Proposed wind farm impacts Cobden ALA future
 

Alinta Energy has lodged a planning application with the Victorian Government to build 12 wind turbines 180 metres (590’) from ground level to maximum blade tip height.
The closest turbine will be approximately 2.6 kms from the northern end of the Cobden airstrip and just off the centreline. As it is an ALA the turbines do not encroach splays and inner horizontal surfaces are not relevant as the strip is not registered. The issue is compounded due to the fact of rising terrain immediately to the north of the airport in addition to turbine height for both normal and emergency conditions.

In 2013 the Victorian Liberal Government’s aviation development fund granted $200,000 to help seal the strip in addition to $60k (and counting) raised by the community to improve access for air ambulance. My understanding is the Victorian Government have usurped the authority of the Corangamite shire and will handle this themselves. The planning department is now calling for submissions by 22 nd December. With a State election late next year, approval of this development will see expedited development, in my opinion

Does anyone have first hand experience of a wind farm impacting on an ALA and commercial/emergency operators use of such strips? Have there been any successful challenges to the their construction in relation to ALA proximity? If so, what did you do to achieve this?

Planning Application

CASA ADVICE

AVIATION IMPACT REPORT

Probably a search of the Stop These Things web site will offer something of use: https://stopthesethings.com


A quick search of Stop These Things came up with an airport owners win. COPA were involved so may have some advise to offer on the matter:

"...There were also several side parties to the appeal, including the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association..."

https://stopthesethings.com/2017/08/...to-human-life/


Also: "...4 dead as plane crashes at South Dakota wind farm..."

In Oz:"...Whilst on descent to my operating airstrip near Biala NSW, I suddenly experienced severe turbulence at about 500-600ft AGL. The wind at this time had been approx. 5-8 knots from the SE. After landing I ascertained that there was only a slight breeze at ground level. I suspected that the turbulence was caused by the wind turbines at the Gunning Wind Farm but was amazed that the effect could be felt 9kms away..."

https://stopthesethings.com/2014/05/...-south-dakota/






.

2.6kms. No biggie.

Flying Binghi

blaming towers 9 kilometres away is a bit of a stretch.

Maximum leeward windbreak effect is usually calculated at 30 times the height of the highest tree (and that is for conifers with around 40-60% density - much denser than 3 rotating blades)

The Gunning towers are 80 metres + 1/2 the rotor (49.5) metres gives effect distance of approximately 3 or so kilometres - well short of the 9 kilometres claimed.

regards
layman

I didn't realise trees had rotating branches..:hmm:

Layman, next time yer taking off behind a pax jet is it the wind break effect of the wings that are of concern or is it what comes off the end of the wings ?

For the effect have a look-see at the piccys in this link: https://stopthesethings.com/2014/05/...-south-dakota/





.

I guess you havent talked to the local top dresser yet. Clearly you havent flown intowards one yet.

The 30 times effect from a static windbreak was measured using wind speeds of around 16 knots, not the 5-8 knots in the article. The lower wind speed would further reduce the effect to much less than the 3 kms research has shown.

Research on wind turbines has suggested keeping aircraft at least '30 blade diameters' from a wind turbines although this was measured at much higher wind speeds (up to 27 knots).

30 blade diameters is still less than 3 kilometres in the case of the Gunning wind farm (40 metre blades + hub diameter)

I haven't flown near them at low level but 9 km away is still a stretch to claim the turbulence was solely from the wind turbines. Over those distances there may have been other effects from the surrounding environment impacting on aircraft (heat turbulence? topology?)

regards
layman

Me thinks you forgot to add your dicloser

Written and spoken on behalf of the wind turbine companys recriveing more than $60 Billion from tne australian tax payer.
Ted had turbulence 20km from the turbines. So go ask him, he have livded and flowen in the district since time began.

What research ?

As I have found in the 10 odd years I've been looking into the global warming 'industry' the claims of "research has suggested" just never pan out. So some links to this research please..:)





.

Research I have seen used lidar to measure turbulence from wind turbines in farms located near runways in the UK and (if I recall correctly) indicated potential problems within 5 times the rotor diameter which given the 1.4nm distance probably would be not a big impact on this strip.

Not saying it was definitive or that there might be other research with different conclusions (or I might have read it wrong) but I think in this case my issue would more be the 600' AGL towers within 1.5nm of the strip rather than wind effects.

That height and distance wouldn't make it unusable as a strip but certainly would add a hazard, particularly in poor vis/wx situations and would concern me more than the rotor turbulence.

Well if the vic rfs is anything like the nsw rfs the use of this air strip will be of limits for aircraft for the use of fire flighting.
Strips near Gunning Crookwell are now longer able to be used for this reason

Stand by for the divide and conquer of the local community to the have and have nots. Were the have nots stuffer for the sake of the haves

A link to some research. If the computer models can be believed then there is an up to three mile downwind effect...

"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 ... turbines can set up a circular vortex that can roll a plane ... 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..."

https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2014...ar-wind-farms/






.

FWIW East Midlands Aerodrome in the UK has several wind turbines actually within the aerodrome boundary and closer to the runway than the ones proposed here.

They are only about 150' AGL though so significantly lower but I think the main issues are how they impact on the aerodrome radar, not turbulence.

"...East Midlands Aerodrome in the UK has several wind turbines..."

How many is several ? ...perhaps just two small ones eh..:hmm:

So when yer taxing out behind that little ultralight do you worry about wake turbulence? ..probably not. Though when yer taxi out behind that Airbus wake turbulence is a givin.

I'm still waiting to see a link to the so-called wind power research mentioned by other posters to this thread..:hmm:




.

quite right - I thought there were 4 but checked and you are right just 2.

Well, I did say significantly smaller but you are right there are only 2 close to the aerodrome.

The ones at East Midlands are apparently about 150' AGL whilst the ones at Cobden are 600' so 4 times higher. That height would be my concern.

Best I can see from a quick Bing search is there were plans to build more wind towers though there were some 'issues'.


Each of the three blades on the Midlands towers is not much longer then the wing span of a Cessna 172.
Looking at the approved tower blade diameter of the Cobden site shows each blade would be the equivilant of an entire Boeing 747 wingspan. Any pilot would understand the significant difference in 'wing tip' vortices and down wind sever rotor turbulence potential.






.

having made the mistake (once) in my early days of waiving a wake turbulence separation that, giving the conditions at the time and with the wisdom of hindsight was, shall we say, "courageous", I have a passing acquaintance with wing tip vortices. Dumb would probably be a better word.

I have no dog in this fight - I am happy to be shown wrong if turbulence is an issue (I sometimes operate in an area that now has several turbine farms nearby and so if they are an issue I would be keen to know)

As I said I have read at one point research using lidar of operating turbines that indicated the danger of the turbulence from wind turbine rotors dissipates after about 5 diameters. I will try and find a reference to it. I have heard anecdotes of further effects but no hard evidence. I am not saying my recollection is 100% or the research is strictly applicable here but the fact that the siting of the farm at Cobden was not squashed immediately by CASA due to fear of liability makes me think the turbulence issue is likely not a major issue.

(NB I have nothing against anecdotes - they make for investigations but anecdotes by themselves, that may have potentially other reasonable explanations are not concrete evidence).

I think the engineers would have at least some grip on this - they need to site turbines near each other and if they placed turbines inside a region of significant turbulence from other rotors, they would, at best, lose a lot of generation efficiency and at worst increase the wear of the units and likelihood of damage to those downstream.

Given the number of turbines in the US and the much higher aviation density there, surely the FAA would have a handle on this? how many accidents (other than actual collision with the towers by scud runners and ag operators) have there been that can be attributed to turbulence? If it was a significant issue more than say a mile downstream, would it be reasonable to assume the FAA and NTSB would be making noises about it due to actual incidents?

I am not trying to say the turbines location at this site is all rosy from an aviation perspective, I am expressing my opinion (which is of a non-engineer, non expert and with which you are free to argue with :)) that the vertical extent of the turbines would be more likely a hazard to operations at the strip than turbulence.

Like I said - I am not an expert but the above matters make me skeptical of claims turbulence is a hazard that can remain significant distances from the rotors (implied here as a couple of nautical miles) but willing to be convinced with good evidence.

I went looking for the 5 rotor diameter wake turbulence study and found several things.


1. The document I recall I am sure was this one from the University of Liverpool in 2006 "Wind Turbine Wake Encounter Study". Their study used the East Midlands turbines for the Lidar analysis and then used that to check theoretical models of turbulence from the turbines and they make the 5 rotor diameter spacing assessment.
https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/media/li...ine_report.pdf
As FB mentions the East Midlands turbines are not as big as Cobden's proposed ones but it uses that actual measured data to compare with theoretical models of turbulence.

2. The UK CAA then put out a CAP about wind turbines that referenced the above study and they say it is valid for rotors up to 30m but beyond that size there was not enough information to know exactly the effects but that there was ongoing research being done on larger sizes and there is an urgent need for this to be done. They state that as the results about larger turbines become known they would be updating their recommendations.
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...INAL%20Feb.pdf
That was in 2006. I could find no further updates despite the ongoing research they said was being done. It is possible I looked in the wrong place and there may be more recent stuff. Curious though any further research is not easily found. Maybe they decided it wasn't urgent :confused:

3. I found a web page of a consultancy "Pager Power" company that does research on the impacts of turbines on things like radar, navigation and communication etc, that said they have been researching the aviation impacts since 2006 and have flown drones, aircrafts and helicopters close to turbines up to 80m diameters to assess turbulence and have found " In all cases, turbulence thought to be caused by the turbines was apparent, but the size of these effects was considered less than the normal turbulence effects experienced in day to day flying".
They have no published reports on this that I could find though so not sure how much weight to put on that. https://www.pagerpower.com/news/turb...wind-turbines/

All the above is from my quick scanning - I may have missed or misunderstood things so feel free to read the above.

Like I said - I have no dog in this fight but am curious - if there is significant danger from turbulence at long distances (say > 1 nm) it is an issue I would like to know for my own benefit.

Other than anecdotes, is there any verified reputable data on turbulence beyond the immediate location for wind turbines?

When it comes to wind turbines the word democracy is not prevalent. One large wind turbine farm that devided a community had turbines placed in the wrong locations to the plan. This was taken to the land and eviroment court. Just days before the release of the outcome the turbine company leter dropped that the land and environment court was the last word and had to be accepted. The thought they were goi g to win.
The court told them they lost.
Guess what happened.
The then primere kisten (ill take your money) kaleny, over road the the rueling with a stoke of a pen. Left wing politics at its finest.
Money talks fuk you community.

As for turbalance there plenty around go fly through some if your game and we see what happens. Whats sad is how casa no show on these things are. If you wont prove on how much power these turbine companys have just look at casa.
Remember that $60 billion dollars going off shore in subsidies of your money.

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!

- If I didn't read "science-based articles" I'd have no fodder for me mirth..:)

- "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..:uhoh:

- 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..:)





.

Speaking of “peers,” It seems the Deprtment of infrastructures advisory statement below has not been taken seriously.

Guideline D

Back in post #12 I linked to this 2014 research.

"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.

https://i.pinimg.com/600x315/da/87/b...a52602b076.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/96/37...ae9c346208.jpg

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

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.

Seems the 'research' is all over the place. Probably reflects who is paying for the research..:hmm:

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..:hmm:
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.






.

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

Which wind farms did you do the survey work around ?





.

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

Damn, looks like Santa won't be delivering the nurse uniform to my wife this year.....:{

I'm more than happy to don a Santa costume and deliver it :E

We'll take your word for it.

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..:)






.

looking at the photo it looks to me as though there is sufficient 'distance' of turbulence to clear the fog downwind of the wind turbines. There is also the fact that the turbulence has a surface to resonate off and sustain it further then would be the case at altitude.

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.

"Extract energy"... look out, less cooling wind means the ground heats up and thus more global warming..:ooh:

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

:hmm:





.

Facts and common sense don't seem to get through to him! FB seems to favour quantity over quality when it comes to his posts.

Oh, what did I miss ?

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..:hmm:

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





.

I did a quick search - it appears all were collisions either with the turbine towers or with associated wind measuring towers.

WindAction | Wind Energy and Aviation Safety, Fatalities

https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...INAL%20Feb.pdf
the CAP states:
so anecdotal reports and with a wide variety of views about the significance.

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?
http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.news...ar-impulse.jpg

Sorry I remain skeptical.