Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[paulb]

Which is why we need to preserve the Blanket Bog, not disturb it in any way, whatsoever.

 

This means not building on it, not digging it up, not using it for fuels, not walking on it, not driving on it. List is endless.

 

Construction sites should maybe be preferred on peat-less land. In places where energy consumption is high they should provide themselves with the main whack of power. Resulting in less carbon footprint all around, due to the fact you wouldn't need to look far for power.

 

how do you heat your home. we cut peat as do many.

blanket bog is only the result of global climate change from a warmer dryer earth to a cooler wetter one. So if its going to warm up the bogs will decay away.

 

how do you think your energy needs are going to be met if we don't have turbines.

 

and if you look out of the window the next time your on a drive you will see there is little virgin peat about. A rough examination shows peat disturbance in virtually every field.

 

most turbine farms have commitments to restore massive areas of peat/moor land. this is vastly better for the wildlife than abandoned hill tops. which by the way is very nearly here due to the reduction in livestock on Shetland.

[OriginalUsername]

Why should we destroy Shetlands landscape when energy efficiency and emissions feature so low on the priority list of some of the fast emerging nations.

 

I take it that by "landscape" you mean "view of the landscape," because, as a few of us have pointed out - the peatlands are already deteriorating. They are a net carbon emitter on the proposed wind farm site. The wind farm would provide the finance to invest in preserving and enhancing the peat. It would help contribute towards lowering carbon emissions and movement towards energy security too.

 

I don't like the attitude of "X & Y countries are developing - so it's their fault and their responsibility." Simple fact of the matter is - we STILL have a much larger carbon footprint here in Britain per person than any of the developing countries (most often cited - China for example). It is not just OUR responsibility, it is EVERYONE's responsibility to do something about this. I, personally, would argue that considering the amount of carbon emissions per head in the Western world and the luxuries we enjoy, it is MORE our responsibility than "theirs" - afterall, we are the template of what luxuries development could afford the citizens of a country. We've been leading by example for a long time now - let's try to better that example.

[JAStewart]

^I do agree with your point regarding "developing nations aren't doing it".

 

Its like saying "Why shouldn't I litter? Millions of others do it"

[Infiltrator]

^I do agree with your point regarding "developing nations aren't doing it".

 

Its like saying "Why shouldn't I litter? Millions of others do it"

 

Not strictly, littering is an offence and I can see the impact and know it's wrong, carbon emissions on the other hand....

 

Now where's my patio heater

[PJ of Hildisvik]

In a warming climate more need for power guzzling air conditioning units.

BUT ground source heat pumps can be used to cool homes as well as heat them.

This is where money should be spent, on energy conservation, not on digging up our hills for a few people to profit from the devastation of Shetlands natural enviroment.

[OriginalUsername]

^ Ground source heat pumps are a fantastic idea. And what better way to pay for them to be installed in every household in Shetland than community benefit payments from the wind farm?

[sheepshagger]

If you go to holland and denmark then you'll find turbines in the middle of industrial areas that are using the power, so if folks want to cite those countries as examples then surely they should agree that that is precisely where they should be built, they whole southeast coast of england is also shallow waters with good steady predictable winds an ideal environment for windmills

[paulb]

excelent idea. 7 grand each soon run through the money that way pj. there are 7,500 households in shetland with you great gift you have spent 52,500,000 on the pumps alone.

the few do you mean the 22000 on shetland or the few million in scotland or the 60 million in the uk or the billions on the earth.

 

pray tell how i insulate a 150 year old croft house. no cavities very little loft space. its easy to insulate and heat modern houses thats why the grants are aimed at them.

a ground or air pump gives background heat which would do the job in a thermaly sealed house but it would be a waste in ours.

[CrunchieSquirrel]

My question is:

 

What's the point of having a big windfarm and enormous windmills? I think it's a waste of money and landscape.

[JustMe]

The point about the Shetland wind farm is that we have some of the best winds in the UK so we could well get a lot more electricity from each generator and with an interconnecting cable to the UK mainland could "export" surplus energy during windy times and import energy when it was calm thus meaning the Gremista power station could be closed down.

 

Now there is one thing I am very clear about. If having wind generators in Shetland is going to do something worthwhile to combat global warming then I am happy to see them on every hilltop. My problem is that little word "if". Sadly I am not convinced that building, maintaining and removing the wind farm and the cable will really do that much to help compared to perhaps a few more wind turbines, producing electricity from waste products at Sullom Voe and improving the Gremista power station.

 

I am also very nervous about relying on the cable to the mainland for our electricity considering the fishing and oil exploration work going on in the North Sea and the potential time it would take to repair the cable.

 

So yes, a good idea if all the figures stack up but I remain to be convinced about them

[PJ of Hildisvik]

There will be a new "smokey" built regardless if we had a 1000turbines on the hills.

[paulb]

the gas is going to come in at sullom so why not pay for there turbine to be expanded and if for some reason we needed backup power then we could use gas which is a lot cleaner than oil.

but maybe we don't want any change and were fine with millions dying.

[ArabiaTerra]

The point about the Shetland wind farm is that we have some of the best winds in the UK so we could well get a lot more electricity from each generator and with an interconnecting cable to the UK mainland could "export" surplus energy during windy times and import energy when it was calm thus meaning the Gremista power station could be closed down.

 

Now there is one thing I am very clear about. If having wind generators in Shetland is going to do something worthwhile to combat global warming then I am happy to see them on every hilltop. My problem is that little word "if". Sadly I am not convinced that building, maintaining and removing the wind farm and the cable will really do that much to help compared to perhaps a few more wind turbines, producing electricity from waste products at Sullom Voe and improving the Gremista power station.

 

I am also very nervous about relying on the cable to the mainland for our electricity considering the fishing and oil exploration work going on in the North Sea and the potential time it would take to repair the cable.

 

So yes, a good idea if all the figures stack up but I remain to be convinced about them

To answer a couple of your points, JustMe. There are no waste products burned at Sullom. The gas which is burned at Sullom is injected into the oil to give Sullom fuel to power it, if it wasn't it would be piped to St Fergus and into the British Gas grid which provides natural gas on the mainland.

 

Secondly, You think that running a coal fired station on the mainland will do less environmental damage than a windfarm and cable up here? 300+MW for 25 years. The carbon cost of building the windfarm will be less than building the same capacity of coal fired station as the prime mover (the wind) costs nothing compared to the prime mover on a coal fired station (boiler + steam engine). Then you have the running costs. Each megawatt of wind power costs nothing (carbonwise) while every megawatt from a coal fired station costs 3 tonnes of CO2 (approximately) for every tonne of coal burned.

 

Thirdly, the cable will be vulnerable to shipping principally something like the Brear incident where a drifting large ship drops anchor and drags it over the cable. This is a good argument for banning large shipping from using the Fair Isle channel, something which the environmentalists have been after ever since the Brear incident. And an all round good thing in my opinion.

There will be a new "smokey" built regardless if we had a 1000turbines on the hills.

Yes, PJ, and it will be run on a care and maintenance basis. Which means it will be fired up for maybe an hour every month, just to make sure it still works "just in case". A huge difference from the 24/7 running Gremista and Sullom do at the moment.

 

So, JustMe, the environmental case for the windfarm is overwhelming compared to the alternative.

[ArabiaTerra]

My question is:

 

What's the point of having a big windfarm and enormous windmills? I think it's a waste of money and landscape.

Glbal Warming, doglover, I suggest you do some reading. This is a good place to start.

[JustMe]

ArabiaTerra wrote

Secondly, You think that running a coal fired station on the mainland will do less environmental damage than a windfarm and cable up here? 300+MW for 25 years. The carbon cost of building the windfarm will be less than building the same capacity of coal fired station as the prime mover (the wind) costs nothing compared to the prime mover on a coal fired station (boiler + steam engine). Then you have the running costs. Each megawatt of wind power costs nothing (carbonwise) while every megawatt from a coal fired station costs 3 tonnes of CO2 (approximately) for every tonne of coal burned.

 

Well no, I did not say that. The alternative to a wind farm on Shetland is by no means automatically coal fired power stations on the mainland. Wind, wave, solar, hydro and tidal are of course the ones I would like to see but nuclear is an option as I guess is clean oil, coal or gas. Prisoners on a treadmill if you prefer.

 

Guess I am not convinced that the entire carbon footprint of building a big windfarm in Shetland has been properly explained with issues like loss of peat bogs and the cost in carbon terms of constructing the thing being, at least to me, unclear. And of course I do worry about the problems we could face if the interconnector was severed.

 

Sadly to protect a cable we would need to ban shipping from the Fair Isle Channel and the Pentland Firth and somehow I do not see that happening so a cable will remain vulnerable. And I still want to understand about the line loss over such a distance.