PENTAGON COOL ON WIND: SQUARES OFF AGAINST DOE
The Pentagon — which has been warm to things nuclear including, most recently small reactors as part of its move away from fossil fuels and toward energy self-sufficiency — has emerged as the latest impediment to expansion of wind generation according to the New York Times.
The Times reports in today’s paper (Wind Turbine Projects Run Into Resistance) that "moving turbine blades can be indistinguishable from airplanes on many radar systems, and they can even cause blackout zones in which planes disappear from radar entirely. Clusters of wind turbines, which can reach as high as 400 feet, look very similar to storm activity on weather radar, making it harder for air traffic controllers to give accurate weather information to pilots."
And while there hasn’t been a documented result to date of this cause and effect, the House Armed Services Committee has been told that — in certain arenas, such as in the proximity of air bases — wind turbines are "an unacceptable risk to training, testing and national security," according to the Times’ narrative.
In 2009, it is alleged that "9,000 megawatts of wind power projects were abandoned or delayed because of radar concerns raised by the military and the Federal Aviation Administration" — more than the aggregate domestic deployment of wind in the same year.
The Pentagon — which is already heavily engaged in several conflicts (such as Afghanistan and Iraq) — is now also pitted "in direct conflict" with the Department of Energy’s stimulus injected multi-billion dollar checkbook for wind power. This comes at a time when the DOE is itself fighting another "menace" — bureaucracy; a couple weeks ago the department’s inspector general reported that less than 10 percent of one of DOE’s key renewables portfolios has been expended since the February, 2009, stimulus recovery act.
An Idaho National Laboratory researcher calls the Pentagon-DOE stand-off "the train wreck of the 2000s" spelled-out as "competing resources for two national needs: energy security and national security." It is not clear whether 2000s means the decade of the 2000s or the 21st Century…
Read more at the New York Times
Tags: DOE, Idaho National Laboratory, New York Times, Nuclear Townhall, The Pentagon, wind turbine

October 31st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article
November 21st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Grande borne! Agradecimentos para tomar o momento de escrever algo que é realmente leitura do valor. Demasiado frequentemente eu encontro a informação inútil e não a algo que é realmente relevante. Agradecimentos para seu trabalho duro.
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:37 pm
You completed certain nice points there. I did a search on the subject matter and found a good number of people will agree with your blog.
November 23rd, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Valuable information and excellent design you got here! I would like to thanks for your time for sharing your thoughts and time into the stuff you article!! Thumbs up! I just hope to have understood this the way it was meant.
December 20th, 2010 at 1:38 am
Thank you for an additional good write-up. Where else could anyone get that type of details in these a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation subsequent week, and I am around the look for this kind of info.
December 20th, 2010 at 4:34 am
Fantastic wordpress blog here.. It’s hard to find high quality writing like yours nowadays. I truly appreciate individuals like you! take care and see you soon.
December 20th, 2010 at 7:54 am
What I wouldnt give to have a debate with you about this. You just say so many things that come from nowhere that Im fairly sure Id have a fair shot. Your weblog is wonderful visually, I mean people wont be bored. But others who can see past the videos and the layout wont be so impressed with your generic understanding of this topic.
December 20th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Thank you for the sensible critique. Me & my neighbour were preparing to do some research about that. We received a good book on that matter from our local library and most books exactly where not as influensive as your facts. I am very glad to see such data which I was searching for a long time.