Would you support VE if.....

[paulb]

if your house price was affected by that much you would be entitled to compo.

a small turbine farm is no use unless the shetland grid was re done. it would not be allowed to be connected

[JustMe]

I might support VE if I had sufficient information about what harm the project might do to our environment including things like peat bogs and the wildlife. In particular I want to know what the overall effect on production of greenhouse gases will be from building the thing. Everything from what destroying the peat might do, through the gases created by building the machines and even the gas stoves used so the people installing the turbines can have a nice cup of tea.

 

And I would rather like to know how the windfarm compares with the greenhouse gasses produced from the new Lerwick power station having to run as against drawing power from an interconnector. And how things compare to having a couple more small windfarms.

 

So I will not vote just now. Will say that if the project is proved to be good for the environment and that it will bring money to Shetland to compensate those seriously inconvenienced by the thing then I would be in favour of it but at the moment I am just not convinced.

[MuckleJoannie]

Even if the SCT has no further involvement in Viking the Shetland Community Benefit Fund will still receive income from it

 

http://www.shetland-communities.org.uk/subsites/vas/community-benefit-fund.htm

[ArabiaTerra]

I might support VE if I had sufficient information about what harm the project might do to our environment including things like peat bogs and the wildlife. In particular I want to know what the overall effect on production of greenhouse gases will be from building the thing. Everything from what destroying the peat might do, through the gases created by building the machines and even the gas stoves used so the people installing the turbines can have a nice cup of tea.

 

Where have you been these last 5 years? All of these questions have been discussed on the windfarm thread. But I'm not expecting you to trawl through 227 pages to find the answers, so I'll see if I can summarise them here:

 

Peat: There is no evidence that there would be any lasting damage to the peat moor. Of course, during the construction period there will be a bit of a mess made, but once the construction is over, that will be cleaned up as it would be for any other development.

 

Allegations have been made that building roads through peat moor will disrupt the drainage and end up damaging the moor on either side of the roads. Held up as evidence of this is a single example of a peat slide in Ireland caused by the road to a windmill. As a counter example I would like to point out the complete lack of devastation caused in Shetland over the last 40 years during which our entire main road network has been built, most of it through peat moor. Of particular note is the road between Mid Yell and Gutcher, a large part of which is, or used to be, "floating" on top of deep peat moor. Do you see any devastation of the surrounding moorland? Neither do I.

Peat Removal: The original VE proposal called for the excavation and removal of around 1 million cubic metres (cubes) of peat. As the original proposal has been scaled back, the amount of peat removed has also been reduced, especially as the parts of the scheme removed were those with the biggest peat impact. The size of the scheme has been reduced to around 60% of the original proposal so I would expect the peat removed to be reduced by a similar amount.

 

The thing is, peat removed does not equal peat destroyed. It simply means moved somewhere else. When Sullom was built, around 10 million cubes of peat were removed from Calback Ness and dumped into Orca Voe. It's still there, right where they left it, 35 years later.

 

Wildlife: The principal species which will be affected by the windfarm are the Whimbrel and the Raingoose. In the case of the raingoose, they spend their days at sea, feeding, and their nights on lochs. They move between the two at dawn and dusk. VE have identified the turbines which lie on the flightpaths between sea and lochs and have said they will turn off those turbines during the dawn and dusk periods to avoid disturbing the birds.

 

The whimbrel, on the other hand, are a lost cause. Their numbers have declined by 50% over the last ten years before any turbines have been built and they will likely be extinct in Shetland by the early 2020's, windfarm or not. Research into the effects of climate change on the ranges of wild species has shown that 60% of the species studied are moving their ranges to cope. Now I don't know of any research specific to the whimbrel on this subject, but the changes in the whimbrel population in Shetland fit the pattern of a species adjusting it's range in response to climate change. Shetland is at the extreme southern edge of the range of the whimbrel, an Arctic species. And the whimbrel, globally, is not endangered. It's range stretches through Northern Scandinavia into Siberia.

 

CO2 cost of Building the Windfarm: Irrelevant.

 

What I mean by this is that our current stock of power stations in the UK are knackered. The big coal fired stations were built in the 50's and 60's, and our nuclear stations in the 60's and 70's. All of these are near the end of their useful lives and need to be replaced by something in the next 10-20 years. So the relevant question is whether the windfarm will cost more CO2 to build than the alternatives.

 

Given that CO2 is a factor, this immediately rules out new coal, oil or gas right at the start. They may cost less CO2 to build but the amount of CO2 they produce during normal operations completely wipes out this advantage by orders of magnitude.

 

This leaves Solar or Nuclear. The CO2 cost of building a nuclear power station are actually quite severe. The sheer amount of concrete that goes into the foundations and containment building are staggering, and then you've got the mining, transporting, smelting, casting and machining of all the exotic metals which go into the reactor plant. And finally, you've got the mining, transporting and processing of the nuclear fuel, all of which are highly carbon intensive. Then you've got the waste problem. Windfarms look good in comparison.

 

Solar is good. From a carbon point of view anyway. But it's expensive and tends to use a lot of exotic materials compared to a windfarm. We should do both.

 

And I would rather like to know how the windfarm compares with the greenhouse gasses produced from the new Lerwick power station having to run as against drawing power from an interconnector. And how things compare to having a couple more small windfarms.

 

Windfarm + Interconnector (W+I) vs New Gremista Station & No Interconnector (GS-I): There's no contest here really. W+I, going by the efficiency of the Burradale farm of 52%, means half the time we're running on windfarm power with zero carbon cost and half the time we're importing power from the national grid at average grid CO2 cost. Which equates to an overall 50% average national grid CO2 intensity.

 

Compared to burning oil in a small (and therefore inefficient) power station which I doubt would come in at less than double the carbon intensity of the Grid.

 

As for a couple of more small windfarms? Not possible without the interconnector, or someone would have built them already. The interconnector is necessary for load balancing.

 

So I will not vote just now. Will say that if the project is proved to be good for the environment and that it will bring money to Shetland to compensate those seriously inconvenienced by the thing then I would be in favour of it but at the moment I am just not convinced.

 

Here's the thing. The only way to absolutely prove the benefits of the windfarm, is to build it.

 

Failing that, you've just got to look at the available information and make a decision.

 

More info can be found here and here.

[unlinkedstudent]

AT - I thought there wasn't a requirement to remove the great turds of concrete/cement (lots of it) - or are you saying these will be removed?

 

No doubt JustMe hasn't been blinded by the waffle spoon-fed by the VE Brigade.

[JustMe]

What a clear concise explanation. Thank you AT. And I gave up on the main windfarm thread some time ago. One instant question has to be what the new power station would offer if it was powered by gas from SVT?. And another has to be what will happen to a windfarm should nice reliable tidal generation happen in the next few years?.

 

And of course I now have to wonder what will happen if Sustainable Shetland win their claim for a judicial review.

[ArabiaTerra]

AT - I thought there wasn't a requirement to remove the great turds of concrete/cement (lots of it) - or are you saying these will be removed?

 

The CO2 costs of concrete come from the making of the cement, CO2 costs of transporting it to where it's required and the curing of the concrete. Once it's set, it's pretty much inert. Leaving it where it is once the windfarm is gone is the most environmentally friendly thing to do, certainly compared to the costs of trying to blast it out of the hill again (lumps of reinforced concrete that size would almost certainly require blasting to remove them).

 

What a clear concise explanation. Thank you AT. And I gave up on the main windfarm thread some time ago. One instant question has to be what the new power station would offer if it was powered by gas from SVT?. And another has to be what will happen to a windfarm should nice reliable tidal generation happen in the next few years?.

 

And of course I now have to wonder what will happen if Sustainable Shetland win their claim for a judicial review.

 

A good rule of thumb for calculating the carbon costs of different fossil fuels is 3:2:1.

 

1 ton of coal gets you 3 tons of CO2,

 

1 ton of oil gets you 2 tons of CO2,

 

and 1 ton of LPG gets you 1 ton of CO2.

 

Of course this is just a rough estimate. Also, when it comes to oil the type of oil can make a big difference. For instance, petrol will be lower than 2 tons while the kind of heavy bunker oil which would be burned in a power station would be higher. So while running the Gremista station on gas would be much better than oil from a carbon point of view, it's still a fossil fuel and thus better left in the ground.

 

As far as tidal generation goes, while it is more predictable than wind, it still only has a maximum yield of 50% ( the tides waxes and wanes over each tidal cycle to give you an average of 50%), and the fact that the turbines have to be underwater means they will always be more expensive to build, operate and maintain than the equivalent wind turbines. Also, given that they are very similar machines, any big breakthrough in tidal turbine design would likely be just as applicable to wind turbines as well.

 

As far as "sustainable" Shetland's judicial challenge goes, if it succeeds, it could delay the project by another 2-3 years, which would mean delaying the benefits for that long, but I don't see it preventing the project from going ahead.

[unlinkedstudent]

AT - I thought there wasn't a requirement to remove the great turds of concrete/cement (lots of it) - or are you saying these will be removed?

 

The CO2 costs of concrete come from the making of the cement, CO2 costs of transporting it to where it's required and the curing of the concrete. Once it's set, it's pretty much inert. Leaving it where it is once the windfarm is gone is the most environmentally friendly thing to do, certainly compared to the costs of trying to blast it out of the hill again (lumps of reinforced concrete that size would almost certainly require blasting to remove them).

 

AT, with the greatest respect, a YES/NO answer would be greatly appreciated: Will the concrete/cement be removed - yes or no? If the answer is no, then the landscape will be scarred, no matter how much 'flannel' you care to 'wash over' it.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ok then.

 

No, the concrete bases will not be removed. As I understand it, they will be covered with topsoil and reseeded.

[unlinkedstudent]

^ Thank you.

 

And where has this been done successfully in the past? Is it not the case that top soil doesn't tend to stay 'put'? By this, I mean in climates such as Shetland (As I note other examples you have given do not refer to Shetland and I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, our climate, etc., is somewhat different and more challenging.

[shetlandpeat]

^ Thank you.

 

And where has this been done successfully in the past? Is it not the case that top soil doesn't tend to stay 'put'? By this, I mean in climates such as Shetland (As I note other examples you have given do not refer to Shetland and I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, our climate, etc., is somewhat different and more challenging.

 

I am sure Shetland is covered in "top soil" as it is a rock. There are many structures that have not been removed that have been covered over, many buildings, I know small but. They could use the peat they removed, that is, if they ever do stop using the site. Dunno what the point is being proved here though. It is all in the detail.

 

Alas, you could go look for it yourself instead of getting folk to do your research for you. AT does not have to do that, you are as capable. He gave you the answer you wanted!

[Guest posiedon]

peat gives his usual unfathomable response, you should be a politician peat, or a preacher.

[unlinkedstudent]

^ Cos I'm not aware of it having been done in Shetland. Cos I'm in the anti-windfarm camp and AT ain't. Cos AT has vast knowledge of VE's gump and I don't.

 

Oh, and Shetland, the last time I looked, didn't have concrete/cement as its base.

[ArabiaTerra]

^ Thank you.

 

And where has this been done successfully in the past? Is it not the case that top soil doesn't tend to stay 'put'? By this, I mean in climates such as Shetland (As I note other examples you have given do not refer to Shetland and I'm sure you'll be the first to agree, our climate, etc., is somewhat different and more challenging.

 

It's true that conditions can be more challenging up here than in other places, but the thing is, the native flora are adapted to this environment and seem to do alright (when they aren't subjected to overgrazing by the woolly gods).

 

Now, this is a purely anecdotal remark, so shouldn't be taken as a statement of fact or anything, but, a friend of mine from school days is married to a girl who works for SEPA as an environmental consultant. The last time they were home we were talking about the windfarm and she mentioned that the environmental management plan VE had drawn up had crossed her desk. She thought it was, by a long way, the best she had seen from any windfarm proposal in Scotland. So I am optimistic about that part of things.

 

peat gives his usual unfathomable response, you should be a politician peat, or a preacher.

 

He is.

[shetlandpeat]

I wonder what you think this concrete monster will do? Especially as it has been there for tens of years. All the environmental tweeks would have been done. Why remove it? Can you explain the need to remove it, should then the MOD come and at last clear their mess up?

 

Thinking on it though, it could be a great place to land spaceships. We could build a mountain from the peat and learn the organ, I have a torch that changes colour. See you there in a few years.

 

If you wait long enough, you will be one of the first to witness such an event. You must now feel quite lucky. Any fool would have already found out the answer to the question they ask before asking it, especially in a campaign. The clever folk will then compare any variation in the answer given to that of which they know. That way, they can then campaign proper. As you are not a fool, you will already know what will happen.

Your expert would be VE, what did they say?

 

Again, I am pleased that folk are thinking of these sorts of things, I like the concern for the lively hood and welfare people have show folk they do not know, very social, very human.

 

What popularity contest?