Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

How does the idea sit that the outline proposal published for public viewing may have been deliberately 'aimed high', so that when the reduced, but still extensive, plan is negotiated the protesters and detractors will see it as a victory and reasonable, whilst the plan will still go ahead on a relatively massive scale, perhaps as pre-determined? (overtly cynical, i know)

 

Also; the altercation with islandhopper was a very revealing in many ways. I could pick over it at length, but one thing that immediately springs to mind. The hills to the east of the road along the Kames are eroding, naturally, but i have seen no evidence of 'serious' erosion problems on any of the hills to the west. Is there any 'benefit' of the rest of the proposed area? Apart from generation, obviously.

 

Out of interest, has any authority noted any difference in diving bird nesting patterns at Njuggels Water before and after the Burradale development? Is there any evidence that turbine proximity will not disturb nesting? Could a study be performed on a known nesting site before development starts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many details in the Windylights prospectus that are not clear. For example it doesn't say where the road construction materials are coming from. Looking at the map this must be nearly 100 miles worth of road. Also note that the roads will require to support heavy cranes for the lifting of these monstrosities into place and will therefore have to be very substantial. Existing roads will also suffer from increased heavy traffic.

Also wind energy is quoted as being abundant and reliable. Abundant, maybe sometimes, but reliable definitely not. The whole problem with wind energy is its variability and not necessarily being there when it is most needed.

There has to be better ways of generating energy than this project which will have such an adverse effect on the Central Mainland of Shetland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but folks.. maybe we need to calm doon... if theres no cable THERES NO TURBINES... and thats awww there is aboot it...

No, no, nooo - dear: It's just working the other way round: If you don't express your opion as it is now things will go the other way round. Or more simply: The industry is awaiting (and depending on) a "public applause" to get the connecting cable somehow financed ... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU DECIDE. Don't make this a missed opportunity. It is essential that you let your voice known, whether in support or in opposition to the windfarms. Everyone should make their opinon known, be it jimmy of the roadside, or even the head of the council.

 

^^ Good call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consultation = to the opportunity for the public to provide their views upon a proposed development. Of course, the input the public provide is dependant upon the information given to them. I haven't had the opportunity to assess the public consultatiion in detail, but what is apparent to me after following this post with interest for a number months is that there are those who are in the know and those who are not. This is apparent by the posts made by the drivers of the project and those who are reacting to recent publications on emotion and in the mass media (aka the Shetland Times).

 

Regardless of such, lets look at the situation. 200 turbines are proposed for the lang kaimes. To some this is seen as a barren wasteland of Shetland, a part of the island that serves no function in particular other than to look dull and undeveloped. To others this is a landscape that has been relatively unspoilt for many generations, and should be protected, valued and regarded as such.

 

The debate is largely going to centre around whether the current land is an asset or not. To those wishing to devleop the turbines, the land will be seen as a potential to develop. To those against the turbines the land will be seen as an unspoilt landscape, a untouched asset which should remain so for future generations.

 

Looking at peat/erosion - Shetlanders have exploited peat for generations. The results of this are apparent throughtout the isles. I've previously made posts on the effects of turbines upon peatland habitat (see new scientist post and google search Derrybrien in Ireland as an example). Its easy to witness the impact that peat extraction has made in the islands......simply take a drive to the westside from walls to sandness.......

 

What needs to be agreed is whether the proposal is the best way forward for shetland. If its not then people should make there opinons known, PLEASE DO SO, its the whole point of having a consultation process. If agreed that this is the way Shetland should develop, then you should consider what measures can be made to make the development acceptable. Why not argue for the comprehensive restoration of peatland to areas not affected by the development, the planting of trees to screen the development and provide the opportunity to change the landscape of this part of Shetland in a positive way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now folks, I will keep my mouth shut!

The worst thing that might happen is to hand out an argument like "that was no local discussion" or the "discussion was influenced by some "soothmoothers" "... ;-)

It is entirely your choice and your future ... so make the best out of it for your community and your children and grandchildren.

cu in other threads ... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. As discussed this in your hands. The reason Shetlink has been created is for the free exchange of views (whether you are born and bred on the isles or whether you are not!).

 

Regardless of the above......if you care about what we have (which I do, so much!) you should let your opionions know as part of the consultation process.......go on don't be shy now ....a written letter isn't that much more difficult than an emai, just print it out and sign it

 

:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Exactly. Shetlink was created as a platform to engender and allow people to "share information, share resources and communicate ideas".

 

I always read your input intently islandhopper, you bring some great ideas and avenues to discussion!

 

Don't feel that you can't reply on this topic, you obviously have a strong affinity to Shetland ;)

 

Besides, though the consultation is based in Shetland, the SIC have joined together with a "South" utility and the majority of the money to finance this will not be from the Isles. The benefits as they are written out so far benefit, for the majority, those outwith the Islands .... by my reckoning ... if you have an interest in Shetland - you have a say so!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....the SIC have joined together with a "South" utility and the majority of the money to finance this will not be from the Isles. The benefits as they are written out so far benefit, for the majority, those outwith the Islands ....

 

As far as i know, fiancially, the profits are spilt 50:50 between the SIC and SSE, so in those terms it is even.

 

Shetland does have to put up with having the actual turbines on our doorstep for the purpose of generating power that will be used on the mainland, and I imagine that is what you were getting at when you say about people outwith the island benifiting. Yes, people from the mainland will benifit from our wind resource but I believe Shetland will gain more than just the 25 million quid (supposedly) and a few jobs. We will also get the cable to the mainland, which IMHO is a VERY useful thing to have. Without the windfarm and therefore the cable we will never be able to develop other types of energy production - wave and tidal.

 

The cable is a double edged sword though and I think we have to be very careful that once it is in, other companies that don't try building wind powered projects. This project should be the limit as far as windfarms go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a bit dubious about the benefits of this project for Shetland - firstly the leaflet says it seems like a good investment - I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the Smyril Line another joint venture with a Company from outwith Shetland from which we are yet to see the benefits.

 

Construction would create 100 jobs - for who? With Shetlands unemployment levels I seriously doubt that there are 100 unemployed people who want to work.

 

Again the same point for the 50 extra jobs they will create, there seems to be at the moment plenty of projects to create jobs in Shetland - de-commissioning, extension at LFT how many jobs do we need to create in an Island with such low unemployment!

 

I think it would be fine if the people involved would just say that we are destroying your landscape so we can make some money. More profits for SSE. More money to add to the SIC reserves so they can squander it on a pile of sharn!

 

If the SIC are so keen to provide benefits for the people of Shetland and spend their reserves then they should fork out for a domestic windmill for each household - we never have to pay electricity bills again and with the money that we save we spend it on local goods and services. A direct benefit for the people of Shetland - a ludricous idea perhaps but more sensible than turning the whole of Shetland into a power station for mainland Scotland!

 

 

 

:x :x

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent C4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" made some very interesting points. It clearly questioned something now accepted as scientific fact by Governments, citizens and Councils alike , namely Global warming being the cause of rising sea levels and chaotic weather etc. The programme identified that many scientists think that this may have nothing to do with man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Which is behing the drive for windpower.

 

The programme highlighted that historical swings in climate change had no link with carbon dioxide. These scientists believe that the answer to the problem of the world heating up is the Sun through increased sunspot activity etc.

 

The programme explained that there are murky reasons why this theory doesn't get the attention it deserves. Basically, climate -change scientists have to eat. If they wan't funding, it makes sense to convince governments that there is a crisis round the corner, a man-made one, so that man feels that it is worthwhile chucking loads of money at the problem.

 

So, which side of the arguement is telling the truth? Who do we believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Construction would create 100 jobs - for who? With Shetlands unemployment levels I seriously doubt that there are 100 unemployed people who want to work.

 

Again the same point for the 50 extra jobs they will create, there seems to be at the moment plenty of projects to create jobs in Shetland - de-commissioning, extension at LFT how many jobs do we need to create in an Island with such low unemployment!

 

I know there are people that will never accept an industrial project of this scale regardless of how it affects Shetland, but the above is possibly the weakest agruement against, ever.

 

The jobs created will be reasonably skilled, well paid jobs. You can't possibly agrue against creating more jobs like this?

 

You are correct though, I also doubt that there are 100 un-employed people willing to give up their free dole cheque to get off the behinds and work for a living. But there will be people that are currently in less well paid jobs that will welcome the opportunity to better themselves through retraining and a pay rise.

 

If the SIC are so keen to provide benefits for the people of Shetland and spend their reserves then they should fork out for a domestic windmill for each household

 

They aren't going to do that! They will have to spend it though. The chary trust has over 200 million in it's back pocket - why? Saving for a rainy day isn't improving our quality of life. If they are going to get another 25 million a year, I think we should be told what the council is going to do with it that they can't currently fund???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as i know, fiancially, the profits are spilt 50:50 between the SIC and SSE, so in those terms it is even.

 

 

One thing I had not known until reading the "windylights" publication is that the SIC only has a 90% stake in Viking Energy, the other 10% is owned by Shetland Aerogenerators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I had not known until reading the "windylights" publication is that the SIC only has a 90% stake in Viking Energy, the other 10% is owned by Shetland Aerogenerators.

 

Ah well, 50:50 - viking energy:SSE. Pick the bones out of that. No doubt there will be some people making a handsome profit from any development...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

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...