Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

As I pointed out in the answer to Njugle's post earlier. Going the small scale, community route is about the most expensive and inefficient way to do it. As you say, it won't make Shetland any money, but it will use up the oil money quite efficiently (that's assuming it's even possible).

 

I was interested to note you didn't reply to my reply at that time though AT, about that fact that one micro-renewable turbine manufacturer are already offering their product free of charge.

 

Free is not "the most expensive" option, in that instance. Perhaps you never read my reply.

 

And yes, I know exactly what the best solution is, and it is not the one you are proposing. Nor VE, nor SS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what is winding me up about this debate at this point is that fact that people keep trotting out the same tired old excuses for opposing the windfarm and I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

AT, if I'm a noisy nimby then I'm proud to be one. However, to me, it is not a case of Not In My Back Yard but more a case of My Back Yard Isn't Appropriate.

So where do we build it then, to produce Shetlands electricity? If the place with the best wind resource in the Northern Hemisphere isn't the right place to build a windfarm, then where is? Seriously. Please answer this, I really want to know.

 

We have to replace all of our fossil fuel burning technology. We have to begin cutting our emission by 2015 to even stand a chance of keeping climate change below 2 degrees. How the hell are we supposed to do this when every time something is proposed to achieve this aim, a bunch of nimby's (or would you prefer "bananna") pop up screaming about how their particular bit of mud is so much more important than anyone else's bit of mud.

 

You want to know what they intend to do with the million cube of peat? They'll dump it in a hole somewhere. It's only a 100mx100mx100m. It should fit neatly into all those quarries they'll need for hardcore. Seriously though, it's not a big thing, they moved ten times as much when building Sullom, and all that peat is sitting there in Orca Voe, right where it was dumped thirty years ago. It hasn't magically evaporated away into CO2, despite what "sustainable" Shetland may have led you to believe, and neither has the remaining peat on Calback Ness suffered major deterioration.

 

The ice is melting, climate zones are shifting. These are not projections or predictions or the results of models, these are verifiable facts. It is actually happening. The world is changing and we are causing the change. And (I don't know how many times I've said this) Shetland is going to change too, all of it. The windfarm along with all the other windfarms and solar plants and marine generators can halt this change if we can keep the temperature rise down to 2 degrees. If we don't keep it down, then somewhere between two and three degrees, the rainforests burn, all of them. This releases enough CO2 on it's own to get us to 3.5 degrees, where the permafrost melts (all of it) releasing ten times as much greenhouse gas as the rainforests. This gets us to 4.5 degrees and when that pulse of heat reaches the seafloor, the methane hydrates let go, and that's ten times as much warming gas as the permafrost..

 

That kind of warming will melt all of the ice, everywhere. That's a sea level rise of around 80 metres.

 

And yet, you insist in moaning about the view (BTW, this is not specifically aimed at unlinkedstudent, it's aimed at all the nimby's out there, so don't take it personally, uls), or complaining that it might affect the tourism, or how it might kill a few hundred birds. WAKE UP!

 

BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE if we don't fix this.

 

I would love it if we had the time to slowly and gradually make this change-over. It would be great if we could work on all these new reactor designs (pebble-bed and suchlike), perfect a solar panel with double today's efficiency that we can print like wallpaper, design a combined wind/wave/tidal unit and all the other stuff that's on the drawing board, but we don't have time. We've got 5 years. Even if we get ruthless about energy efficiency and build everything that is currently trapped in planning hell, we will still need more. Nuclear can't help us now, we've wasted the last twenty years. Renewables are the only option, and onshore windmills give us the most power for our money.

 

It is the only way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I pointed out in the answer to Njugle's post earlier. Going the small scale, community route is about the most expensive and inefficient way to do it. As you say, it won't make Shetland any money, but it will use up the oil money quite efficiently (that's assuming it's even possible).

 

I was interested to note you didn't reply to my reply at that time though AT, about that fact that one micro-renewable turbine manufacturer are already offering their product free of charge.

 

Free is not "the most expensive" option, in that instance. Perhaps you never read my reply.

 

And yes, I know exactly what the best solution is, and it is not the one you are proposing. Nor VE, nor SS.

I take it this is the post to which you refer?

And your point is....

My point, or one of them, is that VE will aid in the escalation of the cost of living to all.

 

Seriously though, where is the money going to come from to pay for this micro generation? Micro generation is expensive, way out of reach of Joe average. How do you know that the Eigg scheme I mentioned is inefficient? Can you come up with a cheaper example? I would love to hear about one.

Haven't you heard - micro generation is free. Now that, Mr Terra, is, in keeping with your chosen Americanism, an example of a "no-brainer".

 

Edit:

....because a wind farm does not harvest money from the air

Err, actually, once built, that's precisely what it does. :wink:

Nope, misconception alert, the VE windfarm harvests it's money through government driven taxation in various forms and energy supplier driven costs to the customer. What the windfarm does is generate electricity, in a form relatively expensive to the community. Its build cost is another matter entirely.

To use a whimsical analogy to the band wagon you have nailed your feet to: The first prototypes of television were clockwork, but an objective decision was made and the CRT technology was given precedence over it. One would hope that the clockwork TV does not reign in this domain.

And before you bring out the Armageddon flag and start waving it at me, please note, I have not said anything against the interconnector or wind farms in general, as I am not necessarily against either, nor am I saying that the location chosen for the VE site is unsuitable for wind turbines. :wink:

The reason I didn't respond directly to it is because it was so much complete and utter garbage I didn't know where to start.

 

For instance: "VE will raise the cost of living for all."

 

The cost of fuel will go up, everywhere. VE will make no difference at all, we will still pay the same as the mainland, just as we've always done.

 

"Haven't you heard - micro generation is free"

 

So, someone is giving away small hydro turbines. Well that should sort out about , say, 0.01% of Shetlands population. Brilliant, problem solved, carry on with your profligate lifestyles. Nothing more to worry about.

 

And then this: "To use a whimsical analogy to the band wagon you have nailed your feet to: The first prototypes of television were clockwork, but an objective decision was made and the CRT technology was given precedence over it. One would hope that the clockwork TV does not reign in this domain. "

 

First, Analogy: FAIL. The wind turbine is not a new invention. It's a propellor (18thC Tech) connected to a generator (19thC Tech) mounted on a pole (BC Tech).

 

Second: It would be great if we could sit back and wait for fusion (or whatever other technological maguffin you can think off) to be perfected. But_we_don't_have_time.

 

So, go on then, what's this "best solution" all about. But remember, it needs to be up and running within 5 years or it's no solution at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the windfarm is about reducing global carbon dioxide, how about depopulating Shetland and moving everyone to an area that will produce much less emissions - mainland Scotland for example? According to the study this could save 150,000 tonnes carbon dioxide a year - without building a single wind turbine. Surely this would be a better global solution than the huge windfarm yet still producing double the Scottish average of co2

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/09/25/islanders-carbon-footprint-among-the-biggest-in-britain-says-new-study

 

Surely insisting to live in an area that produces double the tonnes of carbon dioxide than the Scottish average, but then supporting the wind farm is as bad as NIMBYism - is it IMBYALAICCOPMTMFSOCD (in my back yard as long as I can carry on producing more than my fair share of carbon dioxide)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have to replace all of our fossil fuel burning technology. We have to begin cutting our emission by 2015 to even stand a chance of keeping climate change below 2 degrees. How the hell are we supposed to do this when every time something is proposed to achieve this aim, a bunch of nimby's (or would you prefer "bananna") pop up screaming about how their particular bit of mud is so much more important than anyone else's bit of mud.

I'd like you to specify exactly what fossil fuel burning VE will replace. I wasn't aware that it was a replacement for anything, it's additional energy for the grid to cover rising demand. As far as I'm aware they haven't said that any power stations are going to close down have they? Our one is being replaced, but they have to do that anyway. And that will continue to run as it does now, but it will simply export its power through the interconnector. So no replacement will take place.

Your post, particularly your dismissive attitude towards Shetland's landscape, exposes how little interest you actually have in the environment. It seems your concern is only in maintaining your own standard of living. That is why you are such a fanatical VE supporter - more energy, more energy. It is no different an attitude to those people chopping down the Amazon and growing biofuels to put in cars. It is disgusting.

The only way of really, truly reducing energy (not simply adding to it) is by actually closing power stations. If the government set out a timetable for power station closure, you would immediately see a massive rush by scientists to deal with the reality of energy reduction. they would very quickly start to find solutions, including, I believe, ways of producing energy without destroying the very same environment we're meant to be protecting. At the moment there is no incentive. What you're proposing is just the status quo but with some renwable energy added in. And that's exactly what the government is proposing. There are no power station closures planned. Power stations are being replaced as they come to the end of their life. Windmills are simply allowing people to use even more energy that they don't need. That is not even a false solution. It is a big, ugly lie.

As i've said many times already, you and I have a similar analysis of the planet's future prospects. But whereas I believe that we have to face up to the enormity of the crisis by committing to real actions - ie closing power stations - you seem to be under the illusion that building windmills will somehow suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. It is unbelivable naivety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the windfarm is about reducing global carbon dioxide, how about depopulating Shetland and moving everyone to an area that will produce much less emissions - mainland Scotland for example? According to the study this could save 150,000 tonnes carbon dioxide a year - without building a single wind turbine. Surely this would be a better global solution than the huge windfarm yet still producing double the Scottish average of co2

 

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/09/25/islanders-carbon-footprint-among-the-biggest-in-britain-says-new-study

 

Surely insisting to live in an area that produces double the tonnes of carbon dioxide than the Scottish average, but then supporting the wind farm is as bad as NIMBYism - is it IMBYALAICCOPMTMFSOCD (in my back yard as long as I can carry on producing more than my fair share of carbon dioxide)

Well, obviously, we should do both. Move the people and build the windfarm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i've said many times already, you and I have a similar analysis of the planet's future prospects. But whereas I believe that we have to face up to the enormity of the crisis by committing to real actions - ie closing power stations - you seem to be under the illusion that building windmills will somehow suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. It is unbelivable naivety.

 

I think you and AT are displaying a level of naivety. AT that Wind will save us and replace our fossil demands and you for thinking that a power station will ever get turned off unless it is no longer economically viable or badly broken.

 

Both of you, welcome to cloud cuckoo land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE if we don't fix this.

 

 

 

And where are you going to house all the billions of people, you want to save then? Maybe you will come up with the idea, of killing of everyone when, they reach the age of 45. Or put the pensioners to the outside so when you run out of standing room, you just push some more pensioners of the cliff, to make room for all the billions that you think are on the way. I did not see you at the live aid concerts or any other climate change nut.

Shouting this†BILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE if we don't fix this.â€

 

It only seem that people in the Western World are whining on about dying now. As it might harm them selves.

 

 

The males of the species are to blame for most of the trouble due to the fact they, cant keep there pants zipped up so they have over populated the planet.And until the human race stops fornicating. You can cover the world with windmills and it will make no difference. We are our own worst enemy. And how self important, we the human race, is to think that we are more important than any other living species on the planet.

 

Maybe ArabiaTerra you would like to put a few humans in to a zoo. Just for some sort of back up plan.

 

 

 

As for the following.

 

“We have to replace all of our fossil fuel burning technology. We have to begin cutting our emission by 2015 to even stand a chance of keeping climate change below 2 degreesâ€

 

 

Every time I here someone on the TV quoting it. They just look as bad as

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/8526/osamabinladen070425mn.jpg

Preaching to his bombers.

 

 

Now thats all we need a few climate change-eco terrorist telling all, who save a bag of coal. They will get a few virgins when they get to paradise

 

 

But O! I’m sorry. With the amount of terrorists that are all ready there. It looks like paradise is more than likely over populated as well.

 

Maybe ArabiaTerra you have a back up plan for that as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very well put Malachy.

 

"Complete and utter garbage" is it. Well, I would concur with Malachy's assessment of your post and attitude and further add pomposity the description of your reactionary argument. No fossil technology applications will be directly replaced by this development.

For instance: "VE will raise the cost of living for all."

 

The cost of fuel will go up, everywhere. VE will make no difference at all, we will still pay the same as the mainland, just as we've always done.

Well, I keep telling you, you keep ignoring it, rep's from, SSE described this fact, not I. The windfarm and others like it will increase the cost of electricity to all in a variety of ways. While £30 million pa will rain into the CT coffers, guaranteed?! Seems a bit bizarrely socialist doesn't it?

Just because it is easy and immediate does not make it right.

 

The provision of the free turbines is an example of an ideal application of burgeoning and established technology and a truly confident investment strategy, both possible here.

 

If, for another instance, the interconnector was laid/built and we, as a county, actively pursued 'smart grid' technology we would save massive amounts of energy.

 

How about a promotion that encourages all new builds and rewiring in older homes to incorporate the "off switch" on a dual circuit that, when used, isolates every non-essential appliance, at night for instance.

 

How about legislation that requires dual circuit wiring in home and work places in which the second low voltage circuit is required to power all lower voltage/power devices that do not require 240v to operate, heralding an end to the obscenely wasteful multiple transformers that surround us all, for instance.

 

Then, LOL, your description of the wind turbine is exactly the point I was making. Thank you.

 

I also contest your assertion that the VE windfarm in its entirety can be up and running in five years. Oh ye of great and inexorable faith

and, as such, VE would presumably be "no solution at all" either then.

 

And: I'm not telling what my solution is in entirety, because it is not a befitting subject to engage in to any depth with anyone who's mind is already made up and will not alter, regardless of what comes before it. You did say in one previous post that you'd accept a better solution if it was available, but I fear that is not actually the case, you've made up your mind and nothing will sway it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...