Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[crofter]

So you don't believe that any windfarm anywhere is any help with global warming?

 

No.

[Michael]

 

No.

 

Why?

[crofter]

 

No.

 

Why?

 

Rising population will drive CO2 up regardless of how many turbines are erected.

[ArabiaTerra]

No.

Why?

Rising population will drive CO2 up regardless of how many turbines are erected.

Now that's just a ridiculous answer.

 

CO2 will only rise if we generate the power for that population by burning fossil fuels. So how do we generate that power without burning fossil fuels? By using windmills, tidal, wave, solar and nuclear.

 

The only way the CO2 will rise is if we don't build windmills.

[crofter]

I think crofter is trying to prompt some sort of rant,

 

 

Not at all, as I said before (probably in the 40s or 50s pages of this thread) myself and AT will never agree about the CO2 costs or benefits. Look at Germany. Or Denmark. Both have massive wind energy sectors, neither has reduced their CO2 emissions. How many Scottish coal fired power stations are earmarked for closure if the windfarm goes ahead? None. At best, it could be argued that there will be slightly less CO2 produced than there otherwise would have been, but total emissions will continue to rise.

 

My argument is that CO2 is a side issue, and we should not support Viking Energy unless there are tangible financial benefits for Shetland.

[crofter]

 

How would we sort this out, do you have any realistic suggestions or just provoking a response?

 

Everybody should consume less. Much less. Easy to say, I know. And unlikely to happen...

[Ghostrider]

Let's say, hypothetically, that the Council decided not to go ahead but SSE and VE picked up the councils share and the farm was going to be built anyway, with no council money and no community benefit. Would you then object to it?

 

This cannot happen unless the Council are damn fools enough to sell of gift ownership of the site to VE.

 

The Council are a, if not the major landowner upon which the proposed farm would sit. The Council do not need to spend one penny, and Viking Energy in its present form are un-necessary for the farm to make a damn good income for Shetland.

 

If those who are backing it would just blink a few times to clear the £££ signs from in front of their eyes and give their unbridled a greed a day off they might just see SSE laughing up their sleeve at them, and that a no risk/no investment/no work route made a whole lot more sense.

 

*If* this is such a brilliant investment as the pros would have us believe, and *if* SSE are as gung ho for it as we're also led to believe, let them get on with it. If everything we've been told about profitability is anywhere near the truth SSE should jump at the, and we lose not control of anything, the council leases the site to them on terms acceptable to Shetland, and only does so for an annual rental acceptable to Shetland. As things stand there are only two apparent reasons why the Council are still going ahead with risking our money, 1) Pure greed to get the jackpot which is leading them to take un-necessary financial risks, and make unsound financial decisions. Or, 2) The profitability of the farm and/or SSE's belief in and willingness to invest are at best being grossly overstated, and the only way its going to get off the ground is for the Council to take half the load. Either way, they're as bad as each other.

 

Granted, *if* it was wholly SSE owned and run and was as profitable as predicted the annual cheque from SSE would be less than if Shetland owned the proposed 45% or whatever it is, but that cheque would be 100% clean, no risk, no investment profit to do with as we see fit. Does taking the "free" money and running not make a whole lot more sense than putting your shirt on it and praying like hell its a winner, it sure does to me. The former is accepted good business practice, the latter is a recognised symptom of a compulsive gambler.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

This windfarm will do nothing for tackling emmissions, has everybody forgot that there will be a brand new power station built here regardless whether the WF gets built or not.

[ArabiaTerra]

Oh, yeah, damn, I forgot about that. That new power station that will be running flat out, 24 hrs/day.

 

Oh, hang on, it won't.

[OriginalUsername]

So, let's say we have a bucket sitting under a gushing tap (which we all turned on) and if that bucket overflows, the world ends.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't even bother using a jug to empty out some of the water? Yes, said jug is only one jug and it may have very little effect on the water level right now, because the tap is really going flaaaat oot... but it WILL have an effect.

 

And if everyone stops being such stubborn buggers and decides to actually do their part, this one jug could be followed by another jug from a different source, and another jug from another and so on until the water stays level or even starts to go down.

 

And of course, we ought to work on shutting off this tap, or at least keeping it from gushing quite so violently, that is also very important, or the need for jug after jug after jug will be too much.

 

Both aspects are crucial - it's too late to try to unstick the roosty tap before the bucket overflows without at least emptying some of the water out.

 

I totally disagree that this windfarm will mean nothing in the face of global warming. Every jug of water, is a jug of freaking water. Honestly, it makes me die a little inside to hear from the people who are dooming our future with this nonsense.

[Guest Anonymous]

Could anybody give me even an approximate figure on how effective the 5 wind generaters have been on reducing co2 emmisions ?

Surely the true measure of thier effectiveness is the number of tonnes of diesel the lerwick power station has not had to burn since they were erected , of course minus the amount of tonnes of diesel it took to erect them in the first place .

 

I look forward to being given some approximate figures

[MuckleJoannie]

^^^

 

From the Viking Energy site

 

Based on industry averages, the five turbines at Burradale displace electricity that would be otherwise be produced at a power station and so save over 6,200 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions, 76 tonnes of Sulphur Dioxide emissions and 26 tonnes of Nitrous Oxide emissions every year.

 

[crofter]

So, let's say we have a bucket sitting under a gushing tap (which we all turned on) and if that bucket overflows, the world ends.

 

Good analogy. Except the world is not going to end.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that we shouldn't even bother using a jug to empty out some of the water? Yes, said jug is only one jug and it may have very little effect on the water level right now, because the tap is really going flaaaat oot... but it WILL have an effect.

 

Where is the proof that the windfarm will result in less CO2 emissions? I am suggesting that instead of building windfarms to allow us to carry on our wasteful western consumer driven economies we should get a big stilson and crank the tap back to a dribble.

 

 

 

 

Both aspects are crucial - it's too late to try to unstick the roosty tap before the bucket overflows without at least emptying some of the water out.

 

Sadly, I believe the bucket will overflow - the windfarm is more like a teaspoon than a jug. Every country in every corner of the world is pointing more and more hoses at the thing even as we type. But that doesn't mean we're all doomed....

[crofter]

^^^

 

From the Viking Energy site

 

Based on industry averages,

 

Why base it on industry averages? Why not base it on diesel, which is what they are maybe not using quite so much of at Lerwick? It would be interesting to know whether this is actual electricity produced, or if it is based on 3.68MW (peak capacity)

[OriginalUsername]

Good analogy. Except the world is not going to end.

 

That rather depends what you mean by the world ending. I meant life as we know it undergoing a drastic change on a worldwide scale - effectively, an "end" to our current "world." In that sense, the world is going to end.

 

 

Where is the proof that the windfarm will result in less CO2 emissions? I am suggesting that instead of building windfarms to allow us to carry on our wasteful western consumer driven economies we should get a big stilson and crank the tap back to a dribble.

 

First of all, your question is faulty. What do you mean by "less CO2 emissions"? Do you mean that we would see a statistical difference on a worldwide scale if this windfarm was built - i.e. we would see the water in the bucket go down? Of course we wouldn't - but that doesn't matter - to use your analogy of the teaspoon instead of the jug... logic STILL dictates that every teaspoon is a freaking teaspoon. You simply can't get around that.

 

OK, so simple logic dictates that this windfarm will have an effect, it may not be perceivable in terms of numbers on a global scale, but many teaspoons and other implements (the other implements in this case standing for other sources of power besides wind) will join it and together, these things will be crucial in reducing CO2 emissions.

 

Where is your proof that that this windfarm will have no effect? I find that difficult to comprehend, unless logic fails me.

 

I 100% agree that we all have to cut back on our lifestyles. However, I also believe that we humans have a fatal flaw - we're all big fat hypocrites. If you feel so strongly about this, what are you doing on an internet forum? Surely that's a helluva wasteful way to go about living. It's hardly needed in your daily life...

 

I'm not trying to pick at you here, just saying, it's all well and good to argue that we need to cut back on our wasteful lifestyles, but the simple fact of the matter is this: we're not doing it. What we are doing, is trying to build a windfarm and hopefully many more non-CO2 based energy schemes in order to minimize the damage until we get our silly little human minds around the changes that HAVE to take place.

 

Sadly, I believe the bucket will overflow - the windfarm is more like a teaspoon than a jug. Every country in every corner of the world is pointing more and more hoses at the thing even as we type. But that doesn't mean we're all doomed....

 

USA and UK are still the big bad culprits in terms of amount of energy used per person - there seems to be a lot of blame being shoved at other countries for following in our rich footsteps and for producing the products that we buy. Hmm.

 

Just because one rides a bike near a cliff edge in the mist doesn't mean one is doomed - still, it might be wise to get a torch, or foglights, or to slow down, or even, to stop riding the damn thing in such a stupid place. Personally, I'd recommend all of those things...