Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Malachy]

(And you still haven't come up with your solution. Given what we face, if you don't agree with my solution, how would you fix it? What would you do?)

 

Fortunately it is not my job to offer a solution. And if it were I would resign immediately because I am not qualified or scientifically-minded enough to do so. But my instinct would be to trust the views of a visionary scientist, someone like James Lovelock, rather than councillors and the directors of VE.

 

So what's left in your perfect Shetland, PJ? A landscape littered with ruins where people used to live and work, one ferry, like the old Earl, per week for the outer isles, a population of (maybe) 10,000 scraping a living from the land?

This is a rather intellectually corrupt argument AT. Shetland didn't look like that in 1972, just prior to oil. Central government is not going to suddenly withdraw all funding for Shetland just because we don't put up windmills. To say we have a choice between VE and poverty is a baseless threat not an argument.

[ArabiaTerra]

Shetland didn't look like that in 1972, just prior to oil

In 1972, knitting was still a large industry and the fishing was a relatively large employer, not facing complete collapse due to climate change and ocean acidification. Thousands were employed in the fish processing factories, not the paltry few hundred employed now. And even then, our population was declining.

... But my instinct would be to trust the views of a visionary scientist, someone like James Lovelock, rather than councillors and the directors of VE.

I haven't read Lovelock's latest book, but I have read about it and I don't like what I've read. He seems to have given up, to be saying "It's too late so we must retreat to the bunkers and weather the storm". He might be right, but to simply give up now without even trying is to condemn an awful lot of people to poverty and death.

 

We may not be able to prevent climate change, but we can still effect how bad it will get. Not to try would be a crime against humanity.

To say we have a choice between VE and poverty is a baseless threat not an argument.

I don't think it's baseless. How much money do you think central government is going to keep pumping into our economy when the whole country is strapped for cash. The small communities on the periphery will be the first to go.

 

What other source of income is out there? With VE and other renewable energy development we can have an independent economic future, without it we can't. If I'm wrong about this then please show me the alternative.

Fortunately it is not my job to offer a solution.

Quite. It's easy to criticize when you don't have to produce an alternative. But think about what you're criticizing, imagine a future where all your criticisms are answered, where what you are proposing comes to pass, not just for Shetland, but globally, do you want to live there?

 

We may fail. All that I am proposing may crash and burn. But at least we'll have tried. And will the failure of what I'm proposing be any worse than what's happening anyway?

[Carlos]

... But my instinct would be to trust the views of a visionary scientist, someone like James Lovelock, rather than councillors and the directors of VE.

I haven't read Lovelock's latest book, but I have read about it and I don't like what I've read. He seems to have given up, to be saying "It's too late so we must retreat to the bunkers and weather the storm". He might be right, but to simply give up now without even trying is to condemn an awful lot of people to poverty and death.

Lovelock's assuming the "worst" (well hopefully it's the worst), 4C+ temperature rise, deserts up to the Canadian border, everybody that's left moving north to the bits that are more or less temperate and not being smashed up regularly by storms.

Shetland under that vision would likely have more tower blocks full of people with their regulation 20m3 than it would have turbines under the VE proposal, and most of the peat would likely have to be drained and reseeded to make the most of the available agricultural oppertunities, as a matter of survival.

 

It may still come to that, but I hope it's a bit early to give up on anything else and just sit and wait for it?

[Carlos]

So drowning half of the north of shetland is better than wind turbines?

For "my" Njuggleswater one? Or for the big impractical seawater one?

 

Njuggles water is the small loch a mile south of Burradale, you could get that kind of "small" storage volume there without more than localised disturbance. But as the number show you'd need 20, 30, 40 of them for a Shetland that was just running off windturbines and pumped storage hydropower evening out the demands.

 

Neither of them are instead of wind turbines though, they one kind of thing you would have to adopt to match electricity supply and demand with most kinds of practical renewable energies. Doesn;t have to be pumped storage, you could go with hydrogen, district heating schemes, flywheels, all kind of stuff, but it's part of the bigger picture of how things would have to reorganise, along with European wide HVDC electricty grids and all the rest of it.

[Malachy]

I haven't read Lovelock's latest book, but I have read about it and I don't like what I've read. He seems to have given up, to be saying "It's too late so we must retreat to the bunkers and weather the storm". He might be right, but to simply give up now without even trying is to condemn an awful lot of people to poverty and death.

 

Lovelock has rather a track record of saying things folk don't like and then being proved right. His latest book is nowhere near as negative (to my mind) as the media have painted it. But what he says won't be popular. Essentially he argues that talk of 'sustainable development' is redundant. Human beings can no longer imagine that they should be 'developing'. What is required is, in his words, 'sustainable retreat' - lessening in every way our impact on Gaia. And, he claims, nuclear fission is the only technology, short term, which can allow for a rapid controlled retreat, though long term he believes nuclear fusion is a good bet (in the book he debunks some of the myths that have developed over the dangers of nuclear power).

He is not very hopeful about the future of the climate, but, frankly, nor are many scientists any more. They've been ignored for too long. But he certainly does not encourage doing nothing, it's just that what he says is not what most folk want to hear.

I'd encourage you to read the book.

[ArabiaTerra]

... it's just that what he says is not what most folk want to hear.

Hmmm, I know that feeling.

[sjeunson]

So drowning half of the north of shetland is better than wind turbines?

For "my" Njuggleswater one? Or for the big impractical seawater one?

 

Could I just point out that the "impractical sea one" was a bit of a joke and it's alarming how many people are using it as case for an arguement.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Ive read Lovelocks latest book and think he has hit the nail on the head.

Like Malachy says, it is not what people want to hear, especially politicians and Oil companys etc.

And i don't just enjoy reading his books just because he detests industrial windfarms before that one is pointed out to me

[paulb]

This is Shetland. give them an idea and they may just do it. On a smaller scale you could connect two lochs and do what they did in wales. Looks more likely now than ever that the turbines will be built. But spead them out that way if its wind down the south end and calm up north you will get a supply. Add them to Unst, Yell, Fetler and you will get an even better wind coverage.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Those people sitting on the fence, might make a decision when the EIA becomes available, this will bring onboard SNH/RSPB/SEPA and all the remaining groups involved in wildlife and enviroment, including tourism.

 

I just hope the Shetland folk will make the effort to read it, or in this case download it, since it is rather large.

Thats if it is completly finished yet .

 

TICK-TOCK

[ArabiaTerra]

Lovelock has rather a track record of saying things folk don't like and then being proved right. His latest book is nowhere near as negative (to my mind) as the media have painted it. But what he says won't be popular. Essentially he argues that talk of 'sustainable development' is redundant. Human beings can no longer imagine that they should be 'developing'. What is required is, in his words, 'sustainable retreat' - lessening in every way our impact on Gaia. And, he claims, nuclear fission is the only technology, short term, which can allow for a rapid controlled retreat, though long term he believes nuclear fusion is a good bet (in the book he debunks some of the myths that have developed over the dangers of nuclear power).

He is not very hopeful about the future of the climate, but, frankly, nor are many scientists any more. They've been ignored for too long. But he certainly does not encourage doing nothing, it's just that what he says is not what most folk want to hear.

I'd encourage you to read the book.

I can agree with much of what you say here. I suppose it all come down to what you mean by development. I can't argue with the concept of sustainable retreat, reducing our impact on Gaia is essential. I disagree that nuclear fission is the only option though, not in the UK. We have the best renewable resources in Europe due to our coastal location and we should take advantage of this. The advantage for Shetland and other remote communities of being able to get something useful from our bad weather and sell it to the rest of the country seems to me to be too good an opportunity to pass up. It will give us a chance to maintain our financial independence and even possibly enhance it.

 

This is Monbiots response to Lovelock which I was largely basing my reaction on.

 

Any chance you could drop the book along the house next time you're in Lerwick? It sounds like a good read.

[Para Handy]

Maybe the whole thing is just one big con trick, after all the council money invested in sill projects. Someone has noticed, so they have gone to Chris Hodge and purchased all of the pedestal fans he had. And will put them on all the hills around Shetland. And some person who has been promoted well above there Capability level, (they just got there because they have a brown nose) has signed the cheque. And all the other sheep have just followed in awe of the rubbish they hear form the idiots mouth

[Fjool]

^ You've been warned about this kind of posting before, PH. We even reviewed the user guidelines accordingly. Please take a quick squint:

 

Avoid sweeping statements and generalised moaning - These activities translate as "blah, blah, blah, moan, moan, moan" and do nothing to encourage constructive debate. If you have specific examples, please refer to them and keep them relevant to the topic's subject matter.

[Grafter]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1172230/Are-wind-farms-lot-hot-air--windy.html

An interesting article about wind power and its place in the energy mix.

[ArabiaTerra]

An interesting and balanced article (not what I would have expected from the Mail! )

 

A couple of points though, nobody has suggested that it would be practical or desirable to get all our energy from wind.

 

He dismisses the concept of a European "supergrid" rather offhandedly. This is already in the planning stage and will probably be up and running by 2020.

 

And he misses one of the best ways of storing wind power, which is to use it to crack water to make hydrogen when there is a surplus, then burning the hydrogen at peak times. (Also, I think we are much more likely to go for hydrogen powered transport rather than electric, which is only really practical in cities.)