidal energy.
Don't waste more time and money, concentrate!
Norman, Bushey, Herts
Actually Mike, that's a common myth that has little to no foundation in reality. The energy return on investment (EROI) for wind energy is equal to the cumulative electricity generated divided by the cumulative primary energy required to build and maintain a turbine. The EROI for wind ranges from 5 to 35, with an average of around 18. EROI is strongly proportional to turbine size, and larger late-generation turbines are at the high end of this range, at or above 35. this number is VERY competitive with conventional power sources
Zachary, Minneapolis, USA
The threats presented to military and civil aviation by wind farm radar interference are very real. One MOD study showed the loss of radar targets all the way to 36,000 feet above. Here in America, our government is ignoring the threat. For example, The proposed 25 square mile Cape Wind project is in the middle of 3 airports with over 400,000 flights a year. The FAA up to now has ignored the objections of the ATC controllers, the 3 airports and the indepth MOD studies. The FAA has now issued a "Presumede Hazard" on the project , and will conduct studies to confirm the interference this spring.
Cliff Carroll, South Yarmouth, USA
Understanding that there is a great deal of wind in the UK, it should not be unnoticed that they are islands surronded by moving water. Why hasn't there been a study into using tidal power or submerged turbines within the off shore currents?
Jim, Detroit,
It stikes me that it should not be for the Ministry of Defence to decide whether the line-of-sight effect is manageable or not. That is an issue on which a planning enquiry should take a view. The Ministry of Defence should present specific evidence of the nature and extent of the effect in the case of each proposed wind farm - just like anybody else.
Steve, Leamington Spa, UK
Crossed wires - I think.
With the looming environmental and economic situation as it is. And energy sources depleting (including uranium) nations will be battling to control these sources, consuming vast amounts of energy doing so, until its all gone. This brings up the question of national security.
This radar problem doesn't sound unsolvable, probably the MOD want some nuclear stations for weapons. So why don't we separate the interwoven issues.
For energy security, its best to have something which doesn't require relying on other countries and is sustainable. Britain has lots of wind, lots of waves and a lot of tide potential, why not use it?
And for national security, the MOD can do what it needs to do, keeping nuclear stations to a bare minimum.
As for monstrosities, there are plenty of visual monstrosities in the environment, but at least turbines don't leave a blot on your health and well being.
Edward, Aberystwyth, Wales
So these "ugly" windmills are worse looking than nuclear power stations with their profile or coal stations with their billowing smoke??? So, were the first lighthouses considered a "blight" on the landscape? How about overland power cables?? I am sure they are absolutely beautiful ! No one likes change. Will you still all object when your power bill triples or when you are forced to shut things down due to frequent brownouts? Good Luck.
Maybe they could be covered in stealth paints like the stealth fighter and bomber.
vsk
vsk, Brooklyn, NY / USA
Since the wind farms haven't been built yet, there is a simple non-technical solution - build in a different location. The industry is so heavily subsidized that the government is going to pay the costs either way.
To Tes in London -
HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE! (barring fusion) It has to be produced for a net loss of energy (immutable law of physics). It is best regarded as a sort of rechargeable battery.
TK, New Orleans, USA
Sounds like the brown stuff is about to hit the rotating blades...
Duncan Tribute, Truro, Cornwall, Great Britain
Mike
You will find that carrying out a life cycle analysis of of wind turbines will show the impact of manufacturing is similar to any other type of turbine, and (because they don't use any fuel), the operational impact is significanlty lower. As such the net environmental impact is lower than for a fossil fuel powered turbine, and the net CO2 emissions are significantly lower - proportionately, CO2 emissions from manufacture are insignificant to CO2 emissions from operation of a fossil fuel powered turbine.
Peter, London,
I didn't know we were discussing the pros and cons of different types of energy resources Mike. As for you Augusto, good argument, might be a 'little' irrelevent but general a good argument. Unfortunately we're not going to be able to maintain current rates of energy use with just solar and wind power.
Would it be too much to ask for the next comment to be on the issue at hand?
Rose, London,
Quite apart from the obvious security AND environmental problems, if you do the TOTAL energy calculation involve in manufacturing, constructing, erecting and maintaining these windmills you would see that there is no such thing as free energy. They are not only a blot on the landscape but they make no sense whatsoever in overall energy costs!
Mike, Lancaster, UK
Wind power is big business in Europe, but it looks like "someone" in the UK has got an interest in pushing nuclear power and they would do everything they can to achieve it, even trying to make us all believe that wind power plants are now dangerous.
Has everybody already forgotten Chernobyl? That was an accident, but today, with the risk of terrorist attacks, it could easily happen again over here. If to that you want to add the health and environmental risk posed by toxic waste, that does not leave us many options. I choose wind and sun power, and other renewable energy sources.
Augusto Casalnovo, London, United Kingdom
I think that we are betting on the wrong horse. We are an island so why not utlise hydrogen power and the hydrogen fuel cell? the proper investment will make this already more efficient and transportable fuel which is cleaner and less in your face as a low capacity giant wind turbine. Isn't there a lobby for the hydrogen fuel cell?
tes, London, UK
i dont get it. will they cover all shore of uk??? so we'll be sort of encircled by rediculous white propellers?
juris, London,
Thanks for the tip-off , Phil.
Right, Komrads, lets attack Denmark.
patrick, The hague, Netherlands
Turbines have been proven to exhibit the behaviour of real aircraft (due to moving blades imparting doppler shift onto returned signal). You can't just "invent an algorithm to filter them out" you risk filtering out aircraft too.
Our enemies are real and more would soon raise their heads if it was declared that we were more interested in the pretty windmills than national security!
Exasperated, Bristol,
To Chris Kirk,
Yes wind turbines are, effectively, the same technology as a windmill. Just as coal and oil fired power stations are the same technology as burning firewood to keep warm in a cave.
This story is just an irrelevant distraction from the big picture. We need to find new sources of power! One of these has to be wind power. It's proven, it's clean and it is renewable. Get on with it
Martin Boddy, Hassi Messaoud, Algeria
As a retired RAF officer this statement is crap, any "radar" that is interferred with by wind turbined would be swamped by ground returns in any case.
No, this is yet another stupid ploy by the Nuk lobby as there are so many billions to be made from kuk power staions and very little money fron wind turbines,
Any aircraft low flying these days fly routes or something like helo's have published information about TV masts , and wind turbines. Anyone not using them should not be flying.
Richard Siclair, Pagham,
Copenhagen? Spotting a Boeing is not the same as spotting an aircraft flying 20ft off the deck.
Remember a coal fired power station produces around 4000Mw, the biggest wind turbine 2Mw but in the UK with a utilisation factor of 27%, So that's about 8,000 of these beasties instead of each power station.
Ken, Kenilworth,
Surely the biggest problem with wind farms is that they're incredibly ugly, expensive to build (without the huge subsidies), and don't produce enough power for even the most modest of power requirements. If we had to rely on wind power the MoD wouldn't have enough electricity to have radar anyway.
I would think the money being used to subsidise these monstrosities would be better spent finding new ways of producing power, instead of relying on what is, in effect, the same technology as a windmill.
Chris Kirk, Loughborough, Leics
So as well as being particularly ugly, unreliably intermittent as a viable source of energy and an inefficient waste of money and time, it will also seem that they're now pose a significant security risk.
Can the Government now stop ruining our land and seascape by building no more of these wretched eyesores?
Jason Mead, Bristol, England
But there must be a diameter size of wind turbine that does not affect radar, so what is it?
Monster turbines I can understand but where is the 'acceptable' diameter and what material can be used for the aerofoils without upsetting radar imaging?
Weaver, Hong Kong,
Climate change is the biggest threat to national and international security, and should take absolute priority.
Jan van Beilen, ZĂĽrich,
The MoD are obviously taking paranoia lesson from America. Surely it can’t be that hard to spot a moving object amongst stationary ones even if they do have moving parts? And what have we got billion pound satellites for? What worry’s me more than our enemies are our friends in the MoD and their serious lack of vision. As others here have suggested, this is just a technical issue and those running the MoD should deal with it or move over and let someone capable do the job.
Mark Sheppard, Retford,
Wind-turbines and wind-farms should ALL be banned unless they can prove, minus subsidies, that kilowatt by kilowatt, they provide good value for money - and are not going to saddle generations to come with blighted landscapes in the Highlands and Lake District, off shore and onshore - when OTHER, cheaper alternatives - be it wave or tidal power, solar or bio-mass - need to be thoroughly explored - before we sink MORE "government -subsidy" (Read taxpayers' cash ) into this one basket.
I G Drummond, LEVEN,
So if the problem is low-level intruders whay can't we put radars on the wind farms looking east, presumably they will be many miles further eastwards and so could see that many miles further?
The situation with the decline of our gas (and oil) fields will become critical in a few years. I think we have only 6.5 years left at current rates of production then we will probably be importing much of it from Russia. They will only have to turn off the gas to cripple most of Europe. See what has already happened world-wide this winter and that's before OPEG is formed.
We need to have sufficient renewable energy to compensate for ALL of our gas imports plus enough to replace most of our oil consumption for transport with either battery or hydrogen. Get building NOW and put the turbines on-shore at the coast if they can be built quicker and more cheaply. Otherwise turn off the lights.
tonyw, London,
Aren't the turbines and masts made mostly of composites, which reduces their radar footprint?. But then why can't the MoD tune the known obstructions out of their systems with an alogorithm just before displaying on their radar screens?
David, Watford, Hertfordshire
This is absurd. The MOD needs to find a technical solution to the wind farm problem. If no technical solution is found then potential tin-pot dictators around the world know that all they need to do to protect themselves from our air-force (that use radars) is to put up a couple of windmills...
Erik, Gatwick, UK
MOd are paranoid about their blastd radar. Whom are they detecting? The Russians? The French? The Chinese? Anyone launching a sneak attack would do so with missiles. Ordinary radar - useless.
Our national security is threatened by our oil and gas supply being cut off-vide Putins bad temper- or running out, which no-one is talking about, but RUN OUT it will in the not too distant future. So lets cut the crap about radar, and get on with rewewable energy QUICK as fusion is still some way off, and use nuclear -fission - as a stop gap.With the increasing demand and diminishing supply of fossil fuel, I dont want to have to run my car - or bus/train at ÂŁ1 a mile thankyou.
Peter Groves, Surbiton, England
While i'm a strong supporter of eco-friendly energy sources, in this insecure world we live in, what with the terrorist threat and Russia's increasing belligerence, they should not compromise national security.
Cameron Gill, Bridgetown, Barbados
The wind farms are more important than the Radar. What does it matter, a few weeks ago Britian was turning back the Rusians probling our defences. In the event of a Nuclear Attack if two bombs/misiles landed on the UK in the right places most of the UK would be dead. Its only a deterant so we can hit back and cause the otherside damage.
The Radar is only usefull for aircraft coming to and throw our shores.
Peter, Hastings, UK
One word to fix all the problems. AWACS.
JP, South West, England
and what about neclear power stations?
riccardo, brussels,
The reader who suggests a difference with Copenhagen Airport is talking out of his field. As far as I know commercial aircraft do not approach airfields at tree height, well only on final approach and that is in line of sight.
What the RAF is talking about is aircraft coming from way out at nearly sea level.
Lloyd, Conwy, UK
National Security won't matter much when you've got 10 feet of water on your bonce.
Nick, Eastbourne, UK
Britain has too many enemies, most of which are imaginary.
Chris, London, UK
It doesn't have to be either/or. If the government is serious about renewable energy it could provide additional funding to the MOD to pay for signal processing upgrades to resolve these masking issues. The problem is technically resolvable.
Radar engineer, Chelmsford, UK
Are you seriously suggesting that this an insurmountable technical problem. Good job we didn't have these people in charge during World War 2....There will be a technical solution they just havn't bothered to look. Leave it another 50 years and there won't be any need for the radar....
bob taylor, Castelnau, France
This information would seem to clash with the practical experience of Copenhagen Airport. Anyone who has visited Kastrup will have noticed the hundreds of modern windmills in the immediate area. Has there been any mention of the Danish wind farms causing problems at this busy hub? No.
There has been substantial research on this subject conducted by government and private sector sources (refer to Spaven Consulting, 2001) in this country and in Europe, let alone elsewhere, and the almost unanimous conclusion is that there are certainly some phenomena caused by wind turbines that appear on radar but these can be filtered out by so-called intelligent systems. Indeed several UK airports live with wind turbines very close at hand with no real problems to report.
Phil, Tallinn, Estonia
No surprise, there were news reports of offshore wind farms causing radar problems several years ago.
Stephen, St. Ives, England
Read all 75 comments
Have your say
Grenade dumped in recycling uni
Green Central Blog
Has oil production peaked?
Kirabati, the world's largest marine protected area
The nation of Kiribati has created the world's largest marine reserve in the centre of the Pacific
Slide Show
Special report
Green motoring
From hybrids to biofuels, we analyse the issues and debates surrounding environmental driving
Environment
Greenest Hits: The 20 most-read climate change stories
Career
Who will save our planet?
How to... be an active eco-worker
How to be a responsible leader
Property
How to go green: a homeowner's guide
The way we will live
Eco homes
Environment
Eco questions: are expensive clothes more ethical?
Easing a guilty eco-conscience in glad rags and why cruising is heading for a bruising
The carbon footprint of meat and environmental red roses
Eco worrier: dip into the archive of green Q&As
Environment
Eco Worrier blog
Share your top tips on green living with Anna Shepard of The Times
The Web
Webwise: An online guide to self sufficiency
With escalating domestic bills and flooding on the rise, it´s time we were more self-sufficient, says Stewart Mitchell
Ways to go green
Climate change: Ten ways to save the world
How to have a guilt-free green Christmas
Energy scams: When going green just doesn't add up
Shrink your carbon footprint
Tips for greener, cheaper homes
Video
Watch Times Online's video of the Bali protests
Video: Going green with Go"
Print
Email
