Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Donald Trump in a huff over plans for windfarm near his Scottish golf resort—"I am very disappointed

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:10 PM
Original message
Donald Trump in a huff over plans for windfarm near his Scottish golf resort—"I am very disappointed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/10/donald-trump-windfarm-golf-resort

Donald Trump in a huff over plans for windfarm near his Scottish golf resort

US tycoon says he is 'very disappointed' at prospect of 11 turbines off Aberdeen Bay being given planning permission

Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 August 2011 19.00 BST



In a statement, Trump said: "I am very disappointed that Scotland may allow the development of a wind-power plant directly off Aberdeen's beautiful coastline.

"When I first became involved with our billion-pound development – golf course construction is weeks away from completion with a planned opening before 1 July 2012 – I was repeatedly promised, as an incentive for us to go forward and proceed with this project, that wind turbines would not be destroying and distorting the magnificent coastline.

"Unfortunately, despite these prior assurances that the wind project would not proceed, I am now learning that this issue has again raised its ugly head.

"Scotland is one of the most beautiful countries on earth, with its greatest asset being its magnificent coastline, a coastline known for its great beauty throughout the entire world."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rambis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. With that hair the last place I would be caught dead in Scotland
:+
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockaFowler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. What's he afraid of
The wind farm will blow that wig off his head??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ineeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. The windfarm will spoil his golf course's views. Nothing at all
to do with Scotland as a whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Obviously, he is probably mostly concerned about bussiness, but he is smart
to frame the issue around Scotland's beauty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yeah. Just like T. Boone Pickens framed his arguments for easements all across Texas...
as an U.S. energy and security policy.

Not that I want to see one every time I turn around, but I think those wind turbines are quite beautiful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I like the look of the turbines, too, DCKit...
I've read that they can be dangerous for birds...but surely they can find technology to mitigate the danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Older turbines are more dangerous than newer ones
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf


Early turbines were mounted on towers 60–80 feet in height and had rotors 50–60 feet in diameter that turned 60–80 revolutions per minute (rpm). Today's land-based wind turbines are mounted on towers 200–260 feet in height with rotors 150–260 feet in diameter, resulting in blade tips that can reach over 425 feet above ground level. Rotor swept areas now exceed 1 acre and are expected to reach nearly 1.5 acres within the next several years. Even though the speed of rotor revolution has significantly decreased to 11–28 rpm, blade tip speeds have remained about the same; under normal operating conditions, blade tip speeds range from 138–182 mph. Wider and longer blades produce greater vortices and turbulence in their wake as they rotate, posing a potential problem for bats. Because large turbines are more efficient, most modern wind developments for a given number of megawatts (MW; 1 MW equals 1 million watts) have fewer machines with wider spacing. Still, larger turbines are being developed.



Studies have indicated that relatively low raptor (e.g., hawks, eagles) fatality rates exist at most wind energy developments with the exception of some facilities in parts of California (Figure 1, page 3). All developments studied have reported fewer than 14 bird (all species combined) fatalities per nameplate MW per year, and most have reported less than 4 fatalities per MW per year (Figure 2, page 3). Although several developments have reported relatively numerous bat fatalities, most studies have reported low rates of such bat fatalities (Figure 3, page 3). However, much uncertainty exists on the geographic distribution and causes of bat fatalities (see discussion under direct mortality).

Two general types of local impacts to birds have been demonstrated at existing wind facilities: (1) direct mortality from collisions and (2) indirect impacts from avoidance of an area, habitat disruption, reduced nesting/breeding density, habitat abandonment, loss of refugia, habitat unsuitability, and behavioral effects (Stewart et al. 2004, 2007). For bats, only direct mortality resulting from collisions and barotrauma (i.e., experiencing rapid pressure changes that cause severe internal organ damage; Baerwald et al. 2008) has been demonstrated.

The estimated cumulative impact of collisions with wind turbines is several orders of magnitude lower than the estimated impacts from the leading anthropogenic causes of songbird mortality.

Although only general estimates are available, the number of birds killed in wind developments is substantially lower relative to estimated annual bird casualty rates from a variety of other anthropogenic factors including vehicles, buildings and windows, power transmission lines, communication towers, toxic chemicals including pesticides, and feral and domestic cats (Erickson et al. 2001; NAS 2007; Manville 2009). Collisions with wind facility structures will likely increase relative to other anthropogenic structures as the number of wind power facilities increases.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demoiselle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Thank you for that information,OK..
The final boldfaced paragraph is particularly interesting, I think. Speaking as someone who's rescued birds who've crashed into her windows and taken them (alive) from prowling cats, I can absolutely believe it. (And I keep all my cats indoors, by the way!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. You’re welcome
http://policy.audubon.org/wind-power-overview-0

Wind Power Overview

Audubon's Position on Wind Power

Summary: Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Wind power facilities should be planned, sited and operated to minimize negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations.

Rationale: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has clearly stated that the impacts of climate change are here now and will get worse. Scientists have found that climate change has already affected half of the world's wild species' breeding, distribution, abundance and survival rates. By mid-century, the IPCC predicts that climate change may contribute to the extinction of 20-30 percent of all species on earth.

In order to prevent species extinctions and other catastrophic impacts of climate change, scientists say we must reduce global warming emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. Reducing pollution from fossil fuels to this degree will require rapidly expanding energy and fuel efficiency, renewable energy and alternative fuels, and changes in land use, agriculture, and transportation. To avoid catastrophe, we need to do all of these.

Wind power is an important part of the strategy to combat global warming. Wind power is currently the most economically competitive form of renewable energy. It provides nearly 15,000 megawatts of power in the United States, enough power for more than 3 million households, and could provide up to 20 percent of the country's electricity needs. Every megawatt-hour produced by wind energy avoids an average of 1,220 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions. If the United States obtains 20 percent of its electricity from wind power by 2020, it will reduce global warming emissions equivalent to taking 71 million cars off the road or planting 104 million acres of trees. Expanding wind power instead of fossil fuels also avoids the wildlife and human health impacts of oil and gas drilling, coal mining and fossil fuel burning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southerncrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hey, Donald, eat your peas & STFU.
Don't think your resort is going to use energy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Can't the old windbag huff and puff and blow them all down? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. Perhaps the rioters will trample his golf course?
he;s not even Scottish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. "destroying and distorting the magnificent coastline."
If he gave a shit about the Scots coastline, he wouldn't be building a frigging golf course on it, obviously.

I love the look of wind turbines and would much rather have them in view than an ecologically destructive, polluting, useless golf course.

I thought he'd been denied permission to build his stupid golf course? Money talks, I guess.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. He wanted and got into a big fight over PBIA changing its flight
patterns so they wouldn't fly over Mar-a-Lago. He lost...LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlecBGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-10-11 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
13. cry me a river
Edited on Wed Aug-10-11 03:14 PM by AlecBGreen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-11-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
16. Dear Mr. Trump. I too am a golfer.
How dare you have the gall to go to Scotland, home of golf, and self proclaim, in advance, that you are building 'the Worlds Greatest Golf Course?' How incredibly crass and disrespectful can you get? Should the Old Course at St. Andrews roll up it's sidewalk right now, in advance of your Wallmart-like advance? How big a tantrum are you (doubtlessly) going to throw if/when they don't hold the British Open at your course, next year, or ever?

And how long are you going to hide the fact that this course is partly serving as a means to shoe-horn in the construction of a thousand home McMansion 'starter' development. Are you really concerned about how those windmills will disturb the 'magnificent coastline', or are you more upset that they might hurt the value of the thousands of homes you want to press in along that coastline? (At first it was golf course and hotel. Then holiday apartments were added. Then 500 homes, Then 1000. Last I read 1,400 homes are planned.)

Someone needs to kick you right in the middle of your own 'beautiful, magnificent coastline', then send you home in a row boat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC