Radars of the Lost Mark

British military may obstruct planned wind farms due to radar fears

Posted at 8:33 AM on 04 Feb 2008

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

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (5 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Good!

Screw windfarms or any other energy farms. Energy not produced where it's used causes environmental harm, even from relatively benign sources like wind generators. Wind farms are very harmful to birds and should not be supported by environmentalists.

by Wolverine at 4:29 PM on 04 Feb 2008

Sigh...

Wolverine is not wrong to say that energy "farms" or powerplants carry a large environmental cost. However, his blanket statement that ALL such installations are worse than small scale facilities is uneducated. Some production methods are only efficient in the medium to large scale (hydroelectric, biofuels, etc) and to operate small scale versions of these technologies would cause more environmental damage to produce the same amount of power than a single large installation.

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.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

by Matt at 5:46 AM on 05 Feb 2008

Uneducated?

My opinions are far from being uneducated; we just have a totally different perspective on life. You apparently think that technology will save us. I realize that technology is the problem, and the less of it that humans use (i.e., the more simply people live), the less ecological and environmental damage humans do.

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.

by Wolverine at 7:13 PM on 05 Feb 2008

Windmills far less damaging than coal.

The energy generated by a large wind turbine over 30 years is roughly equivalent to 200,000 tonnes of coal.

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.

by elbarto at 8:52 PM on 05 Feb 2008

And Mussolini Was Far Less Harmful Than Hitler

So? The lesser of two evils is still evil. Environmentalists should be advocating for reductions of human population and energy consumption, along with placing power generation on and at the buildings using the power. Placing human contraptions in any natural area is destruction of that area.

by Wolverine at 4:48 PM on 07 Feb 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?