Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Arabia T , your'e very good at making statements to suit your very own misguided outlook for saving the planet, keep up the GOOD WORK!!! :wink:

Since when was saving the planet "misguided"?

 

I'm just fed up with rubbish like this: http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/letters_10_2008/What%20about%20the%20land.htm

 

People who will bang on about their own particular hobby horse, or their own back yard as if it's the only thing of value on the whole planet. People who oppose the very measures which we need to save the planet because it might adversely affect their own particular piece of paradise then have the gall to call themselves environmentalists. Global warming threatens everything, all the seas, all the land, everywhere, and unless we get it under control, we stand to lose everything.

 

I've said this before but I think it bears repeating, how will Shetland look after a 7 metre sea level rise? That's what we will get if we don't take action now. It might not happen in our lifetimes, but if we don't get GW under control in the next 30-40 years, it will happen, guaranteed. How will you explain it to your grand children? How will you explain that you had it in your power to prevent this disaster but you did nothing because you thought a few square miles of peatland or, worse, the view out your sitting room window was more important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sea level rise does concern me, whether its caused by global warming or something else. (History shows us its not an uncommon feature to happen..)

 

If I understood what I read correctly, perhaps one of the reasons the wind farm isn't so welcomed by certain people is because all the power generated is being sold off elsewhere and the local people aren't benefiting from it directly ?

 

If so, then perhaps if it was setup so that they did in fact get the option to buy the electric as cheaply as its made, assuming its cheaper than the current system, that might go some way to making people happy..

 

 

Personally, I've always wondered with sea level rises, if you did a lot of geothermal bore hole digging, could't you use the spoil to increase the height of the land ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understood what I read correctly, perhaps one of the reasons the wind farm isn't so welcomed by certain people is because all the power generated is being sold off elsewhere and the local people aren't benefiting from it directly ?

Actually, the windfarm will be 50% owned by Shetland (or Shetlanders) and will therefore contribute 50% of it's profits to Shetland.

If so, then perhaps if it was setup so that they did in fact get the option to buy the electric as cheaply as its made, assuming its cheaper than the current system, that might go some way to making people happy..

This is one of the few quibbles I have with the VE scheme, I don't think it's unreasonable for the people of Shetland to ask for, say 50%, off their power bills in return for hosting this scheme.

Personally, I've always wondered with sea level rises, if you did a lot of geothermal bore hole digging, could't you use the spoil to increase the height of the land ?

Stop a moment. Think about the surface area of the Earth. Think about a 7 metre sea level rise (think area). Think about a borehole. Reconsider that statement. :shock: :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who will bang on about their own particular hobby horse, or their own back yard as if it's the only thing of value on the whole planet. People who oppose the very measures which we need to save the planet because it might adversely affect their own particular piece of paradise then have the gall to call themselves environmentalists. Global warming threatens everything, all the seas, all the land, everywhere, and unless we get it under control, we stand to lose everything.

 

I take it that with your uncompromisingly global view on this matter you are also lobbying every state in the US and every province in China, in fact everyone else in the world who is not building a windfarm "now", about their need to save the planet. Those not building the solar array in the Sahara should be particularly ashamed of themselves before their grand-children. Unlimited energy not being used - disgraceful. I'm also pretty optimistic that Iceland may be agreeable to a bit of eco-energy export in the current situation. Interconnect that!:wink:

 

Offering cheap electricity to Shetlanders will encourage over usage, not conservation (as asserted by VE). But we needn't worry about that because it's going to cost more anyway (as asserted by SSE). Remind yourself AT, who will subsidise the politically generated cost of this windfarm, you and I, then we will pay more for our electricity as well and we have no guarantee of any return CT or otherwise at the end of it. So, we will be driven further toward fuel poverty with a depleted CT (guaranteed in the short term) when we could be promoting individual energy responsibility through an individual approach to renewables obligations. Just a suggestion.

 

:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nuclear Power" Jonathan Wills won't like that the council should not invest in any thing Nuclear but it is Om to invest mone in fishing boat ect Ok for sum i wonder if he got any grants from the council for his boat? The would be a great Chuckle his own boat Nuclear Powered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offering cheap electricity to Shetlanders will encourage over usage, not conservation (as asserted by VE).

Irrelevant. The power will be green, no fossil fuels involved. I disagree with VE on this one.

But we needn't worry about that because it's going to cost more anyway (as asserted by SSE).

Cost more as opposed to what? Fossil fuels? Undoubtedly, but we can't use fossil fuels any more, and the green taxes and renewable subsidies will soon be pushing the costs of fossil fuel based power and renewable power together.

Remind yourself AT, who will subsidise the politically generated cost of this windfarm, you and I, then we will pay more for our electricity as well and we have no guarantee of any return CT or otherwise at the end of it.

Not sure I understand that statement. Are you saying that if we build the windfarm and generate the 600MW nobody will buy it? Or that the power will be sold at a loss? I can't think any investment more guaranteed to generate a return than power generation. And how is the cost politically generated?

So, we will be driven further toward fuel poverty with a depleted CT (guaranteed in the short term) when we could be promoting individual energy responsibility through an individual approach to renewables obligations. Just a suggestion.

Conservation cannot solve global warming, it won't even slow it down. The only solution is changing the way we generate our power. The small scale renewables that you are talking about will never satisfy Shetlands power needs. There will always be a need for back-up generators. Even small scale tidal and wave will be insufficient because there are (predictable) times when the tides aren't running and the waves aren't rolling. And consider just how much more expensive any form of sea based generation will be. Your solution is the one which leads to fuel poverty, not mine.

 

Fuel prices are rising and will continue to rise, that much is inevitable. With the VE proposal we have a chance to dodge that bullet. Nothing else even comes close to offering us that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it that with your uncompromisingly global view on this matter you are also lobbying every state in the US and every province in China, in fact everyone else in the world who is not building a windfarm "now", about their need to save the planet. Those not building the solar array in the Sahara should be particularly ashamed of themselves before their grand-children. Unlimited energy not being used - disgraceful. I'm also pretty optimistic that Iceland may be agreeable to a bit of eco-energy export in the current situation. Interconnect that!Wink

Ha! I wish I had the time or energy. But yes, while I might not be lobbying them, I do think that everywhere should be building windfarms, tidal generators, solar farms and even nuclear power stations. Whatever is most efficient given the local conditions. Connect it all up to a global grid and it won't matter if the wind doesn't blow, or the sun doesn't shine in any one particular place, we will all have all the power we will ever need, forever (or at least until the sun stops shining). Is this such a hard concept for people to grasp?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 meter rise in sea levels :lol: :lol: :lol:

get a grip o deesel boy, even the most rabid doom and gloom merchants don't take a rise like that seariously.

 

In fact on our little bit of the planet the ground level is rising (due to the two mile thick ice sheet recently removed by global warming) at about the same rate as the average predicted sea level rise so we should experiance no great change over time.

 

Irrelevant. The power will be green, no fossil fuels involved.

 

the increased power usage will only be green if messers thomson priest anderson etc buy wind powered mercs and sail boats with our money.

 

Why not tidal, wave and hydro power used together, hydro for times of slack tide and no waves and pump the water back up evey night when the tide is running and power ussage is at its lowest.

a much greener idea than digging up the peat and screwing up the hill drainage over half of Shetland, no need for an inter connector with extortionate distribution charges, only flaw is the directors of ve and certain land owners don't stand to make a turd load of money by risking ours so it will probably never be considered.

 

Connect it all up to a global grid

 

Do you know something the rest of us don't, has there been some amazing breakthrough in conductor technology :?: :roll:

 

Ha! I wish I had the time or energy. But yes, while I might not be lobbying them,

 

the time you spend writing crap on here if freed up could be spent writing to evryone else telling them your views on the state of the planet, why be selfish and restrict your great wisdom to the users of shetlink :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even small scale tidal and wave will be insufficient because there are (predictable) times when the tides aren't running and the waves aren't rolling.

 

Bit of a mis-representation of the facts there. You might be technically correct in that statement, but when the tide is slack in one area, it's running in another. Tidal generation has that big advantage over wind or any other form of renewable generation. With a small number of generators strategically placed, you can have a guaranteed supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Actually, the windfarm will be 50% owned by Shetland (or Shetlanders)

> and will therefore contribute 50% of it's profits to Shetland.

 

But its not like the money is going into peoples pockets, its going to some organisation which then decides how its going to spend, or not spend the profits. (Going on the large slice sitting in the bank accounts doing nothing in particular, except risking being lost if whichever bank its in goes under..)

 

If its such a good idea, why do they not own 100% of it ?

 

 

> I don't think it's unreasonable for the people of Shetland to ask for,

> say 50%, off their power bills in return for hosting this scheme.

 

I'd say that was a fair suggestion.

 

 

> Stop a moment. Think about the surface area of the Earth. Think

> about a 7 metre sea level rise (think area). Think about a borehole.

> Reconsider that statement

 

No need to reconsider, it all depends on how deep and how wide your borehole is.. The channel tunnel generated some 8 million cubic meters of spoil for example. Also one might consider underground could be a suitable location for many other things, perhaps industrial buildings, railways..

 

 

> Offering cheap electricity to Shetlanders will encourage over usage,

> not conservation

 

If the method of generating the electric is sustainable and doesn't really harm the environment, then what does it matter if more people use more electric ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest posiedon
> Actually, the windfarm will be 50% owned by Shetland (or Shetlanders)

> and will therefore contribute 50% of it's profits to Shetland.

 

But its not like the money is going into peoples pockets, its going to some organisation which then decides how its going to spend, or not spend the profits. (Going on the large slice sitting in the bank accounts doing nothing in particular, except risking being lost if whichever bank its in goes under..)

 

If its such a good idea, why do they not own 100% of it ?

 

 

> I don't think it's unreasonable for the people of Shetland to ask for,

> say 50%, off their power bills in return for hosting this scheme.

 

I'd say that was a fair suggestion.

 

 

> Stop a moment. Think about the surface area of the Earth. Think

> about a 7 metre sea level rise (think area). Think about a borehole.

> Reconsider that statement

 

No need to reconsider, it all depends on how deep and how wide your borehole is.. The channel tunnel generated some 8 million cubic meters of spoil for example. Also one might consider underground could be a suitable location for many other things, perhaps industrial buildings, railways..

 

 

> Offering cheap electricity to Shetlanders will encourage over usage,

> not conservation

 

If the method of generating the electric is sustainable and doesn't really harm the environment, then what does it matter if more people use more electric ?

Nigel, why don't you use the

------------
tags? It would make your posts much easier to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...