Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

^Maybe he's passionate enough to write letters in support of the wind farm?

 

Or is 'Onion St' a red herring? - if you get my drift..

You may think so.... I couldn't possibly comment.

[ArabiaTerra]

And that, I feel, is the crucial polarised point that think has been wholly misrepresented. For instance, there are other windfarm plans on the table, whether VE goes ahead or not. The interconnector deployment should be based on, not just VE but, the whole future energy potential of Shetland, which includes windfarms throughout the isles, tidal, wave, excess production from the power station at SVT and even the reduced cost of running the Gremista power station. Compile a complete overview of the other developments that will come, guaranteed, and re-structure VE to suit. You could probably knock off more than a third, perhaps more than half, of the turbines and still have the interconnector fully justified. Compromise. I would suggest anyone writing to the Energy Consents people emphasise this point and not these narrow and polarised accounts of the possibilities. In my humble opinion.

But do you actually think "sustainable" Shetland would be happy with 100 turbines, or even 75? I don't. And they have never stated (to my knowledge, anyway) what would be acceptable to them (apart from no large turbines at all).

 

If we could get the interconnector for less turbines, then I would be happy to look at that. But even if you did go for multiple smaller turbines at multiple sites, this will still mean roads and quarries through the hill, multiple sites will mean more disruption to more birds. And how do we know that "sustainable" Shetland will not start bleating on about the neesiks, whales and seabirds as soon as anyone starts seriously talking about wave and tidal power? They haven't said anything about this yet, one way or the other, but how do we know they won't. The only alternative they seem willing to discuss is some vague waffle about "community" schemes.

 

Whatever we do will carry a cost, both to the environment and to the amenities of the people living nearby. My central argument is that this cost will be considerably less than doing nothing.

[Fifi]

Are you passionate enough about it to put your name to your posts?

^Maybe he's passionate enough to write letters in support of the wind farm?

 

Or is 'Onion St' a red herring? - if you get my drift..

You may think so.... I couldn't possibly comment.

I take it that's a no then.

[Grafter]

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/June/letters/Every%20voice%20counts.htm should give you a clue as to AT really is!

[Njugle]

But do you actually think "sustainable" Shetland would be happy with 100 turbines, or even 75? I don't. And they have never stated (to my knowledge, anyway) what would be acceptable to them (apart from no large turbines at all).

 

If we could get the interconnector for less turbines, then I would be happy to look at that. But even if you did go for multiple smaller turbines at multiple sites, this will still mean roads and quarries through the hill, multiple sites will mean more disruption to more birds. And how do we know that "sustainable" Shetland will not start bleating on about the neesiks, whales and seabirds as soon as anyone starts seriously talking about wave and tidal power? They haven't said anything about this yet, one way or the other, but how do we know they won't. The only alternative they seem willing to discuss is some vague waffle about "community" schemes.

 

Whatever we do will carry a cost, both to the environment and to the amenities of the people living nearby. My central argument is that this cost will be considerably less than doing nothing.

 

Where do you get these ideas? It's too late for me to discuss any of the points in this individually tonight but suffice to say: Poppycock! I'll be more specific tomorrow, but for now, less turbines =more disruption to birds? Whit?!! And bluntly, Sustainable Shetland may have some wonderful or some terribkle ideas, that doesn't matter. You are still approaching the issue as a battle and regarding them as the enemy. I'm making the point that the best thing for Shetland (and humanity if you like!) may not be currently being proposed by either party.

[Ghostrider]

.....without selling our souls to VE we are all damned to suffer eternal purgatory of reduced lifestyle and services expense and the 'sinful' torment of not having done everything we could have to done to save humanity.

 

The more VE and its supporters speak, and the longer they speak the more I'm being attracted to this counterpoint worst case scenario.

 

My soul (if I can mind where I left him ) isn't for sale, to VE or anyone else, and I'd hardly consider a reduced lifestyle and/or services an eternal purgatory, having to put up with the monstrosity the VE are proposing and the pigs ear the council will make of running it, even if despite them it ends up bringing in £! Million per day to Shetland, would be far nearer my definition of eternal purgatory. As far as humanity, and I use the term very loosely, given how many who come under its umbrella behave on a daily basis, I'm not wholly opposed to a cull.

 

As far as I can see at some point in the 20th Century if not much sooner the maximum "safe" world population of homo sapiens on this bit of space debris was exceeded. So what if global warming is neutralised, as long as we go on breeding at current rates it'll be some other and even more difficult issue that crops up in a few years, there is simply far too many of us demanding too much from too little, and while we may be able to postpone the inevitable, it will eventually get us on our current course, and the longer the postponement is, the greater the destruction will be when it finaly overwhelms us.

 

Things have already gone so far that letting nature fight back and redress the balance with climate change now, for whatever reason it is happening, if it is indeed happening at all, will not be pretty and its goes against the grain of human compassion, but I'd see it as being cruel to be kind. Stalling that which may prune our numbers in the foreseeable future will just result in some other more brutal, more difficult to counter and more devastating occurance in the slightly longer term future. We cannot "win" as long as we multiply like we are and make the ever increasing demands we are on finite resources.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Mr Ghostrider , that was probably the best thing I have read regarding the windfarm and the greater issues surrounding it .

Thankyou .

[ArabiaTerra]

.... but for now, less turbines =more disruption to birds? Whit?!!

Actually, that's not what I said:

... multiple sites will mean more disruption to more birds.

[Njugle]

But the multiple sites will be coming regardless of the current size of VE. A reduction in VE is a reduction in disruption in that ecosystem and community.

 

AND the interconnector can be justified with a smaller version of VE, if the whole picture is considered. It's not an all or nothing scenario, though VE and Sustainable Shetland would have you believe so.

[ArabiaTerra]

.... As far as humanity, and I use the term very loosely, given how many who come under its umbrella behave on a daily basis, I'm not wholly opposed to a cull.

 

As far as I can see at some point in the 20th Century if not much sooner the maximum "safe" world population of homo sapiens on this bit of space debris was exceeded. So what if global warming is neutralised, as long as we go on breeding at current rates it'll be some other and even more difficult issue that crops up in a few years, there is simply far too many of us demanding too much from too little, and while we may be able to postpone the inevitable, it will eventually get us on our current course, and the longer the postponement is, the greater the destruction will be when it finaly overwhelms us.

 

Things have already gone so far that letting nature fight back and redress the balance with climate change now, for whatever reason it is happening, if it is indeed happening at all, will not be pretty and its goes against the grain of human compassion, but I'd see it as being cruel to be kind. Stalling that which may prune our numbers in the foreseeable future will just result in some other more brutal, more difficult to counter and more devastating occurance in the slightly longer term future. We cannot "win" as long as we multiply like we are and make the ever increasing demands we are on finite resources.

I find this part of this post both astonishing and disturbing and I'm going to respond to it, just not right now and not on this thread.

 

But,... Jesus wept!

[cheryl.hughson]

Ghost rider has a very solid point though on the fact as long as humans are here, destruction is inevitable. Giving the need to build more shelter for the ever-increasing population and this conversation could go on.

 

Unfortunately the idea of a cull would be inhumane! But it never stopped us from wiping out several species just because of what a pest they were or how tasty the meat was or the fact humans encroached into their habitats.

 

So now we're planning to evict Shetland's local birds from their own habitats because we want to put giant wind turbines there to feed our greedy lifestyles? When the bird population is already decreasing dangerously. But giving our human nature we don't care as long as we can continue with all our "important" leisures like watching TV, or driving our cars for the 5 minutes walk to the shop.

[ArabiaTerra]

But the multiple sites will be coming regardless of the current size of VE. A reduction in VE is a reduction in disruption in that ecosystem and community.

But these multiple sites will all require quarries, roads, foundations and lots of peat removed, so why aren't "sustainable" Shetland opposing them? This has always struck me as being a bit hypocritical. (And if the peat is so precious, why aren't they opposed to cutting it for fuel? Digging it up and burning it is far more destructive than digging it up and moving it.)

AND the interconnector can be justified with a smaller version of VE, if the whole picture is considered. It's not an all or nothing scenario, though VE and Sustainable Shetland would have you believe so.

But can it? Do you know what size power output would make the interconnector viable? I don't. Wave and tidal aren't ready for deployment on the kind of large scale necessary yet, so it would mean delaying the project for years. We don't have years. And as I pointed out above, wave and tidal are going to come with a whole set of environmental impacts of their own. We've all seen the furore caused by the clubbing of a few seal pups. Tidal turbines at least seem likely to provoke even more controversy concerning seals and cetaceans as wind turbines do with birds. They're already conducting research into this. Now these things may turn out to be harmless, but they may also turn out to be death traps for marine life and that could throw their whole future into question, either way the research necessary will take years, and we can't afford to waste those years waiting to find out.

 

But, ultimately, this debate in this post is irrelevant. The offer on the table is VE, take it or leave it. That's the choice we have to make. I say go for it.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Lets face it AT, you dont want debate unless everybody is seen preaching from your "Hymn book".

Why can't you reply to Ghostrider on here??

[ArabiaTerra]

So now we're planning to evict Shetland's local birds from their own habitats because we want to put giant wind turbines there to feed our greedy lifestyles? When the bird population is already decreasing dangerously. But giving our human nature we don't care as long as we can continue with all our "important" leisures like watching TV, or driving our cars for the 5 minutes walk to the shop.

Fair point, Cheryl. Have you ditched your tv, sold your car? Have you changed your "greedy" lifestyle? I still have a tv, but I don't use it (not since the iplayer launched), I don't own a car, I haven't been on a plane in nearly 10 years. I've made an effort to reduce my impact, have you? My point is, my carbon footprint is still 4.5 tonnes/year, double the global average and that's just for my heater, shower, fridgefreezer, cooker and washing machine, the basics, so to speak (oh, yeah, and the computer). This is because all my electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. The windfarm will change that, not just for me, but for you and everyone else in Shetland, Orkney and a chunk of Northern Scotland (subject to the variability of the wind, of course). We've can change the way we live up to a point, but then we've also got to stop burning fossil fuels.

 

What other alternative is there? What would you suggest?

 

(BTW, the average UK annual carbon footprint is around 12 tonnes, in the US it's nearer 20. The global average is 2 tonnes a year.)

[Sudden Stop]

Lets face it AT, you dont want debate unless everybody is seen preaching from your "Hymn book".

Why can't you reply to Ghostrider on here??

 

Ghostrider's post about the planet being overrun isn't really revelent to the farming of wind or the not farming of wind IN SHETLAND. It is a interesting problem to be discussed, but I agree with AT - not here.