Six giant wind turbines for St Andrews
By Alistair Dunsmuir
Six giant wind turbines are to be built overlooking the ‘home of golf’ at St Andrews, as several golf clubs are facing the issue of having turbines erected nearby.
Each turbine by the home of golf will be 328 feet tall – making them taller than Big Ben, the Tate Modern and Norwich Cathedral, and about five times the height of the Angel of the North. They will be located just three miles from St Andrews’ Old Course and will be visible from several points at the world-famous venue.
However, St Andrews Links Trust, which manages the town’s seven public courses, is said to be ‘relaxed’ about the decision to grant planning permission for St Andrews University, following an appeal, to build the turbines on nearby farmland.
The university will be the first in the UK to have its own wind farm, which will be used to power its buildings.
A spokesman for the university said: “We are delighted that our appeal has been upheld and that this important project can finally go ahead.
“This has always been central to our efforts to generate our own clean, green power, reduce our exposure to crippling external energy price rises and protect local jobs in Fife.
“We recognise that our plans prompted passionate opposition from some people, but also very significant levels of support from within the local community.”
The decision comes as several other golf clubs in the UK, especially Scotland, have campaigned against wind turbines being built near their courses.
A proposed development of seven wind turbines overlooking Gleneagles, host of the 2014 Ryder Cup, has been refused after the golf club said they could damage the success of the tournament, even though they could not be seen from the course.
Meanwhile, work is expected to start on building a 410 feet turbine – making it taller than Salisbury Cathedral and all of the towers at London’s Barbican Estate – near to Cathkin Braes Golf Club in South Lanarkshire.
The club’s secretary, David Moir, said: “We value the tranquil setting of our course and the beautiful views that we enjoy over Glasgow and the surrounding area. It is one of the reasons why this club has a healthy membership.
“We do not want another wind turbine near the course.”
And Cardigan Golf Club in Wales is celebrating after plans to build a 220 feet wind turbine overlooking its course have been shelved.
Members said they feared for the club’s future if the development, which would have powered 300 homes, would have gone ahead. The scheme was dropped when the landowner withdrew his permission.
Ironically, several other golf clubs are facing battles with their local communities to build wind turbines on their land, which would power their clubhouses and generate income.
South Moor Golf Club in Durham has had planning permission refused for two giant turbines, on the basis that they could have an impact on airport radar, while Kinloss Country Golf Club and Forfar Golf Club in Scotland have both sought planning permission to install their own turbines.
By Alistair Dunsmuir
Write a comment
9 Comments
View comments
In the USA there are thousands of turbines abandoned and left to rust, with no-one taking responsibility for the clear-up, the developers/profiteers having long scarpered with the cash. Both China and Germany are building coal-plants as fast as they can as they have realised that wind turbines are just not going to supply the energy required. It has been an extremely expensive experiment. If we are going to spend billions on turbines that ultimately don’t provide us with the energy we need, the money would have been better spent on coming up with a real solution. There have been many innovative ideas that could have been explored further, but too many snouts in the troughs regarding the great wind farm scam has diverted a fortune. Also behind the scenes the government has been subsidising diesel generators to provide the back-up energy as they know the turbines won’t keep the lights on. I would advise that the University should have built the turbines in their own grounds and turned off all form of power and relied solely on their turbines and see how far they got. Inside they have decided to blight the lives of others who are having to host the turbines on behalf of the University.
Why do people object to turbines, which are far more attractive than great big black pylons and electricity cables all over the place – the only alternative! Wind turbines generate massive amounts of power, and the return on investment is near on 25% year on year, so they are a great investment and will no doubt supply a large proportion of energy for the university. The amount of energy they save over the time they operate more than compensates for manufacturing and transport emissions – particularly if you buy them in the UK. Anyone who says they’re not a great investment or don’t generate much energy really does not know enough about turbines and the way they work. The ‘taxes’ on bills from green energy is not actually very big – do not be fooled by ruthless energy companies who want everyone to hate green energy and keep buying their over-inflated electricity. I personally do like wind turbines and don’t understand the negative attitude towards them – they are much better looking than the alternative and go back to the old days of using the landscape to supply energy rather than paying fat cat energy companies!
Anyone who believes there is a fantastic return on turbine investment has to believe in Alice-in-Wonderland accounting and economics. It is entirely State subsidies from direct and indirect taxation that create the myth that there is a return on wind farms. Put up the real costs of building, maintaining and generating electricity at 19-29% utilisation and all sane businesses would run away from this sector.
it depends on how long the turbines will last for and what the price of electricity will be throughout that duration.
Also, even if it is from a government subsidy, it still means the university is making a huge profit.
Out of a choice of coal (polluting and running out), nuclear (dangerous) and fracking (dirty, untested and potentially dangerous for local communities), renewables like wind and solar are the only viable option.
In the USA, China, Denmark and Germany, their governments subsidised the renewables industry in the 1990s and they now have industries making turbines and panels for the rest of the world, contributing to GDP growths. There’s no point bleating about it now because we were too slow to react and missed out on it.
Goldman Sachs says renewables represent “one of the biggest profit opportunities since its economists got excited about emerging markets in 2001”
You know the average ROI for a wind turbine in the UK is near to 25% right? Speaking from experience as I know a farmer who owns one and it paid for itself in 5 years.. Where else can you get that kind of investment (not to mention FREE electricity – we all know the price of that is only going one way!).
When the spokesperson from the university said this is ‘clean, green power,’ it is an untruth. The carbon footprint of manufacturing turbines and the transportation is vast. Tons of concrete are also poured into the land to hold the turbines in place. It is becoming widely recognised that this is not a ‘clean, green power,’ is vastly expensive for very little return, causes fuel poverty as the subsidies are paid for through stealth taxes on people’s bills. The turbines will not provide the unisersity’s energy needs, and when the wind isn’t blowing the university will have to rely on the energy grid as does the turbines to start them up. This is nothing more than a cash cow for the university, and shame on them for blighting the lives of others just so they can get their hands on the cash.
Six giant wind turbines for St Andrews » Golf Club Management http://t.co/usgrLxHfNU
#Golf #Panthersocial Six giant wind turbines for St Andrews – Six giant wind turbines are to be built overlooking … http://t.co/aji5uiONNm