Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

The arguments for and against this project will go on for years ,but looking ahead all those new roads may well give access to new sites for housing and crofts in the future,it will also open up areas for coaches full of tourists assuming of course they are left open for public access.

Its not all negatives there are positives as well .

Roads up Scousburgh Hill,Collafirth Hill ,Saxavord, Shurton Hill, Bressay ect all came about with the need for radio transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 17/01/2021 at 22:20, Ghostrider said:

^ Can't argue all that much with that. The groups as they stand (that I'm aware of) are exclusively anti groups, so pro people are unlikely to join them. There are no pro groups, which is interpreted (rightly or wrongly by the antis) as being an attitude of 'We've won, its happening, and we don't care you hate it', nor are there any general groups where both sides get a fair hearing.

Do any of the anti Facebook groups have a constructive purpose? Are they taking any positive actions (beyond petitions and demanding work be stopped)?

The handful of groups I've seen or been invited to seem to be (I say this with respect and empathy) collective handwringing support groups for people who genuinely believe Shetland is being destroyed. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that there could be any kind of positive side to the windfarm. 

I expect membership of the anti groups would further compound those ideas and biases and serve to collectively increase the anxiety levels of the group members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more. These groups are textbook examples of the core problem with much of modern social media, in that they serve no purpose but to enforce one view or another at the expense of any constructive debate or consideration of other opinions, and as you say, ultimately contribute to the detriment of the members.

But as to the topic in hand, it is good to see this thread rediscovered, as it proves that contrary to one of the oft spouted mantra of no community involvement, the project has been a topic of debate since the beginning of Shetlink and well before. I am sure I am not alone in being glad the project has finally started as it will finally bring an end to the decades of consultations and domination of local politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still swaying a bit over the wind-farm myself, however i think any jobs created should be given more priority. 

I get the impression that the same people who object because of its effect on the natural beauty, putting off tourists, also don't want too many tourists either. especially off cruise ships. And again the antis seem to be mainly people who have moved (retired?) here. 

Just my opinion of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rasmie said:

I get the impression that the same people who object because of its effect on the natural beauty, putting off tourists, also don't want too many tourists either. especially off cruise ships.

I would also suggest that the vast majority of those that object to wind power know little about the pollution generated by an ordinary power station which burns fossil fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, George. said:

I would also suggest that the vast majority of those that object to wind power know little about the pollution generated by an ordinary power station which burns fossil fuel.

Or the damage caused raping the Earth for 'Rare Earth' metals tho go into the wind turbines.!!!

Also, there is the damage (locally) to peat bogs that have lain undisturbed for centuries.

Collateral damage to wildlife.

etc...

There don't appear to me to be to many positives either side of the argument.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Colin said:

There don't appear to me to be to many positives either side of the argument.

For me, there is one positive that stands out for wind power. In the construction and set up of the wind turbine. There are rare earth metals used to create the rechargable batteries that are used to keep power in place. The batteries will occasionally be replaced so not perfect.

However, power stations brn fossil fuels, and in doing so the smoke comes out and blows around the world and it goes on and on and.....

Which is the most pollutant?

Edited by George.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George. said:

For me, there is one positive that stands out for wind power. In the construction and set up of the wind turbine. There are rare earth metals used to create the rechargable batteries that are used to keep power in place. The batteries will occasionally be replaced so not perfect.

However, power stations brn fossil fuels, and in doing so the smoke comes out and blows around the world and it goes on and on and.....

Which is the most pollutant?

Burning fossil fuels is no different to destroying peat bogs..  Both result in pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building windfarms, and building and running fossil fuel stations, both have negative environmental consequences. But unless you're comparing specific shared criteria between them then the comparison is pointless - apples and oranges.

I expect that if Viking Energy was built out of sight then the strength of negative feeling about it would be fractional. It's absolutely someones right to object to the visual impact of a development, but that objection often doesn't carry any weight - frustrating for the individual, particularly when they group together and begin to believe that everyone shares their opinion. But from a personal ethics point of view I don't believe my subjective aesthetic opinions should matter much in the big scheme of things.

Most of the discussions I have had with people about the windfarm eventually boils down to the fact they don't like the visual impact, and the statistical / scientific / ethical / legal arguments they use are there to back-up and add substance to an existing aesthetic opinion.

For example, I don't recall any discussion about displaced peat or use of materials during the construction of Sullom Voe or the Gas Plant both of which arguably have a worse environmental impact than Viking Energy - but they're out of sight, out of mind, and after-all folk need energy and jobs, so no need to grapple with difficult ethics and environmental issues.

Disclaimer: the above is not meant to be an attack on people who are anti Viking Energy. It is merely an observation on human nature!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spinner72 said:

The gas plant comparison is very valid, and really highlights the emotive nature of the windfarm issue. The entire gas plant project was developed, proposed and constructed in a fraction of the time of what is now the Viking Energy Windfarm. Caused extensive disruption to peat and of course produces fossil fuels with all the negatives that brings. However, not a pleep in objection.

There was many a 'pleep' of objection, and I think that you will find that the Gas Plant has a very large 'Peat Store' (?) on site.  In fact, it is so large that it is possibly the largest single structure on the site, and it's right next to the main gate as well.

Personally, I am mildy anti wind farm.  Mainly because most of the direct benefits to Shetland have been siphoned off and are heading South.  Additionally, we appear to have very little influence over any of it.  Looks like a 'put up and shut up!' job.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/01/2021 at 22:59, Davie P said:

 

Do any of the anti Facebook groups have a constructive purpose? Are they taking any positive actions (beyond petitions and demanding work be stopped)?

The handful of groups I've seen or been invited to seem to be (I say this with respect and empathy) collective handwringing support groups for people who genuinely believe Shetland is being destroyed. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that there could be any kind of positive side to the windfarm. 

I expect membership of the anti groups would further compound those ideas and biases and serve to collectively increase the anxiety levels of the group members.

I'm not in a position to respond to that fully as I've only ever been in one of the anti groups. There the focus has moved from out and out opposition to one of recording and monitoring the work as it progresses, with an emphasis on ensuring as far as practically possible that if VE must proceed that all relevant conditions and procedures are met in full.

I can only speculate based on my own opinion as to why there is no acknowledgement that VE has a positive side, and that is because its very difficult to find much of substance to show one.

Yes, a few local firms/people are getting work out of it, and that's fine, but its a flash in the pan at best, once the construction phase is complete, that ends. What then? Projected permanent staff numbers once operational are relatively small, and its unlikely given the specialist nature of the work most will go to locals anyway.

There's no word of cheaper electric for consumers, and its unlikely much by way of goods and services will be sourced locally longer term.

The landowners will profit, but thats only a handful of people and entities, a significant percentage of whom are not Shetland based. Grazings shareholders of the land occupied with get something, but given that they would only have been taking £30-50 per hectare p.a. threough agri subs for the land before VE, their cut only needs to exceed that figure for it to make sense for them to take it.

Stepping outwards to the bigger picture, if you throw up the 'green' and 'saving the planet' arguments, you have to first accept that windfarms are both 'green' and will help 'save the planet', and those claims are still very much in contention. If someone doesn't accept windfarms are proven to be 'green' and 'planet saving' they're not going to see any benefit on that level either.

Again, I can only comment on the mood in the group I have been in and not any others, and while I can understand why you might suspect a wholly anti group could collectively escalate the anxiety levels of individual members, its not something I've seen any evidence of.

Irritation, anger, ire, disgust, contempt, hatred, and an occasional whiff of vengeance. Yup, seen all of those expressed, but nothing I'd class as anxiety. The atmosphere tends to be clenched fists rather than handwringing anytime I've had a look.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...