Proposed wind farm impacts Cobden ALA future
Ten years of reading crack-pot, crazy conspiracy-theory websites run by people wearing tinfoil hats. Doubt you've ever read a science-based article that contradicted your warped and delusional views.
You regularly invent "statistics" out of thin air and cite whacko websites as credible "sources".
Thirty years of peer-reviewed scientific research, including about 20 Nobel Prizes in Science, have shown man-made climate change is real and a danger to our civilisation.
I like wind farms; more the merrier!
You regularly invent "statistics" out of thin air and cite whacko websites as credible "sources".
Thirty years of peer-reviewed scientific research, including about 20 Nobel Prizes in Science, have shown man-made climate change is real and a danger to our civilisation.
I like wind farms; more the merrier!
- "invent statistics" Do tell, what statistics have I invented ?
- Re peer review: In several threads I have debunked the credibility of the usage of the term "peer review" as a proof of claims as used by the climate hysterics. One of the Pommy moderators keeps removing my peer review debunk posts and thread banning me so it seems there is not much I can post on the subject..
- Re Nobel Prize: Didn't al gore win a nobel for how to make a billion dollars out of climate scamming ?..
...and back to the thread subject..
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Warrnambool
Age: 17
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of “peers,” It seems the Deprtment of infrastructures advisory statement below has not been taken seriously.
Guideline D
31. Siting of wind turbines in the vicinity of an aerodrome is strongly discouraged, as these tall structures can pose serious hazards to aircraft taking‐off and landing.
"A study from the University of Kansas School of Engineering sheds light on a potential safety hazard that could affect hundreds of airports across the country and calls for updated guidelines to improve aviation safety. At issue is the proximity of wind farms to general aviation airports, and how the small aircraft that use them could be affected by the turbulence generated by wind turbines.
“We’re really looking at two potential threats,” said Tom Mulinazzi, professor of civil, environmental and architectural engineering. “These turbines can set up a circular vortex that can roll a plane if it gets in there. And they can increase crosswind speeds above what’s expected, which can be a real danger to small aircraft, which don’t typically take off and land with crosswinds stronger than about 12 miles per hour.”
Mulinazzi, Professor of Aerospace Engineering Z. Charlie Zheng and his graduate student Anpeng He co-authored the report for the Aviation Division of the Kansas Department of Transportation.
By using advance computational aerodynamics modeling, the KU research team studied the effect of winds from 10-40 miles per hour. They found the higher the wind speed, the farther the turbulence reached – stretching as far as nearly three miles from a single turbine – before dissipating.
The KU team studied proposed wind farms that would be constructed near airports, one in Rooks County and the other in Pratt. At both airports, within nearly three miles of the runway, pilots could potentially encounter a crosswind or a “roll upset” generated from a wind turbine.
Mulinazzi and Zheng presented their findings at the inaugural Kansas Aviation Expo in Wichita. Mulinazzi said it appears this study is the first of its kind in the United States. Current Federal Aviation Administration guidelines only evaluate vertical structures from a static perspective within an airport zone. However, wind farms are dynamic with spinning blades that can create rotational vortices.
“The FAA reviews the potential hazard of the physical height and location of any structure, but not any of the emissions from that structure,” said Tiffany Brown, state aviation engineer with KDOT’s Aviation Division. “This research points out a shortcoming in the current evaluation process and that is why this is so important.”
KU is at the leading edge of studying this potential hazard.
“We found no research that looked at the impact of wind generated by wind farms on general aviation,” Mulinazzi said. “But KDOT tells us they’ve been getting complaints from pilots about unexpected turbulence as they approach airports near wind farms, so we felt like the study was worthwhile, especially with the boom in wind farms and wind farm proposals in Kansas.”..."
Continues... https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014...ar-wind-farms/
I'm wondering how CASA can make an aviation related judgement call on these mega turbulence factory's when they have no basis of knowledge on the subject ?
.
I can't find the 'right' peer reviewed sciencey article that would keep the likes of peterC005 happy, but I've always been a big fan of empirical evidence over manufactured science.
I know its only a couple of pictures and there's no scale but they look pretty big and that air looks pretty turbulent a long way from the bird chopper itself. Without going out on too much of limb, I'd be prepared to avoid the air behind those fans by a lot more than 5 blade diameters.
I know its only a couple of pictures and there's no scale but they look pretty big and that air looks pretty turbulent a long way from the bird chopper itself. Without going out on too much of limb, I'd be prepared to avoid the air behind those fans by a lot more than 5 blade diameters.
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten years of reading crack-pot, crazy conspiracy-theory websites run by people wearing tinfoil hats. Doubt you've ever read a science-based article that contradicted your warped and delusional views.
You regularly invent "statistics" out of thin air and cite whacko websites as credible "sources".
Thirty years of peer-reviewed scientific research, including about 20 Nobel Prizes in Science, have shown man-made climate change is real and a danger to our civilisation.
I like wind farms; more the merrier!
You regularly invent "statistics" out of thin air and cite whacko websites as credible "sources".
Thirty years of peer-reviewed scientific research, including about 20 Nobel Prizes in Science, have shown man-made climate change is real and a danger to our civilisation.
I like wind farms; more the merrier!
Remember when it was called global warming. Remember when the north pole was going to melt. Remember how that was proved wrong. Then it was called climate. Typical greens propaganda say stuff then let it be proved wrong.
When was the last time you heard any thing about the ozone hole
I've always been a big fan of empirical evidence over manufactured science.
I know its only a couple of pictures and there's no scale but they look pretty big and that air looks pretty turbulent a long way from the bird chopper itself. Without going out on too much of limb, I'd be prepared to avoid the air behind those fans by a lot more than 5 blade diameters.
I know its only a couple of pictures and there's no scale but they look pretty big and that air looks pretty turbulent a long way from the bird chopper itself. Without going out on too much of limb, I'd be prepared to avoid the air behind those fans by a lot more than 5 blade diameters.
I certainly agree the patterns generated by those turbines extend way more than 5 rotors but I am not sure they indicate the extent of dangerous turbulence.
I have seen where aircraft have been playing submarines along the top of a cloud layer that show a disrupted cloud pattern like that for hundreds of miles behind them but that doesn't mean the wake turbulence extends for hundreds of miles (or that it remains at the same altitude).
Similarly contrails can extend for huge distances and last for considerable times but aren't a sign of embedded wake turbulence, like the disrupted clouds after aircraft passage simply record that the air was at some point disturbed by the aircraft's passage.
I am interested in the research you mentioned in an earlier post from the University of Kansas though as that (if accurately reported) points to potential problems.
Seems the 'research' is all over the place. Probably reflects who is paying for the research..
Direct Impact - Physical
• Turbulence
– Current CAA guidance in CAP 764, Ch 2, Para
2.46:
“research shows measurements at 16 rotor diameters downstream of the wind turbine indicating that turbulence effects are still noticeable”
– Poorly understood but research ongoing – Significantly greater impact on slower and lighter aircraft
http://airspacesafety.com/wp-content...t_FINAL_V1.pdf
Or if the funding comes from the "Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment" the distance is 6 rotor diameters for helicopter ops..
Offshore wind turbine suction and safe helicopter operations | European MSP Platform
Although, a retired EMS helicopter pilot has a different view from practical experience...
With the information that you have been provided on the current size and type of wind turbine, what would you consider to be a safe travel corridor width needed to allow for the EMS helicopter service to safely fly to and from Calumet Memorial Hospital?
"One Nautical Mile would be to narrow. It would not allow for safe flight path even down the middle because of the influence of turbulence created by the Wind Turbines on either side. Even without the influence that air turbulence would have on the aircraft. You must provide room for safe travel, as well as to allow for a safe normal speed turn to be made. I would say that a clear flight path corridor should be a minimum of 1 ½ nautical miles, with 2 miles being the preferred distance..."
Better Plan: The Trouble With Industrial Wind Farms in Wisconsin - Today's Special Feature - 12/27/08 H is for HELP! ---What Did the EMS Helicopter pilot say about rescues near wind turbines?
Of note re comparing helicopter operations to fixed wing ops: Due to the high wing loading of a helicopter I have happily flown a mustering helicopter (Not a Robinson) in turbulent conditions that I would not have operated a fixed wing aircraft.
.
Direct Impact - Physical
• Turbulence
– Current CAA guidance in CAP 764, Ch 2, Para
2.46:
“research shows measurements at 16 rotor diameters downstream of the wind turbine indicating that turbulence effects are still noticeable”
– Poorly understood but research ongoing – Significantly greater impact on slower and lighter aircraft
http://airspacesafety.com/wp-content...t_FINAL_V1.pdf
Or if the funding comes from the "Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment" the distance is 6 rotor diameters for helicopter ops..
Offshore wind turbine suction and safe helicopter operations | European MSP Platform
Although, a retired EMS helicopter pilot has a different view from practical experience...
With the information that you have been provided on the current size and type of wind turbine, what would you consider to be a safe travel corridor width needed to allow for the EMS helicopter service to safely fly to and from Calumet Memorial Hospital?
"One Nautical Mile would be to narrow. It would not allow for safe flight path even down the middle because of the influence of turbulence created by the Wind Turbines on either side. Even without the influence that air turbulence would have on the aircraft. You must provide room for safe travel, as well as to allow for a safe normal speed turn to be made. I would say that a clear flight path corridor should be a minimum of 1 ½ nautical miles, with 2 miles being the preferred distance..."
Better Plan: The Trouble With Industrial Wind Farms in Wisconsin - Today's Special Feature - 12/27/08 H is for HELP! ---What Did the EMS Helicopter pilot say about rescues near wind turbines?
Of note re comparing helicopter operations to fixed wing ops: Due to the high wing loading of a helicopter I have happily flown a mustering helicopter (Not a Robinson) in turbulent conditions that I would not have operated a fixed wing aircraft.
.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: where eva the plane is broken down
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown low level survey below 200ft around multiple wind farms in C210's and Pac750 etc. Large turbines, up to 475ft agl. Infront, behind and over the towers..
And have only noticed very slight "chop" but nothing like serious turbulence. The wind varied, but I think 15 kts would be an average..
But I would say, it's not one of the most fun things I've done... trying to pull up to pass over a point that's moving.. that disappears behind the nose..
Pi
And have only noticed very slight "chop" but nothing like serious turbulence. The wind varied, but I think 15 kts would be an average..
But I would say, it's not one of the most fun things I've done... trying to pull up to pass over a point that's moving.. that disappears behind the nose..
Pi
I have flown low level survey below 200ft around multiple wind farms in C210's and Pac750 etc. Large turbines, up to 475ft agl. Infront, behind and over the towers..
And have only noticed very slight "chop" but nothing like serious turbulence. The wind varied, but I think 15 kts would be an average..
But I would say, it's not one of the most fun things I've done... trying to pull up to pass over a point that's moving.. that disappears behind the nose..
Pi
And have only noticed very slight "chop" but nothing like serious turbulence. The wind varied, but I think 15 kts would be an average..
But I would say, it's not one of the most fun things I've done... trying to pull up to pass over a point that's moving.. that disappears behind the nose..
Pi
.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: where eva the plane is broken down
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB, The bigger ones were the North east side of Lake George near Canberra, and South of Orange just west of Barry. Plus a few others.. Port Lincoln, the 2 at Coober Pedy.
Pi
Pi
Interesting though that the agy found turbulence all that distance away from the wind turbines.
I see in the USA there have been four seperate fatal ag plane prangs around wind towers. I don't know the reasons.
There is also mention in the UK CAAPs of pilot reports of wind turbine turbulence. Normally pilots don't report things unless something of concern happens.
There is also the fact that the blades on these wind turbines will each be as long as the entire wing span of a Boeing 747. Unless wake turbulence from big jets is a myth I'd imagine a 'wing' twice the size of a 747 would put out a huge wing tip vortice... perhaps there are some YouTube videos of burning wind turbines 'blowing' smoke rings..
.
Great photos.
I certainly agree the patterns generated by those turbines extend way more than 5 rotors but I am not sure they indicate the extent of dangerous turbulence.
I have seen where aircraft have been playing submarines along the top of a cloud layer that show a disrupted cloud pattern like that for hundreds of miles behind them but that doesn't mean the wake turbulence extends for hundreds of miles (or that it remains at the same altitude).
Similarly contrails can extend for huge distances and last for considerable times but aren't a sign of embedded wake turbulence, like the disrupted clouds after aircraft passage simply record that the air was at some point disturbed by the aircraft's passage.
I am interested in the research you mentioned in an earlier post from the University of Kansas though as that (if accurately reported) points to potential problems.
I certainly agree the patterns generated by those turbines extend way more than 5 rotors but I am not sure they indicate the extent of dangerous turbulence.
I have seen where aircraft have been playing submarines along the top of a cloud layer that show a disrupted cloud pattern like that for hundreds of miles behind them but that doesn't mean the wake turbulence extends for hundreds of miles (or that it remains at the same altitude).
Similarly contrails can extend for huge distances and last for considerable times but aren't a sign of embedded wake turbulence, like the disrupted clouds after aircraft passage simply record that the air was at some point disturbed by the aircraft's passage.
I am interested in the research you mentioned in an earlier post from the University of Kansas though as that (if accurately reported) points to potential problems.
As turbine placement/density can be affected by the ground surface and other turbine tower turbulence the ground suitability maps of the wind industry spruikers can give a fair indication of what to expect.
.
Those pix are of fog, and fog doesn't generally form in strong winds - the mixing ratio isopleths are not in the right proportion. So, the pic is of a gentle breeze, the wind rotors are turning slowly, and leaving a small disturbance behind, which lifts the fog up a bit. It drifts along with the rest of the fog, and stays like that for a few hundred meters before the fog peters out. It ain't turbulence.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow.
"Extract energy"... look out, less cooling wind means the ground heats up and thus more global warming..
There is a fix..
"Eight huge reef mixer fans are planned for the Great Barrier Reef in far north Queensland, in a trial project..."
Giant Fans will cool Great Barrier Reef to stop bleaching « JoNova
.
There is a fix..
"Eight huge reef mixer fans are planned for the Great Barrier Reef in far north Queensland, in a trial project..."
Giant Fans will cool Great Barrier Reef to stop bleaching « JoNova
.
Those pix are of fog, and fog doesn't generally form in strong winds - the mixing ratio isopleths are not in the right proportion. So, the pic is of a gentle breeze, the wind rotors are turning slowly, and leaving a small disturbance behind, which lifts the fog up a bit. It drifts along with the rest of the fog, and stays like that for a few hundred meters before the fog peters out. It ain't turbulence.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow.
At one time Australia had the cheapest power in the world. Now we have wind power idiocy on steroids. Nothing about wind power makes any sort of sense so to even debate it is to descend into nonsense..
More about wind idiocy...
"The AEMO warned about the rising costs of FCAS in 2011. Back then they predicted charges for FCAS would rise from $10m – $200m by 2020 and the sole cause was “intermittent energy” and the RET. Even so, this is a small part of the total energy bill which is more like $12-$20 billion..."
Another hidden cost of intermittent renewables (It?s time to talk about FCAS and roaring price spikes!) « JoNova
.
WindAction | Wind Energy and Aviation Safety, Fatalities
the CAP states:
the CAA has received anecdotal reports of aircraft encounters with wind turbine wakes representing a wide variety of views as to the significance of the turbulence.
That document was published in 2006 and is still the only thing the CAA put out about wind turbines (and the UK has a lot of them in a much smaller area than here). Since then the CAA has not updated it. If they were receiving actual incident reports of dangerous wake turbulence, surely they would update it with better recommendations?
I am not seeing why having the same rotor dimension as a 747 winspan means it would generate the same wake turbulence.
Wake turbulence will vary with amount of lift produced and aspect ratio.
The 747 wing generates lift of the order of 450,000 kg. That is way, way beyond what a turbine pumping out a measly 3MW would be generating.
A 747 wing has a considerably lower aspect ratio and higher wing loading than a turbine's blades.
This aircraft has a longer wingspan than a 747 - would you say it would generate the same wake turbulence as a 747?
Sorry I remain skeptical.