Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Carlos]

I tend to agree with droilker as I have heard others say that the power produced may not offset the damage caused to the environment by the construction??

 

Anybody have any suggestions for power generation schemes which would cause less overall enviromental damage?

 

If we don't have a minimum figure to benchmark schemes against will we see every new option as "too damaging" in some way or other and carry on with the coal and gas?

 

No doubt the interconnector would have a large inital impact, but it should have a long lifespan too.... the impact of wind generators may be large in terms of road construction, but the roads would have a life of 5-10 generations of wind turbines.... so how would you allow for that?

Wave and tidal energy plants would seem to require the largest scale of construction, what impacts would be expected from those?

[markj]

droilker,

 

lets see what I can contribute to the debate without nit picking.

 

500 million pounds for the cable, is there a report available to the public with the breakdown of costs for this?,

 

I think the wind farm would be a good idea, lay the cable, sell the generated electricity to mainland scotland folk and keep the power station in lerwick running.

 

In years to come Shetland will be grateful for any substantial projects like this one to help the economy once Sullom Voe closes it's doors.

[Fjool]

Anybody have any suggestions for power generation schemes which would cause less overall enviromental damage?

The cheapest possible alternative is reducing our consumption. Once we've done this, then we have scope to talk about whether we need to generate more.

And there is tremendous scope for reducing consumption. Whether it's enough, I'm not sure, but it's definiately the first stage.

[Para Handy]

Will Your hydro bill be any cheaper or even free I don’t think so some how

[Carlos]

The cheapest possible alternative is reducing our consumption. Once we've done this, then we have scope to talk about whether we need to generate more.

 

There is certainly scope for energy efficiency savings, reductions would need punative taxing or a real change in the social outlook I would say.

 

But, even reduced use and increased efficiency have monetary costs and evironmental costs too. Suppose we replace all streetlights with computer controlled ones that only come on when they are needed. There is the cost of doing it, and then there is the environmental costs in terms of manufacturing all those new lights, and disposing of the old ones before they are worn out, and on and on..... to be balanced against the reduced use of electricity.... the true cost of which will depend on how it is generated..... over a long long time......

 

There will be projects that have less costs than others, but to rule out any one in particular you would need to really know the full costs over the long term.

[Carlos]

Will Your hydro bill be any cheaper or even free I don’t think so some how

 

Well, you can maybe see as your bill will not being as much higher as it might have been otherwise.... although that would likely apply nationwide...... or you could hope that it would bring enough money to the local ecconomy that you would get better/cheaper services than otherwise.....

 

In terms of writting a smaller number on the cheque I don't think it is ever going that way...... unless you want to put up your own micro turbine....

[DavidThomson]

Responses to a few recent posts. Sorry for the length of post:

 

One of the problems I see is that there is no proper way in which the public can be heard, not everyone can use the internet, especially older people whom usually have more interest in our current affairs. Most of the people I meet has some concerns about this project.

The pre-planning consultation is due to start in a matter of weeks and, as was outlined in the consultation arrangements proposal document published in the first week of December, will be a full programme of public meetings, stakeholder meetings, displays, issued information brochures, a learning journey for community councillors to other big windfarms, and other non-internet based consultation. The arrangements document is available on the Viking website for review. The MORI poll was quite useful in this respect as well because it identified people’s preferred means to contribute opinion. Viking Energy can now react to that.

 

also the majority of homes here are already insulated to a high standard, we are already miles ahead in this area than the rest of the UK.

As much as I would wish it to be so, unfortunately this is not true. Shetland has some of the highest levels of ‘fuel poverty’ in the UK. A term with disputed value but it identifies that homeowners in Shetland do not enjoy parity with the rest of the UK. Your other ideas are fairly valid though. Have you submitted them to Viking on that website?

 

Why build the generator for scotland as far away from the end user as possible?

1.) It will cost more to equip scotland with renewable energy this way

500 million to build the interconnector cable alone!

2.) Nobody mentions the cost to the enviroment as regards the carbon emissions released during the surveying, laying and of course the cable will have to be trenched into the seabed or rock dumped to protect .

(probably thousands of tons)

3.) this project simply delays the people of scotland from gettin online to wind energy by probably several years.

4.) A mega farm like this will be more innefficient here due to the amount of extreme wind we have , they only operate effectivly between 15 &35 knots , meaning they will lose far more generating days up here.

This has had a few responses so I’ll hopefully not duplicate. Shetland has the resource. It will cost less to equip Scotland with renewable energy this way. To construct the same amount of power production elsewhere would require a windfarm twice as big (three times if in England) and twice as expensive. The cost of a cable is therefore justifiable and current estimates are more like £350 million. Still a lot but there is a big difference.

The carbon emissions from surveying, laying etc are miniscule. The carbon emissions from the manufacture of the cable are much bigger and would still be offset within months of the windfarm becoming operational.

This project has a connection agreement with the first part active in 2011. Not many other projects in Scotland have an early date. Therefore this project does not delay anything.

I’m not sure how a windfarm in a better resource can suddenly become more inefficient. Your assumption about operating envelopes and lost days is incorrect. Wind data from the years of generation at Burradale show otherwise.

 

in fact it,s the same wind that blows all the way up here

No it isn’t.

 

I think the point that most people are missing is that this again is another project that is being rumbled through as quick as possible

I worry about this too (the perception) but we’ve been talking about this since 2003 and have not even got to a planning application yet. There will be plenty chance for the public to say no if that’s what they want.

 

So approximately 375 people respond, yes, to a survey set up by your own company and you then claim that this is majority of Shetlands population! If I were a scientist reporting to a journal with that as back up evidence I would be laughed out of my profession by my peers!!

MORI stake their professional reputation on their work being open to scrutiny. They set up the survey to be representative. The results suggest a particular outcome. The important words here are ‘representative’ and ‘suggest’. No-one is claiming to have asked everyone in Shetland. Of a representative sample, three quarters were in clear favour. If you think MORI are unscientific or have flawed evidence for their conclusions you should take it up with them. I wouldn’t as they are very protective of their credibility. It is a poll not a referendum. It is nothing more than a useful guide. The guide suggests there is a majority support. That is what we have to continue on the basis of until someone comes with a newer guide.

 

I just wonder if the whole thing can be moved ahead ever so much more transparently?! That alone would instill me with a bit more confidence.

There is a long way to go and Viking Energy has always taken the approach of sharing information as soon as it is available and not waiting until it is complete. It is hard to give full details when they don’t exist yet. There is a lot of information out there in council minutes etc. All viewable on the internet. I hope the upcoming consultation process will give many the further information they require but even then this is only an early stage consultation and not a final fixed plan (otherwise what would be the point of consultation).

The planning process still has to come after that and everyone will have another chance to have a say based on a final design with full information.

 

My main fear if this plan goes ahead is that we will be reliant on the interconnector to supply power on calm days after someone decides that the Gremista power station is redundant. Nothing wrong with that until the interconnector breaks and we can all enjoy a really long power cut.

Won’t happen. There are too many rules in the electricity supply business. SSE would be penalised to extinction if they allowed 22,000 customers to sit with no chance of power. You need only look at how hard their staff work for the minor local faults caused by lightning etc.

 

I would suggest that we'd better not get up our hopes of any windy money

Agreed. This project will benefit Shetland and its population in a multitude of ways but we will not be making false promises of free anything.

 

We have had windmills for a number of years now, does anyone have figures to prove their efficiency? How reliable have they been? How often have they failed to produce viable power due to too much wind or too little?

1. Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd announces such data every year and the local press usually report on it. The 2006 data is due soon. 2. Very reliable. They break down now and again like any machine but no more pro-rata to production than any other turbine.

3. If you want exact data on hours of non-production you are invited to get in touch with Shetland Aerogenerators. The simple answer is they have failed to produce viable power less often than anywhere else in the world.

 

In years to come Shetland will be grateful for any substantial projects like this one

This is what I firmly believe in and why I continue to advocate this project. We are a fragile island economy and opportunities like this do not turn up every day.

 

Regards, David

[trout]

Thank you David for taking the time to post here on the comments that have been raised.

 

If you think MORI are unscientific or have flawed evidence for their conclusions you should take it up with them.

 

Yes, MORI polls are sure to be carried out scientifically. I was suggesting that the reporting on and use of the data collected after the fact had perhaps alluded to significant findings though they were merely ‘representative’ and ‘suggesting’ towards an outcome rather than an absolute truth.

 

I look forward to the upcoming consultation process.

[Peatcutter]

Sadly it looks very likely that this project will divide the community, as in many other areas.

On the one side we have some landowners and tenants who have much compensation to gain and contractors who also will see great employment prospects during construction. The power companies are also keen to claim the substantial government subsidies available and without which these projects would be financially unviable.

On the other side we have those with interest in the environment, the tourism industry and people living in the immediate area affected.

It is unlikely that the scale of opposition will rise to that which has occurred for the Lewis windfarm, 5000 plus objections so far, but could be substantial when the full impact is made clearer.

Construction of the windfarm will be far from environmentally friendly, with miles of heavy duty roads being needed, 1000 tonnes of concrete per windmill and large amounts of peat having to be disturbed. An extensive quarrying operation will be needed. This will also put a severe extra load on existing infrastructure and affect all forms of wildlife in the area.

My feeling is that while smaller scale windfarms may be acceptable this whole project is too big for a small place like Shetland.

[ArabiaTerra]

Construction of the windfarm will be far from environmentally friendly, with miles of heavy duty roads being needed, 1000 tonnes of concrete per windmill and large amounts of peat having to be disturbed. An extensive quarrying operation will be needed. This will also put a severe extra load on existing infrastructure and affect all forms of wildlife in the area.

 

So whats the alternative? Business as usual is untenable. Are you advocating a bunch of new nuclear power stations? (We may need a few anyway). I hate to say it, but a lot of these posts are sounding like the worst kind of nimbyism.

 

The Burradale 'mills have proven that Shetland is the best place in the world to build wind generators. So why shouldn't we do our bit to beat global warming? It must be beaten. The alternative will be catastrophic.

[Fjool]

I think the windmills will look great. Much nicer than the mussel farms, revolting kit-houses, carrier-bag strewn fences and manky beaches we're so proud to have adorning our landscape at present anyway.

[islandhopper]

... why shouldn't we do our bit to beat global warming? It must be beaten. The alternative will be catastrophic.

You are right: We we have to do our bit. But that will not turn over Peatcutters point of view automatically as being wrong.

 

What is about the effect of the Shetland Wind Park when EXXON, Shell, BP and the whole bunch are cutting down the rain forests in Brazil and East Asia just to produce green diesel from sugar and palm oil plants. Not a little bit here or there but over an area covering one half of continental Europe.

 

What's happening now, can't be beaten. It is quite similar to that what happened over the 17th century, when the Brow farm in Dunrossness "was blowen to Bergene" plus some modern manmade impacts.

 

Therefore, not the alternative but the future will be catastrophic. It is time to discuss which coastal areas we want to defend and which we want to give up.

 

What question will you leave for your grandchildren to ask you one day:

Why have you destroyed our landscape?

Why didn't you protect our coast?

... or both?

[ArabiaTerra]

What is about the effect of the Shetland Wind Park when EXXON, Shell, BP and the whole bunch are cutting down the rain forests in Brazil and East Asia just to produce green diesel from sugar and palm oil plants.

 

It's looking like the rainforests are history anyway. Half the Amazon dried up last year and it's only luck that the whole lot didn't go up in flames.

 

We are changing the Planet.

 

From a self-regulating natural system to a system whose primary purpose is to support the six billion human beings now living on it. There is very little room left for the 'Natural World'. Unfortunately this is not a planned change, we are making it up as we go and nobody knows the end result. The one thing we do know is that we must end our use of fossil fuels, preferably within the next 30 years.

 

The proposed windfarm is a very small step, but it's one we need to take, if only to get the interconnecter installed. Then we can develop the offshore windfarms and the wave and tidal generators that will really crack the problem. The onshore windfarm will probably turn out to be a (relatively) temporary thing in the grand scheme (20 or 30 years).

 

The natural world is taking a hammering and will continue to do so as the man-made mass extinction we're in the middle off runs it's course, but it will recover. The trick will be minimizing the Human cost of this disaster. It's damage limitation time now, not prevention. It's too late to prevent it.

[Guest Anonymous]

there are plenty of places in scotland where wind power can be produced , for david thompson to suggest that shipping all this equipment up to shetland and laying cable all the way back to export the energy as the most enviromentally friendly way to get on line to wind power is in my opinion an insane statement .

I also dont buy this propaganda that maintains that we will effectivly erase our carbon foot print by eight times (including sullom voe)

. We will still be running around in cars , travelling by plane and ferry , all our goods will still be shipped to the islands and sullom voe will still be pumping.

DONT GET ME WRONG . im all for wind power production and the development of clean energy ,but shetland should be going for self sufficiency first with minimal disturbance in the process of achieving that goal.

There also needs to be more pressure internationally to get the big countries to join in , just now china nis opening a new coal fired power station every 5 days ! And america are burning about 4 x as much per person as we are.

It will all be for nothing if they dont join in.

[Guest Anonymous]

there are a few good letters in the shetland times this week regarding this topic.

Also on grampian news was the story of how they plan to build a facility that will produce energy from the leftovers from the farming industry , (slaughter house waste)

This is another perfect example of how the hundreds of millions that is to be spent on an undersea cable could be better spent on more localised renewable energy projects with minimal disruption to the enviroment.