pentagon sticks bloody nose into wind farm business

[ensho]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/17/857834/-Air-Force-bombs-large-wind-farm-in-Oregon


Air Force "bombs" large wind farm in Oregon


The Pentagon has blocked the start of a large wind farm in an economically depressed community in Oregon because the Air Force is concerned about potential interference with a radar facility.

The Pentagon is threatening to scuttle what promises to be the world's largest wind farm, in eastern Oregon, arguing that the giant turbines could interfere with an Air Force radar system.

Caithness Energy had planned to break ground two weeks from now on the 845-megawatt, $2 billion Shepherds Flat wind farm near Arlington, Ore., an economically depressed rural community. But last month, Pentagon officials moved to deny the developer its final Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permit.

Washington Post article by Juliet Eilperin

The project is economically important to the community, which serves as the dumping ground for Seattle's trash.

Shepherds Flat will provide 706 construction jobs, Caithness says, and millions in royalty payments for farmers and ranchers in Gilliam and Morrow counties.

The Oregonian article by Scott Learn

The specifics of this case are disturbing for a number of reasons. First, Caithness Energy notified the Pentagon three years ago at the start of the permitting process, but the Pentagon did nothing until the permitting process was nearly complete and ground was scheduled to be broken. In short, the Pentagon acted in bad faith, although the Department of Defense (DoD) pleads incompetence. Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, described the approval process as "flawed." "It is by definition an 11th-hour process," she said, "and that is not satisfactory." Does the Air Force have an objective reason for their concerns? Not really. It was only when the Air Force instructed the FAA to delay the last permit necessary to start the project did they instruct Lincoln Laboratory to formally evaluate potential interference issues with the turbines.

Caithness Energy has already signed the contract with GE to build the turbines and the fabrication process is underway. Because the incentives for clean energy in the Energy Act of 2006 are temporary (in contrast to the permanent subsidies for fossil fuels build into the tax code), the company stands to lose the incentives if the project is delayed for any significant period. The company tried without success for a month after receiving the notice of the delay to get the DoD and the FAA to specify conflicts and resolutions. The delay threatens to jeopardize financing for the project while the technical fixes for any conflicts, if they even exist, are simple.

-snip-

But the larger story is that Pentagon is obstructing wind farm development at this site and others.

The Pentagon's objections could put at risk three other major wind projects in the same region, along with proposed farms in states from Illinois to Texas. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said the dispute "is not about one project. It's about the future of renewable, domestic, clean power."

Washington Post article by Juliet Eilperin


It bogles the mind. The Senators from Oregon have put holds on several DoD appointments to pressure the Obama administration to intervene and keep this large wind farm and two others in the state on track. It comes at a time when America needs clean energy and jobs. And the obstacle is coming from the most extravagantly-funded agency in America. Ridiculous.
-long snip-
--------------------------------


the pentagon brass should be sent to work elsewhere doing base toxic waste clean up and the pentagon turned into an apt. bldg.

may the wind farm win this battle.

[Ian David]

1. Lockheed To Deliver Surveillance Radar For UK Offshore Wind Farms

Lockheed To Deliver Surveillance Radar For UK Offshore Wind Farms

Published: 14-Apr-2010

Lockheed Martin, a global security company, will deliver a long-range air surveillance radar system to the UK offshore wind farms. According to the company, its radar system overcomes sensor performance issues commonly caused by the rotating blades of wind turbines.

<snip>

The company said that the advanced electronics of its TPS-77 radar mitigate interference, or 'clutter', that commonly obscure radar targets in and around wind farms.

In addition, the new radar system will provide air defense surveillance capabilities for the UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) and allow the nation to move forward with aggressive plans to install some 924 turbines along England's east coast.

The TPS-77 radars' capabilities in 'green' wind field environments has been demonstrated in tests at land-based wind farms near the company's outdoor test range in Cazenovia, New York, and in trials with the Horns Rev offshore wind farm in the North Sea, the company said.


More:
http://wind.cleantechnology-business-review.com/news/lockheed_to_deliver_surveillance_radar_for_uk_offshore_wind_farms_100414

See prior thread:

Lockheed To Deliver Surveillance Radar For UK Offshore Wind Farms
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x242258

[ensho]

3. thanks for info

nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Its a step forweard but its not as good as prior systems

Additional processing eliminates SOME of the interference, but there is still performance degradation when compared to current systems. Also they tend to be tuned for particular sites, but most larger radar installations are.

Long term as this matures, its probably where the technology will go. However, there are tremendous costs associated with replacing the existing civilian and military radar infrastructure that effectively add to the cost of the wind energy from those sites. That cost needs to be attributed and paid by those developing the sites.

[global1]

2. Directly Contrary To What The President Wants In Terms Of Energy Development......

instead of trying to work around the radar issue - the Pentagon is trying to tank the technology. I read elsewhere yesterday that the same Pentagon was talking about running short on oil by 2015.

Time to replace these guys that won't progress out of the 20th century.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. BS. There is no evidence that the Pentagon is trying to tank wind energy technology

They are working on their reducing oil needs to include recent tests of biofuels for jet aircraft.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Valid complaint . Wind farms wreak havoc with most radars

The alternatives are not nearly as effective. There is some work going on canceling out the effect in software, but its a much harder problem than it looks. Varying speed, adjacent turbines at different speeds etc. This is true of all radars, not just USAF ones. FAA has discouraged certain sites for the exact same reason. Accommodations can be made but it takes $$$.

[Motown_Johnny]

7. then the USAF needs to improve their radar or we need to improve our turbines

if we can have radar invisible bombers there must be a way to have radar invisible wind turbines.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Its a cost issue and its not just the USAF

There are radars that are less sensitive (not impervious) to windmills and less interfering wind blades. Both cost money. Its something that needs to be accounted for in the cost estimates for a particular site. There is a lot more radar in use in the US than many realize.

[Motown_Johnny]

9. I understand that, I am just saying we need to improve the technology and not simply

ban the largest wind farm in the country due to interference.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. There are some improvements, post up thread about it

However, its based on the LM press release and does not discuss the lower performance. Some performance but certainly not all of it can recovered via processing. Also relocation and additional radars can help address it. Its all about the $$$ and time. Remember that in the Federal budget process a large new start takes 5-7 years to get funded. Multiple that by all the major radar sites near potential wind farms, both military and civilian, and it get to be a really big number and lots of years.

Composite windmill blades help but they are more costly to buy and have a higher life cycle cost as well. Height restrictions and placement help too, but may lower windmill performance.

There is no easy answer here and lots of trade offs. Often airfields and wind farm locations are driven by the same reasons and that there is some conflict should not surprise anyone.

Again, its all doable, just takes $$$.