I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-windturbines-airp,0,5878953.story

What is the attraction people have with money. Hi Country, help me out on this one if you know more on it. While waiting in vain at Sidney Neb, for weather to let us go to the Caveman fly in, several landowners who were not farmers came in to visit with the FBO there. The absentee landowners wanted the airport to give them a waiver to allow construction of wind towers on their land within the recently zoned 10 mile tower free radius around the airport. Earlier constructed towers are already there but the ordinance prevents more. Of course the FBO refused to offer to agree to it. Zoning is up to the county commissions usually but they wanted support from the airport to ask for the waiver. I would have said no too. We have a new 60 tower farm on the hills east of our place. (Not on our land.) So far the worst thing about it is looking at them instead of the skyline as no one lives close enough to them to be bothered. There are zoning ordinances to keep them out of the city of Aberdeen and outside several miles of the airport also. As it should be. The guys at airports just need to hang tough and say no.

We have them around here. They raised the mins on the one instrument approach we have by 500ft. It also creates a huge area in a heavy vfr traffic corridor where radar is unreliable because of the interference from the windmill towers. I'm all about clean energy but there's billions of acres that are NOT within 10 miles of an airport to put these things. The landowers are just trying to make a buck.

Why not both?

^^ That windmill is not FAA approved.

Hey, is that an MT? I know a guy looking.

Dirtstrip is right...got about 400 windmills just over the border south of SNY. This landowner that he is talking about inherited some land just west of the airport..this person is not and never was a local..just wants to make more $$$, could care less about the hazard. I was around when this person was there with their "special freind" and could tell something was up. Have to be careful what one says when the "Sharks" are present..if you know what I mean. The reason the windmills are going up like weeds is because of the "GREEN MONEY" that is out there and they sell this "GREEN POWER" to folks who want to pay more for it. Me, I believe in "BLACK POWER" (coal) or "WATER POWER"....much cheaper and much more reliable.

Wind power, solar power, and ethanol. Without the subsidies it would not be a topic of discussion. Nothing can match oil, natural gas and coal for power. I think that nuc power is competitive on its own but I am not sure. Yes I know that oil is subsidised here and there but if all subsidies were lifted oil would still rule and be competitive.

Tim

No subsidies or tax credits for my system, although I agree that that IS being abused with people with more money then they know what to do with, who want to look green, and want to work the system. I have hydro also, and am grid tied to Idaho Power. I just like the technology, but ain't no greenie, hell they don't fly airplanes! Force of habit now, I've had wind power for 30 years of one sort or another. The big wind farms?? That power isn't going local, it goes to the highest market, like the one in nearby Idaho Falls, it all goes to.....ready?? California! I would be dead set against them near a "real" airport, screw that, we are not that hard up for open space in this country yet, not even close.

BTW my brand of PV panels, pictured, BP, back when they were making solar panels! I burn Exxon gas also.

I passed through northwest Indiana on I-65 just over a week ago. I actually thought that seeing more and more wind mills is starting to get unsightly!

My opinion only.......I'd rather see one large coal plant producing electricity than seeing hundreds of wind mills laid out across the countryside.

When did hydropower quit being a green renewable source of energy? Are their lobbyists not as good?

fern_hopper wrote:When did hydropower quit being a green renewable source of energy? Are their lobbyists not as good?

You kinda hit the nail on the head about hydropower......the "Greenies" don't want to count it..screws up their numbers..and besides most of it has been around for quite a while. I have asked this same question when at meetings about "renewable resources" and for political reasons they don't want it brought up...go figure! There is nothing cheaper than this old hydropower in the western USA.
HC

When we were stationed in Europe 10 years ago there were MANY of these wind generators.......I would rarely see anyone of them turning. If I remember correctly Europe is way ahead of us in the application of wind power and found out that they were not feasible over the long term. Maybe technology has greatly advanced and there are beter units out there now. The locals I had spoken to over there told me they worked for a while and most of them are just art filling the skyline now. Be forewarned...this is all hearsay....just what I was told by the average guy.
WW

Noticed the same thing in hawaii a few years back. Just landscape art. Looks like they will be taking out the dams on the Klamoth River to save the fish.

He had a local farmer here that in the late 70's and early 80's built a fuel plant that made fuel out of soft whight wheet. All paid for by govmt. They were farming the taxpayer for about three years and never turned a wheel with it. Their comment was that they were just about 100 grand away from perfection.

Spain was held up as being way ahead of USA on Green Power with their solar pannels. Notice that when Spain ran out of money they shut em down. When we figure it out that we are out of money just stand by.

Tim

Here are my thoughts on this.

Personally I think wind and solar can be made to work with proper planning. Call me dumb but... I think wind turbines are fascinating. Seems to me if you group a bunch, ie, hundreds to a few thousand out in the middle of no where, on a ridgeline where the wind is accelerated on the up slope. Place a few massive groups in different parts of the west, or for that matter anywhere in the country, separated by good distance to take into account that a high pressure area with calm winds in one part will be balanced out by windy conditions in the other parts. That will give you more of a 'on time' vs 'off time' for wind generation. Interconnect all the wind farms into the grid. You will still need coal, natural gas, solar, nuc and for sure ALOT more hydro. The sooner we can divest ourselves from the sand roaming towelheads grasp the better. I also mirror what courrierguy said.. The new large wind turbine farm going up East of Idaho falls, Idaho is for the LA area.... How friggin dumb is that ????? Line loss alone just doesn't make sense, but then thats seems to be Califonia's style......................Just my humble opinion.

Oh yeah... There needs to be at least a 10 mile barrier from any landing strip. You can bet sooner or later a plane is gonna smack a windmill, it's just the shear odds of it happening. I hope this doesn't happen to any of us... But when it does happen be ready to tighten your setbelts as the media will have weeks worth of talking points about that.

Tailwinds guys.

Ben.

WWhunter wrote:When we were stationed in Europe 10 years ago there were MANY of these wind generators.......I would rarely see anyone of them turning. If I remember correctly Europe is way ahead of us in the application of wind power and found out that they were not feasible over the long term. Maybe technology has greatly advanced and there are beter units out there now. The locals I had spoken to over there told me they worked for a while and most of them are just art filling the skyline now. Be forewarned...this is all hearsay....just what I was told by the average guy.
WW

This is like saying "small airplanes are dangerous", an inaccurate broad swipe at an entire technology, really not an accurate representation of the state of the art of large wind turbines, not even close.

Follow the money: if they did not "work", they would not produce income, if they didn't produce income, the muli million dollar investments would not be taking place. Tax credits etc alone is not a big enough incentive, they MUST produce income. World wide, the installed capacity is growing every year while, like any engineered thing with moving parts, newer generation units are better then previous ones. The blade technology alone is fascinating, turbulators, vg's, winglets, and other aero mods we as pilots are familiar with are being implemented, as is carbon fiber and other composites.

hicountry wrote:........You kinda hit the nail on the head about hydropower......the "Greenies" don't want to count it..screws up their numbers..and besides most of it has been around for quite a while. I have asked this same question when at meetings about "renewable resources" and for political reasons they don't want it brought up...go figure! There is nothing cheaper than this old hydropower in the western USA.

There's plenty of hydro-electric dams in the northwest already, they've quietly been producing "green power" from the ultimate in renewable resources (rain) for years. But now there's more & more talk about dams being removed to restore fish habitat. A good example is the two dams on the Elwha River, inside Olympic National Park. These dams have been in place since the 1920's. Plenty of fish until about 30 years ago-- which is coincidentally when the infamous Boldt Decision was made protecting native fishing rights. After years of talk, some prelim work downstream has been done & the actual removal of the two dams will be starting in the next year or two. A tremendously expensive job, and one that will wreak havoc not only downstream but on the new ecosystems that have evolved above the dams over the past 80 years. Not to mention the loss of hydro power and flood control. It'll turn into even more of a boondoggle than it is now, before it's all through.
I also think nuclear power is a good "green" choice, but only recently has there been any talk of more -- by Obama of all people! Of course, like off-shore drilling, safety measures have to be in place. Washington had several nuclear plants which were partially built years ago (the infamous "woops" deal), maybe some of those can now be completed if they haven't all been torn down or converted for other uses.

Eric

I originally posted these messages at pacificnorthwestflying.com a year or two ago during a discussion of windmills there.

I can tell you from personal experience that collision isn't the only danger associated with windmills. Don't fly through their wake either!

I didn't take this picture, but it illustrates my story pretty well.



These windmills are in SE Washington. They are much bigger than they look! They are officially known as the Hopkins Ridge Wind Energy Project. Each one is 221 feet high from the base to the hub. Each of the three rotors is 129 feet long, 11.62 feet at the widest part, and weighs over 7 tons! Total height when a blade is straight up is 351 feet.

I was flying down the Tucannon river, essentially over the spot from which the above picture was taken, maybe a little farther away. I was a little over 1000 AGL and was around a mile downwind of the windmills when I went through their wash. I think wind at that altitude was around 20 to 25 knots, but it could have been a little higher. I encountered extreme turbulence. Roll forces put me at about a 75 to 80 degree bank a couple of times before I could get out of it.

I don't think there should be ANY windmills allowed within a 5 mile radius of an airport.

I just looked up the official FAA terminology, and by their definition, I experienced severe turbulence, not extreme turbulence.

Things were tossed around the cabin and there was an instant or two where the plane was uncontrollable. However, there was no structural damage to the airplane which is part of the FAA's definition of extreme turbulence.

I just *thought* there was structural damage when my sphincter didn't unclench for a week!

So those windmills will make 120k a year... for 100 of them, those huge things only generate 12k worth of energy a year! How much does one of those cost, add the cost of the prevailing wage for the boat load of workers that put the thing up and what's the break even date, less we forget the yearly maintenance of one of those things (I've seen some of them catch on fire here in So Cal).

It just seems like we are looking for busy work for people in this country to keep them employed, lets forget that the tax payers are the ones paying for all of it.

I bet that airport brings in close to that much money in commerce etc, add to that the safety factor of a place to put a plane down if needed, perhaps the farmers should stick to farming.

I've been to Indiana, if these people really want to spend tax dollars we don't have, how bouts they put that energy (no pun intended) towards building a better education system, or after school programs, that is where you will see a pay off.

dirtstrip wrote:...What is the attraction people have with money....The absentee landowners wanted the airport to give them a waiver to allow construction of wind towers on their land...

Unfortunately, My experience has been that the absentee land owner is probably the minority in this program... The Ag industry has been abuzz over wind turbines for the last couple years, as more and more real farms are pulling double duty by turning to windmill farms as well... There are talks of charging more per acre sprayed, requiring extra insurance, banning fields with turbines all together...who knows where it will end up?

My personal thoughts are that they are just a pain in the @$$... ,but no more so that working some weird terrain, some tiny wired up 8 acre corner under a mesa in the dark, or working some rangeland deal in rising terrain in the heat of the day. Sometimes you just have to put on your game face and think things through a little bit more than average... I think they are coming, like it or not. They may not be here for ever, but they are coming for now. From the Ag prospect of it, the way I see it, if we battle against them too hard, we just may see those acres pushed into alternative methods of applications... good for some, and maybe not so good for others... From the GA prospect of it, I think any derelict that runs into a 300' tower sporting 100' swinging blades, probably slipped through the cracks on checkride day, and really had no business being at the controls of an airplane. Emergency landings? The simple size of most modern turbines dictates spacing that would allow a G3 to land in between them. It wouldn't be pretty, but I really don't see the threat there..

Vorticies & Turbulence? ya.. it can and does exist... but as pilots, we should have a clue as to wind direction, and therefore avoiding the wake of these should again be a non event... You can see them 50 miles out for crissakes... want wind and rotor issues? try flying around the back side of the sierras without paying attention for a few days.

All this sounds like I am just being a troll and in favor of wind turbines, which couldn't be any further from the truth. Like I said they are a pain in my @$$, and in a couple weeks, I will be earning my paycheck amongst them once again. They IMHO are an eyesore, and a banner of greed flying high over some of the prettiest country I've flown over... No I don't care for them, but the point of my post is that they will be coming soon to a neighborhood near most of us , so it probably makes more sense to understand them than read internet horror stories of what they are going to do to a passing aircraft...

My biggest beef? Why the farm ground? and Why the airports? Banning Pass, in the desolate desert surrounding Palm Springs? Great place for windmills... Picturesque corn fields surrounding the county airfield? Not such a great place for windmills. Rocket science not required...

Take care, Rob