Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[DavidThomson]

A particularly important document and I wholeheartedly accept projects that conflict with the aims of that text better have really good reasons for proposing such development. That said, the EU leaves "the precise legal mechanisms" for implementing the rules to the "discretion of each Member State". So we are back to the UK planning system and it could need someone like RSPB to take the matter up at a european level. That is exactly what they are threatening to do about the Western Isles project but that paricular project is proposed for a Natura site, which is the equivalent of every environmental designation you can think of rolled together. While the birds have a level of protection nomatter where they land, the Viking site has no environmental designations.

Good point though.

[islandhopper]

... That said, the EU leaves "the precise legal mechanisms" for implementing the rules to the "discretion of each Member State".

Right, but provided that the national legal mechanisms are according to the directive ...

 

... While the birds have a level of protection nomatter where they land, the Viking site has no environmental designations.

Well, David, that is the view of the industry, while the council directive (79/409/EEC) itself does not aim at sites with an environmental designation only, as it is clear from

 

Article 1, 2. It shall apply to birds, their eggs, nests and habitats.

and

Article 3, 2. The preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of biotopes and habitats shall include primarily the following measures:

...

( upkeep and management in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats inside and outside the protected zones;

 

All you need is a bird and its habitat, but I am absolutely convinced that the British/Scottish industry will learn about that as did their continental partners, but I am afraid, too, it might be a very expensive process of learning, if the industry plans to go through all the steps of learning their continental partners went through.

[DavidThomson]

This is where a Habitat Management Plan becomes relevant. We have plans that could improve the habitat more than we ever harm it. We have a big site and we are not proposing to put tubines in every bit of it. By actively improving the habitat throughout and particularly in those unused places we can (possibly) acheive a net positive impact.

If you don't try...

I have to be honest and say I give only passing interest to developments on mainland Europe. If there is something useful I can use then I'll happily copy but this is a development in Shetland and it is daft to try compare this to a development somewhere like Germany. I don't really follow the industry view. I'm much more interested in the view of the ornithologist who has been walking around my site.

A good example is that the existing raingoose habitat here in Shetland on our site is seriously threatened right now and the the windfarm could improve that situation. Both our ornithologists and our geologists have made big noises about the levels of peat erosion on the hills on our site. If nothing happens then a lot of the existing birdlife breeding territory is in trouble anyway. This is a site specific reality and decisions about this project have to be based on imperical data relevant to this particular location.

Do we turn down a chance to protect a lot of birds in order to save a few birds? Doing nothing is not certainly the best option.

Again good points though.

[islandhopper]

David, I'm afraid that you will kick yourself out of the business with your own words.

 

Just one example: You agree to have amber listed raingeese on your site; you agree that these birds are already under growing threat; you agree that something has to be done with regard to these birds – but the only thing you actually do suggest is an industrial approach of protecting these birds by installing a huge number of wind turbines which is probably the appraoch with the highest risk of being counterproductive compared with all the other approaches which would be possible under sustainable habitat management scheemes.

 

Or just another example: You confirm that "Both our ornithologists and our geologists have made big noises about the levels of peat erosion on the hills on our site." Not shure whether there were just "big noises" or "serious concerns" … but I am sure that you like any other businessman will have a calculation of the overall costs of the project, rough calculations for now but nonetheless based on carefully calculated material facts according to standards. You will know the number of turbines to be installed, thus you will know how many access roads will be needed, you know an average length of these roads, and what these access roads have to look like to meet the technical specifications of the transporting trucks regarding for example their length and payload. Number of roads X average length X average width could easily show how many acres of existing mooreland and heather have to be cut down to the solid rock; multiplied with the average thickness of the moss and peat cover will easily show the number of cubikyards which have to be cleared away. Folks are already doing so and from that theay are looking at their peatlands as a "hollowed cheese or sponge".

 

Probably "your" ornithologists and geologists have done such calculations and that is why they have made "some noise" ... as much as they could do without risking their jobs and leaving it to others to go into the details.

 

… but this is a development in Shetland …

. No, David, that's absolutely wrong. Wind energy is an international business for years now. Shetland is just another table on which the industry is playing their cards. The Shetlanders I know are by far more clever than the international industry might think. Any schoolboy or schoolgirl of a Shetland primary 7 can do calculations as shown above and they will do so if left alone by the industry. Such are the roots of growing concerns and fears the more than obviously there is an unspecific feeling that local politicians are playing the cards of the international business.

[DavidThomson]

… but this is a development in Shetland …

. No, David, that's absolutely wrong. Wind energy is an international business for years now. Shetland is just another table on which the industry is playing their cards. The Shetlanders I know are by far more clever than the international industry might think.

 

I'm pretty sure it's not wrong. Last time I looked, the Lang Kames was still just north of Lerwick.

While we seem to agree about the types of protection afforded to birds, you seem to know little about this particular project.

I definately agree that Shetlanders can be cleverer than the international industry. That's supported by the fact that this project is being brought forward by Shetlanders for the benefit of Shetlanders. I should know. I'm one of them. This project is not following whatever continental design processes others may follow. We're using a utility to bring us resources and experience and making sure we carefully balance the development of the project while looking after our environment.

While we will minimise the impact on birds through good design and careful positioning and while we will continue to work with SNH and RSPB to determine if mitigation actions such as seasonal timed shut-downs are required, we further propose to do habitat improvements throughout the site including areas nowhere near the turbines. I think that's far from just installing turbines. And I stand by my opinion that this project can be overall good for Shetland's birdlife.

Your calculations are probably valid but they make no difference to the existing hill conditions across our site. Those hills are eroding now and the erosion is taking breeding habitat with it. No action whatsoever will not protect Shetland's birds.

[islandhopper]

... you seem to know little about this particular project.

Well, David, I know what is published in the internet, the local press (online and hard cover) and the national Scottish press ... thanks to rss feeds or e-mail alerts. Is there anything more available for a "normal Shetlander"?

 

As for me: I'm travelling Shetland for more than 30 years now and as a trained geographer I kow very well the places where the interactive map on that specific website produces forsights and where it doesn't produce backward sights along A970 and other places. Sorry, but I can read a topographic map and I know about the "long distance" visual impacts. Have you ever had a look at the 2004 pic and the view from Fitfull Head to the north with the turbines above the hills near Scalloway on top which is on the Shetland Museums website? I am sure, you and most of the Shetlanders have not. May I ask you a quite simple question? Why are there no grid references of the viewpoints in those pics and no real distances between the view points and the installations but a "focus length" instead? Just about this little detail: Is it "proper information" or is it disinformation by providing pseudo-accurate information which does not make a sense for the public?

 

... and not to missunderstand you:

Those hills are eroding now and the erosion is taking breeding habitat with it.

Well then, agreed. It might be the time to stop erosion and not to take actions which bear the risk of increasing erosion.

 

... and not to missunderstand me:

I am in favour of windenergy wherever it is according to the need and in scale. One or two turbines to serve the demands of this or that outer island is ok, even more, it is probably close to the optimum today's technology can provide. Too me as a non-Shetlander it would be quite acceptable if Shetland would try to produce its local demand of electric energy by installing more turbines. But what is going on now with such a large scale development is to put Shetlands natural future at the risk for some short time profits of a particular and highly subsidiced industry.

 

To me it is like this: When the Shetlanders of the past made their option for the oil industry at Sullom Voe they had to accept some risks ... now they are producing the risk hoping that some benefits might result from this approach. That's quite a difference.

 

Nevertheless, interesting thoughts you offer and which I take quite serious as your personal opinion ...

[DavidThomson]

I can live with that.

This is now March and the public consultation starts next Monday so there's a lot more information to come out soon.

I think I have seen the picture you mention. Looks over St Ninian's and Burra. I didn't think the turbines visible affected the picture but I'm somewhat biased.

The lack of grid references for the veiwpoints on the website is nothing so cynical as disinformation. More simply it is that after writing over 20,000 words to build the website, I forgot to add them. I did note the images were only indicative.

I'd add them now but I need to do a revision for the consultation layout and will leave it until then when I can use the newer viewpoints.

[Rasmie]

Did anyone see the programme on Channel 4 last night about the Con of Global warming. Interesting to hear the other side - note one was an ex -director of Greenpeace. Some of the scientists even receiving death threats for saying their is no proof that human activity has made any impact on global warming. Also the negative side whereby in some African countries they are being pressurised into using solar and wind power although three times the price of conventional power stations and totally inadequate to provide their basic needs. Claimed one of the main harmful side effects of no sustainable electricity production was that poor africans having to burn wood and dung which gives off more toxic fumes than major industries and also seems to greatly shorten the lives of the people actually living in the huts next to these fires. They claim that this is a case where the huge Western Green Block citing "doing nothing is not an option" is actually incorrect for millions of people. Plus it keeps the poorer countries from developing....See George Bush is turning Green, now that is worrying

[Sudden Stop]

Interesting to hear the other side - note one was an ex -director of Greenpeace. Some of the scientists even receiving death threats for saying their is no proof that human activity has made any impact on global warming.

 

I know a bloke that used to work in the Antartic with all the scientists studying the climate and our effect on it. He told me that whenever asked to make comment for tv or newspaper, the scientists would say that humans were responsible for temp rises due to greenhouse gases. However, when in the bar, talking off the record, these same people would confess to not having a clue what is to blame and that it very well could just be a natural cycle. The thinking behind it is, they might as well say we are to blame because no harm can come from being more green.

 

Not exactly proven beyond all reasonable doubt....

[JustMe]

Watched that programme with interest and it sort of ties in with my own thoughts that all the extreme weather events seem to be claimed as the worst since whenever.

 

That said I do not think the programme could be used as a basis for saying no to renewable energy. The alternative to renewable energy is to consume finite resources such as coal and oil which will one day become so scarce that the cost of them becomes prohibitive and then at some future date they will run out.

 

Neither could the programme be considered to be claiming that we need not worry about pollution. Even if fossil fuel use is not causing global warming it is still not pleasant and indeed is dangerous for us to have to breathe the likes of car exhaust gasses and while that may not be a great problem in Shetland I am told that cities like Los Angeles are now shrouded in a permanent smog.

 

The African issue which of course applies in other poor countries is not so clear cut as the programme makers might have us believe. Renewable energy has a part to play by bringing some electricity to remote areas which will have to wait many years for a mains electricity supply and the high initial cost perhaps ought to be met by charities or governments.

 

There is one superb example of renewable energy that has produced great benefits in Africa. The wind up radio has enabled remote places to have some regular contact with the outside world even though this is one way so far.

 

My final point is the cooking fire in the hut. I was not convinced that the fire needed to be indoors but even if I missed out on the reason why then surely this is again something charities or governments could tackle by a program to supply stoves with a decent flue to vent the fumes outside the dwelling. A solution that would still be valid when the people featured get electricity simply because being poor they would continue to cook with wood and dung once they discovered the cost of electricity.

[DarkstarIII]

8O I have just bought the shetland times and read about the windfarms and where they are going to put them. To me, they are far too spread out... and right down the main part of here... 8O

[lumpsucker]

I have just seen the leaflet enclosed with the Shetland Times, prior to this I had no idea of the scale of the proposed windfarm. If Viking Energy were proposing to put some turbines along the Kames to make Shetland self sufficient in energy this would be more acceptable than the current proposal. However to turn the whole of the central mainland into a power station for Scotland is completely out of order. If Scotland is so desperate for renewable energy how about putting a windfarm over the Cairngorms and see how they would like it!

[lumpsucker]

I bit too quickly when I opened up the Shetland Times today. I don't where the hell I have been for the past month but I have just worked out it must be the first of April - can there be any other reason for the joke book enclosed with the paper - if you can't tell yet I'm pissed off - I'm very pissed off!!!

[DarkstarIII]

I have just seen the leaflet enclosed with the Shetland Times, prior to this I had no idea of the scale of the proposed windfarm. If Viking Energy were proposing to put some turbines along the Kames to make Shetland self sufficient in energy this would be more acceptable than the current proposal. However to turn the whole of the central mainland into a power station for Scotland is completely out of order. If Scotland is so desperate for renewable energy how about putting a windfarm over the Cairngorms and see how they would like it!

 

I AGREE!!!!!

 

I mean, whit the hell are they thinkin o???? at the end o the day... I see in the kames that would make sense.... but in the middle o shetland, and they want to put these things up..???? I am all for renewable energy... but come the f*** on..... really...

 

"hey theres a place FURTHER NORTH!!!! They wont mind.... lets put them there.. " its disgusting.. I dont think many people realised the actual SCALE of the proposal..... but folks.. maybe we need to calm doon... if theres no cable THERES NO TURBINES... and thats awww there is aboot it...

 

What makes shetland beautiful is the fact that THERES NOWT HERE!!! and the last thing we want is sticks wi rotor blades loomin o'er our hooses! especially if they are going to be higher than yon ones at Burraland...

 

I join ye in the VAT o pissedoffness!!!

 

and I think there are a few that feel the same.....

[Flaming Mo]

ahhhh, at last the consultation begins.....lions in the den time.... Well this is your chance to decide on the future of shetland. This is the biggest issue facing Shetland at the moment in my opinon.

 

i.e:

 

1. 200 turbines - a solution to shetland's economic disparity? An opportunity to exploit our resources (wind!) and become a future sullom voe. £££'s for our communities, 'a wind of change' and a brighter future.

 

2. Bang out of order, Shetland should be self sufficient before being exploited by the energy requirements of the rest of the UK. Why should the island be at the mercy of companies who don't give a sh** about our heritage, landscape, biodiversity and environment.

 

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.