Nato investigates defence threat from wind farms

Or maybe, ya know, they just help the authorities identify planes that aren't on their proper courses, or flying erratically, or stuff like that...

 

Seems like non-metallic windmill blades would solve the problem. Existing metallic blades could be painted over with microwave absorbent paint.

 

Hi Kenmce,

Plastic reflects microwaves, just not nearly as much. Whenever a wave passes into an object of different dielectric constant (or refraction index for the optical people out there), there is a refracted and reflected wave.

Besides these blades are already fiberglass/Carbon fiber and various resin composite structures for lightness. This keeps the tower and mechanical transmission costs down.

Absorbtive materials are typically not weather resistant, too heavy for a blade, or too expensive.


This is why the Stealth aircraft have all the angles besides the absorber. Because even with the absorber, there would be strong returns towards the iluminating radar.

Also remember that the Radar Equation has a R^4 term in it. So a small reflection from plastic nearby can be must stronger than a metal target far out. Especially if they are nearly the same size. And these blades are about the same size as many aircraft.

 

Hi Dave,

Well, the exposives do not have an Infrared Signature until they explode....

 

If you remember, a high school kid flew a plane into the Bank of America building in Tampa. The MacDill AFB radars had detected the plane was totally deviating from the flight plan and it was known that something was bad wrong. The radars did the only thing radars can do, report the raw data.....but this only happens if the radars work.

(P.S. Don't forget that radio calls to unexpected flight changes save a lot of lives.)

 

Build the turbines and stop being so paranoid.

 

There might be a number of reasons why the Massachusetts Audubon Society supports wind farms, but here is a relevant excerpt from your link:

"Unfortunately, our state and federal governments have failed to establish such standards. While some regulatory programs do apply to wind energy projects, these programs were developed prior to today’s large-scale proposals and do not address potential risks to birds, wildlife and remote habitats."

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't use wind power. But there are some valid concerns, which really shouldn't be disregarded, just because "wind" sounds good, cheap and harmless to the general public. We know next to nothing about the impact of the proposed "super" wind farms, which in addition to bird and land impact, can also affect currents and microclimates, at least in the immediate locale.

 

Thanks Steve0 and patsparks. I want to play on your team. Keep up the sensible ideas.

Here's another great article about the non-threat to birds with MODERN wind machines/farms.

The Online NewsHour: Wind Power | Assessing the Threat to Birds -- November 16, 2005 | PBS

Damn that progress. Keeps getting better even though old ideas seem to stay with the loudest of voices. "Hey, that battery in yer Prius is bad for the environment, won't last as long as my camera battery", etc. you know what I mean.

 

Maybe I am a bit simplistic in my thinking but if a wind farm creates a shadow of radar cover then an additional radar should cover that shadow. What is even better, it won't need to be a huge radar to cover the shadow so it can be installed on an existing structure or if a dedicated structure is used it wont be obtrusive. Surely modern computer software can combine the sweeps of both radars to form a single image which would result in better cover than pre-wind farm.

 

Hm, your team seems more like the "we don't need no damned research, 'cause I know what I know, 'cause I know it" team

I'll repeat the excerpt from the article quoted by SteveO:

"Unfortunately, our state and federal governments have failed to establish such standards. While some regulatory programs do apply to wind energy projects, these programs were developed prior to today’s large-scale proposals and do not address potential risks to birds, wildlife and remote habitats."

You do realize, that while we are talking about modern designs, we are also talking about super-windfarms, which have a much greater potential to change local environments and currents?

Here is also a new study on ethanol: Study: Ethanol may add to global warming - Yahoo! News

Ooops, damn facts....

So, are you saying that's O.K. to dump the old batteries in the ocean, then? And I was getting worried about what to do with mine....

 

Are you implying wind farms run on and/or generate ethanol?

 

No, just adding an illustration of how things which appear "green" can sometimes be harmful when we change the scale.

But thanks for the pointer, I shouldn't assume that everyone can figure this out

 

Nobody ever said ethanol was "greener" than gas (except maybe the folks selling it). It's still burning carbon, just in a different form. The only advantage it has is that it lessens our dependence on foreign oil.

Secondly, you're implying that because one thing that has a supposedly good effect on the environment really doesn't, then everything that's "good for the environment" is a waste of time. Thank you for your opinion, troll feeding time has just ended.

 

Really? And I thought it was usually touted as one of the 3 main advantages of Ethanol, in addition to being renewable and domestically produced (and providing cover for subsidies to farming interests.) Here is some real-world "cleanliness" info: Ethanol Cleaner But Not Cheaper

I am implying nothing of the sort. But if you work on your comprehension abilities, you might figure out that my argument is not dissimilar to that of the Massachusetts Audubon Society, first referenced by you: We are talking about projects on a scale never implemented before, and we shouldn't implement projects on such scale, without first trying to anticipate and mitigate what can be potentially significant impacts.

As to the name calling, you speak like a true believer. You have much more in common with G.W., than you know....