A Free-Market Energy Blog

Wind Energy and Radar: A National Security Issue

By -- September 26, 2011

Military leaders are under pressure to not disrupt White House green energy policies even while green energy technology is disrupting our navigation aids and impairing U.S. national security.

Washington has a track record of muzzling military testimony to protect its pet policies and political friends. Last week, Air Force Gen. William Shelton admitted he was pressured by the administration to change his testimony regarding LightSquared’s network and its adverse impact on military space-based navigation systems. We applaud Shelton for not bowing to the pressure.

But the military has not been honest about the effect wind turbine technology has on our national radar systems.

The fact is that our air space has been made less safe by turbines and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within 50-miles of radar installations.  Military radar experts in the field know the damage that’s been done. But with the debate surrounding energy policy dominated by politics and money, the military has bowed to the pressure.

Radar Interference and Mitigation

The military services and federal agencies have conducted numerous studies on the radar question, as have multiple international military and private interests. Not all studies agree on levels of severity and potential mitigations, but all agree that large scale industrial wind turbines have the potential to negatively affect military installations, radar, and navigation aids.

The problem is easy to explain, but difficult to resolve.

Since radar technology is designed to detect moving objects, spinning turbine blades create interference which degrades the signal. Wind towers carry a signal strength greater than a Boeing 747, so when the radar repeatedly sees the large return it cannot detect actual aircraft in the same area.

Large expenditures of time and funds have been allocated in pursuit of technical mitigations but so far the results are controversial. According to Raytheon lead radar engineer, Peter Drake, radar mitigation technology does not yet exist. “…These things [turbines] inside of 20 miles, look like a 747 on final approach,” Drake said. The trick, he adds, “…is to somehow make them disappear, while still being able to see a real 747…we have not figured that out yet.”

By 2008, nearly 40% of our long-range radar systems were compromised by wind turbines. Today, more than twice the wind capacity is installed and the problem of radar interference persists.

Proper siting of turbines, while politically cumbersome, is the only tried and true form of mitigation. But this means denying wind developers access to land areas covered by radar.

Radar Interference at Travis Air Force Base

The problem of radar interference first cropped up in the United States in early 2007 near Travis Air Force base in California. Two wind proposals were before the Solano County Planning Commission that would erect over one-hundred new turbines in the area. The spinning blades resulted in smaller planes appearing to drop off the radar while others appeared when they weren’t actually there.

Both Travis and the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission urged the planning commissioners to delay approving the projects, citing air safety and the need for more time to study the effects the towers had on navigation.

In his letter to the County, Colonel Steven Arquiette, commander of the 60th Air Mobility Wing at Travis, warned: “…we have evidence indicating the wind turbines will create significant interference with the base’s radar and could lead to potentially serious flight safety hazards in terms of planes dropping off radar, flight tracks on radar different from actual tracks and ‘false targets’ — planes the radar sees but aren’t actually there.”

The county heeded their concerns and agreed to the delay. Commissioner John Moore was particularly firm when he said “…If they can’t fix it, it might never get done. Nothing happens unless the Air Force’s problem gets fixed.”

Travis held firm on its objections until a year later when enXco, one of the project proponents gifted $1 million to the base for technical mitigations.

Col. Arquiette was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints despite the fact that the mitigation offered little more than a ”detuning” of the radar signal to lessen the impact of the towers.

enXco’s project was approved and built. But the radar problem was never resolved.

The Travis AFB Midair Collision Avoidance (MACA) pamphlet was updated this year with a warning that states:

“The wind farms southeast of Travis AFB interfere with the Travis ATC radar. In the area shown above (click here to read the MACA) you cannot be seen on radar if you are not squawking! Please squawk. BE SEEN.”

Squawking refers to turning the aircraft’s transponder on to allow communication between the aircraft and the secondary radar system installed at air traffic control facilities.

The strategy of requiring areas to be transponder-only airspace could work but relies on pilots complying with the warning. Recreational pilots may not remember to comply or their aircraft might not be adequately equipped. But worse, drug runners and — in this post-9/11 world — terrorists, might prefer not to be seen and intentionally keep their transponders off to stay invisible. The first thing the 9/11 hijackers did after seizing control of our passenger planes was to turn off the transponders.

Remarkably, participants at the radar forum at AWEA’s Annual Conference last May touted the Travis solution as the gold standard for addressing turbine interference. You be the judge.

Shepherds Flat Wind Farm and Long-range Radar

The radar problem at Travis involves airport surveillance radar. This type of radar is used by air traffic control and has a range of about 60 miles. Long-range radar monitors in-route air traffic control used for homeland defense and NORAD. The mile distance for long range radar is 250 miles.

The Air Force maintains a long-range radar facility in Fossil, Oregon, that’s responsible for monitoring the U.S. border along the Pacific Northwest. It covers the territory north, over the Canadian border, and south into areas in California. If you google “fossil oregon radar” the search returns titles that include:

1. Pentagon objections hold up Oregon wind farm

2. Fears of radar interference threaten Oregon wind farm, but solutions exist

3. Pentagon drops objections to Oregon wind farm

A year ago this radar facility was the source of significant controversy when the Pentagon objected to the proposed $2 billion Shepherds Flat1 wind energy facility. The project’s 338 General Electric turbines totaling 845 megawatts were to be built in the line of sight of Fossil’s radar sweep .

The situation at Fossil was nearly identical to that of Travis.

Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley expressed outrage over the Pentagon’s objections and set out to pressure the military into silence. They joined nine other senators in writing to Defense Secretary Robert Gates requesting a resolution of the conflict and insisting the DOD failed to search hard enough for practical solutions.

In order to get his way, Sen. Wyden (D-OR), lobbied for an $8 million earmark in the 2011 appropriations to cover the cost for technical mitigations akin to what was implemented at Travis.

Bottom line: The public was on the hook to fund the project and responsible for degrading our radar.

Outcome TBD

Windaction.org interviewed long-range radar specialists familiar with the mitigation proposed for the Fossil radar site. The technology under study (“Scan Step”) involves installing a digital processor that, with software, will work to lessen the effect of turbine clutter. The process results in targets becoming invisible. In fact, aircraft the size of the space shuttle could fly through the radar sweep area undetected. Further, the fix is not universal and may be site specific.

The processor underwent its first suite of tests at the Fossil, Oregon, radar installation last spring. Word back was that it failed all tests. None of the FAA or DOD engineers we’ve spoken to believe Scan Step technology will work in the way people have been led to believe. No one doubts there will be a loss in radar resolution. Critical questions still pending are:

1) What level of radar reduction will be deemed acceptable?

2) Who will decide the level of reduction that will be permitted?

3) Will the public be informed as to the extent Shepherds Flat has compromised our national security?

When Windaction.org asked a staff member of the Senate Armed Services committee what happens if Step Scan doesn’t work, his response was an abrupt: “It has to”

Indeed! Shepherds Flat is slated to go into service next year.

The cases at Travis AFB and Fossil should raise red flags. But unlike the LightSquared objections cited by General Shelton, the military is comfortable whitewashing the turbine issue and  hiding behind technical mitigations that don’t work.  Our  national security and air safety have been compromised by wind turbines and U.S. taxpayers are unknowingly funding the degradation of  our radar through federal renewable programs. It’s time the military had the courage to step up and speak the truth to the American people.


1. The Shepherds Flat wind facility was the subject of the White House memo that complained the project received $1.2 billion in governmental subsidies, covering 65% of the cost and risk for the project while its equity sponsors incurred only about 11% and received an estimated return on equity of 30% — a hefty return for a project where the American public is absorbing the bulk of the risk.


  1. Marlo Lewis  

    Lisa, fine sleuthing and an important contribution to public understanding of the national security risks of climate change policy.


  2. aepstein  

    This is a valuable illustration of how government central planners don’t, won’t, and ultimately can’t think through all of the consequences of their arbitrary “plans,” such as populating the country with monstrous wind turbines. In a real market, few if any wind turbines would be built, of course, but if/when they were I imagine this kind of thing would be detected early.


  3. Jon Boone  

    Fine reporting, Lisa. The politicalization of the electricity sector you describe, extending now to the military, has its roots in many soils. Both FERC and NERC have abandoned their mandates to protect the public and now routinely serve up policy prescriptions inimical to their charge. And then there’s the US Fish & Wildlife operation, which has gutted its historical mission of protecting vulnerable species and sensitive habitats in order to accommodate limited liability wind companies. Of course, there is perhaps the biggest shill of all: The Department of Energy, with the revolving door between NREL and AWEA, and, as you point out, outright gimmes from the stimulus fund stash and huge loan guarantees a la Shepherds Flat. All should read this link from The Oregonian:


    In the wake of the Solyndra debacle, with only a half billion dollars down the drain, why isn’t anyone mentioning the Caithness Shephard’s Flat rat hole in Oregon, with its 388 GE wind turbines testifying to the power of Jeff Immelt’s crony capitalism and nurtured by GE’s infotainment operation at NBC? The DOE has assured it would underwrite $1.1 billion loan guarantee for the project earlier this year.


  4. Another threat to modernity from wind “power” | JunkScience Sidebar  

    […] Wind Energy and Radar: A National Security Issue Lisa Linowes […]


  5. lee  

    I doubt this is really a problem. A digital signature of the turbines can be processed so planes can be seen near them. And/or Sync the digital signals with another radar installation and digitally process them. Put another radar on the opposite side of the turbines so they arent in the radar path. Consider the risk of this vs what climate change will wrought.


  6. Lisa Linowes  

    Lee, Efforts to apply ‘discrimination’ algorithms along the lines you’ve described are being attempted but so far in prototype only and have not proven effective. You make the casual suggestion that the radar should be moved, or another located nearby — but who pays? Given your apparent conclusion that the risks to national security and aviation safety have already been evaluated and weighed against the risk of warming, would you kindly share with us the data on which you rely. While you’re at it, can you offer a good explanation for why our radars to date have been compromised? or why developers are unable/unwilling to stay outside a 50 NM radius from radar facilities. Thanks.


  7. lee  

    I have no problem with requiring the wind developers to pay for relocated radar. But only if its a deemed a impending security necessity.

    The military has already come to the conclusion that warming is a serious threat to national security.About warming, the ultimate threat here going past the tipping point,i.e. game over for earth. They militaryhas the resources to evaluate threats and Homeland security. Just because a plane cant be seen doesnt mean there is a threat. If you want to talk data, what data do you have showing any problem has occured? A plane would have to be flying in from somewhere and there is a huge interconnected FAA network tracking planes. Also, require transponders to be always on, or get shot down. Surely the military after 911 is able to scramble quicker.

    I dont mean to say the radar problem is inconsequential, but dont even remotely infer warming is less important.

    An analysis i suspect will show that indeed in some areas, trubines should be restricted until solutions are at hand, which they will. (Satelite tracking?) Each location is going to be different, don’t just stay restrict turbines in a 50miles radius.

    Considering other possible means of attacks, and that a LOT of money is now spent on airline security, and wind is already being suppressed ny NIMBYS, care needs to be taken not to arbitrarily put a huge 50mile boundrys into effect.

    Energy is and will continue to be US national security biggest problem. Lets resolve this without hurting a fledgling industry providing an energy solution.


  8. Jon Boone  

    And, hey, Lisa, Lee should be also tasked to explain what windplants have to do with engaging his notion of–uh–climate change…


  9. Jon Boone  

    Fledgling industry!? The technology only differs slightly in degree–but not kind–from that which was used to pump water and grind grain, not to mention propel boats, for many thousands of years. It has been feeding at the public trough for more than 40 years. Continuing to nurture this enormous technological fraud with the public’s treasure would testify about how ignorance, gullibility, and greed triangulate to diminish our national intelligence.


  10. Wind Farm Follies and Renewable Energy Disasters « News « @griffinrc  

    […] Air Force Base, “was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints,”according to Masterresource.org blogger Lisa Linowes, despite the fact that nothing about the plans had […]


  11. Wind Farm Follies and Renewable Energy Disasters | Whitley County Patriots  

    […] Air Force Base, “was told by his superiors to accept the money and withdraw his complaints,”according to Masterresource.org blogger Lisa Linowes, despite the fact that nothing about the plans had […]


  12. Big Wind: Threat to Air Navigation, Military Assets - Master Resource  

    […] air space has been made less safe and our national security compromised because of a reckless policy of siting wind towers within […]


  13. Prapti Hinge  

    Military Radar Market Size, Share & Industry Analysis, By Platform (Land Radar, Naval Radar, and Airborne Radar), By Range (Long, Medium, Short, and Very Short), By Application (Airspace Monitoring & Traffic Management, Weapon Guidance, Ground Surveillance & Intruder Detection, Airborne Mapping, Navigation, Others), By Frequency Band (UHF/VHF, L-Band, S-Band, C-Band, X-Band, and Ku/K/Ka-Band), By Components (Antenna, Transmitter, Duplexer, Receiver, Others), and Regional Forecast 2019-2026


Leave a Reply