Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

1. The original carbon payback model VE used in their 2009 planning application is NOT based on pristine bog. It's the standard model, so all windfarms can be compared on their carbon payback time.

It was the standard model for building on peat, which assumes pristine blanket bog.

 

It didn't bring VE the expected results, so they devised their own.

As well as being, IMHO, a lie, this statement is also an accusation of fraud on the part of Viking Energy. Either back this accusation up with evidence, euripides, or withdraw it and apologise.

 

Viking Energy went out and surveyed the site, quantified the degraded peat and used that as the basis for their calculations. Instead of using models, they used REALITY. Surely everyone can understand that this is a better way of doing things?

 

2. In order to achieve their 1 year carbon payback in their addendum, VE assume full restoration of the site. When I read through the addendum I lost count of the times "assumed" is used. Far too much is based pure speculation. Their carbon payback calculations do not stand up to robust scrutiny.

As opposed to no restoration of the site, which is what will happen if the windfarm isn't built. Given the state of the hill up there, VE believe the windfarm and associated restorative work will actually improve the peat conditions over much of the site. Doing nothing, will do... nothing.

 

3. Regarding financial and other calculations, there's a column of figures in the addedum, a "fully vetted" document according to A. Wishart, with the following calculation: 9+9+6 = 23. That says it all.

["sustainable" Shetland] LOOK!!11!1! A Spelling mistake!!11! This means everything euripides has ever written on the internet is bollox [/"sustainable" Shetland]

 

[Ghostrider]

As opposed to no restoration of the site, which is what will happen if the windfarm isn't built. Given the state of the hill up there, VE believe the windfarm and associated restorative work will actually improve the peat conditions over much of the site. Doing nothing, will do... nothing.

 

Ummm....just to be pedantic....for the sake of being pedantic.

 

Any site will "restore" itself naturally, if nothing is done, and nature is allowed to work. Hilltop erosion is where it is right now due to a combination of factors, mainly grazings, temperature and winter weather.

 

The grazing problem has already be addressed by the entity which created it, however with temperature and weather being what it is, any difference that makes will be quite some time in showing itself. So its really far too early to say whether the hills are in fact a in a period of slow self regeneration just now. Or if the damage is irreversible with current temperature and weather conditions, and their condition is either permanent or actually deteriorating.

 

If we assume that global warming/climate change/call it what you will carries on advancing largely unchecked, by default of the phenomena, the possibility that our temperatures could rise by a degree of two, isn't entirely unreasonable. If they do, the hills' ability to regenerate will improve considerably. In fact, as I see it, it is ironic that if nobody does anything, global temperatures climb unchecked, and we get our fair share of the heat, the regeneration and carbon loss issues become null and void,as the hilltops will be growing lush green grass naturally. It is by trying to maintain temperatures around their current level, that the whole issue of regeneration and carbon loss arises.

[JMac]

Dr Birnie advised Viking Energy to determine the actual area of bare peat in these scenarios and estimate carbon losses for them. This they apparently failed to do, instead assuming that the whole site was bare peat in their carbon payback calculations.

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2010/November/letters/Other%20ways%20of%20restoring%20peat.htm

 

They assumed the whole site was bare peat??? Well that explains how they got the results they wanted, I suppose.

No, crofter, this is just another example of the anti-windfarm lobby's lies.

 

What VE actually said was 67% of the ground which will be disturbed during the construction process is degraded peat.

 

AT, please watch your words. This is what Dr. Birnie wrote to me on 15th November (after the Addendum was submitted):

 

“You make the point that these estimates [baseline figures for carbon emissions] appear to have been made on the assumption that the whole area is bare peat and therefore the erosion rates that I had originally measured on the Mid Kame (10-40mm per annum) would apply to it all. This is a fair observation and I have checked it with the relevant Viking Energy (VE) consultant and he has confirmed that it is the case. As a result, he has recalculated the estimate based on the assumption that 10% of the area is eroded. I consider this to be a reasonable first approximation.â€

 

The 67% you refer to is based on a MLURI soil (not a habitat) survey map, which appears in the original VE ES. The carbon payback calculations in the Addendum do not refer to this, but to an unspecified “GIS surveyâ€, and depending on the scenario adopted (drainage effects of tracks and other infrastructure on blanket bog of 10m, 20m, and 50m extent), the amount of “hagged and gullied†bog, compared to “undamagedâ€, is 93%, 92% and 89% respectively.

 

This is important: undamaged bog, according to the Addendum, has over 20 times the power to capture carbon as hagged and gullied. Thus the effects of drainage, which negate this power, are numerically very small in the carbon payback calculations.

 

The habitat surveys done for VE show significant amounts of active blanket bog along windfarm track corridors (and over the whole site). If these had been taken into account, the payback results would have been quite different.

 

Part of the problem of the Addendum is the use of different terminology. “Pristine†and “active†and “undamaged†are interchanged, without being properly defined; similarly, “erodedâ€, “hagged and gullied†and “degradedâ€. It’s not surprising that confusion results in the minds of supporters, opponents and “don’t knowsâ€. The responsibility for this ultimately rests with VE.

 

But the responsibility for the use of the word “lies†rests with you, AT, and it would be decent of you to retract your allegation.

[euripides]

AT wrote: "Viking Energy went out and surveyed the site, quantified the degraded peat and used that as the basis for their calculations. Instead of using models, they used REALITY. Surely everyone can understand that this is a better way of doing things?"

 

After reading JMac's post it seems Viking Energy reality is very different from - hmm - REALITY.

[Graeme_Storey]

Shetland News headline:-

 

-------------

SIC planning recommends to object to Viking wind farm

Shetland Islands Council's planning department said on Thursday that Viking Energy had not demonstrated that its proposed 457 megawatt wind farm could be built without an "unacceptable environmental impact" and has recommended to councillors to object to the proposed development.

More later.

-------------

 

Interesting - a vision of cats and pigeons springs to mind.

[Para Handy]

Shetland News headline:-

 

-------------

SIC planning recommends to object to Viking wind farm

Shetland Islands Council's planning department said on Thursday that Viking Energy had not demonstrated that its proposed 457 megawatt wind farm could be built without an "unacceptable environmental impact" and has recommended to councillors to object to the proposed development.

More later.

-------------

 

Interesting - a vision of cats and pigeons springs to mind.

 

At long last someone in the planning department has found some balls

Pity our councillors wont have any. They only want to save the pennies not the pounds all 68 million of them How many Scalloway Schools would that fund

[stilldellin]

Para Handy wrote :-

At long last someone in the planning department has found some balls

Pity our councillors wont have any. They only want to save the pennies not the pounds all 68 million of them How many Scalloway Schools would that fund

Absolutely spot on Para Handy, as someen wance said " Ony body wi a cork eye an a gless een cuda telled dem yun wiz in da wrang place " !!

[moorit]

this is interesting. i wonder if Billy fox will want a referendum now?

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2010/12/09/more-people-now-in-favour-of-windfarm-than-against-it-according-to-latest-poll

[Twerto]

why cant we actually have a poll where everyoen is asked to vote? ^^

 

Instead of these random phone people up and ask questions polls, makes it very hard to prove if it is representative or not.. bit like saying 9 out of 10 cats prefer being patted on thier head instead of belly when they have only asked 50 cat owners

[oddtablet]

Para Handy wrote :-

At long last someone in the planning department has found some balls

Pity our councillors wont have any. They only want to save the pennies not the pounds all 68 million of them How many Scalloway Schools would that fund

Absolutely spot on Para Handy, as someen wance said " Ony body wi a cork eye an a gless een cuda telled dem yun wiz in da wrang place " !!

 

well said, have not managed to get my views on this latest poll ....I do wonder .............

 

Alan Wishart sounding his usual self assured self.....'his councillors' will not surley accept the planning departments views..

[Pooks]

Thought some of you might find this news report interesting as it shows the scale of the turbines blades.

 

The truck crashed in NZ yesterday while transporting a 49-meter blade.

 

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1291853676/039/4440039_600x400.jpg

[Graeme_Storey]

That is very interesting, and a good find!

[stilldellin]

More from Te Uku Windfarm :- Quote

 

Around 40,000 native plants were planted on the wind farm site by Raglan company Whaingaroa Harbour Care. During the consent process, the regional council identified two wetlands on the property as ecologically significant for the region. The 40,000 plants were planted within these two wetland areas – a total of 4.56 hectares – and will help to improve water quality downstream.

 

Hmmm, and I wonder how many thousand plants VE are intending to put in on the top of The Kames....

[stilldellin]

Another interesting snippet :-

 

 

 

 

The turbines will be constructed with the help of a 600 tonne crane, the largest wheeled crane ever seen in New Zealand.

 

Maybe our councillors will bear this in mind and this is the requirement for smaller turbines than the VE ones.

Just imagine a 600 tonne plus crane rumblin aboot on da tap o da Kames.!

[shetlandpeat]

Another interesting snippet :-

 

 

 

 

The turbines will be constructed with the help of a 600 tonne crane, the largest wheeled crane ever seen in New Zealand.

 

Maybe our councillors will bear this in mind and this is the requirement for smaller turbines than the VE ones.

Just imagine a 600 tonne plus crane rumblin aboot on da tap o da Kames.!

 

Ah rumours a spreading, no need for them.

 

The crane has a lifting capacity of 600 tonnes, it does not weigh 600 tonnes

 

Technical details

Maximum lifting capacity / radius: 600 t / 6 m (660 US-tons / 20ft)

Superstructure engine: DaimlerChrysler OM 502 LA (420 kW / 571 PS / hp)

Carrier engine: DaimlerChrysler OM 502 LA (380 kW / 516 PS / hp)

Maximum travel speed: 62 km/h

Drive / steer: 16 x 8 x 16

Tyres: 14.00

Overall length: 17,95 m (58.9ft)

Turning radius: 15,5 m (50.8ft), Unterwagen / carrier

Maximum counterweight: 160 / 200 t (353,000 / 441,000lbs)

Superlift counterweight: 300 t (661,000lbs)

Main boom SH: 24 - 84 m (78 - 276ft)

Main boom SH/LH: 66 - 102 m (216 - 335ft)

Main boom SSL: 36 - 96 m (118 - 315ft)

Main boom SSL/LSL: 90 - 138 m (295 - 452ft)

Fixed fly jib LF: 12 - 36 m (39 - 118ft)

Fixed fly jib SF: 24 - 96 m (78 - 315ft)

Luffing fly jib SW: 24 - 84 m (78 - 276ft)

Luffing fly jib SWSL: 66 + 84 = 150 m (216 + 276 = 492ft)

 

It is requires I believe because of the hight of the lift.

Anyone with a modicum of physics knows how a seesaw works.

 

There are already some in UK, so no records broken there.