Royal Aberdeen - "Destroyed Overnight"

[Jon Wiggett]

In a planning application in Scotland ALL the neighbours with adjoining land have to be informed of any proposal. Either, there has been some mix up, which is hard to believe as Royal Aberdeen could then try to nullify the permission or they where informed and had their own internal problems. It might also be that they have no right to objection which is the most likely.

Turbines have to go somewhere.

Jon

[Rich Goodale]

My understanding is that the land owner gave notice of the plan to build a turbine in a local free newspaper and RAGC did not see the notice.  I'm surprised that they didn't get notice through the mail, which I think is supposed to happen for all parties who might be affected by any such planning permission.  Seems like a fait accompli now, but let's hope this doesn't happen......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_oFPF6Anwo

[James Boon]

Having had probably my best ball striking day in years as the same time as my worst display on the putting greens ever, added to leaving my bloody Galvin Green top at the club and having to drive nearly and hour and a half back to get it, I'm not in the best of moods. I've therefore had a drink or two. This means my first response to this thread will be light hearted and facetious otherwise I may cry...

Yes, those bladed, wind energy catching devices do DESTROY a golf course dont they...


 

I suspect a more reasoned answer will follow tomorrow!

Cheers,

James

[Jon Wiggett]

My understanding is that the land owner gave notice of the plan to build a turbine in a local free newspaper and RAGC did not see the notice.  I'm surprised that they didn't get notice through the mail, which I think is supposed to happen for all parties who might be affected by any such planning permission.  Seems like a fait accompli now, but let's hope this doesn't happen......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_oFPF6Anwo

Rich,

your land has to be adjoining to or within 50 meters of the nearest border of the land which is to be developed. I suspect that Royal Aberdeen does not own land that would fall into this category.

Jon

[Scott Warren]

James, indeed!

[Mark Chaplin]

No course drops from being world top 100 because of a turbine.

[John Shimp]

Peter,
Sometimes naysaying is the right answer.  Economically most green energy is at present chasing rainbows.  Governents are broke and cant affrd to heavily subsidize projects that cant stand on their own. Wind can't.  Developers need psitive returns. As much as everyone would like more llow carbon eergy now the projects dont work as investments and they must.  

Lower carbon in nat gas works now.  Someday other forms will work to varying degrees.  I am anxious for that but the dollars required are enormous in energy and the non financially motivated invetors are l argely tapped out now.  

[Joe Stansell]

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.

Bob, it would be great if we stopped using the tax code to encourage behavior. A true market economy would surely be one that is agnostic about what "wins" and what "loses" in the market place. But there is precedence for this sort of thing, and ironically, it comes from the oil and gas industry. An example: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-02-04/local/me-4149_1_tax-shelter

[Steve Wilson]

From the story

"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."

And John Wigget says,

"your land has to be adjoining to or within 50 meters of the nearest border of the land which is to be developed. I suspect that Royal Aberdeen does not own land that would fall into this category."


So, assuming, and it's a large assumption that the newstory has got its fact right, it would appear that Royal Aberdeen is near enough to have received notice.

And there's the element of hyperbole.  When I tuned in to this thread I presumed there had been a gigantic storm that had washed away some holes.

[Tom_Doak]

From the story

"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."

And John Wigget says,

"your land has to be adjoining to or within 50 meters of the nearest border of the land which is to be developed. I suspect that Royal Aberdeen does not own land that would fall into this category."

Steve:

Perhaps the wind farm industry has written the rules so they measure the distance from the hub of the turbine ... and that's why they build them just a bit more than 50m tall ...

[David_Elvins]

You got to laugh at the use of words like "destroyed'. 

It was all down hill for garden City when the water tower went up.

[Steve Wilson]

From the story

"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."

And John Wigget says,

"your land has to be adjoining to or within 50 meters of the nearest border of the land which is to be developed. I suspect that Royal Aberdeen does not own land that would fall into this category."


Steve:

Perhaps the wind farm industry has written the rules so they measure the distance from the hub of the turbine ... and that's why they build them just a bit more than 50m tall ...
Posted on: Yesterday at 08:44:32 PM Posted by: Steve Wilson


Well, Tom,  if this is the case, then I fear we may be looking at some seriously elevated tees and greens in the next generation of golf course construction. 

[Mark Chaplin]

When Royal Melbourne were approached about a mobile phone mast on their land on the West course they naturally turned down the not insignificant revenue to avoid the mast. Needless to say the company approached the neighbouring land owner and the mast was erected metres from the RM land. Now they still have the mast but not the dollars!

[Scott Warren]

I'm pretty sure the mast is now on the property of Sandringham public golf course, Mark.

It's not all bad for RMGC, though -- the mast is a decent line indicator on the blind drive at 12 West, so they've at least got that going for them!

[Brian_Ewen]

Three in four Scots back wind power - poll
The survey comes on the eve of billionaire Donald Trump's appearance before a Scottish Parliament committee.
22 April 2012
Nearly three-quarters of Scots are in favour of wind power as a source of energy, according to a new poll.

A survey on behalf of Scottish Renewables found that about 72% of adults supported wind power and 39% strongly agreed with continuing to develop the energy source alongside other forms of electricity generation.

The results of the YouGov poll were released as billionaire wind-farm hater Donald Trump prepares to visit Scotland next week.

The tycoon, who has been angered by plans to build offshore turbines near the site of his Aberdeenshire golf course, is to appear before Holyrood's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee on Wednesday as part of an investigation into renewable energy targets.

Trump has said he would not have built his golf resort in the north-east of Scotland if he had known about plans to install turbines off the coast.

He says Scotland is "in effect committing financial suicide" and claims that visitors confronted with "these industrial monstrosities" will "hate it and go elsewhere".

Last week First Minister Alex Salmond hit back in a letter to Mr Trump defending his "renewables revolution".

He said: "It is my belief that Scotland's great cities and ports are ideally placed to become a key hub for the rapidly-growing multibillion-pound offshore renewables industry."

According to YouGov, young people were among the most in favour, with half of the 18 to 24 year-olds questioned strongly supporting wind power and a third tending to back the continued development of the renewable energy source.

Scottish Renewables chief executive, Niall Stuart, said: "This lays to rest once and for all the idea that people of Scotland do not support wind power.

"A massive majority of people have clearly stated their support for the continuing development of wind power - offshore and onshore - as part of our energy mix. The facts speak for themselves and we hope the committee will listen to the majority of Scots who have made their opinions very clear on the matter.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie, who sits on the Holyrood committee that will question Mr Trump, said: "This survey helps blow away Mr Trump's bluster. It's particularly pleasing to see there is strong support for wind in the north-east.

"The survey should serve as a warning to wind farm Nimbys and climate change deniers to be careful about who they claim to represent."

[Jon Wiggett]

I suspect the mast is a bit further away than 40ft. Also, I was hinting to the possibility that RA are not the owners of the land that part of the course is on. It is very common for Golf Clubs, even well known ones to be leasing the land that their course is laid out on. I do not know for certain but if RA are leasing then their is no reason to inform them nor do they have any right to object to such a wind turbine.

Jon

[James Boon]

Wind Turbines…

First, I’m going to come clean. I love wind turbines! I think they are elegant pieces of engineering and they are certainly not a blot on the landscape. Obviously, aesthetics are subjective, and I don’t want beautiful scenery to be visually destroyed, but I don’t believe that wind farms do this and certainly not in comparison to coal, gas or nuclear power generation developments! Anyone with doubts should visit a wind turbine such as the Ecotech Centre at Swaffham, Norfolk, where you can get up close and even climb the turbine to a viewing platform.

Its true that wind alone can’t meet our energy needs, but it is part of the wider renewable energy package (Its worth noting that tidal or wave power, which some would consider visually less intrusive, that there are still plenty of concerns regarding impacts on the marine environment) that can and will need to meet our needs, once the fossil fuels become so rare as to be too expensive for everyday use. Fossil fuels might be cheap and plentiful at present, but relying on those seems pretty close to sticking our head in the sand and hoping the problem goes away.

Wind turbine technology on a commercial scale still needs further development, and at times there does seem to be a rush to get as many wind turbines erected as possible, but it is this rush that will pull the technology forward and allow it to develop.

As for the impact of wind turbines on birds, a report published very recently by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the British Trust for Ornithologists, found that the impact on birds was far less that previously thought, with some bird species numbers actually increasing within the vicinity of wind farms. This report didn’t take account of raptors, and there are certainly still concerns in this area. However, considering my own love of raptors, I know that extensive surveys are carried out before wind farms or turbines can be approved, in order to make sure that any impacts upon raptors or other birds is as minimal as possible. Its also worth noting that the RSPB, who one would think have birds best interests at their core, are supporters of wind turbine technology in general.

And as far as global warming and wind turbines are concerned, there are so many numbers and statistics going around that its difficult to sort the truth from the spin. But whether man is responsible for the current rise in global temperatures or not, can anyone reasonably say that pumping or dumping all of the waste into the atmosphere or the environment as a whole that we do, is a good thing? If it is a natural rise in global temperatures, how can we be certain that they will be able to naturally reduce again considering how much crap we have pumped into the atmosphere? As a species are we really that arrogant and naive to think we aren’t effecting the environment around us?

Cheers,

James

[James Boon]

I suspect the mast is a bit further away than 40ft. Also, I was hinting to the possibility that RA are not the owners of the land that part of the course is on. It is very common for Golf Clubs, even well known ones to be leasing the land that their course is laid out on. I do not know for certain but if RA are leasing then their is no reason to inform them nor do they have any right to object to such a wind turbine.

Jon

Jon,

If they don't own the land adjacent to the development, then they need to look at the relationship they have with their landlords who one would have thought would have passed on such a notice. Not so easy with land for a golf course, but as far as I'm aware any such notices should be addressed to the owner / occupier or something like that.

As others have already said, someone has cocked up on this one by the look of it?

Cheers,

James

[Mark Pearce]

Tom,

Whilst I disagree with most of your arguments, they are credible and reasonable.  Two statements you have made simply aren't, though.  First, you say that wind turbines don't work.  Of course they do.  The wind blows and they produce energy.  I suspect that what you mean is that wind turbines don't, as yet, generate sufficient power to make them economically viable as a significant source of the national energy demand.  That's probably true.  It was also true of coal powered generation until it was further developed.  It is also obvious that wind turbines are more economically viable in some places than in others.  I'm going to take a wild guess that Aberdeen is a rather better site for a wind turbine than Surrey.  The question of availability of power against demand for a naturally variable source of energy such as wind is an issue but since you appear to have at least some knowledge of the sector, you'll know that supply/demand matching is one of the areas of the power issue that is being very heavily researched.  If plentiful wind energy means that there are times when less energy needs to be generated from fossil sources then that's a good thing.

The second statement you made that is plain wrong, however, undermines all the above, in so far as it justifies your mis-statement about wind power.  You say that tidal energy works.  True, to an extent.  The reality, however, is that tidal energy systems developed to date are less efficient, more expensive and less reliable than wind turbine systems.  You simply cannot have it both ways.  You cannot argue with any credibility against wind turbines whilst stating that tidal energy works.

[James Boon]

Tom,

Whilst I disagree with most of your arguments, they are credible and reasonable.  Two statements you have made simply aren't, though.  First, you say that wind turbines don't work.  Of course they do.  The wind blows and they produce energy.  I suspect that what you mean is that wind turbines don't, as yet, generate sufficient power to make them economically viable as a significant source of the national energy demand.  That's probably true.  It was also true of coal powered generation until it was further developed.  It is also obvious that wind turbines are more economically viable in some places than in others.  I'm going to take a wild guess that Aberdeen is a rather better site for a wind turbine than Surrey.  The question of availability of power against demand for a naturally variable source of energy such as wind is an issue but since you appear to have at least some knowledge of the sector, you'll know that supply/demand matching is one of the areas of the power issue that is being very heavily researched.  If plentiful wind energy means that there are times when less energy needs to be generated from fossil sources then that's a good thing.

The second statement you made that is plain wrong, however, undermines all the above, in so far as it justifies your mis-statement about wind power.  You say that tidal energy works.  True, to an extent.  The reality, however, is that tidal energy systems developed to date are less efficient, more expensive and less reliable than wind turbine systems.  You simply cannot have it both ways.  You cannot argue with any credibility against wind turbines whilst stating that tidal energy works.

Lawyered! 

[Brian_Ewen]

I do not know for certain but if RA are leasing

Royal Aberdeen bought the land from the local council in 1921.

[James Boon]

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

Bob,

Interesting that you reference Jerusalem as its "Dark Satanic Mills" line is one I always use to illustrate how times and attitudes change.

At the height of the industrial revolution they may have been considered "Dark" and "Satanic" (I'm sure an element of it wasn't just referencing the cotton mills, but industrial development as a whole) BUT these mills are now mostly listed, considered a cultural and heritage asset, the ones near to me are now a World Heritage Site, and are very often redeveloped as high end residential apartments.

Cheers,

James

[Tony_Muldoon]

Wind Turbines…

First, I’m going to come clean. I love wind turbines! I think they are elegant pieces of engineering and they are certainly not a blot on the landscape. Obviously, aesthetics are subjective

Are ALL skyscrapers elegant?  Such generalising serves your argument poorly.  Similarly doesn’t their impact depend on where they are put?  Surely you can see some are a blot?

Wind turbine technology on a commercial scale still needs further development, and at times there does seem to be a rush to get as many wind turbines erected as possible, but it is this rush that will pull the technology forward and allow it to develop.

James please explain how subsidising inefficient technology that will have to be replaced sooner rather than later can “pull the technology forward”.  Why not put the subsidies into research?

Yours in a Mucci mood. Tony.

[Mark Pearce]

Tony,

The worst thing the government can possibly do, if it wants to encourage innovation and development of wind energy is to subsidise the current technology.  Feed in tariffs were a disaster for the industry, enabling money to be made from inefficiency, stifling the need for better technology and providing ammunition for Tom and his fellow sceptics.

[James Boon]

Tony,

I prefer horizontal axis to vertical axis wind turbines, but as a whole there aren't that many different styles of wind turbine and yes I do find the vast majority elegant. "skyscrapers" on the other hand come in so many different styles, sizes and proportions that I certainly don't find them all pleasing to the eye, only a very small number in fact. So I don't really see it as generalising.

There impact certainly does depend upon where they are located, for instance while I state that the RSPB support wind technology, they don't if it will have a detrimental impact on migration routes or rare habitats. As for being a blot on the landscape, as I find them appealing to the eye I don't tend to see them as a blot on the landscape, but I can appreciate that some people do. If someone was to tell me they hate the look of them but support them in principle that would be fine with me, but it seems most of the nimby attitude doesn't support them aesthetically or in principle.

As Mark says subsidies are far more useful for research rather than current technology but is it better to stand around waiting for the research to be finished or to actually learn from the turbines that are being developed for real? Other technology is " pulled forward" by combining research with actual development and so I don't see why wind turbines can't be the same? It does seem futile to produce and develop things which are then going to need to be replaced but that is the case with pretty much all technology as far as I can tell?

Hope some of that makes sense as I'm posting from an iPhone (3rd gen, perhaps I should have waited for the bigger screen on the next generation?)

Cheers,

James