Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

Talking carbon footprint, a few numbers re the construction of the bases for the turbines. The quoted average for each is 700 cubic metres of concrete; at an average 2400kg/m3 density, thats 1,680 tonnes for EACH of 150, total weight of concrete a quarter of a million tonnes! bearing in mind the enormous amounts of CO2 generated in the production of cement, that's quite a handicap in the environmental stakes.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. We have to replace our current fossil fuel power stations. There are several ways to do this. Nuclear, onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, tidal or wave, all of these have an associated CO2 cost incurred during the construction phase, either from concrete and steel if it's onshore or steel alone if it's offshore (how much CO2 does it take to make a ton of steel and do you have any idea how much concrete goes into a nuclear power station?). These CO2 costs are counted into the payback time. I doubt that they are much different from the CO2 costs of constructing a new coal fired station, but they are dwarfed by the ongoing cost of the CO2 released from the running of a coal station. Remember, one ton of coal burned equals three tons of CO2 (C+O2).

 

Anyway, the bulk of the CO2 cost of the windfarm seems to be from peat disturbance rather than construction as can be seen by the variation in payback time between the best and worst case scenarios, varying from 2 years to 17 years depending on how the peat reacts. Even if the worst case scenario is realised, it's still better than generating the same amount of power in a coal station.

Those figures also do not include concrete required for the rest of the infrastructure, which will be very substantial - not least roads. And none of this will be taken away at the end of the project life, it will effectively be there for ever. Concrete from roman times remains to this day.

So there will be 150 concrete slabs buried in the hill. This is a problem... why? It seems to me no different from the thousands of concrete slabs which litter the islands from the last war. I'm not aware of them causing any problems. Not pretty, I'll grant you, but then, it was an emergency (kinda like now).

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Another Viking Energy sponsered reply from AT

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Ha! I wish.

 

What I post here and elsewhere about VE and the environment in general, is what I believe to be right. Strictly my own opinion (backed up by facts, when I can find them). If someone ever offers to pay me for such ranting, you will be the first to know.

[RileyBKing]

AT

My point is that factors involving negative environmental impact tend to be centre stage front when the proposed power generation source is nuclear or fossil fuel based, but mysteriously become irrelevant if the energy source can be labelled as renewable. Not advocating one specific solution here, all have their place, but we should try to compare alternatives on a reasonably level playing field. Building wind turbine farms in not without negative aspects. Would building 150 x 475 foot high structures in an area of outstanding natural beauty be acceptable if those structures were exhaust stacks?

 

re the concrete bases, apart from the CO2 generation producing the cement component (1.0/1.25 tons of CO2 per ton of cement), my point is that leaving all the below ground components in place you are effectively fudging the project decommissioning costs.

[pernjim]

Indeed. Its always been my view that constructing what amounts to a massive power station in the centre of Shetland is sheer insanity. Not in my backyard? Too right. This is in everybody's backyard. (And by the way, our esteemed Vice Convenor himself isn't averse to a little nimbyism - in reference to the abattoir plans for Scalloway, he said 'yun folk didna want it next tae dem, I widna edder, and I don't tink we can mak dem hiv it', or words to that effect.) Of course, he's managed to sidestep that one quite nicely by avoiding the whole issue of having to award planning permission personally. It'll be handy for councillors/charitable trustees to be able to say 'a big boy did it and ran away'.

 

Here we are, quarter of a billion pounds plus in the bank, and we're flaughtering around in a panic because we're told this is the only way forward economically for Shetland. Bull. Of course, selling the project off to the highest bidder when the consent's in might make a few bob. Then - whoopee!! there goes your 'local control'.

 

If our esteemed leaders can't figure out a less destructive way to keep the coffers filled, perhaps its time for a change.

[ArabiaTerra]

AT

My point is that factors involving negative environmental impact tend to be centre stage front when the proposed power generation source is nuclear or fossil fuel based, but mysteriously become irrelevant if the energy source can be labelled as renewable. Not advocating one specific solution here, all have their place, but we should try to compare alternatives on a reasonably level playing field. Building wind turbine farms in not without negative aspects. Would building 150 x 475 foot high structures in an area of outstanding natural beauty be acceptable if those structures were exhaust stacks?

But the environmental impacts are not irrelevant for renewables, and it is a level playing field. The point about renewables, is that they don't require any fuel. This means that after a few years of running, the carbon costs of their construction will be paid back when compared to generating the same amount of energy by burning coal. After that payback time you essentially have a (carbon) free energy source. With nuclear it's a little different as you do need fuel (uranium), but you only have to refuel the reactor once every ten years or so. The uranium mining and refining process will have a carbon cost, but once this is paid back, again, you have a carbon free energy source.

 

The thing is, we have to change the way we generate electricity, climate change demands this. Now, knowing this, the question is: What is the most efficient way of doing it? Building this windfarm in Shetland, which will be the most efficient in the world, means that we don't need to build one at least twice as big and twice as expensive and twice as damaging to the environment somewhere else. Everyone, everywhere is going to have to make sacrifices to solve the problem of global warming. CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for about a hundred years so the CO2 which is causing the current problem was mostly produced during the last century by the industrialised west. Global warming is our fault, you and me, our parents and grandparents, we're responsible, therefore, it falls to us to lead the world in fixing it. We can't expect China or India to limit their emissions growth if we refuse to limit ours. Why should they?

 

The Sahara desert is the best place in the world to build a solar farm, the Severn Estuary is the best place in the world to build a tidal barrage generator and Shetland is the best place in the world to build a windfarm. This means that building these things in these places mean they will be cheaper and more efficient and less environmentally damaging than building them elsewhere. Our society requires power which has to come from somewhere, there is no alternative. There are too many people on the planet to revert back to a less technologically advanced way of living so unless you are advocating some sort of cull of the human race to reduce population numbers (a cull that would make the holocaust look like a minor traffic accident) then we have to build windfarms, tidal barrages, nuclear power and all the other renewables and we have to build them quickly and on a massive scale. If we don't then nature will do the cull for us and nature doesn't care about the collateral damage that would be suffered by the rest of the natural world.

 

(Wow, that turned into a bit of a rant, sorry 'bout that. )

re the concrete bases, apart from the CO2 generation producing the cement component (1.0/1.25 tons of CO2 per ton of cement), my point is that leaving all the below ground components in place you are effectively fudging the project decommissioning costs.

It's not about fudging the decommissioning costs, it's about doing the least amount of damage. The foundation slabs and associated wiring will do no harm if left there, whereas, digging them up again will cause damage. Leaving them alone is the least damaging option.

[JimIvens]

Remember' date=' one ton of coal burned equals three tons of CO2 (C+O2).

 

[/quote']

Not quite correct. Not all coal is carbon. You have to subtract the ash tonnage before multiplying the remainder by three. Also Oxygen weighs less than carbon.

Sorry to be pedantic. I am an advocate of green energy too, but I also want to minimise environmental impact. after all isn't that what this is all about?

[OriginalUsername]

^^^^ Ha! I wish.

 

What I post here and elsewhere about VE and the environment in general, is what I believe to be right. Strictly my own opinion (backed up by facts, when I can find them). If someone ever offers to pay me for such ranting, you will be the first to know.

 

I'd pay you out my own pocket if I could! Hell, even if I didn't agree with you, I'd pay you, purely because you know how to hold a proper debate.

 

Always a pleasure to hear an argument about this project from a logical human being once in a while...

 

On a slightly different point - I'm not sure why everyone is harping on about this petition representing a higher proportion of Shetland opinion because it doesn't include the opinions of minors. Hmm... Considering that we young 'uns are the people who will have to deal with this project and, on a larger scale, the mess our planet is currently in, I think our voices are, if anything, more important. Well, those of us who are old enough to talk at least I'll conceed the peerie bairns percentage!

 

I visited the solar house (SolarHus?) on Friday to have a look at the EIA for this project and personally, I'm very impressed. Before this was published, people were complaining that there they had no access to information regarding the project, and, illogically, that this somehow proved that VE/SSE were not properly investigating all of the ins and outs of the venture... yet, when VE provide them with the very documentation they've been crying out for, either it's "too much" or it's "propaganda" (have you even looked at the damn thing?!) It seems that the haters are well and truely against this, no matter what... hmm, something tells me that their argument is not based on fact... could it be... just possibly... subjective?

 

Let's be sensible here: many people just do not like how these machines look. And that's perfectly understandable. That is a VALID argument. Yet, there still seems to be a need by certain individuals to adopt pseudo-science, anecdotes and general scaremongering to validate their argument. There isn't a need for this - if you are going to debate, do it right. Facts talk. Numbers talk. Coming up with as many creative epithets as possible for the windmills (monstrosities, gargantuans etc. Yes Ian Tait... isn't it a little hypocritical of you to scream "propaganda" at VE?) is not a logical argument.

 

And guess what... money talks too And thank God it does. I look forward to a future in Shetland where our children may have the chance to grow up in the same affluence and luxury we did.

 

And before someone points it out - yes, there's a small chance the project wouldn't be financially successful, but that chance is minute. If that weren't the case, the real big boys out there wouldn't be interested. Considering that they have teams of financial experts, I'm going to trust them over a few self-righteous and self-claiming "nature lovers" (AKA da "i lik me view, i lik walkin, i didna start dis global warmin, if i even believe in it, so i shouldna hae ta deal wi' it, i dunna care aboot whit wir bairns might hae ta deal wi' as lang as i'm happy eenoo" people... that can be edited so it doesn't have a Shetland accent too ) ranting on an internet forum.

 

Face it folks, windfarm's gonna happen and there's a whole bunch of us who are celebrating that very fact.

[Ghostrider]

And before someone points it out - yes, there's a small chance the project wouldn't be financially successful, but that chance is minute. If that weren't the case, the real big boys out there wouldn't be interested. Considering that they have teams of financial experts, I'm going to trust them over a few self-righteous and self-claiming "nature lovers" (AKA da "i lik me view, i lik walkin, i didna start dis global warmin, if i even believe in it, so i shouldna hae ta deal wi' it, i dunna care aboot whit wir bairns might hae ta deal wi' as lang as i'm happy eenoo" people... that can be edited so it doesn't have a Shetland accent too ) ranting on an internet forum.

 

Oh, I'm sure it will make money for the real big boys who are involved, they'd never have touched it unless their number crunchers were sure of that, and if they revised their forecast at anytime you wouldn't see them dudes for dust....What is very much open to debate is how, exactly, it makes money for the real big boys, and if it makes money for anybody else ie. US! Considering the [maximum sarcasm] extremely high levels of astute business acumen and forsightedness [/maximum sarcasm] those who are allegedly "looking after Shetland's interests" have displayed in the past, the only thing I am left wondering is how long the real big boys will let them live under the illusion they control anything, before screwing them over for every penny they can take them for. Like lambs to slaughter is what our CT Trustees remind me of in this exercise.

[OriginalUsername]

I think, considering certain past council schemes, that is a valid concern GR, most certainly.

 

However, I'm of the opinion that this project can, and most likely will, be very beneficial to Shetland. I believe a project of this size and financial viablity could, however, quite easily be undertaken by a large company such as SSE without any local involvement whatsoever and... unfortunately, WILL be undertaken if, for whatever reason, Viking Energy is out of the picture. Viking Energy, in my opinion, is a company who truely are working for the benefit of Shetland.

 

I believe that the majority of the Shetlanders involved in this project are more than competent in their jobs and are most certainly working in Shetland's best interest (or what they believe to be so, though others may disagree). However, I also completely agree that we ought to be concerned/take an active interest in the hows and whys of the financial side of this project. After all, this is our future. Then again, contracts and legal documents are not created for the benefit of appeasing public worry - though, from what I can tell, VE seem to have the steering wheel (in the form of contractual agreement with SSE) and are genuinely interested in helping those in the council who may... ah... be more easily misled. That's not to say there aren't quite a few councillors who also know exactly what they're doing.

[JustMe]

About time I published my latest thoughts on this. Wind, solar, tidal and other alternative energy is good compared to burning fossil fuels that will one day run out even if global warming does not get us first. And good even though the structures needed to harness the power might be considered some sort of blot on the landscape. Better a planet with loads of energy collectors you can turn your back on than a planet that is dying.

 

So I think you could say that I am in favour of alternative energy although to be fair I am not totally anti nuclear either. However I am still not convinced that covering the middle of Shetland with aero generators is the way to go. Long way to send that power and a kind of certainty that faced with a choice of buying power from mainland windfarms at Xp a unit or buying from Shetland windfarms at X+p I am convinced that the energy companies will opt for the cheaper option. Which means that I am only in favour of a big Shetland scheme if there is a cast iron guarantee that all the excess power can be sold as well as a cast iron guarantee that power supplied to Shetland will not be at some higher rate than that charged on the mainland.

[Michael]

Remember' date=' one ton of coal burned equals three tons of CO2 (C+O2).

 

[/quote']

Not quite correct. Not all coal is carbon. You have to subtract the ash tonnage before multiplying the remainder by three. Also Oxygen weighs less than carbon.

Sorry to be pedantic. I am an advocate of green energy too, but I also want to minimise environmental impact. after all isn't that what this is all about?

 

Oxygen doesn't weigh less than carbon.

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

 

It does if you weigh 1 cu/ft of oxygen and then weigh 1 cu/ft of carbon.

[Michael]

^ ^ ^

 

It does if you weigh 1 cu/ft of oxygen and then weigh 1 cu/ft of carbon.

 

That's not how it works though, just because it changes to a gas doesn't make it lighter overall, it's just more spread out. Carbon weighs 3/4 of what oxygen does.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Well done to Malachy Tallack on tonights Good Evening Shetland, you hit the nail right on the head.

Shetland Councillors need to listen to the growing opposition to this monstrosity, threatening the very "Essence" of Shetland, and our quality of life on these Isles.