Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Nigel Bridgman-Elliot]

As 600,000 years is rather a short time period in the Earths history, I wonder what the CO2 figures varied between over a longer period, perhaps a few hundred millions years might give a better resolution...

[ArabiaTerra]

As 600,000 years is rather a short time period in the Earths history, I wonder what the CO2 figures varied between over a longer period, perhaps a few hundred millions years might give a better resolution...

Your wish...

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

 

And for comparison, the last 400,000 years

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

 

The worrying thing, for me at least, is how in the last graph, the CO2 level matches the temperature almost exactly.

[justlookin]

Arabi Terra your figures are quite in line with the government funded investigations.

 

I think you need to look at independant studies. I'll send you some links when i get them all together.

 

As for the CO2 levels almost matchin the temperature. The main word in that sentence is "almost". You can clearly see that CO2 levels are definately related but it lags in relation to the temperature. You would be forgiven for interpreting the graph as showing CO2 and temperature rising together, but it clearly shows that temperature causes the CO2 levels to rise.

 

If your figures are from the IPCC? Don't just go and take that for granted. There whole organisation is there to prove Global Warming is happening. They are fed billions to prove that it is happening. If they didn't, there funding would stop.

These are the same scientists who were telling us in the seventies to beware of Global Cooling.

 

That 30% of the ice caps that everyone was worrying about last year has already re-frozen.

Yeah, well it would wouldn't it, it's called winter.

 

 

Aparently these icecaps were melting indefinately and they were never going to re-establish themselves. Now there's new ice where there hasn't been in the past.

 

??????

[ArabiaTerra]

As for the CO2 levels almost matchin the temperature. The main word in that sentence is "almost". You can clearly see that CO2 levels are definately related but it lags in relation to the temperature. You would be forgiven for interpreting the graph as showing CO2 and temperature rising together, but it clearly shows that temperature causes the CO2 levels to rise.

Precisely. The rising temperature causes the CO2 levels to rise. This is bad and I'll try to explain why.

 

What we have at the moment is rising temperatures caused by CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels. As you have stated, rising temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, which, in turn raises temperatures and causes more CO2 to be released. This is what is known as a positive feedback loop, and it is already happening. The frozen tundra which encircles the Arctic Ocean is melting and releasing millions of tonnes of extra CO2 (and methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere on top of that from the fossil fuels we are burning.

 

Now, if man had nothing to do with climate change, then why is the amount of CO2 so much higher than it has been for the last 600,000 years?

 

Why hasn't the temperature and CO2 level simply followed the same cycle it's been following for the last 600,000 years?

 

How come the unprecedented rise in CO2 precisely coincides with the start of the Industrial revolution and the industrial burning of fossil fuels?

 

Normally the change in temperature drives the rise in CO2, but this time it's different. It is the rise in CO2 which is driving the temperature change.

 

The phenomenon which causes the cycle of periodic ice ages and warm periods is called the Milankovich cycle and is a periodic change in the Earth's orbit, but the Milankovich cycle is not enough to cause the massive temperature changes represented by the swing from ice age to warm period on it's own. The massive temperature changes are caused by the extra CO2 released by the slightly higher temperatures the cycle itself causes. The cycle activates the feedback loop which then amplifies the temperature change until a new equilibrium is reached.

 

We are currently in the warm part of the cycle which is when the CO2 is at it's natural maximum. But we have gone and released more extra CO2 into the atmosphere than the difference between the minimum and maximum parts of the cycle. Does this not scare the sh*t out of you? It should. We are currently conducting a chemistry experiment with the atmosphere of the Earth, and even the smartest scientists have no idea where this experiment is going to end up. At best we will get rising sea levels and crazy weather, at worst, who knows? We could end up making this planet uninhabitable.

 

(We're straying off topic here, so if the mods want to move the previous few posts to the Global warming thread, go right ahead.)

[digiman]

Im sure most of the Shetland population is against the large scale land based wind power generation in Shetland. We as residents in Shetland should be given a percentage of the output of these tubines as a free 'unsightly tax' from the company's generating the electricity. Not just pumping all the output to the mainland. Dont know how many turbines it would take to power all our needs but i bet it is a small proportion of what is planned. I vote for free electriciy for the islands as long as the wind blows.

[ArabiaTerra]

Would someone please point out to me where it is said that none of the electricity from the windfarm will go to Shetland? I don't remember VE ever saying this.

 

Or is it, as I suspect, more lies and distortion from "Sustainable" Shetland.

[Guest posiedon]

digiman

Dont know how many turbines it would take to power all our needs but i bet it is a small proportion of what is planned.

I read recently that the 5 turbines we already have, supply 8% of the power for Shetland, so on that figure we would need the output from 98 or 99 turbines to provide 100% power, what was left would hardly be worth exporting.

[Njugle]

Would someone please point out to me where it is said that none of the electricity from the windfarm will go to Shetland? I don't remember VE ever saying this.

 

SSE stated this during the interconnector presentation. Supply direct to Shetland is dependent on review and alteration of existing infrastructure and would possibly be achieved further down the line. Regardless of the electricity going direct to Shetland it will be charged at a higher rate than currently (also SSE).

 

Hope that helps.

[MuckleJoannie]

Would someone please point out to me where it is said that none of the electricity from the windfarm will go to Shetland? I don't remember VE ever saying this.

 

Or is it, as I suspect, more lies and distortion from "Sustainable" Shetland.

 

From Viking FAQs No 5

http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/faqs.asp#Q38

It is possible that the power from the Viking Windfarm might be kept detached from the Shetland distribution system initially and fed directly into the interconnector until everything is commissioned and operating under normal parameters. Once operation has been established then deliberation can be given to how to take off a portion of the production for local consumption. This phased approach would be to ensure local system stability.

 

The Burradale windfarm produces 0 to 18% of Shetland electricity, depending on wind strength.

 

 

http://www.burradale.co.uk/Projects.html

 

I believe Burradale produces as much electricity as the local grid can take. If we depended on wind energy totally there would be an awful lot of times when we would be sitting in darkness if there was the wrong kind of wind, so the Gremista power station will be with us for a while.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

154 turbines x 3.6MW each running at 50% efficency, supplying a 554MW capacity interconnector cable to the South, leaves a short fall of 277MW .

Since according to VE tidal and wave in Shetland on a big scale is many, many years into the future, please tell me where the other 154 turbines will eventually go, since SSE won't go ahead with the interconnector, unless they are sure the full capacity of the cable is met?

[clanchief]

Im sure most of the Shetland population is against the large scale land based wind power generation in Shetland.

 

There is a petition against the windfarm in the shop where I work and I am surprised how many people have declined ( I am careful not to use the word refused) to sign because they are undecided about the issue. In fact one young lady (early twenties-SIC employee) was suprised to hear that there was a proposal to build wind turbines - she has heard absolutely nothing about the proposed project.

 

So, it appears that we who oppose this development will have to work hard before we can justify statements such as the above

[Sudden Stop]

In fact one young lady (early twenties-SIC employee) was suprised to hear that there was a proposal to build wind turbines - she has heard absolutely nothing about the proposed project.

 

Yeah, but some people are just stupid too. Should we be concerned about those who can't even be bothered to lift a newspaper and keep up to date with current affairs? I know someone that didn't realise there had been a US election recently.... I now know not to engage that person in sensible conversation. Keep it simple.

[petrocelli_]

Re. Sustainable Shetland's petition, if they were genuinely interested in the feelings of the Shetland public then they should have given members of the public the option to choose whether they were in favour or against the VE project.

 

The fact that they haven't clearly shows that they are guilty of the same bias that they accuse VE of!

 

That said, given the CT's current level of funds I would seriously doubt this can ever get of the ground now!

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Well at least Sustainble Shetland are not guilty of squandering over 1.5 million quid on a project that could bankrupt Shetland, or £10.000 of our money on a Pro Nuclear PR company, that certainly flys in the face of SIC policy on being Anti-Nuclear!!

 

People who want the wind farm, and those un-decided obviously won't sign it will they, hardly a biased petition.

[Para Handy]

The Scottish Government has been given responsibility for all planning and nature conservation matters at sea up to 200 miles from the Scottish coast.

 

The move came after talks between the UK Government and other devolved administrations aimed at allowing each country to manage its own seas.

 

Until now, Holyrood's responsibility only stretched to a 12-mile limit.

 

The change has implications for the offshore industry, wind and wave power and to a lesser extent, fishing.

 

Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead told MSPs agreement had been reached to give Holyrood responsibility up to the 200-mile international limit.

 

The responsibility for fishing quotas remains an EU issue.

 

Mr Lochhead said: "This is excellent news for Scotland and for Scotland's economy. We will now be responsible for planning and conservation up to 200 nautical miles out to sea from our shores.

 

"Further devolution of powers on the marine environment will help us safeguard our seas for generations to come."

 

Mick Borwell, environmental issues manager with Oil and Gas UK, said: "Oil and Gas UK has always made the case for consistency and coherence between the UK and Scottish marine bills.

 

"Although oil and gas licensing and permitting will remain a reserved matter, our operations are influenced by marine planning and nature conservation and hence we welcome this new joined up and integrated approach to marine management."

 

'Strong support'

 

Lloyd Austin, head of conservation policy at RSPB Scotland, said: "We have long argued for marine legislation with the environment at its heart, and it is the marine environment that wins from this announcement.

 

"The challenge now is to make certain that both parliaments adopt a truly visionary approach, and deliver marine bills that restore our seas for people, wildlife, and future generations who want to be able to profit from them, but in a long-term, sustainable way that enhances their precious wildlife."

 

And Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) chief executive Bertie Armstrong said: "For Scotland, this aligns the responsibility for specific practical matters of marine nature conservation with that for fisheries management - which was always out to 200 miles.

 

"We strongly support this because dealing with the two issues separately was disjointed.

 

"More broadly, we welcome also the commitment of all the UK administrations to join up marine management across the board; this is essential for coherence - in most matters of consequence in marine planning and management, political boundaries are false."

 

Could Alex Salmond over-rule any thing the council approved.

This could be a bad thing or maybe not?