Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[paulb]

Hmm, maybe I should give up my postal vote and islanders ferry card...

Well if I can vote whilst away from Shetland I'm sure my opinion is as valid as a current resident. Shetland is still my home.

then your still a Shetland resident and have a say,

[OriginalUsername]

It's not necessary to know who anyone is here. However.. this is a big > and very important issue being discussed all over Shetland and outwith at the moment. There have been quite polarised views published from both extremes of the debate and, for those polarised views, it can be illuminating to know who the author is - quite often people who have close connections to VE or Sustainable Shetland..

 

I'm a firm believer that everyone - whether connected to VE or Sustainable Shetland in some way or not - should be able to say what they, personally, think on this, regardless of family/friend connections - it's too important an issue. If someone is writing with evangelical or fanatical fervour about something, then, especially when it's something as important as this, any close connection the author has can be illuminating and the informed reader can take that into account and make their own mind up.

 

Evangelical fanatical fervour eh? If that's your bag, I think you might be more interested in pursuing "Da Auld Een" who is currently a little more interested in the ol' fire and brimstone than I'll ever be! You know, unless his damning ever realises itself...

 

As for telling you who I am? Well, you already know that. But I can PM you if you're not sure?

 

I agree with you that every argument ought to be equally valid, but, in my opinion, if that's the case then it shouldn't matter who said it - it's the content of the argument that matters. Surely points, as long as they're true, stand alone?

 

It's curious to me that, here on Shetlink, where we have the opportunity to raise the tone of the debate by removing most of the muddy waters (such as the intensely human need to judge on a personal basis) around the cold, hard, facts, you're advocating that we start muddying the waters again?

 

I'm sure this wasn't your intention, but in my experience an interest in the people behind the debate is often just an excuse to dismiss the arguments that they've put forward (or not put forward).

 

Sustainable Shetland has used this tactic a number of times already and I think we all ought to be wary of it. In the press, they've already dismissed the opinions of quite a few people based on the most tedious connections with Viking Energy, even going as far as claiming that 4000-5000 (!) council workers haven't signed their petition because of work connections and, by implication, the calibre of the people themselves (surely they're all a little too cowardly to put pen to paper...)

 

And, if my memory serves me right, in a letter on the Shetland News, Billy Fox even argued that his points are relevant because he's a fine person and those who know him can attest to that. I imagine this is true. Billy is probably quite a nice person - certainly, he seems like a fair enough kind of guy. But if this is meant to be an argument in favour of his cause? Nice person maybe, but a very poor debater!

 

It's an unfortunate route to go down because these kind of arguments don't weaken the arguments of those they are directed against. If anything, they demonstrate a weakness in the arguments of those using them.

 

A good debate should be conducted on the basis of points, not people. And that's what *tends* to keep the tone of the Shetlink wind farm debate a little higher than the tone in some of the other public spheres.

 

Even if it turned out I was Bill Manson's personal bootlicker, as long as my points aren't lies, I don't think it would matter. And I don't lie - any rubbish I spout is purely the result of ignorance on my part and please, feel free to show me the light!

 

So let's just deal with the arguments, not the people. There's already been enough bickering in public and in the press about motivations but motivations don't challenge facts, so let's not bring such poor debating form here as well.

[ArabiaTerra]

I completely agree with OriginalUsername above. The debate should be about the facts, not the person. Though if you still feel you need my name before giving my arguments weight, Fiona, then PM me and I'll reveal all. I will repeat here though, I have no connection whatsoever with anyone who has anything to do with VE. In fact, I don't even know the people apart from Aaron Priest, who is a passing acquaintance. The rest, I wouldn't even recognise if I passed them on the street.

 

Similarly, "sustainable" Shetland. I know who Billy Fox is after being introduced at the Islesburgh windfarm exhibition, but I don't know any of the rest except by reputation, and by what they've published in the local press.

[ArabiaTerra]

From BBC News this morning: "Energy policy 'too wind focused'"

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8146824.stm

Pretty much what I'd expect to hear from the CBI. As the report goes on to say:

Andrew Warren, director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy and formerly a member of the CBI's energy policy committee, told the BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin that the increase in wind power was threatening to the big power generators who he said dominated the committee.

 

"This document is no surprise. EDF have been lobbying very hard for less obligations on renewables, saying it will distract from nuclear," he said.

The trouble with nuclear is that even if we started building it now, it wouldn't be ready until the 2020 at the earliest. With the current planning system and the (mistaken, IMHO) environmental lobby against it, you can add 5-10 years to that. The nuclear new build should have started 10 years ago. It's too late for it to make a meaningful contribution now.

 

The latest research indicates that, to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, we need to start reducing our CO2 emissions by 2015 at the latest. Wind is the only technology mature enough to do this, coupled, of course, with drastic improvements in efficiency.

 

As for "clean coal", it is a myth and will remain so until a working demonstration plant is constructed that doesn't require half the output of the power station to power it. No such thing is even on the horizon.

[unlinkedstudent]

The trouble with nuclear is that even if we started building it now, it wouldn't be ready until the 2020 at the earliest. With the current planning system and the (mistaken, IMHO) environmental lobby against it, you can add 5-10 years to that. The nuclear new build should have started 10 years ago. It's too late for it to make a meaningful contribution now.

 

The latest research indicates that, to avoid dangerous levels of climate change, we need to start reducing our CO2 emissions by 2015 at the latest. Wind is the only technology mature enough to do this, coupled, of course, with drastic improvements in efficiency.

 

As for "clean coal", it is a myth and will remain so until a working demonstration plant is constructed that doesn't require half the output of the power station to power it. No such thing is even on the horizon.

 

Crikes, I can think of many "troubles" with nuclear; one being the fact that nuclear power stations were built in the first place! Many of the nuclear power stations in the UK have long exceeded their "lives" - they were built for so many years and many have gone say 25 years over their expected lifespan.

[OriginalUsername]

I have no strong views either way. Shetland Isles are made up of 100 different islands only 15 inhabited cant the turbines be built on the other 85?

 

As far as I'm aware, they're being built on the Central Mainland because there are no designated conservation sites in this area. There are conservation sites on a lot of the uninhabited Isles however. The site was picked in conjunction with groups such as RSPB to limit the impact on wildlife.

 

 

Trying my darnedest to stay out of this eenoo, but have to respond to this point.

 

The area was chose, unless I'm greatly mistaken, because it had already been designated as suitable for wind farm development under the local planning outline guidance (I forget the official name) some time previously. A bird expert was then contracted (in a lucrative manner) to perform a survey on the area to assess the level of bird activity, particularly of protected species, with a view to creating corridors for rain geese to reach the lochs and so that no individual turbine was placed directly on a known merlin nest site. I have no recollection of mention of the RSPB being directly involved in this process, correct me if I'm wrong.

More recently the local bird club and another org have, I am told, voted to object to the wind farm as it stands, the RSPB have yet to comment on it directly, though they recently spoke in favour of wind farms as a means to reduce carbon emission, generally.

 

When I said "conjunction" perhaps I should have used the word "consultation" instead!

 

Just copying and pasting from the Viking EIA might save explanations as to how the site was chosen:

 

"The site selection process involved three stages. Firstly, the site needed to be shown to be commercially viable for the wind farm. This involved looking for a site where the wind resource was sufficient to justify the investment in infrastructure; where the opporunitiy existed to connect the wind farm to the electricity grid to export the energy generated; and where the environmental conditions had not resulted in designation under the highest level classifications (for example Special Protection Areas in respect of birds, or World Heritage Sites in respect of cultural heritage).

 

Secondly, it had to be technically feasible to construct a wind farm on the site. Important factors include ground and soil conditions, access studies to assess the local road network; consultation with landowner and occupier interests; more detailed assessments of the grid connection possibilities and the wind resource (including monitoring using on-site instruments); and consultations with relevant organisations including Shetland Islands Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services and others. Because Viking Energy Partnership already knew that ornithological issues would be important, an early programme of bird monitoring was instituted at this time.

 

Stage 3 comprised the undertaking of an EIA to inform the detailed design of the wind farm and associated ancillary works, along with other technical considerations."

 

So there we have it. A whole slester o' reasons it was chosen!

[Fifi]

Evangelical fanatical fervour eh? If that's your bag, I think you might be more interested in pursuing "Da Auld Een" who is currently a little more interested in the ol' fire and brimstone than I'll ever be! You know, unless his damning ever realises itself...

 

As for telling you who I am? Well, you already know that. But I can PM you if you're not sure?

Cripes! Chill oot, Dude. Yer obviously primed and ready for defence against maurauding attackers comin atcha from all angles...

 

It’s not meant as an attack. I imagined that someone as full of conviction as you who has already written in the local media, and put your name to it, as well as posting repeatedly here on this issue, wouldn’t have any problem with people knowing who you are, and that therefore you could be perceived as having an interest, being closely related to a VE director. No big deal.

[Ichorus]

Evangelical fanatical fervour eh? If that's your bag, I think you might be more interested in pursuing "Da Auld Een" who is currently a little more interested in the ol' fire and brimstone than I'll ever be! You know, unless his damning ever realises itself...

 

As for telling you who I am? Well, you already know that. But I can PM you if you're not sure?

Cripes! Chill oot, Dude. Yer obviously primed and ready for defence against maurauding attackers comin atcha from all angles...

 

It’s not meant as an attack. I imagined that someone as full of conviction as you who has already written in the local media, and put your name to it, as well as posting repeatedly here on this issue, wouldn’t have any problem with people knowing who you are, and that therefore you could be perceived as having an interest, being closely related to a VE director. No big deal.

 

Anonymity is the name of the game really on Forums otherwise everyone would have their names on here.

 

I'm sure if this person has links to VE or not that they would still have such conviction and strong opinion for this project. Knowing either way only helps the people with small minds.

 

[Fifi]

Anonymity is the name of the game really on Forums otherwise everyone would have their names on here.

There's the choice for anonymity or not. Not everyone in forums chooses to be anonymous. There are forums where people post under their own names - shock horror!

I'm sure if this person has links to VE or not that they would still have such conviction and strong opinion for this project. Knowing either way only helps the people with small minds.

Your opinion. I disagree.

[justsomeguy]

Emphasis on CHOOSING to name themselves! not seemingly being FORCED to name themselves!

 

what do names have to do with this debate anyway. As said earlier, it's the facts (sometimes) that are being discussed in this thread. Simples.

 

honestly, seems like some people on here won't be happy until all supporters of this project are named, shamed and burnt at the stake.

 

[OriginalUsername]

^ I'm sorry if I seemed defensive in any way Fifi, it wasn't intended and I'm certainly not ashamed to admit my family ties. As you pointed out, I haven't been ashamed to put my name to things in the past and I'm quite happy to talk in person about the project.

 

Still, it's unfortunate that you seem to have entirely missed my point about Shetlink. I may not be ashamed of my family, but I'm aware that some people would happily pounce on them as an excuse to dismiss my arguments, or in the very least, judge them in a negative light. Regardless of whether I'm talking sense or not.

 

Shetlink has always offered a unique opportunity to consider arguments and arguments alone. Your need to drag my family ties into the mix is worrying. Time would surely be better spent debating the actual proposal rather than on churlish matters like these!

 

No doubt I'm reading too much into your actions, but if something is "no big deal" then most people don't go out of their way to drag it out and discuss it like you've done here. Surely if the Viking proposal is the real big deal then you would spend your time discussing it rather than who I may or may not happen to share a gene-pool with?

 

As Joe Rocks pointed out on the letters pages of the Shetland News today - some people have been very prone to fallacious arguments throughout the wind farm debate.

 

Again, to quote Mr Rocks (who quoted Wikipedia) "A fallacy is an argument which provides poor reasoning in support of its conclusion. Fallacies differ from other bad arguments in that many people find them psychologically persuasive. That is, people will mistakenly take a fallacious argument to provide good reasons to believe its conclusion. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true."

 

The idea of my family ties "enlightening" the points I make is fallacious. The emotional resonance of family matters here in Shetland gives an imagined weight to that argument, but unless, of course, the points I make are lies, my family is just an irrelevant point. Heck, even if I were lying through my teeth, it would still be better debating form if someone just proved that I was lying, rather than trying to employ personal implication as some kind of debating tool.

 

Either way, it seems you've achieved what you set out to achieve so I suppose it's irrelevant now. I'm only sorry that the waters of this debate have been further muddied.

 

Let's get back to the actual issue now me thinks!

[Njugle]

Secondly, it had to be technically feasible to construct a wind farm on the site. Important factors include ground and soil conditions, access studies to assess the local road network; consultation with landowner and occupier interests; more detailed assessments of the grid connection possibilities and the wind resource (including monitoring using on-site instruments); and consultations with relevant organisations including Shetland Islands Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority, National Air Traffic Services and others. Because Viking Energy Partnership already knew that ornithological issues would be important, an early programme of bird monitoring was instituted at this time.

 

[...snip...]

 

So there we have it. A whole slester o' reasons it was chosen!

 

Well, yes and no. There are no specific reasons there as to why it was located there and not somewhere else. It could just as easily have been located from sandwick and north, expanding across the hill from Lerwick to Scalloway and on up to Whiteness, with the interconnector station no doubt welcome in the industrial areas of Lerwick and easy connection to existing infrastructure, including availability of roads, harbours, wide roads to connect hill roads to, less sensitive wildlife present. There is similarly no reason there as to why a large scale development could not be spread out more over the isles, creating less localised impact and benefiting more communities, probably because the reason not-to is efficiency and efficiency is profitability and, further, still allows the hills from Scousburgh to Girlsta to remain ripe for further exploitation, (as well as North Yell, Unst, Sandness, Tresta). Etc.

 

The cursory mention of consulting with groups such as the RSPB in the earliest stages may constitute nothin more than:

VE "We would like to build a windfarm in Shetland"

RSPB "Don't kill or displace any protected birds"

VE "Okay then"

 

Bish bosh, job's a good un, we have consulted the RSPB. Great spin.

[sheepshagger]

It could also have gone,

VE. we are going to build a windfarm in shetland.

RSPB. thats not a good idea.

VE. yes it is.

No its not.

VE. yes it is.

No its not.

VE. yes it is.

No its not.

VE. yes it is.

No its not.

VE. yes it is.

No its not.

 

extensive consultation

[Michael]

Surely from the reasoned and extensive nature of originalusername's posts it's obvious that he's done a lot of thinking about it and has come to his own conclusions? I think it's quite an insulting idea that having friends or family involved the wind farm is enough to dictate someone's opinion that much. We're not all sheep!

[OriginalUsername]

people knowing who you are, and that therefore you could be perceived as having an interest, being closely related to a VE director. No big deal.

 

Oh yeah, and I'm not closely related to any VE directors. Next time might I suggest finding out who the directors actually are before passing comment!