Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

Lets face it AT, you dont want debate unless everybody is seen preaching from your "Hymn book".

Why can't you reply to Ghostrider on here??

As Sudden says, the windfarm thread is not the place for a debate on overpopulation. I was intending to start a new thread in the International News section.

 

And following on from my last post, you can calculate your carbon footprint here.

[cheryl.hughson]

Well I never asked you to prove your life to me, but since we're confessing here.

 

I too do not have a tv, I wash my clothes on the lowest setting, I dry them on the line, or drip dry in the house. I use Ecover cleaning products, which is ecological. I re-use my bags, I recycle my paper, plastics, tins and glass. I re-use old clothes for crafts and other uses. I compost and I don't buy too much food for waste. I only put one black bag out a week or every two weeks. And I grow my own produce, I support local produce. Is that what you wanted to know? Because if I could I would do a heck of a lot more.

 

But you will at least admit the human lifestyle is helluva consumming one. At least if everyone, not just you and me and the small amount of people that do, make this efforts we're taking small steps to ease the rate of consumption. Therefore giving us time and money to harness of all ways we can combat Global Warming, not just relying on wind when it is can be wildly unreliable. Or as they would say, putting all our eggs in one basket.

[Infiltrator]

AT, you're starting to sound like a reformed alcoholic or someone that's been saved by one of the more extreme religions

 

Your lifestyle choices are your personal choice, they're not for everyone and certainly not me.

 

How would you feel about someone who used a car rather than bothering to get out of bed to catch a bus

[Njugle]

AT have you asked Sustainable Shetland what they think of the subsequent wind turbine developments? If not how can you conceive of this hypocrisy you are inclined to transpose onto them. This hypocrisy exists in your perception of what they believe and not from a sound knowledge. Have you any idea how many women (or men ) it would take with how many tushkars to dig out the same quantity of peat as VE propose to? The scales are totally incomparable. I might just as well call you a hypocrite for buying organic fair-trade free-range food from a shop because it was delivered there by truck!

 

And furthermore, I am not advocating Sustainable Shetland, lets make that clear, so any reference you make to their opposition is ignoring the points I've made that do not involve them, repeatedly!

 

So, I'm trying not to get bogged down in details here but as one example, if an existing, relatively clean-burning gas turbine or two at SVT could replace 50% of the concrete-based, peat-removing, tarmac-road-building, ship-and-heavy-plant-delivered, extruded-high-grade-steel, dated-wind-turbine-technology; in terms of attracting the interconnector, you would still favour the harvest and destruction of all those raw materials and environments in favour of 25 years of wind generation, right alongside a relatively clean plant that will be there for longer and will be using a product that will be extracted regardless of the wind farm, with the 25 year interim for technological improvement, reduction of Gremista's heavy oil consumption, development of the smart grid and new vehicle technology and everything else I could mention that could be developed by the existence of the cable(s), totally irrelevant in your eyes?

 

Try saying all that in one breath.

 

edit - and NO I am not saying fossil fuels are good, future proof or environmentally friendly - so don't even pretend I am.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ok, confession time.

 

I just recalculated my carbon footprint using the link I posted above. It's much more comprehensive than the one I used last time I did this a couple of years ago.

 

My carbon footprint is now: 6.28 tonnes/year

 

And the UK average is now 9.8 tonnes, the global average is 4 tonnes and the worldwide target to combat climate change is 2 tonnes.

I too do not have a tv, I wash my clothes on the lowest setting, I dry them on the line, or drip dry in the house. I use Ecover cleaning products, which is ecological. I re-use my bags, I recycle my paper, plastics, tins and glass. I re-use old clothes for crafts and other uses. I compost and I don't buy too much food for waste. I only put one black bag out a week or every two weeks. And I grow my own produce, I support local produce. Is that what you wanted to know? Because if I could I would do a heck of a lot more.

Wow, well done. I would like to grow my own food but I don't have a garden though I do buy local produce when I can find it.

But you will at least admit the human lifestyle is helluva consumming one. At least if everyone, not just you and me and the small amount of people that do, make this efforts we're taking small steps to ease the rate of consumption. Therefore giving us time and money to harness of all ways we can combat Global Warming, not just relying on wind when it is can be wildly unreliable. Or as they would say, putting all our eggs in one basket.

I agree about society needing to change it's ways, but we'll never eliminate the need for electricity, so we need to generate it in a carbon free way. The windfarm is one way to do that and the interconnector means we don't have to run Gremista when the wind drops.

 

So, to everyone else. What's your carbon footprint?

 

Edit: I just did two more different carbon footprint calculators. The WWF one came out as 10.18 tonnes/year and the DirectGov one was 2.12 tonnes/year. They all asked similar questions so I guess they're all garbage.

[cheryl.hughson]

But instead of just relying on wind there's other options becoming available. Yes put up turbines to do us for the very short term, then back it up with other sources as they become available.

 

As for my carbon footprint I'd need to figure out what I spend on electricity, dig up some old invoices. Since i only use my poor little house for sleeping in, as I work alot. all work and no play as they say.

 

Plant more trees! Offset the carbon. Yeh, keep doing the little things and it all adds up in the bigger picture.

 

Sorry mods this topic seems to be shifting over to carbon content, maybe we should set up another thread for this?

[crofter]

Edit: I just did two more different carbon footprint calculators. The WWF one came out as 10.18 tonnes/year and the DirectGov one was 2.12 tonnes/year. They all asked similar questions so I guess they're all garbage.

 

They are estimates. At least you are thinking about how you can reduce your actual "footprint" - that is more important than a random number. It's possible to have a negative footprint, as Cheryl says, by planting trees, refusing to be seduced by the consumer culture - small things which will make a difference if enough people are prepared to totally change their lifestyles. I am pessimistic though - not many want to live the frugal life.

 

Building windfarms so that everybody can party merrily on is not going to work. Sooner or later, we have to face the fact that current levels of consumption can't go on forever (however the energy is generated)

[Girzie]

I agree with planting more trees. We have put in about five thousand so far.....

 

And like Cheryl Hughson try to recycle whatever and whenever we can. Wrack widd for the fire, cutting up of old stabs to re -use in various ways - not just for firewood, we swop stuff with neighbours, recycle clothes (I'm making a rag rug) glass, bags, vegetable peel to the hens for more and better eggs etc etc

[Njugle]

Just to nip this in the organically fertilised bud, we do have a thread on global warming for generalised discussion of green issues.

 

AT, or anybody else's, carbon reduction measures may well undermine the case for the VE windfarm, but I'd guess he may actually disagree with that. He may, of course, have been diverting the debate into more universally acceptable territory and away from flawed VE evangelist dogma.

[ArabiaTerra]

AT have you asked Sustainable Shetland what they think of the subsequent wind turbine developments? If not how can you conceive of this hypocrisy you are inclined to transpose onto them. This hypocrisy exists in your perception of what they believe and not from a sound knowledge.

Hmmm, fair enough, I just find their lack of comment on these thing curious, that's all.

Have you any idea how many women (or men ) it would take with how many tushkars to dig out the same quantity of peat as VE propose to? The scales are totally incomparable.

And so is your analogy. VE are moving the peat, not burning it so the CO2 loss is 5%?, 10%? Burning it releases 100%. According to the recent Speakeasy debate, VE plan to move 1 million m3, so that's 50-100 thousand m3 equivalent CO2 released. How much peat does it take to run a rayburn for a year? 5 m3? 10? How many rayburns running on peat in Shetland? 100? 500? for 25 years.

 

I get 12500 m3 equivalent CO2 from peat burning using the low figures (5x100x25), 125 thousand m3 equivalent CO2 using the high figures (10x500x25). I think the high figures are an overestimate, but it's in the same ballpark. If anyone posting here actually runs a rayburn and can tell me how much peat they burn in a year or if any one has any idea how many banks are being worked these days, that would settle this.*

And furthermore, I am not advocating Sustainable Shetland, lets make that clear, so any reference you make to their opposition is ignoring the points I've made that do not involve them, repeatedly!

Sorry if I implied you were.

So, I'm trying not to get bogged down in details here but as one example, if an existing, relatively clean-burning gas turbine or two at SVT could replace 50% of the concrete-based, peat-removing, tarmac-road-building, ship-and-heavy-plant-delivered, extruded-high-grade-steel, dated-wind-turbine-technology; in terms of attracting the interconnector, you would still favour the harvest and destruction of all those raw materials and environments in favour of 25 years of wind generation, right alongside a relatively clean plant that will be there for longer and will be using a product that will be extracted regardless of the wind farm, with the 25 year interim for technological improvement, reduction of Gremista's heavy oil consumption, development of the smart grid and new vehicle technology and everything else I could mention that could be developed by the existence of the cable(s), totally irrelevant in your eyes?

A straw man argument. There were 5 turbines when I worked there, they sold one, it takes 2 to power Sullom, one down for maintenance, that leaves one which is already 30 years old. I doubt there's 25 years left in it without major refurbishment/parts replacement (expensive both in CO2 and resources, think of all the fancy alloys etc which go into a gas turbine). The key point also is "relatively clean". It will still produce a tonne of CO2 for every tonne of gas, so, to answer your question. If we got the interconnector on the basis of such a turbine then, no I wouldn't go for the windfarm, but as such a turbine does not exist, the question is moot. (Anyway, it's more efficient to burn the gas in homes as heating than to burn it to make electricity, then use the electricity for heating.)

 

Try saying all that in one breath.

Not even on my best day.

 

*BTW I am completely winging it here based on 30 year old memories of when we used to burn peat at home, so if I've completely lost it, forgive me.

[khitajrah]

So, to everyone else. What's your carbon footprint?

 

3.86 tonnes

[ArabiaTerra]

AT, or anybody else's, carbon reduction measures may well undermine the case for the VE windfarm, but I'd guess he may actually disagree with that. He may, of course, have been diverting the debate into more universally acceptable territory and away from flawed VE evangelist dogma.

Eh? How does carbon reduction undermine VE?

[Queenie79]

AT, does it feel like a bit of a one man band at the moment!?

[Ghostrider]

Lets face it AT, you dont want debate unless everybody is seen preaching from your "Hymn book".

Why can't you reply to Ghostrider on here??

 

Ghostrider's post about the planet being overrun isn't really revelent to the farming of wind or the not farming of wind IN SHETLAND. It is a interesting problem to be discussed, but I agree with AT - not here.

 

I would suggest it has significant relevance, when at least part of AT's mantra is that as having significantly profited from the energy source which has fuelled homo sapiens ability to attain its current planet-wide population and lifestyle, and allegedly contributed to the alleged "global warming" situation, that we have a moral obligation to homo sapiens in general to do whatever is in our power to negate the negativities of that alleged "global warming".

 

The longer current energy "on demand" 24/7 lifestyles continue the ever greater the population of homo sapiens will grow, until such time as some other vital component part of that jigsaw, with no alternative solution, probably food, becomes in short supply. By that time there will almost certainly be several more billion of us worldwide to be affected, and the resulting carnage proportionately greater.

 

VE and those like it are simply feeding something that is doomed to fail in the long run, this rock can only sustain so many of us, and the longer current behaviour is sustained the more horrific it will be when the end does eventually come. If we accept any culpability for the current alleged "global warming" crisis, we must also accept that by feeding the root problem so that it prospers a while longer, we are going to be doubly culpable. An alternative energy source is not addressing the root problem, which is the ever increasing numbers of homo sapiens requiring to be sustained on this rock, and sustaining their ever growing lifestyle demands, with alternative energy sources we are only hiding a symptom of that root problem by simply by replacing one form of camoflague with another, which appears at the moment to have somewhat greater longevity.

 

Certainly its a big enough subject that needs a whole other debate of its own, but nevertheless it is a subject and debate that has significant bearing on VE. You cannot ignore the fact that if VE reaches the stage of production that it will be continuing to sustain and encourage a lifestyle born out the "on demand" 24/7 lifestyle, energy from oil has created, which regardless of energy source can never sustain upward growth permanently.

 

It is, I believe a reasonble question to ask, when enquiring whether someone supports VE or not, to also enquire whether they believe in supporting the ever increasing population of homo sapiens and their ever increasing energy demands, which in its ultimate conclusion can only ever result in a horrific catastrophic break down, or do they support "softer" measures to limit and conserve homo sapiens and the species' use to resources to levels nearer that which the planet can permanently sustain.

[khitajrah]

AT, does it feel like a bit of a one man band at the moment!?

 

~waves a little flag of support for AT~