Royal Aberdeen

« **on:** April 21, 2012, 05:33:18 AM »

GOLF CLUB GETS THE WIND UP OVER GIANT TURBINE
Saturday April 21,2012
By Dean Herbert
MEMBERS of a historic Scottish golf club are furious about a giant wind turbine looming over them.

Officials at the Royal Aberdeen, the sixth oldest club in the world, were horrified to see the 218ft mast go up just 40ft from the 14th tee.

They claim they were not consulted and now fear it will affect the club’s status as one of the top 100 courses in the world.

The structure has also angered US tycoon Donald Trump, who is fighting the Scottish Government over an offshore windfarm within sight of his Menie Estate golf complex.

The turbine was built by engineering firm Rubberatkins to supply power at its HQ at the Aberdeen Science and Energy Park, just outside the course.

They claim they were not consulted and now fear it will affect the club’s status as one of the top 100 courses in the world

But club officials say they only became aware of the proposal after planning permission had been granted.

Ronnie MacAskill, the director of golf, said they received no formal notification of the plans, and that the application was advertised in a free newspaper and was not seen by the club’s committee.

He said: “The turbine towers above the 14th tee, causing considerable disturbance to golfers when teeing off on one of the strongest holes on this ancient, classic, natural links.

“Easter brought out the first visitors of 2012. Their comments were ‘a great golf course in magnificent condition, but how did that turbine get there?’

“It is naive to think that the unsympathetic placement of wind turbines, onshore and offshore, will not impact considerably on organisations such as Royal Aberdeen Golf Club, which has quietly contributed much to the local community since 1780.”

The club, like American entrepreneur Trump, is fighting a plan for an offshore windfarm in Aberdeen Bay.

Mr Trump said: “Royal Aberdeen is a wonderful course – one of the jewels of world golf – and it has been destroyed overnight. I don’t know what is going on in Scotland. This is terrible. The whole course is destroyed now.

“If this happened next to my course, I would sue Scotland in a second. I can’t believe what is going on.”

An Aberdeen City Council spokeswoman said: “The application was considered by elected members in an open and transparent way, taking account of appropriate material planning considerations.”

« **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2012, 05:44:21 AM »

Not In My Back Yard has become BANANNA: build absolutely nothing absolutely nowhere near anything.

A wind turbine can ruin a golf course no more than a flanking caravan park or power station can.

I truly cannot, with a straight face, accept opposition to them.

« **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2012, 05:52:41 AM »

Interesting Scott, because I cannot accept the building of them anywhere.

They spoil the countryside, kill birds, ensure that concrete is pumped into green fields, increase CO2 emissions due to the need for permanent conventional back up, don't work when there is no wind, catch fire and fall when there is too much wind, and are only put anywhere due to a misguided belief that Man can somehow control the climate and - most importantly - the subsidies which every person pays to allow them to be built, for they simply do not work in economic terms, and their biggest crime is pushing more and more people into fuel poverty.

They will, in the future, be looked at as the biggest white elephants of the biggest con job is history. I just hope our precious countryside recovers from the blight of them at some point in the future.

« **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2012, 08:12:26 AM »

Quote from: Tom Birkert on April 21, 2012, 05:52:41 AM

are only put anywhere due to a misguided belief that Man can somehow control the climate

Tom,

You have been a vocal opponent of "green" energy here before and are clearly a non-believer in global warming. I disagree with most of what you have written but simply don't understand this statement. Is this a reference to your belief that global warming is not a result of man-made climate change?

As to the rest of it, early steam turbines were inefficient and dangerous. It's a good thing our forebears didn't apply your logic. Come to that we wouldn't have cars, trains or planes if they had. Presumably the transistor and Internet wouldn't have followed, either.

« **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2012, 08:36:37 AM »

well, at least it ain't from the Middle East...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/billions-blown-away-on-wind-power-says-british-study/story-fn59niix-1226294168155

« **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2012, 08:41:09 AM »

I haven't read the original article, but as posted I interpret it that the club declined to make its objections known for whatever reason. Either they had none - which seems doubtful - or they weren't aware of the plans - which I would argue is very poor stewardship.

If you're not way out in front of 'threats' such as these and offer no resistance, you're stuck with the results of your inaction.

« **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2012, 09:49:40 AM »

Quote from: Jonathan Mallard on April 21, 2012, 08:41:09 AM

I haven't read the original article, but as posted I interpret it that the club declined to make its objections known for whatever reason. Either they had none - which seems doubtful - or they weren't aware of the plans - which I would argue is very poor stewardship.

If you're not way out in front of 'threats' such as these and offer no resistance, you're stuck with the results of your inaction.

Jonathon

If a person or group is not consulted about a planning application which may adversely affect him, how is one meant to get "way in front of threats"? That said, it could well be that we haven't heard the entire story as it seems improbable that a land owner adjacent to to a planning proposal such as this wasn't consulted. My guess is either the local planning authority or the club screwed up.

Ciao

« **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2012, 10:15:37 AM »

Plenty of other world class links courses have fairly ugly caravan parks, housing , factories and the like beside them and have had for donkeys years and yet no one would say they aren't still world class. TOC was named 3rd best course outside the US in a magazine poll recently, and that involves playing round a fairly large and fairly ugly hotel. For Donald to make the statement that "The whole course is destroyed now" tells you how stupid and unthought out his comments generally are therefore why give the guy the time of day to spout off at Government level.

Niall

« **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2012, 10:23:56 AM »

Quote from: Mark Pearce on April 21, 2012, 08:12:26 AM

Quote from: Tom Birkert on April 21, 2012, 05:52:41 AM
are only put anywhere due to a misguided belief that Man can somehow control the climate
Tom,

You have been a vocal opponent of "green" energy here before and are clearly a non-believer in global warming. I disagree with most of what you have written but simply don't understand this statement. Is this a reference to your belief that global warming is not a result of man-made climate change?

As to the rest of it, early steam turbines were inefficient and dangerous. It's a good thing our forebears didn't apply your logic. Come to that we wouldn't have cars, trains or planes if they had. Presumably the transistor and Internet wouldn't have followed, either.

I absolutely believe in the changing climate, it is a fact and will always be a fact. I don't think the case for global warming, certainly to do with Man, is remotely close to being proven. I don't think we have enough data to begin to analyse that, and we certainly don't have enough computing power to model it. The whole global warming theory - and it is only a theory, is based on assumptions and positive feedbacks. There is zero empirical evidence.

We are spending trillions to make absolutely no impact. Man accounts for 3% of CO2 emissions.

We simply don't understand the complex nature of the climate well enough, so correlation is being pinpointed as causation by people hugely financially, ideallgically or politically motivated.

Emissions rose sharply from the 40s to 80s but temperatures fell.

As for wind turbines, they just don't work. We moved away from windmills for a reason!

« **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2012, 10:35:26 AM »

Wind farms and giant wind turbines are a blot on our landscape. They are modern eye pollution and are becoming a destructive force in going Green. While the idea and principles have much merit, the designs do not. The rush to implement them have as with many things been pushed through without studying the full consequences. One wonders if the R&A are involved?!!

I cannot believe that wind turbines need to be so spaced or have to be that size. Nor do I understand why multi-bladed turbines can’t be set in a row within one housing turning in different direction creating more than a single form of generation per pod. Great idea yet like the first Tank, let loose without a real plan to actually become acceptable and more importantly affective.

In all I totally sympathise with Royal Aberdeen as the environment is as much about the game as playing, a theme I have always had thanks to my father. I feel it is still an important part of today’s GCA as it was to past generations. I fear they will lose their battle and the turbines are here for a while, but it is doing the Green cause serious harm as the campaign is gaining force from all the communities so fare affected. I believe that in the long run they will be stopped and forced to produce more visually acceptable multi-functional turbines that are not an eye sore or environmental pollution, alas it will leave the countryside and seas with a mass of white ruins that will slowly rust and become an even bigger safety hazard.

Unlike Cricket we cannot use a mobile screen to deflect our view of these beasties as we take each shot as we progress around the course. Perhaps we need a Captain Gatso http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Captain-Gatso-Destroys-Speed-Camera_3312.html to help resolve the issue.

« **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2012, 11:15:42 AM »

It could just as easily have been a coal plant (or a nuclear plant!) that was built next to Royal Aberdeen.

Everybody likes having power. Nobody on the planet wants to have to look at where it comes from, but some people seem extra-entitled to their point of view, because it "destroys the value" of their property.

« **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2012, 11:31:44 AM »

Tom Bikert - with respect, your argument reminds me of the one a neighbour (who is a nuclear engineer) had against solar power. He told me that in order to power the entire province of Ontario with solar power, we'd have to cover the entire state of Arizona in solar panels, ergo, solar power doesn't "work". Well, a) who's talking about powering the entire province? b) who's talking about solar being the only source of electricity? c) what current source of power does it all, or is expected to? d) what source of power is not 'subsidized' in one way or the other, or is not subject to the whims of other forces/players in the world economy? I happen to think wind turbines look nice, they look like windmills of old. I think they can be one of a group of sources that are more environmentally friendly. I believe, for example, that individual homeowners using small solar panels on their homes can (over time, and with increasing numbers) play a role in making the planet healthier. How come the demands that critics make of green energy are unlike the demands that anyone has ever made about any technology in the history of the world? Folks like my neighbour seem to want green energy to have all undeniable upsides and absolutely no downsides, otherwise they dismiss it wholesale. You tell me one energy source or technology currently in use that has all upsides and no downsides?

I hope to god the future generations (my son, and his children) don't look back and read the arguments we've been using against green energy. They will think us blind and selfish fools.

Peter

« **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2012, 11:37:51 AM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on April 21, 2012, 11:15:42 AM

Everybody likes having power.

The wind turbine will probably not provide much. I think on average they supply about 20% of their capacity. So they have to be backed up 100% of the time -- typically by a coal or nuclear plant -- that operates 24 hours a day.

« **Reply #13 on:** April 21, 2012, 11:42:43 AM »

The Law in England is that you have no right to a view save that anything new must not restrict light. I am not convnced anyone or group can have much influence affecting the law or influence the planning consultaton on the basis of 'the look'. I tend to think they are a very unpleasant addition to a golf course landscape and possibly they could affect many other courses. Having dealt with counils I am not at all suprised that the counil may have made an error in not circulating the proper documents to neighbours.

« **Reply #14 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:20:17 PM »

Peter,

The proposal is to use these turbines to power more and more, the target (which won't be reached) in the UK is 15% is 8 years from now, hence the mad rush and desecration of the landscape. But they don't work, and the increased use of them will require more conventional power stations to back them up for large proportion of time they don't work.

Tidal energy makes sense as a renewable source, as does geo-thermal. Wind power simply doesn't. It isn't reliable.

The best sources are the moment are coal, gas and nuclear. Stuff that works on demand and that is cheap. That is what every person in the world needs.

« **Reply #15 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:24:30 PM »

Quote from: Tom Birkert on April 21, 2012, 12:20:17 PM

Peter,

The proposal is to use these turbines to power more and more, the target (which won't be reached) in the UK is 15% is 8 years from now, hence the mad rush and desecration of the landscape. But they don't work, and the increased use of them will require more conventional power stations to back them up for large proportion of time they don't work.

Tidal energy makes sense as a renewable source, as does geo-thermal. Wind power simply doesn't. It isn't reliable.

The best sources are the moment are coal, gas and nuclear. Stuff that works on demand and that is cheap. That is what every person in the world needs.

Tom B:

Instead of people getting their power from far away, maybe we should require that everyone move closer to their preferred source.

If you prefer coal, you could live in the Ohio River valley, like in West Virginia.
If you prefer oil, west Texas or Oklahoma or Prudhoe Bay or the Gulf Coast for you.
If you prefer nuclear, can you spell Fukushima?

« **Reply #16 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:30:51 PM »

Photo from http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2734592

« **Reply #17 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:33:07 PM »

Tom,

Fukushima was subject to one of the largest earthquakes in history, and was not designed to cope with such an event. However, given the enormity of the earthquake and tsunami, it is amazing that it survived as it did given that it was over 40 years old.

However, France have the cheapest and lowest emitting energy. Why? Because they are 80% nuclear powered and not situated in an earthquake zone.

« **Reply #18 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:33:54 PM »

Yeah! The least they could have done was set it up to play as a diagonal hazard, inserting some strategy into the hole:)

« **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:40:11 PM »

Quote from: Tom Birkert on April 21, 2012, 10:23:56 AM

Quote from: Mark Pearce on April 21, 2012, 08:12:26 AM
Quote from: Tom Birkert on April 21, 2012, 05:52:41 AM
are only put anywhere due to a misguided belief that Man can somehow control the climate
Tom,

You have been a vocal opponent of "green" energy here before and are clearly a non-believer in global warming. I disagree with most of what you have written but simply don't understand this statement. Is this a reference to your belief that global warming is not a result of man-made climate change?

As to the rest of it, early steam turbines were inefficient and dangerous. It's a good thing our forebears didn't apply your logic. Come to that we wouldn't have cars, trains or planes if they had. Presumably the transistor and Internet wouldn't have followed, either.

I absolutely believe in the changing climate, it is a fact and will always be a fact. I don't think the case for global warming, certainly to do with Man, is remotely close to being proven. I don't think we have enough data to begin to analyse that, and we certainly don't have enough computing power to model it. The whole global warming theory - and it is only a theory, is based on assumptions and positive feedbacks. There is zero empirical evidence.

We are spending trillions to make absolutely no impact. Man accounts for 3% of CO2 emissions.

We simply don't understand the complex nature of the climate well enough, so correlation is being pinpointed as causation by people hugely financially, ideallgically or politically motivated.

Emissions rose sharply from the 40s to 80s but temperatures fell.

As for wind turbines, they just don't work. We moved away from windmills for a reason!

Where do you get the number 3% from? Thank you for your help in advance.

Brad Isaacs

« **Reply #20 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:46:06 PM »

Quote from: Tom Birkert on April 21, 2012, 12:33:07 PM

Tom,

Fukushima was subject to one of the largest earthquakes in history, and was not designed to cope with such an event. However, given the enormity of the earthquake and tsunami, it is amazing that it survived as it did given that it was over 40 years old.

However, France have the cheapest and lowest emitting energy. Why? Because they are 80% nuclear powered and not situated in an earthquake zone.

Tom:

What does France do with all the radioactive waste those plants produce? Store it in the catacombs?

« **Reply #21 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:53:46 PM »

Setting aside whether wind is economic (in the uk it may be close given current nat gas prices and heavy coastal winds; in the us it isnt even worth talking about in terms of economics-- they are standalone horribly negative return investments now) they didnt have to site that mast right there next to an important tourist draw and a place worth aberdeen preserving the aura around. Another short sighted govt decision. Whats the over under on how long it stands?

« **Reply #22 on:** April 21, 2012, 12:58:37 PM »

Mankind supplies 60+% of CFC's and still only .3% of greenhouse gasses. I do not know the answer as to whether this is significant. Political agendas aside I don't know what truth is.

I have no doubt that climates do change over time.

« **Reply #23 on:** April 21, 2012, 01:14:28 PM »

I have no idea if anyone on this site has owned a windmill or invested in a limited partnership that offered this type of folly; I have. If it wasn't for the incredible tax incentives from both the Feds and State I would not have been interested. Even with the them, it turned out to be an unprecedented disaster. We were supposed to be paid something like five cents a watt but later the power company allowed that it should have been two cents and wanted to claw back the balance; I ceded my interest in the equipment back to Southern California Edison.

The damage to birds at the Altamont Pass in Northern California has been enormous. I understand that just last year something like a hundred golden eagles were killed by these machines. I wonder how many of those brave souls in this forum live adjacent to a wind farm? Google 'Altamont Pass' and read about the concern of ornithlogists on the subject.

There is a way to generate power and lots of it and that is by tidal action. Can you imagine harvesting just a fraction of the energy in the Bay of Fundy? Expensive, yes, but the tide ebbs and flows occur with more regularity than with wind and sun.

When I see the windmills blighting the beauty of the countryside, I am reminded of William Blakes poem and the line of "Dark Satanic Mills."

Bob

« **Reply #24 on:** April 21, 2012, 01:16:26 PM »

Tom B - I appreciate the reasoned response. But what troubles me about these kinds of discussions is the multi-pronged defence of the status quo. You say, for example, that tidal energy makes sense; and yet, if someone started a tidal energy project of the UK coast, we'd suddenly be hearing from dozens of experts about all the reasons it doesn't work/is too inefficient. There is too much naysaying.

Peter

News:

Brian_Ewen

Scott Warren

Tom Birkert

Mark Pearce

Jud_T

Jonathan Mallard

Sean_A

Niall C

Tom Birkert

Melvyn Morrow

Tom_Doak

Peter Pallotta

Jim Nugent

Adrian_Stiff

Tom Birkert

Tom_Doak

DMoriarty

Tom Birkert

Jay Flemma

Brad Isaacs

Tom_Doak

John Shimp

Brad Isaacs

Bob_Huntley

Peter Pallotta