Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[unlinkedstudent]

I hope you all had a good read of the Amenity Trust report - I thought it was excellent, and exposed some shocking flaws in VE's Environmental Impact Assessment.

A worst case scenario of more than 600 years for carbon payback just shows how shaky the environmental arguments for the windfarm actually are.

Ans what's the best case scenario, Malachy? It's funny how everyone whose opposed to this constantly bangs on about the worst case scenario. That's the one that's least likely to happen?

 

Err how do you know for 100% definite that the worst case scenario wouldn't happen then? The answer is simple - YOU DON'T.

 

[Malachy]

Ans what's the best case scenario, Malachy? It's funny how everyone whose opposed to this constantly bangs on about the worst case scenario. That's the one that's least likely to happen

 

Ok, then let's hear about the worst case scenario for climate change then. Go and look that up for a few minutes. If you are going to give any credibility to a theoretical worst case scenario for the VE project, then you must give as much credence to the worst case scenario for global warming. (which, BTW, is the complete collapse of human civilisation and the death of 3/4's of the human race.)

 

Fairs, fair. Or have you completely given up being objective on this subject?

 

I find this a very peculiar post indeed AT. Unless you have entirely ignored everything I've ever written on the subject, you will be aware that I share your pessimistic view of global warming. The collapse of civilisation and mass death seems to me a not unlikely scenario. But the wording of your post suggests that you believe the windfarm will be inherently good for the environment, regardless of the amount of Co2 produced in its construction and in its destruction of the peat. That seems to me more than illogical - it is a completely crazy point of view.

 

In fact, the worst case scenario is not the least likely one. The best case scenario is equally unlikely. The reality will lie somewhere in between. But if the Amenity Trust are correct, and VE have written a deliberately misleading EIA, which dramatically underestimates the risks and overstates the positive elements of the project, then I would feel very uneasy about anyone taking the EIA at face value. Particularly as it was compiled by people who stand to make massive financial gains if it is accepted. The trust's report is quite clear in where the flaws lie, and the worst case scenario is not something that should just be ignored because it's not likely to happen. You must bear in mind the risks before beginning such a massive project, and if there is a risk that a windfarm scheduled to last 25 years could take over 600 years to pay back the carbon it will release then that seems to me a pretty massive risk, and it is hardly surprising that the Amenity Trust, whose job it is to help protect Shetland's environment, have officially objected.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ok, I've read the report, and it's rubbish!

 

It is written with the basic assumption that should the windfarm not go ahead, the landscape will be unchanged. This_is_not_true.

 

The phrase "climate change" only appears once in the whole document:

The release of greenhouse gases, in particular CO2, is the main cause of climate change.

And that's it. No mention of the effects of climate change on the peatland, the birds, the archaeology or the tourism (you would think effect of the 1m minimum predicted sea level rise on the coastal archaeology would have rated a mention). How can the Amenity Trust possibly asses the environmental effects of the windfarm without even considering the environmental effects of climate change. It is staggering!

 

They say the VE environmental impact assesment is flawed, but it is a damned sight better than this pile of sharn.

[unlinkedstudent]

Come now AT, you're forgetting that climate change MIGHT be combatted by building windfarms nearer to consumers and not dumping one on Shetland. tut, tut.

[ArabiaTerra]

The point I am trying to make, Malachy, is that to asses the CO2 cost of the windfarm, you cannot asses it as compared to nothing happening, no CO2 being released at all. You must compare it's impact to the impact of unmitigated climate change. That's what will happen if this windfarm (and hundreds more like it) is not built.

 

To compare it to the status quo is wrong. The same applies to the assessment of the impact on the wildlife, the archaeology and everything else, because things will not stay the same, that this the one thing we can be absolutely sure will not happen.

 

If you haven't considered the impact of climate change, which the Amenity Trust haven't, then you cannot say anything meaningful about the impact of the windfarm. It's that simple.

[ArabiaTerra]

Come now AT, you're forgetting that climate change MIGHT be combatted by building windfarms nearer to consumers and not dumping one on Shetland. tut, tut.

Not so, you have to build your windfarms where the wind blows (ie: here), not where the people are. Anything else would be pointless.

[unlinkedstudent]

Come now AT, you're forgetting that climate change MIGHT be combatted by building windfarms nearer to consumers and not dumping one on Shetland. tut, tut.

Not so, you have to build your windfarms where the wind blows (ie: here), not where the people are. Anything else would be pointless.

 

Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs - so Shetland is the ONLY place in the UK where the wind blows? I never knew that.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Ha ha. ^^^^

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Oh dear AT, to call the Amenity Trusts objection rubbish is probably the most "childish" response you have come up with on this whole subject

 

Well done to the SAT and the John Muir Trust for caring for Shetland's enviroment, wildlife, and cultural heritage , something we should ALL be proud of

[DavrossT]

And how would a windfarm damage our cultural heritage??

[Malachy]

The point I am trying to make, Malachy, is that to asses the CO2 cost of the windfarm, you cannot asses it as compared to nothing happening, no CO2 being released at all. You must compare it's impact to the impact of unmitigated climate change. That's what will happen if this windfarm (and hundreds more like it) is not built.

 

To compare it to the status quo is wrong. The same applies to the assessment of the impact on the wildlife, the archaeology and everything else, because things will not stay the same, that this the one thing we can be absolutely sure will not happen.

 

This is a bizarre perspective. You are writing as though if the windfarm is built climate change will be ceased. That doesn't make sense. You really do seem to believe that it will inevitably reduce carbon emmissions no matter how many it produces. That is so crazy a perspective as to be utterly invalid.

 

And your criticism of the report misses the blindingly obvious fact that it is written as a response to VE's EIA. It is written with planning regulations in mind. They could not submit a report to the government with some uncertain future situation in mind - planning considerations must focus on the current situation. If they did what you are suggesting their report would be ignored, as it is it will be taken seriously.

 

When this debate began I had a great deal of respect for your perspective, but that has changed. You are happy to ignore anything that counters your views, and your blind faith in the honesty of VE directors and in the intrinsic value of wind energy is quite astonishing. Your posts could now be summed up as: "I'd rather shoot myself in the face than give up my gun".

[Malachy]

The point I am trying to make, Malachy, is that to asses the CO2 cost of the windfarm, you cannot asses it as compared to nothing happening, no CO2 being released at all. You must compare it's impact to the impact of unmitigated climate change. That's what will happen if this windfarm (and hundreds more like it) is not built.

 

To clarify my point, SAT are evaluating carbon payback in exactly the same way that VE have done (except they have not removed embarrassing figures). But you are claiming that they should have used different methods, taking into account climate change, which they cannot quantify because it is still happening. So what you are suggesting is that if the windfarm goes ahead climate change will be stopped, and if it doesn't it won't. That's ludicrous.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

DavrossT.....why don't you read the SAT objection?

The answers are there.

[paulb]

Come now AT, you're forgetting that climate change MIGHT be combatted by building windfarms nearer to consumers and not dumping one on Shetland. tut, tut.

Not so, you have to build your windfarms where the wind blows (ie: here), not where the people are. Anything else would be pointless.

 

Well I'll go to the foot of our stairs - so Shetland is the ONLY place in the UK where the wind blows? I never knew that.

unlink please just wait until the winter then you will know. you have been very lucky upto now autumn is coming in quick.

[ArabiaTerra]

The windfarm will be there for 25 years. To properly asses it's impact, you must look at the ground on which it will be built over those 25 years and how it will change anyway. The Amenity Trust have failed to do this. They have assumed that this ground will not change. This is the one thing that we know will not happen. So how can the Amenity Trust's report be in any way relevant? They must first asses the impacts of climate change, before they can asses the impact of any attempt to mitigate climate change.

To clarify my point, SAT are evaluating carbon payback in exactly the same way that VE have done (except they have not removed embarrassing figures). But you are claiming that they should have used different methods, taking into account climate change, which they cannot quantify because it is still happening. So what you are suggesting is that if the windfarm goes ahead climate change will be stopped, and if it doesn't it won't. That's ludicrous.

What I'm saying is that the effects of climate change are likely to massively overwhelm any effects that building the windfarm will have and that climate change will affect all of Shetland, not just the little corner that the VE windfarm will occupy.

 

The damage is going to happen anyway, any report which assumes it won't is fantasy.

 

The windfarm alone will not cure climate change. It is only a tiny part of the massive effort that must be made. Building anything, anywhere will cause damage to that immediate environment simply by changing it. If we continue to block efforts to fight climate change on the basis that building something new will change what was there before, then we will achieve nothing and climate change will come full force with all the nightmare consequences predicted.

 

Every windfarm proposal currently on the drawing board has environmental groups opposed to it. If they are allowed to stop these proposals, then nothing will be done and the world goes to hell. It may go to hell anyway but opposing the only way we have of stopping this is insane. We have to look at the bigger picture.

 

How can you say that the windfarm will be detrimental to bird life without considering how climate change will effect that same bird life? To assume that the birds will continue to live happily ever after if we don't build the windfarm is simply wrong.

 

There is research which shows that the peat will be adversely affected by climate change which will turn it into a net emitter of CO2. This will affect all the peat in Shetland, and massively outweigh the effects which the windfarm will have. Without taking this research into account the SAT report is meaningless.