Wind turbines around airports

[Troubleshot]

Yeah doesn't make sense does it. Why not just build a look-out?

[DirtGuy]

[quote="The Mole"]They give off an amazing amount of wake turbulence, about the same as a 737. Use caution flying downwind of one.

As a student pilot, my Instructor and I inadvertently practised a forced approach in a field downwind of a wind turbine. We thought we were far enough away, but having a 172 almost flip on its back on the climb out was a bit of surprise. File that experience under, "I'll never do that again".

How ironic to close an airport and put up something so hazardous to general aviation.

[Bushav8er]

Does anyone have a link to the regulations as far as height of obstacle vs distance from the airport?

Here's the list:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... ls-920.htm

[Ref Plus 10]

They give off an amazing amount of wake turbulence, about the same as a 737. Use caution flying downwind of one.

As a student pilot, my Instructor and I inadvertently practised a forced approach in a field downwind of a wind turbine. We thought we were far enough away, but having a 172 almost flip on its back on the climb out was a bit of surprise. File that experience under, "I'll never do that again".

How ironic to close an airport and put up something so hazardous to general aviation.

I've flown a DC3 short final behind one (half mile?) in around 30 knots and never noticed so much as a (irregular) burble. I suppose the story is slightly different in a smaller airplane, as I've heard a couple of pilots walking away from their airplane after coming in close behind us doing a no flap landing saying "Gee, there sure was some severe turbulence on final"....Gimme that license!!

Ref

[ahramin]

Troubleshot, thanks for all the info on wind turbines. It doesn't speak well for your info though when you claim that you can maintain a turbine for $1800 a year, and then later admit that the $1800 doesn't cover labour or parts. Using your math I can maintain my car for $220 a year. In reality it's 10 times that, and I'd bet the actual cost of maintaining your turbines is more than 10 times your figure.

More realistic figures to post would be what does your company charge the owners to maintain those 15 windmills, and how much power did they produce last year.

Same thing when you claim there aren't any turbines 500' tall, but don't count the height of the blades. I'm sure there is a perfectly valid reason for using hub height in measuring windmills, but not when you are talking about how high something sticks into the air.

[rubberboot]

Troubleshot, thanks for all the info on wind turbines. It doesn't speak well for your info though when you claim that you can maintain a turbine for $1800 a year, and then later admit that the $1800 doesn't cover labour or parts. Using your math I can maintain my car for $220 a year. In reality it's 10 times that, and I'd bet the actual cost of maintaining your turbines is more than 10 times your figure.

More realistic figures to post would be what does your company charge the owners to maintain those 15 windmills, and how much power did they produce last year.

Same thing when you claim there aren't any turbines 500' tall, but don't count the height of the blades. I'm sure there is a perfectly valid reason for using hub height in measuring windmills, but not when you are talking about how high something sticks into the air.

i think the 1800$ is for direct operating costs - ie grease, filters etc. i think it was mentioned in an earlier post.

i think there would be a yearly reserve (simular to an engine reserve) put aside to cover the capital costs, like bearing failures, blabe damage, and other variable costs involved. on top of that, i would expect a replacement reserve is involved too when the entire turbine becomes B.E.R. this money would only be used if required, and is probably sitting in some hedge fund somewhere collecting interest, so i can see why it wasnt included in the figures - no guarentee it will be used... kind of like how Condo fees are used, where money is put aside for boiler repairs.

as i don't work in the wind power industry, i could be way off. am i close Troubleshot?

[Troubleshot]

Ahramin,

I understand the confusion about the cost to maintain a wind turbine, believe me I am not making it up (and have no reason to)

Rubberboot is pretty close, what the $1800 would cover would be like consumables (to use an old airplane lingo) Grease, oil filters, etc...and that would be per turbine for preventative maintenance. Now, here is where is gets a bit confusing...so the turbines are sold with a service and warranty agreement/contract and the owners pay a fee per turbine approx $70k a year (mentioned this already). Do I spend $70K to keep a turbine spinning...no, but we cover everything under warranty. We blow a gear box that's $90K, lose a generator that's $65K. So, we know as the manufacture we can offer this warranty and still make money. Clear as mud?

What I was trying to say about the operating cost was this small community based turbine was quoting $4000/year bill and it is only a 50Kw turbine, mine are 2100Kw. I have me, my admin, 6 techs, office building, 4 trucks, about $600,000 of inventory, etc, etc. This small turbine has none of that...that math doesn't add up, not mine.

I did make a mistake about the height thing, my brain was in hub height mode because that's all we say in the biz. But 500+feet is pushin it....tip of blade or not.

[DirtGuy]

They give off an amazing amount of wake turbulence, about the same as a 737. Use caution flying downwind of one.

As a student pilot, my Instructor and I inadvertently practised a forced approach in a field downwind of a wind turbine. We thought we were far enough away, but having a 172 almost flip on its back on the climb out was a bit of surprise.

How ironic to close an airport and put up something so hazardous to general aviation.

I've flown a DC3 short final behind one (half mile?) in around 30 knots and never noticed so much as a (irregular) burble.
Ref

Very interesting! Wouldn't flying be so much easier if we could actually SEE the air?

[Prairie Chicken]

Raven, TP-7775 Procedures for the Certification of an Aerodrome as an Airport is your best bet but applies to certified airports only. See the section on Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. Nothing applies to registered aerodromes other than the Obstacle Marking and Lighting regs.

[dashx]

2200 to maintain your car?

Can you break that down?

[CD]

Eight turbines ordered to be removed near Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport

By Ellwood Shreve, Chatham Daily News
Tuesday, July 8, 2014 2:41:47 EDT PM

Transport Canada is standing firm on its order requiring eight wind turbines, owned by GDF SUEZ Canada, to be lowered or removed because they violate height limits near the Chatham-Kent Municipal Airport.

The Chatham Daily News has received an e-mail response from the federal agency regarding the issue.

Both GDF SUEZ and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent are upset with the order, delivered late last week, which has been stepped up from a request for the company to voluntarily comply with the Airport Zoning Regulations (AZR), which protects a radius of approximately four kilometres around the airport.

Noting it has originally asked for voluntary compliance, the agency said, “when this was not achieved, Transport Canada issued a notice requiring the company to lower or remove the wind turbines in compliance with the Chatham AZR.”

Transport Canada said it is enforcing the AZR as per its statutory authority under section 5.7 of the Aeronautics Act, that includes a deadline of Dec. 31, 2014 to comply.
GDF SUEZ has said it will be filing a formal objection to the order.

The municipality stated in a media release issued Sunday that its chief legal officer John Norton had met as recently as two months ago with Transport Canada officials proposing an exemption for the eight turbines. It has been argued that several aeronautic consultants have found there is not safety issue with the turbines.

However, it appears the agency is not prepared to budge on its position.

“Transport Canada is not considering an exemption to allow the encroaching wind turbines to remain in place.”

Both the company and municipality have stated Transport Canada knew about the turbine locations before they were constructed, but didn't notify anyone about this issue until after they were built. The company and municipality also noted the agency approved the lighting for the structures.

“Transport Canada advised several wind farm representatives in writing prior to construction that Airport Zoning Regulations (AZR) were in place and could affect what could be built in the vicinity of the airport,” the agency said.

As for approving the lighting, Transport Canada said its role, with respect to obstacles, is to assess them for lighting and marking requirements in support of aviation safety in accordance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations.

“A lighting and marking assessment of a wind turbine or wind farm from Transport Canada does not constitute an authorization to construct,” the agency said. “At no time does Transport Canada ever grant authority to construct.”

[Colonel Sanders]

What is it with Chatham?! Isn't that where the
farmer built the silo off the end of the runway?

[pdw]

Yup. Reason prevailed, and the silo was eventually negotiated away from the end of the runway.

[Aeroplane17]

I wonder who these "Aeronautic Consultants" are? the damn windmills are in the circuit at Chatham. Use your effing heads. Common sense should prevail in this situation. There's no official law on these wind turbines around airports because they didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to surround an aerodrome with them. Keep voting Liberal people.

I love how the City was on board with keeping these windmills in place after the company responsible for these turbines extorted a little hush money for runway/ lighting improvements. Safety last right?

[pdw]

What position was TC in .. to stop them from erecting them. Once they were up (lol) it was clearer they would be a problem for air traffic. Blade tip-lights are un-desireable/ unsightly, but no other way to light the highest point of the structure either.

[Liquid Charlie]

What about COPA --

[Inverted2]

The damn things are popping up like weeds all over Ontario. When your hydro bill keeps skyrocketing you can thank this "green" energy scam. Only a matter of time till a small aircraft hits one of these eyesores.

[pdw]

Central South Dakota on April 28 2014, a piper lance hit a blade of a wind turbine still 10 miles from the airport flying too low in foggy weather.

[ahramin]

I don't think they are an eyesore. They're quite a nice looking piece of engineering. Certainly better than a coal plant, even if they are more expensive.

[Inverted2]

I don't think they are an eyesore. They're quite a nice looking piece of engineering. Certainly better than a coal plant, even if they are more expensive.

Good, put them up around your place and watch your property values plummet. All the city folk think they're so pretty out in the countryside but they don't live around them.

[cgzro]

Since we have an expert here perhaps we could get an estimate of the full cost of a turbine over 20 years purchase, install, maintain and its faceplate rated capacity.

Im very curious what the per household per year true cost works out to when you divide that number by its average output and the amount per average house. No subsidies, just raw cost per house per year without any spinning backup.

You read all different costs so I am curious what somebody close to them comes up with.

[cgzro]

. Good, put them up around your place and watch your property values plummet. All the city folk think they're so pretty out in the countryside but they don't live around them.

They put one in a skyscraper in London I think... Big fiasco imagine working in a law office in some sky scraper and having light flicker. They get annoyed at a simple mirror surface reflecting light into their office.. They'd go bananas over flicker.

Also in China there is a highway in Shenzhen that has a small wind turbine (non pivoting) and a solar panel (facing the wrong way) on every lamp post for about 10 kilometers. They are decorative of course to impress the gullible foreigners:)

[CpnCrunch]

Since we have an expert here perhaps we could get an estimate of the full cost of a turbine over 20 years purchase, install, maintain and its faceplate rated capacity.

Im very curious what the per household per year true cost works out to when you divide that number by its average output and the amount per average house. No subsidies, just raw cost per house per year without any spinning backup.

You read all different costs so I am curious what somebody close to them comes up with.

Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_e ... _by_source

Looks like it's comparable to natural gas and coal, and cheaper than coal with C02 capture. It would seem to make sense to use renewables if they're comparable in price to coal or gas.

[Troubleshot]

Still like coming here from time to time, but I am not going to debate those "dam turbines" or the "green energy scam". Wind or Solar may not be the long term answer but they are a viable business that have far better margins than aviation ever will. The government do not subsidise the companies that own the parks, the only influence the government has is they have to request the power and put a tender out. Solar, wind, biomass, hydro all bid on the same RFP.

Utility grade renewables have only been around for about 20 years, I suspect once it is as old as aviation it will be our only source of power. Once we develop a cheap, high capacity, light weight storage cell...it will change the world very quickly.

146_1wv_cnvy1707.jpg (241.23 KiB) Viewed 1759 times

[Geo]

In the meantime...a discourse on the economics of "pumped storage hydro", which can improve the economics of renewables like wind. As an aside, this artice refers to the Old Man River dam, only a few miles from CZPC...an aerodrome that is surrounded by wind farms.

Study on Pumped Storage Economics

g