Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Medziotojas]

^^Pasted and PM'd AT.

[sheepshagger]

For those of you (AT) that claim tidal and wave energy is years away from being commercially viable please take the time to watch National Geographics program Megastructures, Electric Oceans. I haven't seen the program myself but it shows various machines operating and producing electricity now at various locations around the world, Orkney included.

[sheepshagger]

they will do a lot less damage to the environment than the current proposal of 150 windmills.

we have heard a lot [mod]Be more eloquent in your posts[/mod] on here about being at the forefront of renewable energy with the wind farm, so why not truly get to the front of renewables with this technology.

so what if environmental impact studies etc take a year, another year is not going to make or break the planet.

because the power supplied by these devices is more constant than the windmills they could be tied directly into the Shetland grid and start providing bennefits directly to those of us paying for them.

 

Then lets look at the break down of how proffits wil be shared out with the VE project, 50% to the power company for its 50% financial investment but what about the investment of our land we are getting 45% back on our 45%financial investment but sweet FA for our landscape, Oh yes Brian Anderson et al will get payments for the use of "their land" but is it not our land scape? what are we getting for that?

Quite frankly the whole thing stinks almost as much as the lochs and burns will stink when they are clogged up with the peat that will surely end up contaminating them.

[sheepshagger]

It may be the initial set up costs, however, to put all our eggs in one basket would be folly.[/quote]

 

So can we take it from this statement you are against the windfarm proposal in its current form.

[Carlos]

The Planning Board on Wednesday 22 April will consider a report on Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study for Wind Farm Development on the Shetland Islands. You can read it here.

 

The Council are not going to consider anything to do with this, if you check out the adgenda you will find that it is at the end of the meeting, or last in leymans terms..and it is just for information only...

6.1 A landscape sensitivity and capacity study prepared by external

landscape specialists has been prepared and will assist the Planning

Service to assess the impact of wind farm developments. The

information in the study has been used to inform the preparation

process for the draft Wind Farm Interim Planning Policy that will be

presented to the next meeting of the Planning Board.

Just what it says - it is a note to the committee for information that guidance has been prepared that will help the Planners prepare the report on the windfarm impact that will then come to the Council committee.

 

Saying that the work has started to get the process in place, not that there are any findings yet.

[Ghostrider]

^^ In plain English. We're just letting you know that we think we're now well enough informed to begin thinking about the real thing.

[crofter]

 

There are other issues with stuff in the sea, that moves,

 

Yes. Keeping it on-site in one piece through the winter is the biggest issue. Not impossible, but expensive.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Here's some interesting facts and comments on the "Folly" of Windfarms.

 

Denmark, the Worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of it's electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

 

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions" The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal-and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

 

Indeed, recent acadmic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back up generation required because of it's intermittent character. On the negative side of the enviromental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

 

Danish Federation of Industries says,"windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense". Aase Madsen, chair of energy policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it "a terribly expensive disaster".

 

Sacrifice Shetland in this money making scam for the "Few" at our peril !!!.

[ArabiaTerra]

Right, I got the doc opened. It doesn't say much. GR summed it up pretty well.

 

Denmark, the Worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of it's electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

This is just bollox. If Denmark had enough power to supply it's needs before the windfarms were built then there is no way it would need more power stations to cover winds unpredictability. And anyway, windmills in Denmark are much less efficient as they would be in Shetland. Please provide links or references if you're going to post rubbish like this.

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions" The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that "Germany's CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram," and additional coal-and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.

Germany is currently closing down it's nuclear stations. That's why they are building more coal stations. It has nothing to do with windmills, and I've already dealt with this point months ago, so please check your fact before posting misleading rubbish like this.

Indeed, recent acadmic research shows that wind power may actually increase greenhouse emissions in some cases, depending on the carbon-intensity of back up generation required because of it's intermittent character. On the negative side of the enviromental ledger are adverse impacts of industrial wind turbines on birdlife and other forms of wildlife, farm animals, wetlands and viewsheds.

Another unfounded and unreferenced allegation. If it's recent academic research then lets see a link to that research. How on earth can a windmill affect farm animals or wetlands, and what the hell is a viewshed, the view from your shed? We all know your a nimby who thinks his view is more important than the economic and environmental future of Shetland. It's nice to see you finally being honest about the fact (if that's what you really mean).

 

PJ, please tell me how the wildlife and bird life of Shetland is going to escape the effects of climate change, because that is going to do a hell of a lot more damage than the wind mills ever will.

 

P.S I found your source here. It is a Canadian newspaper which makes unfounded allegations with no references to back them up and then goes on to compare costs to gas, coal and nuclear, using figures which seem at face value to be complete rubbish (wind requires 10x the subsidy of nuclear, get real) and are again, unreferenced. We all know coal and gas are cheaper than wind. That is not the point. Coal and gas are killing the planet. Wind is saving it. It should also be pointed out that the Canadian government is currently in the process of developing the Alberta tar sands, the dirtiest fuel source on the planet. The Canadians are among the worst polluters on Earth and quoting stuff from a Canadian economist supporting his government is hardly an unbiased source.

 

If you have something new to say PJ, say it, but don't keep dredging up these same old zombie lies, they are getting boring.

[sjeunson]

Here's some interesting facts and comments on the "Folly" of Windfarms.

 

Denmark, the Worlds most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of it's electricity, has yet to close a single fossil fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power's unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

 

This doesn't take into account that Denmark exports alot of the wind energy that it cannot use and therefore doesn't reduce it's carbon dioxide emissions. Energy is exported to Norway or Sweden who have large Hydro schemes which can be turned off when they're receiving from Denmark to save water.

 

The useful fact here is that Denmark doesn't have a suitable way of storing and using it's windpower. Something which all renewables need to contend with, not just wind.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

AT, just the narrow minded, tunnelled visioned reply i expected from someone who can't think outside of the "Box", that's the Viking energy is Mankinds only hope to save the Planet Bollox. (Box)

 

And what's this "Nimby crap"...WILL YOU be staring at an industrial wind farm landscape from your neck of the woods??

[ArabiaTerra]

PJ, If I really thought you cared about the planet, I would ask you to follow the links in this post:

For those of you that are interested, the Climate Change FAQ from New Scientist is a pretty good primer on the subject.

 

And this article debunks the most common lies told by deniers.

 

And finally, an article on what to expect if we don't deal with this, complete with scary map.

Especially the last two. This is the extent of the crises we face if we don't act now.

And what's this "Nimby crap"...WILL YOU be staring at an industrial wind farm landscape from your neck of the woods??

It really is nice to see one of you nimby's actually being honest about it for once, a real breath of fresh air. You DO think your view is more important than the future of Shetland. Very refreshing, thank you.

[ArabiaTerra]

And this now brings me to the economics of the VE proposal. Shetland's economy currently stands on four legs. The oil industry, the fishing and fish farming industries and their associated processing factories, and the tourism industry. These, in turn, support the superb public services we enjoy, the leisure centres, care homes, inter island ferries and of course the council, all of which provide thousands of jobs themselves. But all of these four industries are under threat either directly or indirectly from climate change and without them the public services we enjoy will be unsustainable.

 

Let's take the oil industry first. This can go either of two ways. The first is that governments start to take climate change seriously and make strenuous efforts to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. This will lead to a reduction in demand for oil and gas which, in turn, will lead to reduced prices. This will make North Sea oil uneconomical to produce (offshore oil production is about the most expensive way to get oil out of the ground), which will lead to the closure of the North Sea and West Shetland basins and the closure of Sullom. This won't happen immediately, but within 20-30 years, Sullom will close. The second option is that governments continue to do nothing and we pump the oil until it runs dry. This may take 30-40 years but by then we'll be too busy coping with the collapse of civilisation caused by runaway climate change to take much notice. Either way, there is no long term future in the oil industry.

 

What about the fishing and fish farming? These industries are not directly affected by climate change, the fishing boats can always follow the fish wherever the changing climate sends them. These industries are threatened by something else, what has been called "Global Warmings evil twin", ocean acidification. The oceans currently absorb up to 30% of the excess CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, but this is changing the chemistry of the water. And by making it more acidic we are interfering with the ability of the microscopic organisms that form the base of all the oceans food chains to build their shells. This, in turn, will lead to a reduction in their numbers and the mass starvation of everything which depends on them for food. That means no more fish, and no more feed for the fish farms. It's that simple. And this is not based on predictions or computer models, this is based on actual measurements. Ocean pH has already changed from 8.15 to 8.06 since the late 80's and it continues to change at more than 100 times the natural background variability.

 

And what about the tourists? Tourists come here for the wildlife, landscape and culture (both past and present). But the wildlife, or more particularly, the birdlife is doomed. Shetlands seabirds have only had a couple of successful breeding seasons in the last 15 years or so. When the present generation of birds dies off, there will be no more. The landscape is fragile. The landslides at the south end show just how vulnerable the landscape is to extreme weather events. Guess what the central prediction of global warming is? More extreme weather. And how much culture will be left when the oil and fishing are gone, the sea has risen to engulf all our coastal archaeology and the islands have depopulated as people leave to find work elsewhere? And this doesn't even touch on the impact climate change will have on tourism directly as governments tax air travel and climate disruption impacts the tourists at their homes. Tourism is a luxury, luxuries will be the first to suffer from climate change.

 

All in all, the future for Shetland seems pretty bleak at the moment. So what difference can a few windmills make?

 

Well, all the difference in the world. The wind farm brings two things. An annual income equivalent to if not greater than the oil industry at it's height, which will last as long as the wind blows, and the interconnector which will allow the development of other renewables such as wave and tidal power, neither of which will happen on any large scale without the interconnector. And remember, the lifetime of the wind farm will only be 25 years or so. Surely a small price to pay for economic security.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

AT,you didn't answer my question

 

And what have you done to save the local enviroment lately??

 

Today i'am planting more native Shetland trees, putting back something into the local enviroment that Humans and grazing animals have done their best at eradicating for the past 5000 years.

[ArabiaTerra]

No I won't see the windmills as I live in Lerwick. Shame really, I quite like them.

 

And as for what I've done to save the planet recently? Mostly just debunking rubbish spouted on the internet about the necessary changes we have to make to save the planet.

 

Oh, and my carbon footprint is about 2.5 tonnes/year, what's yours?