Echoing recent concerns of the U.S. military, the British Ministry of Defense has stepped up its opposition to some wind power projects due to concerns over turbines' impact on radar installations. The Ministry of Defense has lately objected to at least four proposed wind farms claiming they'd cause radar troubles; wind farm proponents fear more such opposition in the future. The agency's turbine-averse stance is based on a recent study that found wind farms sited close to radar installations could make it impossible to detect aircraft and could be a threat to national security. "The MoD trial results were alarming as they confirmed a greater impact than that previously thought," said squadron leader Chris Breedon. "This in turn required a more robust approach to wind turbine assessments." Even before the recent report, the U.K. military voiced opposition to wind turbines on the same grounds, fearing radar troubles. The agency said it won't impose an all-around ban on wind farms but that it would evaluate applications on a case-by-case basis.
source: The Times
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 9:29 am
04 Feb 2008
Permalink
Matt Posted 10:46 pm
04 Feb 2008
Further, not all wind turbines are created equal. The current large scale favorite HAWT (horizontal axis wind turbine) designs are thought to be dangerous to place in the middle of bird migration routes, the smaller VAWT (vertical axis wind turbines) have not shown to pose a threat to any living thing.
Let's not make this another instance of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead, let's use what we know to good effect and see if we can't provide something useful for the benefit of all.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 12:13 pm
05 Feb 2008
The way energy "problems" should be solved is by first greatly reducing consumption. Second, all buildings that consume electricity should have solar panels on their roofs and wind generators in their yards or parking lots. As the city of Berkeley, CA is planning in order to reduce greenhouse gases by a significant amount, a building should not be able to use more electricity than it produces.
Specifically, these are what I find wrong with your post:
Hydroelectric power is ecologically harmful due to the dam(n)s it comes from. We're trying to REMOVE dams, not build more of them. The only ones who have any business building dams on this planet are beavers.
Biofuels are also very ecologically harmful unless their source is waste. Destroying natural land to grow crops for biofuels is ecologically more harmful than consuming petroleum.
Energy farms are all ecologically harmful because they destroy natural land in order to exist. Placing any machines in natural areas is destructive of those ares by definition.
Permalink
elbarto Posted 1:52 pm
05 Feb 2008
If this coal came from a mountain top removal mine or open cut, a section of land 150 meters (500ft) square by 10 meters (33ft) deep would have to be completely destroyed, rendered useless probably forever. Add to this all the CO2, produced contaminated water etc.
Conversely, land immediately adjacent a wind turbine can be used for agriculture or left largely intact. Wind farms are generally sited on already developed land so they are close to the grid and construction costs are minimised.
Habitat destruction by open cut coal mining will kill more birds than wind turbines ever will.
Wind farms are far less damaging than coal mining even if you don't count CO2 emissions.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:48 am
07 Feb 2008
Permalink