EXCLUSIVE: Britain Forced to Spend £1.5 Billion to Mitigate Wind Turbine Corruptions to Vital Air Defence Radar

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Britain’s offshore wind farms are a clear and present danger to vital air defences, with the Labour Government forced to spend an astonishing £1.5 billion in the next two years to try to guarantee the integrity of the country’s early warning radar network. Wind turbines cause havoc with radar since the rotating blades create Doppler shifts that hinder detection of enemy aircraft, drones and missiles. The problem has been known about for some time but it is getting worse as turbine blades get larger. There is no guarantee that the enormous sums recently allocated will fix the problems despite amounting to 2.5% of the entire annual UK defence budget of around £60 billion.

The money is a complete waste of course and only necessary because politicians are clinging to an increasing discredited Net Zero fantasy. It need hardly be pointed out the £1.5 billion could bring back the winter fuel payment to the over-65s, a project dear to the heart of many Labour supporters, or it could remove the punitive education tax levied on 6% of children educated outside the state system. The annual budget of the RAF is not disclosed but it is thought to be around £15 billion. The money spent on trying to fix the radar is therefore 10% of the annual funding of the air force and it would buy a squadron of Typhoon fighter jets.

And the costly fix might not work. No definitive solution to radar corruptions seems to have been achieved and the problem is getting worse as the political demands for more renewable energy are leading to much larger revolving blades. It is thought that the money will be spent on a number of mitigating attempts including computer fixes, radar upgrades, alternative sensors and the use of specialised materials on blades to reduce radar clutter. Alas, none of these attempted solutions are proven to fully eradicate the growing problem. Coming further down the track are floating wind turbines which further complicate radar tracking due to positional variability.

Details of the £1.5 billion Project Njord are to be found in the recently-published Ministry of Defence Acquisition Pipeline document. Seven separate amounts of £210 million under the heading “The procurement of Mitigation Solution(s) to negate the adverse effects of offshore wind farms on AD radars” are being given to RAF radar stations from Saxa Vord in Shetland to Portreath on the coast of Cornwall. The five other stations involved in the project are Saxton Wood in North Yorkshire, Benbecula in the Hebrides, Neatishead in Norfolk, Brizlee Wood in Northumberland and Buchan in Aberdeenshire. It is understood that the work has been awarded to six suppliers and around 14 mitigation solutions are involved.

Although the problem of wind turbine radar corruption has been acknowledged in the past, the agreed political narrative has been that the offshore wind business can be rolled out with larger machines and a solution guaranteeing national security can be found. This approach has been found wanting in the past and it appears that a desperate attempt is being made to find a workable solution by throwing a vast amount of new money at the radar problem. Money that could have been spent on national defence at a time of heightened political tension and a possible reduction of American support is being hosed at yet another self-inflicted problem caused by unreliable renewable energy projects. As with most matters Net Zero, vast sums of money are required to keep the show on the road whether it be pointless, unproven carbon capture schemes (£22 billion over 20 years) or subsidies to produce uneconomic wind and solar energy (£15 billion every year).

The UK is aiming to produce 50 GW of electricity from offshore turbines by 2030, but this is likely to conflict with the imperative to maintain a robust and reliable radar defence system. The news of the MoD’s significant spend shows that that the security matter is being taken seriously in Whitehall, although the lack of a guaranteed fix, despite years of research, must raise national security concerns. But Net Zero-obsessed politicians such as Energy Minister Ed Miliband are likely to press forward by encouraging ever larger offshore projects with blades as high as 180 metres sweeping the surrounding environment. Already there are nearly 3,000 offshore turbines around the UK, with hundreds that are taller than the Gherkin building in the City of London. Although onshore turbines have been given the go-ahead, a crowded island like the UK and growing political pushback on Net Zero means that future growth will remain difficult to achieve.

In fact the radar problem might eventually have to be solved by a costly transfer of ground facilities to the air. Professor Justin Bronk is a leading expert on air power and technology and he recently noted that unless there was a “breakthrough” in mitigating the effect of wind turbines on ground-based radar, “Britain is going to need a more capable airborne detection service”.

Having a back-up system available at enormous expense is of course a regular feature whenever cranky Net Zero projects are being pursued.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 15 votes
Article Rating
42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scarecrow Repair
May 8, 2025 10:14 pm

I guess one could say …
*dons sunglasses*
The RAF still can’t see that coming.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 9, 2025 7:00 am

Just one of many downsides of windmills everywhere.
How will Miliband, pants-on-fire liar, ever spin that?

Then there are these brownouts/blackouts:

Interior Secretary Warns US. at Risk of Spain-Style Blackouts
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/interior-secretary-warns-us-at-risk-of-spain-style-blackouts ;

Then there are these cancellations:

Hornsea 4 Offshore Wind in the North Sea Cancelled By Orsted, a Danish Company
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hornsea-4-offshore-wind-in-the-north-sea-cancelled-by-orsted-a

May 8, 2025 10:15 pm

But AD systems need a lot of electricity. Turn them off, and one doesn’t need as many offshore (or onshore) wind turbines. Problem solved.

Bryan A
May 8, 2025 10:25 pm

One possible solution to the Radar Problem is to place your radar sensors at an elevation twice as high as the blade tips. Another possible solution is to relocate the Radar sensors beyond the offshore turbines.
The BEST solution is to eliminate the costly offshore behemoths that can’t guarantee to produce energy on demand 24/7/365

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bryan A
May 9, 2025 7:29 am

Double the heigh of the towers and put the radar equipment on those mast extensions?
/sarc biggie

Bryan A
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 9, 2025 2:04 pm

Sarc/ excluded …

George Thompson
Reply to  Bryan A
May 9, 2025 9:15 am

And what about “ground clutter” or false return from the turbulence? Local weather radar shows it, so why not?

Bryan A
Reply to  George Thompson
May 9, 2025 2:05 pm

Then go with option 3! (The Best)

wuzzup
Reply to  Bryan A
May 9, 2025 9:54 pm

🔴 It is possible that there may be some vertical axis turbine designs which could mitigate this issue, and much more study is needed.

StephenP
May 8, 2025 10:31 pm

There seems to be so much pride and hubris invested by politicians that they will never back down on net zero and their obsession with wind and solar until the whole system comes crashing down along with the economy and living conditions.
Their supposed remedies for intermittencies are becoming ever more complicated and expensive with batteries, pumped storage and imports (from fossil fuel generators in many cases) etc and must be making the control of the electricity supply system a nightmare for the grid controllers.
It will make the effects of COVID lockdown seem insignificant.

StephenP
Reply to  StephenP
May 8, 2025 10:59 pm

Also so much money wasted, much of it sent abroad, that could have been used better in the UK. Supposed green jobs ending up abroad, many to China.
The whole wasteful cycle needing to be repeated every 15 – 20 years.
Total effect on CO2 emissions and global temperatures miniscule.
Virtue signalling at its worst.

Michael Flynn
Reply to  StephenP
May 8, 2025 11:02 pm

Maybe “net zero” refers to their collective common sense.

May 8, 2025 10:31 pm

Unintended consequences ! !

Who’da thunk it?

Reply to  Steve Case
May 9, 2025 3:25 am

The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Steve Case
May 9, 2025 7:30 am

Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.

Michael Flynn
May 8, 2025 11:01 pm

Just get rid of the radar systems made useless by wind farms. Save the £1.5 billion, plus the cost of manning and maintaining the ineffective radar systems.

What are these super-secret radar systems supposed to do anyway? Hurl insults at incoming hypersonic nuclear weapons?

Presumably the UK is worried that a foreign aggressor wants to invade, to steal UK intellectual property about wind turbines – and ensure a stable supply of chicken tikka marsala, the national dish which is the envy of a jealous world.

I find it funny, anyway.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Michael Flynn
May 9, 2025 7:31 am

Maybe the WTGs can function as an anti missile system, at least for low altitude cruise missiles?

Works for bats and eagles….

Michael Flynn
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
May 9, 2025 4:47 pm

Extend the anti-missile range on a windy day by feeding tennis-ball sized steel balls into the hub, to run along a tube in the blade.

Tip speeds can reach 250-300 m/s, which is not as fast as a rifle bullet, but slinging a 500 g steel ball from the end of the blade would make Goliath soil his loincloth, and David would be extremely envious.

Maximum height would be at least 1500 m, and even though the ball might be stationary, about to return to Earth, a missile or aircraft running into a tennis-ball size piece of steel would receive a shock.

As Elon Musk demonstrated successfully, the finest bullet proof glass is easily smashed by a steel ball lightly lobbed by hand. Imagine the same ball travelling at 1000 km/h! I’m waiting by the phone for the UK government to call me.

Rod Evans
May 9, 2025 12:24 am

This is a crazy problem to even have to deal with.
Today the entire wind turbine fleet in the UK some 30+GW capacity is producing less than 2GWs. There is a problem with wind it has been unreliable and low for most of this year and questions need to be asked, why is wind declining?
The radar issue is also getting worse for land based systems. There is nothing to stop a malign force from launching low level flight drones at the UK from ships or submarines using the wind turbines that skirt the UK as radar cover. We would simply not be able to see the incoming until it was too late to engage them.
Off shore wind needs to be stopped it is too inconsistent, it is too expensive to maintain and it is getting worse plus the security risks are now real.
I have no doubt Ed will see this as a reason to erect ever more of them….

atticman
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 9, 2025 12:52 am

“Why is the wind declining?”

Maybe all those wind turbines are taking too much energy out of the atmosphere… The (originally naval) term “Taking the wind out of their sails” still applies.

mikewaite
Reply to  atticman
May 9, 2025 2:50 am

Those studying the loss of the Norse settlements in Greenland have pointed out that one cause was the loss of regular supplies from Iceland and Norway because of the increase in storminess in the North Atlantic from the 13th C onward . This is the period when the climate became colder , into the LIA.
Should one then assume that a warmer climate , which we experience today even if we are not entirely sure of the cause, will reduce storminess , and by implication the average wind speed . Turbine output is , I believe a high power of wind speed so a small reduction in mean wind speed could mean a disproportionate reduction in power output.

TBeholder
Reply to  mikewaite
May 9, 2025 5:35 pm

Rather obviously, it’s the other way around. Winds bring in air from colder or warmer places.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 9, 2025 2:09 pm

A better question than “Why is Wind Decreasing” would be “Why isn’t adding more helping?” Answer…Regardless of how many KW/MW/GW/TW of wind capacity you have, when the wind isn’t blowing … you’re hosed.

TBeholder
Reply to  Rod Evans
May 9, 2025 5:33 pm

There is nothing to stop a malign force from launching low level flight drones at the UK from ships or submarines using the wind turbines that skirt the UK as radar cover.

Costs!
I mean, why bother? UK is already destroying itself nicely just by outsourcing state terror to imported petty criminals.
If someone actually wanted to blow up specific things over there without waiting? A cheaper and more reliable solution would be to train a few teams of mercenaries from Somali, infiltrate as “repugees” and have them launch drones right from London etc. Even sending them entire crates of replacement munitions could probably be done without any Tom Clancy style adventures, if whoever did it knows on which legitimate cargo paths custom inspections are the most dysfunctional.

Quilter52
May 9, 2025 12:35 am

Don’t panic! I am sure the bird choppers can chop enemy aircraft too! Sarc.

strativarius
May 9, 2025 12:37 am

The UK is aiming to produce 50 GW of electricity from offshore turbines by 2030

Ain’t going to happen, ask Orsted…

Bryan A
Reply to  strativarius
May 9, 2025 2:11 pm

If 30GW is producing 2GW then to get 50GW generation you’d need 750GW installed capacity.
Damned Expensive and overtly expansive

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 9, 2025 12:54 am

Somehow this news cheered me up.

observa
May 9, 2025 4:36 am

There’s only one solution to fickle power and that’s Boomer Power!
Boomers told 70 is ‘the new 50’ in push to keep working

May 9, 2025 4:55 am

“the rotating blades create Doppler shifts that hinder detection of enemy aircraft, drones and missiles”

I’m curious about the physics of that problem. If any of those threats are high in the sky, why would the blades cause a problem? I know what “Dopler shift” means- just don’t see the connection with blades and those threats.

starzmom
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 9, 2025 5:50 am

How much of a problem is this interference for radar used by air traffic control to track air traffic in the US and elsewhere? We seem to have lots of air traffic management problems these days, and I wonder if radar interference is worse with our antiquated air traffic control system.

Jim Turner
Reply to  starzmom
May 9, 2025 6:35 am

Airliners spend most of the time in the air at altitude, they only come in low when taking off or landing at an airport. I presume that there is an ‘exlusion zone’ around airports for wind turbines, they would be a collision hazard anyway.

starzmom
Reply to  Jim Turner
May 9, 2025 7:02 am

Does anyone know how far out the effects are noticeable? And what does “noticeable” mean in that context? I understand your point, but it seems to me that we know little about the long distance effects of wind turbine corruption on radar.

It is possible in the crowded air spaces of New York, Washington, and other cities with multiple commercial airports in close proximity that even small anomalies make a big difference. I notice when I am flying, which I do a lot, that especially over large cities we are at low altitude for quite a long distance, especially when positioning the aircraft into a landing pattern.

I surely don’t know, but it seems the question is one worth addressing.

Jim Turner
Reply to  starzmom
May 9, 2025 7:51 am

You could try asking the customer relations office of your local airport or airline, or even the US Air Force, but I am sure that they would all say ‘no problem’

Jim Turner
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 9, 2025 6:26 am

I think that the issue is that cruise missiles and strike aircraft fly at altitudes lower than the height of the blades. Modern military radars use doppler filtering to see objects moving relative to stationary objects around them. Before this was technology was developed, a radar could only see targets in a clear sky, close to the ground they were masked.

TBeholder
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 9, 2025 5:58 pm

And why the threat would have to be only high in the sky?
The more reflections are going back and forth, the more spurious signals appear. Sure, it’s filtered. But unlike landscape, these reflectors move with acceleration, not evenly, not quite uniformly (inevitable vibration adding higher-frequency noise, also non-uniform under varied stress in variable conditions), and are not perfect themselves. So add more of them, and since they are nearby, there’s an ever growing set of spurious signals, ever more interfering with each other, other reflections and real signals, if any. Ever more of the noise gets close to possible signals of incoming objects one wants to notice, and it’s ever harder to separate signal from this noise.
Thus making radar detection and tracking increasingly unreliable. Once you add actual ECM to this (note that now even some missiles dispense EW submunitions on approach), the mess is hopeless.

May 9, 2025 5:46 am

Why do climate zealots keep re-discovering the law of unintented consequences?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  huls
May 9, 2025 7:34 am

They do not re-discover the law… the just discover the unintended consequences.
I doubt they would recognize the law even if it bit them in their….
And of course they would go to court to get the law of unintended consequences overturned based on “social justice” arguments.

I wonder if the definition of tipping points includes unintended consequences.

Just a fanciful passing thought.

George Thompson
May 9, 2025 6:36 am

How is it that nobody thought that elevated spinning things would screw up radar? Duh.

2hotel9
May 9, 2025 6:49 am

Drone warfare has clearly shown the average height of wind mills is optimal altitude for drone strikes. Only plus is they will screw up drone guidance systems, too.

Bob
May 9, 2025 10:25 pm

There is an easy solution, the Air Force should be given the 1.5 billion and use it for training. Once they are done blowing the wind mills to smithereens we can send the people responsible for building them in to clean up the mess at their own expense.

Mr Greengenes
May 11, 2025 11:51 am

We in the UK are all too well aware of the carnage Red Ed is doing to pretty much everything he has anything to do with so the idea that he cares anything at all about national security is absolutely laughable. This is totally in line with everything he has done since he entered politics – fixed on his personal crusade and to hell with the country.