Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

And I've just read Andrew Halcrow's letter. The payback time in terms of CO2 for the peat disturbed by the windfarm is estimated at 3 years.

 

He says that "for change to take place, it needs to happen now on a worldwide scale". Fair enough, exactly what I've been saying for the past several years. Yet in Andrew's world, worldwide does not include Shetland. WTF?

 

He's just another nimby spouting the same old nimby song:

 

"Everyone needs to change, but not me, not here, I don't need to change" Bloody hypocrite!

 

God, this garbage makes me so angry.

[sjeunson]

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.

 

Denmark can also import power from Norway when there is no wind. If the VE windfarm goes ahead, it might be better to have an interconnector to Norway so that we could do the same...

 

Such an interconnector is part of the solution in my opinion. The use of renewable energy will require the ability to both store power locally and send power generated to those who have no wind at that time for example. If the wind blows in Shetland either send it to someone else or store it for the time when the wind stops. The people who will make money out of energy in the future will be those who can store green energy sold on the cheap when it's abundant in order to sell it back when there's none.

 

No idea how we could store energy on such a massive scale. Not sure how large a scale Hydrgoen could go to. Hydro power is the best we have at the moment though and I don't think building more dams would go down well in the highlands.

[Malachy]

Every single watt generated by a windmill is a watt that is not generated by burning coal. Show me the evidence that that statement is untrue.

 

I hardly need evidence to show that is untrue - it's quite obviously untrue. Wind generation doesn't only replace coal power, it replaces all kinds of power. (In fact it doesn't replace any power except when used on a small scale; it augments power to cover our increasing demand.)

 

He's just another nimby spouting the same old nimby song:

 

"Everyone needs to change, but not me, not here, I don't need to change" Bloody hypocrite!

 

See this is where it gets confusing, because it depends what you mean by change. You have repeatedly said in this thread that you believe people can carry on as they are, that society can go on unimpeded just as long as we clean up our energy production. To me that is hypocrisy. I believe we cannot simply find another kind of energy to prop up our unsustainable lifestlyes, we all must change, either by choice or by necessity. To me, the attitude that says 'tear up the hills to make green energy' is not one little bit different from that which drives oil companies, mining companies or anybody else. It is about making money and about sustaining what cannot be sustained. We must change, but windmills are just a way of putting off the real changes that must, one day, take place.

[crofter]

Hydro power is the best we have at the moment though and I don't think building more dams would go down well in the highlands.

 

Is there anywhere in Shetland where it would be feasible to build a dam to pump water up to when there was excess electricity? What about public opinion towards more dams in Norway?

[crofter]

We must change, but windmills are just a way of putting off the real changes that must, one day, take place.

 

Totally agree.

[crofter]

As I've been repeatedly saying, the windfarm on it's own will not stop climate change, but the windfarm as part of a global effort to eliminate fossil fuels from the world economy, will.

 

 

I do not see much happening in the way of global effort to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. "The market" will decide which kind of energy gets used where and that means that until it is cheaper to use "green" power EVERYWHERE in the world, fossil fuels will continue to be used somewhere.

 

Windfarm as a means of reducing CO2 emissions - pointless waste of time.

 

Windfarm as a possible source of cash to SIC - let's see the numbers.

[ArabiaTerra]

Every single watt generated by a windmill is a watt that is not generated by burning coal. Show me the evidence that that statement is untrue.

 

I hardly need evidence to show that is untrue - it's quite obviously untrue. Wind generation doesn't only replace coal power, it replaces all kinds of power. (In fact it doesn't replace any power except when used on a small scale; it augments power to cover our increasing demand.)

My point is that as the installed base of renewables gets big enough so that we can begin shutting down fossil fuel power stations, the ones to be shut down first will be the coal stations. Our increasing consumption is an entirely seperate issue which needs to be addressed in turn by, for instance, making it illegal to build new houses which are not carbon neutral and retrofitting our existing housing stock to make it more efficient. We also need to be tightening up the efficiency of domestic appliances and banning the worst of them. Banning incandescent lightbulbs is an obvious step that many countries have already taken. Higher taxes on air travel and increased investment in (electrified) railways is another step that has to be taken. Our road transport needs to be made more efficient and eventually converted to run on hydrogen produced by renewable power, I could go on...

He's just another nimby spouting the same old nimby song:

 

"Everyone needs to change, but not me, not here, I don't need to change" Bloody hypocrite!

 

See this is where it gets confusing, because it depends what you mean by change. You have repeatedly said in this thread that you believe people can carry on as they are, that society can go on unimpeded just as long as we clean up our energy production. To me that is hypocrisy. I believe we cannot simply find another kind of energy to prop up our unsustainable lifestlyes, we all must change, either by choice or by necessity. To me, the attitude that says 'tear up the hills to make green energy' is not one little bit different from that which drives oil companies, mining companies or anybody else. It is about making money and about sustaining what cannot be sustained. We must change, but windmills are just a way of putting off the real changes that must, one day, take place.

Our lifestyles are unsustainable because they are based on fossil fuel energy. That's the point that needs addressing first. That's the urgent emergency. Our energy must be sustainable. Once that is achieved, or at least well in hand, we can begin addressing the other parts of our society which are unsustainable, such as resource depletion. Society will have to change to be sustainable, but I don't believe we have to give up technological progress to achieve this. Sure, we may have to give up some of the luxuries we currently enjoy such as cheap air travel to anywhere on the globe, but we can't go back to an 18th century style agrarian economy, there are just too many people on the planet to sustain that, billions would starve. We need technology to get through this century, we just have to make sure it is sustainable technology.

 

None of these things are impossible, we have the technology (to steal a phrase). What terrifies me is that it will not be deployed in time to save our society and save the billions that could die this century. Climate change, ocean acidification, over population, it's a perfect storm which will break in the next few decades. We have to act now though.

 

That's what I think the answer is. You don't agree, so what's your solution? How would you save our planet without crashing civilisation in the process? How would you save the 9 billion humans that will be here by 2050? You disagree with my solution, what's yours?

[Styumpie]

He's just another nimby spouting the same old nimby song:

 

"Everyone needs to change, but not me, not here, I don't need to change" Bloody hypocrite!

 

God, this garbage makes me so angry. Mad Evil or Very Mad

 

Anyone from around the Lerwick area or the south end wont really be affected by the windfarm, so if you are from these parts, and slag off people as NIMBYs who live in view of the proposed wind farm, you are a hypocrite yourself.

 

As I have said before, Why are there no plans to erect them around Lerwick and the south end? is it because a greater quantity of NIMBYs exits esp councillors who dont want them in their own backyards?

 

Lets change the plans shall we, lets erect most of them from Bressay, all around Stainy hill, Sandy loch, Gulberwick right the way down to the south end.

 

Less peat to disturb

Closer to the point of use thus less wastage due to losses.

easier access

smaller land mass so a far steadier wind thus more profitable.

Cheaper to build due to access.

 

The real reason, toonie and south end NIMBYs.

[Malachy]

I think, as pointed out earlier in the thread, the real reason may have more to do with land ownership. The council own quite a big chunk of the land affected by the current plans, so will benefit from 'rent' payments, or whatever they're calling them. They will be very keen for it to remain on their patch.

[crofter]

The payback time in terms of CO2 for the peat disturbed by the windfarm is estimated at 3 years.

 

 

Where does this number come from? Don't have time to check right now, but seem to remember 3 years was the best case scenario?

[Carlos]

Field testing some small to medium wind turbines in Holland

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2009/04/small-windmills-test-results.html

For some ideas on the numbers and costs of going with a load of smaller turbines.

[ArabiaTerra]

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

Let me tell you about my view. From my front window I can see a wall with a road behind it, then I'm staring straight at a 3 storey terrace with about a dozen windows staring straight back into my sitting room.

 

From the back I am looking at a scrubby piece of grass (someone else's garden) and a 2 storey blank concrete wall.

 

I would love to have a view of some hills, windmills or no.

 

So consider yourself lucky you have any view at all and stop winging about a few windmills. Not all of us have the option to choose where we live.

[sjeunson]

Hydro power is the best we have at the moment though and I don't think building more dams would go down well in the highlands.

 

Is there anywhere in Shetland where it would be feasible to build a dam to pump water up to when there was excess electricity? What about public opinion towards more dams in Norway?

 

Yes there is an area where it would be feasible, radical some might say but it's possible. I've included a highly detailed technical drawing below. (Red indicates dams while blue indicates shiny pumped up water)

 

http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/0904/Kergord_Reservoir.JPG

 

Ideally there would be several dams to allow segregation to keep the head of water as high as possible but that would involve a more complicated diagram.....

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Hehe, good luck getting that past the nimby's, sorry, "sustainable" Shetland.

[sjeunson]

The thing that alot of people choose to ignore it seems to me is that nothing in the renewable sector will cure global warming on it's own. There needs to be massive changes to the way we use/produce/store energy.

 

This windfarm along with every other renewables project in the country won't be the cure but will put in place part of the infrastructure to allow the change to take place.