Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

By Jo Nova

But who needs radar right?

We found out last year that offshore wind turbines scramble Air Force Radars. RAF pilots already use the turbines in training exercises to help them hide. But ships also use radar and a new study quietly reported a couple of years ago that offshore wind turbines will interfere with shipping radar, may cause collisions, and interfere with search and rescue. The 2022 report was from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US.

But it’s OK right, we just need to upgrade all the old radar systems, keep boats out of the area, or wrap the blades of the turbines in the same material we use on stealth aircraft. (That will add to the costs of wind power). No doubt GPS and AI systems can help, but radar adds an independent and well developed layer of safety. Who wants to purely rely on the satellite connection on a stormy night?

And after we’ve built all the wind towers, upgraded the boats and planes, then we can build the second and third generation of turbines and fill holes in the ground with the waste from the first. After we’ve paid for that and for the collisions and lives lost, and the whales killed, and the porpoises deafened, we hope that in one hundred years the rain will be more evenly spread, and the storms more well behaved. It’s like the neolithic raindances never ended.

You never know, maybe some groups will benefit from the radar noise —  like drug runners, pirates and people smugglers?

Unfortunately wind turbines are usually built close to shore, where our shipping lanes often are…

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

Eric Niiler, Wired, March 2022

It turns out that massive wind turbines may interfere with marine radar systems, making it risky for both big ships passing through shipping channels near offshore wind farms and smaller vessels navigating around them. While European and Asian nations have relied on offshore wind power for more than a decade, the big wind farms proposed off the US continental shelf are larger and spaced further apart, meaning that ships are more likely to be operating nearby. These farms are proposed along the East Coast from Massachusetts to North Carolina, as well as for a handful of locations off the California coast, according to data from the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

A panel of experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded in a report issued last week that wind turbines can create two different problems. First, their steel towers can reflect electromagnetic waves, interfering with ships’ navigational radar systems in ways that might obscure a nearby boat.

The turbine’s rotating blades can also create a form of interference similar to the Doppler effect, in which sound waves shorten as a moving object approaches the observer. In this case, the spinning blades shorten and distort the radar signals sent from passing ships and can produce what’s called “blade flash” on a ship’s radar screen. These flashes can create false images that look like boats and could confuse a human radar operator on the bridge.

“If you have something that’s moving toward you and you are illuminating it with a radar signal, then the signal that is returned will actually have what’s called a phase shift. Essentially, it appears that you have the object coming closer,” says Jennifer Bernhard, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a member of the National Academies panel that produced the report. Bernhard says that phenomena does not completely block the radar image, “but it does create clutter “…

There are no easy answers:

While the report offered some ways for mitigation, it noted that there is “no simple modification” that could allow marine vessel radar to operate in “the complex environments of a fully populated continental shelf wind farm.”

Deadly open-seas collisions and hampered search and rescue efforts

Disrupted radar systems are not mere hassles of dealing with cluttered displays. They can result in deadly open-seas collisions. The turbines can “cast radar shadows, obfuscating smaller vessels exiting wind facilities in the vicinity of deep draft vessels in Traffic Separation Schemes.”

The US Coast Guard wrote about this last year:

Offshore Wind Energy: A Rising Challenge to Coast Guard Operations

… offshore wind turbines have been shown to affect the capabilities of the Coast Guard’s Search and Rescue Optimal Planning System (SAROPS), which is used for drift modeling and search planning. The oscillating rotor blades and generator of a wind turbine emit high levels of electromagnetic interference that can affect high frequency radar capabilities around an [offshore renewable energy installation] (OREI).

The map suggests multiple wind plants could severely limit radar operation:

Offshore wind turbines and radar

 

Report: Wind Turbine Generator Impacts to Marine Vessel Radar

h/t David Maddison

 

 

9.9 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

63 comments to Offshore Wind Turbines Could Mess With Ships’ Radar Signals

  • #
    David Maddison

    Wind subsidy plantations also interfere with weather radar.

    https://youtu.be/3WcIwl6bJuw

    Here’s a shorter version of the above video:

    https://youtu.be/GNEuLhWgtlM

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      Even worse, they interfere with air traffic control radar.

      Attempts are being made to mitigate interference with filtering of signals, phased array radars etc.. but it’s best not to happen in the first place.

      https://youtu.be/EAje9T8hvtE

      And the Elites don’t want us to fly anyway. Their only concern is that they be able to fly their private jets to Klimate Krisis Konferences.

      320

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Aviation radar systems can easily filter out returns from stationary objects, and objects that are moving below specified aircraft speeds, such as road vehicles. Not sure how they could filter out turbine blades rotating at aircraft speeds.

        70

  • #
    David Maddison

    Wind subsidy plantations are one of the most economically and environmentally destructive and potentially dangerous technologies (due to interference with life-saving radar) ever devised.

    But that’s exactly what they were designed to be.

    They are doing exactly the job those who wish to destroy Western Civilisation intended.

    250

  • #

    Here on the BoM 256 Km Captains flat weather radar you can see it is raining just east of a point between Boorowa and Yass. I can see that part of the sky from here. Not a cloud just stationary wind turbines. The fake rain will look worse if the wind picks up.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR402.loop.shtml#skip

    120

    • #
      MeAgain

      I want to keep messaging you and asking ‘is it raining now?’ – it looks like it always is.
      That is some mad s*** right there.
      (BOM won’t accept incoming Https connections, you have to put www into your browser manually to get straight there)

      40

  • #

    While smiling hand waving vote seeking politicians ‘spruik on’ about their wonderful plans for offshore industrial wind plants, I’m willing to bet that not many of them have thought too deeply about how to construct them, umm, you know ….. ‘offshore!!’

    These vessels do not not look all that amenable to navigating around Cape Horn, with the Suez area now a bit difficult these days.

    Wind Turbine Installation Vessels

    There are only 25 of these ships currently in operation around the whole World.

    A vessel like this can cost $AUD500 million, or you could hire it out for $AUD330,000 per day, and a three year leasing deal might then cost $AUD150 million.

    They are now building them in the U.S. and those U.S. compliant ships cost around $AUD750 Million. These US constructed ships require a wind plant Nameplate total of between 500MW and 800MW and the overall installation is for just the construction operation itself taking five years to be economical.

    Still, I suppose we could always build them here in Australia with our own ship building Companies ….. Oh! Wait a minute!!

    Wait till a ‘pollie’ gets asked this question ….. “When do the ships arrive?”

    Chris Bowen (eyes flicking madly left and right) ….. “Umm, Ships! What ships?”

    Tony.

    280

  • #
    David Maddison

    In the picture at top, what an atrociois, ugly sight. I would hate to have a house where I could see those civilisation and environment-destroying monstrosities.

    110

  • #

    The Coast Guard has also expressed serious concern over just keeping shipping lanes open and wide enough for safe two way shipping. The Feds have produced a series of five year plans with maps building to 85,000 MW along the busy Atlantic coast.

    I discuss this here: https://www.cfact.org/2024/05/01/offshore-wind-is-gearing-up-to-bulldoze-the-ocean/

    The impact on radar and the consequences of that should be part of the Cumulative Impact Assessment the Bidenistas refuse to do. Need to add that to my whale call:
    https://www.cfact.org/2024/05/13/offshore-wind-cumulative-impact-issue-analysis/

    111

  • #

    Thanks Tony for your expert insight into this unnecessary and very expensive method of solving Chris Bowen’s stupid journey to net zero.

    And don’t forget it must be repeated every ??? number of years as the short lives of these monstrosities is determined by the corrosive salt water environment, not the CSIRO’s childish cost and time estimates.

    60

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Interesting. There is a blip of continuous rain on the Canberra region rain radar. It is, of course, not rain. It’s a wind farm.

    80

  • #
    CO2 Lover

    The return of the “Cable Cutters”

    It was during wartime that the enemy deliberately targeted undersea cables. It started in 1898 during the Spanish-American War when US naval ships cut telegraph lines in the Spanish possessions of the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba, isolating them without communication with the high command in Spain.

    Submarines were also active in cable cutting. For example, in 1918, the German large, long-range U-boat submarine, U-151, cut the undersea cables between New York and Nova Scotia and between New York and Colon in Panama.

    The Australian Cable Cutters

    After several hours of dragging and a slight shift in the search area, they eventually snagged the Singapore to Saigon cable on the third attempt. The submarine lifted the cable about 10 feet off the ocean floor, where the first diver, Australian Sub Lieutenant Kevin Briggs, had just ten minutes to use a cable cutter to sever it. He returned to XE-4 with a 12-inch length as proof of the cut.

    They found the second cable nearly two hours later. It was the Saigon to Hong Kong cable, and the second diver, Sub-Lieutenant Adam Bergius, couldn’t cut it with his cable cutter. He returned to XE-4 and exchanged cutters, and after a brief rest, he re-exited and finished the job. XE-4 withdrew from the area, made her rendezvous with HMS Spearhead, and returned to Labaun on 3 August 1945.

    https://www.robertonfray.com/2023/08/11/the-cable-cutters/

    Now taking bets that China and Russia have already developed unmanned cable cutting submersible drones capable of cutting both communication and power cables.

    130

    • #
      CO2 Lover

      2016 Tasmanian energy crisis {Here the power cable was not deliberately cut – just failed}

      On 22 December 2015, Basslink announced that the HVDC cable had experienced a fault two days earlier (20 December) and was unable to transmit electricity in either direction.] The location of the fault was identified as approximately 100 kilometres (62 mi) off the coast of Tasmania. Basslink informed the Australian Energy Market Operator that the interconnector would experience an outage of up to 60 days.

      Actions taken to minimise the consumption of water from Hydro Tasmania’s storages included:

      – Recommissioning of the gas-fired Tamar Valley Power Station
      – Striking agreements with three major industrial customers – Tamar Valley smelters Bell Bay and TEMCO, and Norske Skog’s papermill at Boyer – to reduce their load by a combined 180 MW
      – Deploying up to 200 MW of portable diesel generators
      – Bringing Hydro Tasmania’s cloud seeding program, usually scheduled to start in May each year, forward by a month

      30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Check out Operation Ivy Bells.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells

      Not mentioned in the article, I think the device had a small RTG (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) on board for power.

      11

  • #
    Bruce

    IF the rotor blades are constructed from entirely synthetic (glass, polyester resin) etc, they are almost invisible to radar, already.

    The towers have a LOT of metal in them. As a passing thought, do the metallic towers have sacrificial anodes on the lower exterior? Probably not; who cares if the monsters rust out from beneath? The creative “investing” has been long done.

    Note that during the last great unpleasantness, German U-boats started to get harder to spot on airborne radars even when surfacesd.

    The German scientists had developed a rubbery “radar-absorbent” paint/ This measurably reduced the reflection of the radar signals. The paint had the
    “unintended” drawback of adding to the “drag” already present on the hulls, especially underwater. The old Diesel-electric boats were faster when surfaced than underwater. By war’s end, the Germans had completely re-thought U-boat design, and as in many other fields, changes a LOT of design and construction practices, globally. also “desalination plants made from STEEL and processing salty water 24 / 7. Who ‘da thunk there might be a few “issues”?

    Supplementary: WHEN the “head” of one of these t”power-sources goes wonky or just wears out, do the operators need to bring in the sort of specialized vessel used to emplace the thing in the first place??

    The whole caper seems to be just another “wealth-redistribution” operation.

    140

  • #
    Penguinite

    In ww2 The Brits invented Radar to identify the bearing and approximate range of German aircraft approaching across the North Sea. Now pommie pilots are using another propeller driven beast to hide in the shadow of! It’s a funny old world!

    30

    • #
      Dave in the States

      Actually, the Germans invented radar.

      00

      • #
        Bruce

        The phenomenon of “reflected” radio waves is as old as the first home-brew, spark-gap transmitter; OLD.Quite a few people were sharing scientific papers and personal letters, right rom the start.Quantifying what the phenomenon meant was a bit of a challenge. The invention of the Cathode Ray tube enabled “visualization” of many things. Radar and television are the two major divergent technologies that appeared.

        In the “good-old days” of analogue TV, it was possible, if you were in a suitable location, to observe the reflections from airliners in the vicinity. The picture would “bounce sideways at varying speeds. Essentially; doppler radar in tour house.

        The early radars used arrays of tall, vertical mast antennae to read the “return signal”, As operational wavelengths got shorter, steerable parabolic “dis=h” receivers appeared. There was constant “leapfrogging”. The Germans quickly cottoned on the the value of “portable” (trick / trailer) mointed steerable dishes, because they could provide range, altitude and speed data on the fly. Very useful, as they demonstrated, tor controlling massed anti-aircraft fire.

        The “shrinkage next saw airborne radar.The Germans fielded a series of radar-equipped night-fighters, to add to the misery of radar-guided Flak.

        The allies, particularly the US, started fitting “search” radars in their bombers this allowed them to bomb, “through the clouds” Airborne radars greatly helped defeat the U-Boat infestatio90n of the Atlantic. The German “anti-radar” paint came along too late for them.

        The other serious player was Japan, specifically their Navy. They had search and gunnery-control raders early in the war.

        The catch for all radar users id that “passive” detectors on the “other team” will quickly pinpoint the source of the radar and, just for fun, this can be done a almost double the distance of a “send and return” system.

        Several major naval battles were fought with radar-controlled gunnery and a LOT of ships lost as a result.

        The really impressive development was the US working out how to put a radar “proximity” fuze in an artillery / naval shell. Instead of guestimating where approaching aircraft might be by the time the projectile “arrived” in the vicinity, was a serious challenge, The traditional method used sme serious number crunching on “Heath-Robinson calculators the controlled the fuze-setter that adjusted the “mechanical” timer that would trigger the ‘air-burst”. Radar fuzes cut straight to the chase; just heave a steady array into the sky where your targeting radar data said the aircraft would be in a second or two. The tiny and incredibly robust “proximity” fuze did the rest. (And with vacuum-tube technology, as well).

        Measures and counter-measures.

        20

        • #
          Dave in the States

          The very first radar device was patented by Christian Huelsmeyer, a German, in 1902. It was just a simple warning device which provided no specific range data. It only sounded a warning bell if something was out there, being intended for ships which might otherwise collide with something in poor visibility. It was ten years before the Titanic, but it generated no interest at the time. The antenna was remarkably like what we would find on ships today, though.

          During the early 30’s, the German Navy put a young physicist PHD, Rudi Kuhnholt, in charge of developing sonar (Asdic). He immediately questioned if the same principles of sound wave echoes, could apply to electromagnetic radio waves. He put two civilian self-taught engineers who were helping him with sound physics on the case. By 1936 they had developed a fully functional ship board radar operating on 53 cm wavelength. The radar could detect ships out to 25 kilometers range. The accuracy of the prototype was such that it could be used to lay guns, providing blind fire. It was remarkably sophisticated. It featured a phased array antenna, and phase coherence. The prototype featured a cavity magnetron transmitter patented secretly by another German, Dr. Hans Hollman. They dropped the magnetron in favor of push pull, dual triode, power amplifier during 1937, because of the “mod-ing” inherent to (non strapped) magnetrons, which made phase coherence difficult. The first tactical use of the radar was when the British had a German pocket battleship bottled up in a Spanish harbor during the Munich Crisis in 1938. However, during a heavy fog, the pocket battleship used its radar to safely navigate unseeing and escape.

          As early as 1939 a long wave version of the radar (Freya) was being installed all over Germany for air warning and aircraft tracking.

          Radar was also being developed independently by all the major players at the time, but the Germans were way ahead of everybody until at least 1942.

          From 1943 the Allies pulled ahead. Why did they? One thing was the Allies were way better at gathering intelligence and at espionage and counter espionage. There was also the Oslo Letter. A letter was sent to the British consulate in Oslo by an unknown German scientist (he/she still remains unknown) during 1939 which not only revealed the advanced state of German radar development, but several other projects just beginning such as guided missiles, proximity fuses, guided torpedoes, jet aircraft, ram jet cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

          Another factor, was National Socialist ideology. Some of the top German radar engineers were Jewish, and when they escaped to Britain and America, they brought their knowledge with them. In fact, one of the major German firms leading in this new technology was Telefunken. (Telefunken developed both the Wuerzburg flak directing radars, and the night fighter radars, as well the first pulse doppler radars.) Telefunken was owned by a Jewish family. Telefunken was taken control of by the SS. The SS increasing controlled the allocation of resources and the direction of scientific research and development

          30

        • #
          Dave in the States

          You mentioned the Japanese effort. The Japanese concentrated development on centimetric radar and they independently invented a cavity magnetron. But their projects never bore fruit until it was far too late. For example, the ship board gun laying radar operating on 10 cm (Type 22 with lobe switching) was never deployed aboard a warship. They did not deploy their first ship board radar sets until mid-1942. They started out playing catch up, and they never caught up. Type 22 despite operating on 10 cm, had a bearing resolution exceeding 20 degrees. One problem for them was that they never discovered strapping, which meant that their magnetrons remained frequency unstable, with tepid power output. They also used tiny horn style antennas. Half power beam width is essentially a function of the wave length/antenna size.

          30

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Wind turbines are an engineering idiocy and shouldn’t be erected anywhere let alone at sea where the the VLF pulsing will damage whales and dolphins.

    Renewables are the result of all western politicians having been bought off or “compensated” by someone who is making a laughing stock out of us all.

    We sent man to the moon in 1969 and have now been pushed to the dark side.

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    I would think another potential problem if a recreational sail boat or commercial ship sailed too close to them they could be hit by a blade.

    20

    • #

      My bolding here:

      …..sailed too close to them they could be hit by a blade.

      And therein lies the source of a huge argument I had many many years back now with a wind supporter.

      In reference to the short lived lifespan of wind plants, I mentioned that after they ‘time expired’ all they could do was tear them down, and dispose of them, necessitating the whole new green field ground up construction of a new plant to replace it.

      He scoffed at me, calling me all types of 1d10t names, their usual ‘flaming’ of a ‘stocking thread count’ and said that when the time came, they would just take down the turbine, put up one of the newer and much larger turbines with a new set of blades out the front.

      When I told him that the newer larger turbines were heavier, and would not be supported on the existing tower, there was still derision. When I then added that the blades would be commensurately longer, longer than the distance between the hub and the ground, he still scoffed, saying that they just replaced the original length blades. Then I mentioned that the blades were specifically designed to ‘drive’ the turbine, and much shorter blades would not even move at all.

      With that, he went off and had a think about it.

      I haven’t heard back, so I suppose he’s still thinking. It seems to me that renewable power supporters have that rational thought part of their brain surgically removed.

      Turbine size and weight determines the tower size, how far into the dirt underneath, the hub height, and the blade length, and there is also a requirement for blade tip distance from the ground, and blade speed as well, so tips do not exceed the speed rating of the blades. There are so many variables in all of this. And you wonder why wind power is just so d@mned cheap eh!

      Because of all of that, when they do time expire, then it actually IS a case of disposal of everything. I mean after 15 years, why would you put another (original design) 1.5MW turbine on top of the existing and probably now stressed tower, when newer ones are up around 5MW plus.

      Tony.

      150

      • #
        CO2 Lover

        Farmers who do deals with wind rent-seekers may end up with huge disposal costs to have the turbines and supports removed when they reach their used-by-date.

        70

  • #
    Penguinite

    In the event of a stoush with China I don’t hold out much hope for the longevity of Mariner power cables between Tasmania and Australian mainland

    50

    • #
      TdeF

      What about the cables from every sea based wind farm to the mainland? Or is that extra? A massive problem with all windfarms, on land or on sea is the sheer cost of connecting them. On land another 10,000km of transmission towers. And then the cables under the sea. Why does all this cost and land and effort just buried in the detail. Batteries NOT included.

      90

      • #
        Lawrie

        Yesterday Jo alerted us to the extensive high pressure cell that rendered the Australian wind farm fleet contribution to the grid almost zero. We do know that a 100 MWh battery in Adelaide keeps the lights on in that town for about an hour if it was fully charged. How many of those $100 million batteries would e necessary to keep Australia going for a day. And if the high pressure cell lingered for a week how do we keep the lights on? I could see the market regulator cutting power to everything and everybody.

        60

        • #
          TdeF

          Sure. My point is our naivety in thinking the cost of the windmills is just the cost of the windmills. You get this in the comparison of Nuclear vs Windmills. The full cost is never included and that includes all distribution and maintenance of that distribution. It was only two years ago that a whole transmission line in SA blew over in what was alleged to be a super storm but was quite ordinary. The risk for windmills and distribution and maintenance in the open ocean must be vastly higher at all times.

          We also just saw the destruction of a huge floating solar system. I suspect the real cost of installation and distribution is higher and the life expectancy of ocean windmills is far less than advertised. And the drill is stuck in Snowy II again.

          70

      • #
        Mike Jonas

        Surely, no smart enemy would cut an offshore wind facility cable. Didn’t Napoleon say something about not disturbing your enemy when they are makibg a mistake? I reckon China – oops sorry a smart enemy – would offer free wind turbines.

        10

      • #
        ozfred

        How many 133 kV distribution lines are still supported by wooden poles?

        00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Yesterday I drove between Melbournistan and Sydneystan and went past a number of wind subsidy plantations near Canberrastan and most of the rotors were not turning. And what an eyesore they all were! What a huge waste of capital and other people’s money!

    Aa it comes to be increasingly recognised how useless land-based plantations are, Phase 2 of the scam is to move from land-based wind subsidy plantations to sea-based plantations before Phase 3 of the scam which is “green hydrogen”.

    And during that 10hr drive the outside temperatures recorded by the car were all the way between 1C and 20C. And people are worried about hypothetical points of a degree according to the Official Narrative?

    Note to Californiastanis, you will be spared much of the offshore wind turbine scam because the rapidly increasing water depth off the Californiastan coast makes them non-viable except for even more expensive floating structures.

    50

  • #
    william x

    Want to know where Australia is focusing on for offshore turbines?

    OK, The Minister for Energy (Australia), can declare areas suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure. (This is stated in “The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 (OEI Act)”

    The Minister, has released six priority areas around Australia, with the Gippsland and Hunter areas officially declared:

    The current “OEI Act” is forceable, 3 NM from shore, to the limit of the Australian Economic Zone.

    These are the current priority areas:

    Bass Strait off Gippsland, Victoria –
    https://WWW.DCCEEW.GOV.AU/ENERGY/RENEWABLE/OFFSHORE-WIND/AREAS/GIPPSLAND

    Pacific Ocean region off the Hunter in NSW
    https://WWW.DCCEEW.GOV.AU/ENERGY/RENEWABLE/OFFSHORE-WIND/AREAS/HUNTER

    Pacific Ocean region off the Illawarra in NSW
    https://WWW.DCCEEW.GOV.AU/ENERGY/RENEWABLE/OFFSHORE-WIND/AREAS/ILLAWARRA

    Southern Ocean region off Portland in Victoria/SA
    https://WWW.DCCEEW.GOV.AU/ENERGY/RENEWABLE/OFFSHORE-WIND/AREAS/SOUTHERN-OCEAN-REGION

    Bass Strait region off Northern Tasmania
    https://WWW.DCCEEW.GOV.AU/ENERGY/RENEWABLE/OFFSHORE-WIND/AREAS/BASS-STRAIT

    Indian Ocean region off Bunbury in WA
    https://WWW.DCCEEW.GOV.AU/ENERGY/RENEWABLE/OFFSHORE-WIND/AREAS/BUNBURY

    Look at the size of the zones. Imho if built, it will be serious environmental vandalism.

    80

    • #
      william x

      Please all,
      Look at the Gov links I provided above…

      An example Bunbury.

      You can see the OEI priority zone mapped on the Govs web-link. They provide an overlay on a sat image.
      They don’t hide it.

      Note that the “priority” OEI zone is huge and is cut with two small circles 20 km diameter, centered from both Bunbury and Cape Naturaliste.

      Now why is that?????… Is it because you won’t be able to see the O/S Turbines at that distance from land?

      In my experience, from the deck of a sailboat you can see 5 NM, 8km. (To horizon)

      20+ km distance is enough to be… Out of sight, out of mind.

      Also, look at the digital altered photos the Gov provides on their Bunbury link.

      You see no Windmills. So no worry.

      Understand all, that you are being groomed.

      80

      • #

        Sea horizon is about 1.09 times the square root of the height above sea level, in feet, for visible light.
        [NB – for radar, its about 1.13 times – so a little further].

        Thus a 5 mile horizon corresponds to a height of about 22 feet.
        Ten miles, about 85 feet.
        That it to see a contrasting coloured thing in the water. But bird choppers have their nacelles at height … perhaps 400 feet for 10MW IIRC.
        These will be visible from the water at about 22 miles.
        Further away if the eye is above the water.

        Add the two distances-to-horizon together to get the visible range [no fog, daytime, etc.].

        Hope this helps – and remember that the top of the birdchoppers’ blades may be 700 feet from the water.

        Auto
        PS turbines are visible, just, in the visualisation at the link!
        Eye is much better – they’ll be seen.

        30

        • #

          More – the link mentions bigger turbines – 15 MW, tip height 268 m, and nacelle height 150m.

          Do look at the link!
          And if you expand – embiggen – the pic, they’re very clear!

          Auto

          10

          • #
            BlokeInAShed

            Thanks for making me look again.
            You need to be looking at these digital renderings / photos on a decent sized computer screen to see that these machines will be far from invisible from the shore.
            Click on the photos to embiggen properly

            00

        • #
          BlokeInAShed

          Auto, thanks for making me look again.
          You need to be looking at these digital renderings / photos on a decent sized computer screen to see that these machines will be far from invisible from the shore.
          A mobile phone screen probably won’t cut it.
          Click on the photos to embiggen properly

          10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Apart from all the other issues, erosion of the leading edges of offshore wind turbine blades is a major problem, even more so than land-based plantations.

    Another maintenance nightmare for wind turbine subsidy harvesters. But don’t worry, someone else like the consumer will pay for it….

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    But these planet savers are made with Australian coal at every step. And they we buy the windmills to replace the coal which we ship to China. We use the money they pay us to buy more Chinese windmills.

    Far worse, the CO2 generated in making these windmills is equivalent to 10 years of output. But you have to wonder with the Capacity Factor if that is not 20-30 years, at least the life expectancy of the windmills. So these very expensive investments will never save as much CO2 as was required to make them. So why is this happening?

    Or is it just profiteering on a magic mushroom problem about hell fire and the end of the world? No need to answer now we are 36 years into the end of the world. And nothing is any different anywhere except that China is richer and we are poorer.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      In other words Chinese windmills make nett zero difference to CO2.
      So why are we doing it?

      50

      • #

        Why?
        Some get money – lots of money.
        Some get power – probably unprecedented power.
        Some get kudos, they think.

        But these ‘somes’ are not ordinary folk.

        Odd, that!

        Auto

        60

  • #

    […] Jo Nova raises concerns about the potential interference of offshore wind turbines with marine radar systems, which could pose significant safety risks for ships navigating near wind farms. A 2022 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in the US found that the steel towers of wind turbines can reflect electromagnetic waves, interfering with ships’ navigational radar systems and obscuring nearby boats. Additionally, the rotating blades can create a Doppler-like effect, distorting radar signals and producing false images on radar screens. […]

    10