Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[unlinkedstudent]

unlink the hills that your arguing about are not unspoilt wilderness. they have not been since man settled shetland. take some time and drive up to voe and come back via aith and then tell us which hills have not got serious erosion due to peat digging and over stocking of sheep.

 

the john muir group is just an eco group. its clean energy face it the only other carbon clean power is nuclar. would you fancy one of them built in virkie. the farm is going to be built. all that you and your anti friends will do is hand the income to outsiders. again the 5% people would not be investing if they did not know that it was a profitable concept.

 

paulb - WHY or why do you address so many of your posts to me? I'm not the only person on this forum to object to the windfarm. Do you think it is acceptable that Shetland Aerogenerators Limited OWN the Viking Energy website yet they have nothing to do with it? This is in breach of English company law, which, incidentally, also states that you shouldn't have company names with similar names - now let me see, Viking Energy, Viking Energy Shetland LLP, Viking Partnership; oops, missed out a few. English law also states that you have to have your company registration number on the website; Shetland Aerogenerators have NOT got this on the website. Now how many people thought the Viking Energy website was owned by Viking Energy Limited (or should that be Viking Energy Shetland LLP?). BEFORE you go off running and saying but it is the Burradale lot, note that they are under a different company for the Viking Partnership.

 

Oh yeah, these are English companies. Oh yes, and you can file complaints because it is against English law to mislead the public. Just go on the Companies House website, phone the hotline number and you can get a form. Whilst we're at it, who is Allan Wishart employed by?

 

Have another look. Viking Energy website is designed by Consensus who have Scottish Renewables and a wind turbine manufacturer amongst their clients.

 

Now this couldn't all be the teeny weeniest bit biased now could it?

[keetiebairdie]

Now, Unlinked - this really is a maze, a can of worms! A tangle.

 

As tangled as da cloo o' oo my knitting used to get into many years ago - never did sort it out. I just threw it away.

Oh, the tangled web we weave, whene'er we practice to deceive.

[Carlos]

So where does the 'authority' lie, with the council (planning authority) or with their professional employees (the SIC planning office) who looked dispassionately at the facts surrounding the wind farm?

The authority in this case is with the Energy Unit in Edinburgh - it's not a normal planning application overseen by the Council. The SIC Planning report were effectively comments submitted to the Energy Unit as input to its considerations, along with all the supporting/objecting letters and the later report/vote/comments from Councilors.

If the Council vote had decided not to support the application then that would have forced a public hearing, but everything would still have been dealt with by the Energy Unit - permission for this development is not given/refused by the Council.

[shetlandpeat]

I wonder why nothing has been done about it, quite amazing that it has gone this far and none of the experts, GOV officials, lawyers and all the others have not found this out.

Anyone care to say why nothing has been done, no complaints or legal actions?

[mate64]

Response from John Muir Trust:

 

http://www.jmt.org/news.asp?s=2&nid=JMT-N10657

 

On the above link the John Muir Trust states that "Restoration of peatlands is a highly cost effective means of mitigating global warming".

Is it really? Do they have any evidence? I reckon that even if the whole of Shetland was covered in 10m of peat it would have zero effect on the climate. Maybe if you set fire to the stuff. Even then, doubtful.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

It locks in carbon, so best left undisturbed.

 

But industrial windfarms are only about money

[paulb]

I wonder why nothing has been done about it, quite amazing that it has gone this far and none of the experts, GOV officials, lawyers and all the others have not found this out.

Anyone care to say why nothing has been done, no complaints or legal actions?

because they have not done anything wrong.

[trowie246]

So where does the 'authority' lie, with the council (planning authority) or with their professional employees (the SIC planning office) who looked dispassionately at the facts surrounding the wind farm?

The authority in this case is with the Energy Unit in Edinburgh - it's not a normal planning application overseen by the Council. The SIC Planning report were effectively comments submitted to the Energy Unit as input to its considerations, along with all the supporting/objecting letters and the later report/vote/comments from Councilors.

If the Council vote had decided not to support the application then that would have forced a public hearing, but everything would still have been dealt with by the Energy Unit - permission for this development is not given/refused by the Council.

 

I didn't read keetiebairdie post as that, I thought she/he was asking who had the authority within the SIC to object or not object to the windfarm.

[unlinkedstudent]

I wonder why nothing has been done about it, quite amazing that it has gone this far and none of the experts, GOV officials, lawyers and all the others have not found this out.

Anyone care to say why nothing has been done, no complaints or legal actions?

because they have not done anything wrong.

 

Morally they most certainly have.

 

Legally; well, that will be determined if a Judicial Review goes ahead.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Should be an interesting Monday at the Toon Hall, i'll be there

[ArabiaTerra]

From an engineering point of view would we not be better sitting back for ten years and see how the new innovations in turbines pan out (the oil and gas is no going to dry up in that time). We were going to use 3.6s but now we are speaking about 4+ totally untried and un tested for any length of time.

There is lots of new innovations out there especially the direct drive units so as we are not really skint (and not likely to be so for a long time ) I think from an engineer’s point of view let everybody spend their money and watch what happens.

 

There will always be new innovations almost ready for the market, and, strictly from an engineering point of view, it might make sense to wait. But there are other considerations that are relevant, namely: Climate Change.

 

We can't wait any longer to decarbonise. We're already in the danger zone for causing severe climate change effects. The further CO2 levels climb, the worse the eventual effects will be, and the more severe the economic impact of remedial action will be.

 

This is from page 10 of a new paper by James Hanson of NASA:

 

CO2 Emission Reduction Scenarios. A 6%/year decrease of fossil fuel emissions beginning in 2013, with 100 GtC reforestation, achieves a CO2 decline to 350 ppm near the end of this century (Fig. 4A). Cumulative fossil fuel emissions in this scenario are ~136 GtC from 2012 to 2050, with an additional 15 GtC by 2100. If our assumed land use changes occur a decade earlier, CO2 returns to 350 ppm several years earlier, however that has negligible effect on the global temperature maximum calculated below.

 

Conversely, delaying fossil fuel emission cuts until 2020 (with 2%/year emissions growth in 2012-2020) causes CO2 to remain in the dangerous zone (above 350 ppm) until 2300 (Fig. 4B). If reductions are delayed until 2030, CO2 remains above 400 ppm until almost 2500.

 

These results emphasize the urgency of initiating emissions reduction. If emissions reduction had begun in 2005, reduction at 3.5%/year would have achieved 350 ppm at 2100. Now the requirement is at least 6%/year. If we assume only 50 GtC reforestation, the requirement becomes at least 9%/year. Further delay of emissions reductions until 2020 requires a reduction rate of 15%/year to achieve 350 ppm in 2100.

 

From here. (PDF)

 

I urge you to read the whole paper.

 

We don't have time to wait for a perfect solution, we have to go with what's available now.

[trowie246]

^^^ So does this mean that when we get all the windturbines up and running they'll be switching off the power station then? an whit aboot me car??!!!

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Shetland saves the planet...so who's gonna pull the plug on the rest of the Planet, paulb or AT?

[Grafter]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/11/iceland-volcano-green-power

Maybe the interconnector from Iceland could divert into Shetland and we could forget about the Viking Energy nonsense!

[trowie246]

Quote "If emissions reductions had begun in 2005....." unquote

 

The above statements worries me because this suggests emissions are not being reduced......so does this mean that all the hundreds and thousands of windfarms already covering many countries aren't working?