Wind farms causing clutter on radars
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind farms causing clutter on radars
Heard a rumour that 2 aircraft disappeared from screens at Prestwick - don't know if it was the airport or ACC - supposedly due to clutter caused by local wind turbines.
Can anyone confirm or comment?
Reason I ask, is because they want to put 125 of them on the hills about 15 miles from the end of runway 23 at EGPF.
Local residents are concerned about danger to air traffic flying overhead, amongst other things.
Angel_wings
Can anyone confirm or comment?
Reason I ask, is because they want to put 125 of them on the hills about 15 miles from the end of runway 23 at EGPF.
Local residents are concerned about danger to air traffic flying overhead, amongst other things.
Angel_wings
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Cheshire, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if you've seen this thread ;
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=170067
On page two I put a reference to a paper about ATC radar interefence. Sadly that link is no longer valid. However, there are other references on the same site ;
http://www.bwea.com/index.html
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=170067
On page two I put a reference to a paper about ATC radar interefence. Sadly that link is no longer valid. However, there are other references on the same site ;
http://www.bwea.com/index.html
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lost Luggage, found the BWEA site.
They're springing up all over the place where I am - go flying and there's another windfarm popped up out of nowhere.
There are quite a few near Frankfurt Hahn, but not in large quantities, maybe 10 maximum. Will ask ATC friends over here if they have had any problems.
They're springing up all over the place where I am - go flying and there's another windfarm popped up out of nowhere.
There are quite a few near Frankfurt Hahn, but not in large quantities, maybe 10 maximum. Will ask ATC friends over here if they have had any problems.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know anything about the rumour but having recently given up a career in environmental consultancy (windfarm & terrain engineering) for ATPL study I can say radar issues are a big concern as part of the planning process. Protection zones up to 50km exist around facilities and consultation with the MOD/CAA is required if there is any doubt - the consultants/planners will be onto this from an early stage if there are development plans afoot. The multiple returns from the blade tips give a twinkling effect. Though local residents being concerned about a/c safety sounds a bit NIMBYish compared to the noise, visual intrusion, chopping up birds, traffic issues and ecological damage. You'll probably find an initial 125 will be brought well down over a lengthy public appeal process. Beautiful and amazing bits of technology though!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local residents thought it sounded a bit less NIMBYish to be concerned about a/c than the other items that you mentioned.
I agree they are beautiful, and quite amazing, but quite scary when driving in the middle of the night on quiet country roads in Germany
I agree they are beautiful, and quite amazing, but quite scary when driving in the middle of the night on quiet country roads in Germany
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rse
You'll probably find an initial 125 will be brought well down over a lengthy public appeal process.
Originally Posted by rse
Beautiful and amazing bits of technology though!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More pointers as I think of them:
The MOD also have a consultation document in the public domain on radar clutter - check their www.
The upshot is the proposals, if feasible, will be seen favourably for helping the government meet %green power targets which we are currently behind on - any green power is heavily in favour. Offshore wind is still very much in development and mass solar, wave, geothermal etc are still a long way off or laughable. See also Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and www.yes2wind.org.
As to the concrete to support the turbines, remember that the actual footprint is tiny and the land can still be utilised. A condition of development is that the developer returns the site to the original state on decommissioning - 20/5yrs on.
Also bear in mind that tourist revenues (if managed properly - demand this from the developer) are supposed to be very beneficial. In certain circumstances you can generate a revenue from selling the power back to grid. A tip for the locals - demand a 'stakeholder turbine' - ie. one where a % of the output gets diverted back into local projects. See St John's W/F.
Rest assured there will be a huge visual impact, but it all depends upon the sensitivity of local viewpoints - impacting views across normal farmland isn't so much bother as those across a registered scenic area. The developers can also argue that population densities are low in this part of the country. It does happen - the best wind resource is in the Welsh Hills/Pennines/Scotland after all. Check with SNH for the local designations. LVA is usually a big killer for a W/F - get a landscape architect specialising in Landscape and Visual Analysis (LVA) onside.
As to 'the largest...' claim - they said that about the Lewis W/F which has been on the go for years, now vastly reduced in size and still ongoing. Finally, they're never as scary from afar as standing under the blade as it rotates - that is something else.
It's the consultant's job to make a fair and balanced Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project, though I appreciate WFs are not everyone's cup of tea. Hope this is useful - any more questions would be happy to help.
The MOD also have a consultation document in the public domain on radar clutter - check their www.
The upshot is the proposals, if feasible, will be seen favourably for helping the government meet %green power targets which we are currently behind on - any green power is heavily in favour. Offshore wind is still very much in development and mass solar, wave, geothermal etc are still a long way off or laughable. See also Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and www.yes2wind.org.
As to the concrete to support the turbines, remember that the actual footprint is tiny and the land can still be utilised. A condition of development is that the developer returns the site to the original state on decommissioning - 20/5yrs on.
Also bear in mind that tourist revenues (if managed properly - demand this from the developer) are supposed to be very beneficial. In certain circumstances you can generate a revenue from selling the power back to grid. A tip for the locals - demand a 'stakeholder turbine' - ie. one where a % of the output gets diverted back into local projects. See St John's W/F.
Rest assured there will be a huge visual impact, but it all depends upon the sensitivity of local viewpoints - impacting views across normal farmland isn't so much bother as those across a registered scenic area. The developers can also argue that population densities are low in this part of the country. It does happen - the best wind resource is in the Welsh Hills/Pennines/Scotland after all. Check with SNH for the local designations. LVA is usually a big killer for a W/F - get a landscape architect specialising in Landscape and Visual Analysis (LVA) onside.
As to 'the largest...' claim - they said that about the Lewis W/F which has been on the go for years, now vastly reduced in size and still ongoing. Finally, they're never as scary from afar as standing under the blade as it rotates - that is something else.
It's the consultant's job to make a fair and balanced Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project, though I appreciate WFs are not everyone's cup of tea. Hope this is useful - any more questions would be happy to help.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rse
Hope this is useful - any more questions would be happy to help.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiNOU - it's an old wives tale that is costs more to build the turbines than we actually make.
However - If we build too many windfarms at once, will this have an environmental effect (i.e. will the force produced by the turbines cause the Earth to stop rotating, therefore leaving one half of the world in a state of permanent darkness??)
However - If we build too many windfarms at once, will this have an environmental effect (i.e. will the force produced by the turbines cause the Earth to stop rotating, therefore leaving one half of the world in a state of permanent darkness??)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU
Almost true
In some moorland the construction destroys the ancient bogs which absorb CO2 and this could never be restored at the end, even if they haven't liquidated and left it to the government to tidy up. So we lose an amount of the natural reduction in the emission gases
The making of the machines and their installation has a very high carbon foot print. Added to that they cannot be part of the base load of the electricity supply because of unreliability. When the wind is to light they don't turn; when the wind is too strong they have to be stopped.
When they do commit to supplying power they have to do so, in advance, in half hour commitments. To guarantee the supply they have to have a power station on stand-by, say 70% of full power, idling over like a plane waiting at the end of the runway. Should the wind drop or become to strong they have to switch to conventional, so the plane belts down the runway.
They are not as clean as they look, because they need they back up of conventional power stations.
In the UK they have the Renwables Obligatons Certificate system which forces conventional power suppliers into buying certificates from 'clean' suppliers to cover a proportion of their production at auction. These costs are added to the electicity bill invisibly so it is an unseen second climate levy. The money raised goes straight to the wind farm developers and landowners not, sadly, to fund the other cleaner forms of renewables. It has rightly been called a dash for cash.
The government knows all the weaknesses but it looks good on paper and the story sounds good. No smoke comes out a wind turbine (except when they go on fire) so it must be clean!
Back to ATC
There is a tale that a helicopter returning from a Morecombe Bay oil platform was asked to follow in behind another and at the last moment saw in the mist it was instead an offshore windmill, managed to manouver past it and nearly hit another.
The tale goes on that there are now discussions to have them painted in dayglow colours. This will turn scenic beauty spots into Carnivals, if true.
Almost true
In some moorland the construction destroys the ancient bogs which absorb CO2 and this could never be restored at the end, even if they haven't liquidated and left it to the government to tidy up. So we lose an amount of the natural reduction in the emission gases
The making of the machines and their installation has a very high carbon foot print. Added to that they cannot be part of the base load of the electricity supply because of unreliability. When the wind is to light they don't turn; when the wind is too strong they have to be stopped.
When they do commit to supplying power they have to do so, in advance, in half hour commitments. To guarantee the supply they have to have a power station on stand-by, say 70% of full power, idling over like a plane waiting at the end of the runway. Should the wind drop or become to strong they have to switch to conventional, so the plane belts down the runway.
They are not as clean as they look, because they need they back up of conventional power stations.
In the UK they have the Renwables Obligatons Certificate system which forces conventional power suppliers into buying certificates from 'clean' suppliers to cover a proportion of their production at auction. These costs are added to the electicity bill invisibly so it is an unseen second climate levy. The money raised goes straight to the wind farm developers and landowners not, sadly, to fund the other cleaner forms of renewables. It has rightly been called a dash for cash.
The government knows all the weaknesses but it looks good on paper and the story sounds good. No smoke comes out a wind turbine (except when they go on fire) so it must be clean!
Back to ATC
There is a tale that a helicopter returning from a Morecombe Bay oil platform was asked to follow in behind another and at the last moment saw in the mist it was instead an offshore windmill, managed to manouver past it and nearly hit another.
The tale goes on that there are now discussions to have them painted in dayglow colours. This will turn scenic beauty spots into Carnivals, if true.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Devil_Wings44
BDiONU
Almost true
The government knows all the weaknesses but it looks good on paper and the story sounds good. No smoke comes out a wind turbine (except when they go on fire) so it must be clean!
Almost true
The government knows all the weaknesses but it looks good on paper and the story sounds good. No smoke comes out a wind turbine (except when they go on fire) so it must be clean!
Originally Posted by anotherthing
it's an old wives tale that is costs more to build the turbines than we actually make.
Back to ATC
Whitelees overcame ATC objections in part by the power company providing another radar source which covered the area without the picture being being obliterated by the turbine tips. This radar is fed in to provide a mosaic.
BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiNOU -
I used to be of the opinion that they were a waste of space... I still think that they are a blight on the landscape.
However, some years ago I was shown figures which dispelled the myth that they cost more to set up and run than they actually saved. I do not have those figures to hand.
Like anything that is marginal - good arguments could be made either way to support a theory.
As for radar clutter - what about RAG maps?? used to work well on Watchman radars... seems to me the more processed radar is nowadays, the less flexibility the user has to use RAG maps etc to get rid of clutter.
I used to be of the opinion that they were a waste of space... I still think that they are a blight on the landscape.
However, some years ago I was shown figures which dispelled the myth that they cost more to set up and run than they actually saved. I do not have those figures to hand.
Like anything that is marginal - good arguments could be made either way to support a theory.
As for radar clutter - what about RAG maps?? used to work well on Watchman radars... seems to me the more processed radar is nowadays, the less flexibility the user has to use RAG maps etc to get rid of clutter.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by anotherthing
BDiNOU -
However, some years ago I was shown figures which dispelled the myth that they cost more to set up and run than they actually saved. I do not have those figures to hand.
Like anything that is marginal - good arguments could be made either way to support a theory.
However, some years ago I was shown figures which dispelled the myth that they cost more to set up and run than they actually saved. I do not have those figures to hand.
Like anything that is marginal - good arguments could be made either way to support a theory.
As for radar clutter - what about RAG maps?? used to work well on Watchman radars... seems to me the more processed radar is nowadays, the less flexibility the user has to use RAG maps etc to get rid of clutter.
), then I went area for 10 years. Whats a RAG map and how does it cope with Multi Radar Processing?BD
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiNOU
RAG - Range Azimuth Gating (if I recall correctly) - a system whereby known areas (boxed areas on the radar display) of PE could be tweaked using less gain etc depending on the prevailing atmospheric conditions (i.e. propogation)... it was a system of several different hard settings that could be selected; was pretty effective at reducing clutter in areas where PEs where known to occur, but was used judiciously so as not to totally knock everything out. Somedays it was used, other days not, depending on the eatmospherics.
4 or 5 different settings available so the user could select appropriatly. No doubt it could still be used at the radar source, before all the processing that occurs today; it's whether the powers that be would say it was worth it, and whether the engineers thought it was truly feasible.
Above is a very distant memory of the RAG maps, from a long time ago, but hopefully explains (somewhat poorly) what they were about
RAG - Range Azimuth Gating (if I recall correctly) - a system whereby known areas (boxed areas on the radar display) of PE could be tweaked using less gain etc depending on the prevailing atmospheric conditions (i.e. propogation)... it was a system of several different hard settings that could be selected; was pretty effective at reducing clutter in areas where PEs where known to occur, but was used judiciously so as not to totally knock everything out. Somedays it was used, other days not, depending on the eatmospherics.
4 or 5 different settings available so the user could select appropriatly. No doubt it could still be used at the radar source, before all the processing that occurs today; it's whether the powers that be would say it was worth it, and whether the engineers thought it was truly feasible.
Above is a very distant memory of the RAG maps, from a long time ago, but hopefully explains (somewhat poorly) what they were about
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Up here in far less pay land we still use Rag map system.I can't see it cutting out a windfarm site unless you go on to the highest setting,which can make the primary radar useless.
Our pet windfarm is not a problem,but it is in class G airspace.Primary only targets and traffic info etc etc.We just work round it knowing that there is a windfarm there,and it's probably powering our radar system.
Our pet windfarm is not a problem,but it is in class G airspace.Primary only targets and traffic info etc etc.We just work round it knowing that there is a windfarm there,and it's probably powering our radar system.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The majority of the install base of Primary radar's in the UK (certainly those used in Airport approach) do not cope well with Wind Farm Clutter as they stand. The technology in them is old and not designed to cope with the sort of radar signatures that these turbines create.
The BWEA with the DTI and MoD have just run a trial in Wales using a Primary radar in view of a bunch of Wind Farms of varying type and size. The radar used was upgraded with new technology to mitigate the effects caused by the turning blades.
The results of the trial are not out yet but their are a few news stories (of not great quality) on the web if you search.
The BWEA with the DTI and MoD have just run a trial in Wales using a Primary radar in view of a bunch of Wind Farms of varying type and size. The radar used was upgraded with new technology to mitigate the effects caused by the turning blades.
The results of the trial are not out yet but their are a few news stories (of not great quality) on the web if you search.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Devil_Wings44
There is a tale that a helicopter returning from a Morecombe Bay oil platform was asked to follow in behind another and at the last moment saw in the mist it was instead an offshore windmill, managed to manouver past it and nearly hit another.
1. How do you mistake a wind turbine for a helicopter in poor vis? One has lights the other doesnt. And helicopter rotors don't generally rotate vertically.
2. If the vis was that bad why werent they IFR?
3. If they were marginal VMC at low level why werent they looking at their chart? Rule 5 still applies - 500ft from any structure.
4. There aren't any offshore wind turbines higher than 350ft (yet).
5. If they were marginal VMC at low level JAR-OPS says the limits are vis 1500 metres and cloudbase 600ft.
Ah well I suppose you did say it was a "tale"
NS
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sometimes north, sometimes south
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by throw a dyce
Our pet windfarm is not a problem,but it is in class G airspace.Primary only targets and traffic info etc etc.We just work round it knowing that there is a windfarm there
NS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We've got a large windfarm in our area. Yes, it does have an impact on ATC radar. What's more, it is claimed that the turbines kill, on average, 3 or 4 raptors every day.
Dave
Dave