Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[PoolHaddock]

I would assume one of the reasons would be because there's a lot less wind at sea level around Shetland, and most places for that matter. Even on a fine day the top of Ronas Hill is still fairly windy, whereas sea level might be flat calm.

[Jonners]

Well I suppose the answer is that the world needs green energy right now, urgently. In fact it needs it yesterday. That is the argument for making such a big windfarm and also the argument for going with wind rather than undeveloped wave power.

 

This is why it's probably a risk worth taking. And we can also do the tidal and wave thing later down the line if it turns out to be viable.

 

Personally I think the windmills will sit pretty well on the Shetland landscape, from an aesthetic point of view. But it's a matter of personal taste, I guess.

[Malachy]

the world needs green energy right now, urgently.

 

Not if the net economic and environmental benefits are zero or, worse, possibly even negative.

 

Alternatively, we could stop squandering the energy we already over-consume...

 

Absolutely agree 100%. I think the government must get harder on people and force them to save energy. The public are proving themselves utterly incapable of saving energy.

[Twerto]

we could castrate every male when they are born for a couple of generations.

[JustMe]

we could castrate every male when they are born for a couple of generations.

Well that has to be the most interesting idea ever in an alternative energy debate.

[Malachy]

If we all held our breath for 30 seconds every few minutes, that would a good reduction in CO2.

[Mutton]

Well I suppose the answer is that the world needs green energy right now, urgently. In fact it needs it yesterday.

 

So we've been convinced to believe by the government.

 

The fact is that the world's temperature has risen and fallen over history. It has been much colder than it is now, but it has been much warmer also. The Global warming warning shouldn't be bought.

 

The only possible benefit that the windfarm will bring to Shetland is economic. Do we believe the claim that it will make £25M a year, if so, is it worth having a windfarm on the scale proposed?

[PoolHaddock]

Well I suppose the answer is that the world needs green energy right now, urgently. In fact it needs it yesterday.

 

So we've been convinced to believe by the government.

 

The fact is that the world's temperature has risen and fallen over history. It has been much colder than it is now, but it has been much warmer also. *I agree, this is a well know fact* The Global warming warning shouldn't be bought.

 

The only possible benefit that the windfarm will bring to Shetland is economic. Do we believe the claim that it will make £25M a year, if so, is it worth having a windfarm on the scale proposed?

What an absolute load of rubbish.

 

"Through sample drillings in Rock, Arctic ice and Soil it has been established that the carbon dioxide content in the air never rose above 280 parts per million during the last 12 million years. By 1958 it had risen to 315 parts; to 340 parts by 1988 and to 350 in 1993. This is a direct result of burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and diminishing of tropical rainforests which absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide as well as producing oxygen".

 

^ A small section taken from "The Green Imperative" by Victor Papanek. I suggest you read this, or any of his works for that matter.

 

Also, was it not only a few months ago that scientists discovered that global warming has, with almost 90% certainty, been caused directly by the actions of mankind. Ill look for a link just now.

[Malachy]

Well I suppose the answer is that the world needs green energy right now, urgently. In fact it needs it yesterday.

 

So we've been convinced to believe by the government.

 

The fact is that the world's temperature has risen and fallen over history. It has been much colder than it is now, but it has been much warmer also. The Global warming warning shouldn't be bought.

 

I'm sorry, but this global warming denial is not only nonsense, it is selfish, dangerous nonsense.

 

The most impressive achievement of the oil industry lobby has been to convince people that there is still some scientific debate about climate change. This is not true. There is no debate amongst scientists. The only people who disagree with the consensus view are non-scientists, the same people who are advocating "intelligent design" as a credible alternative "theory" to evolution.

 

An interesting fact: There have been a total of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers about global warming. Guess how many of them disagreed with the consensus position...that's right: none. Zero! Amongst real scientists there is no debate. They know the answer. Similarly, the IPCC have given a 90-95% certainty rating on the human causes of global warming. That may not be 100% but it is good enough for me.

 

There have, as you say, been vast changes in the earth's temperature throughout its history. But these changes have generally been caused by slight adjustments in the orbit of the planet over time (as well as very occasional super-volcanic eruptions etc). This warming is different as it is caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases, which human beings are partly, though certainly not entirely, responsible for.

 

Human civilisation has only existed for a short time in planetary history, and during this time the climate has been very stable. The changes that many scientists are predicting are beyond anything that civilisation has had to cope with before, and to sit back and do nothing about it would be to condemn future generations to a terrible world. If mankind is prepared to do that, despite all the warnings, then perhaps it deserves everything it gets.

[PoolHaddock]

Similarly, the IPCC have given a 90-95% certainty rating on the human causes of global warming. That may not be 100% but it is good enough for me.

Thanks Malachy, that's the one I was lookin fir.

 

Here's a link to an overview of the IPCC report.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324029.stm

 

Also, was it not only a few months ago that scientists discovered that global warming has, with almost 90% certainty, been caused directly by the actions of mankind. Ill look for a link just now.

Sorry, should have said "released research that shows" instead of "discovered".

[Mutton]

The removal of much of the earth's pollution causes its own problems. Greenhouse gases, are actually forming a layer which is preventing a large amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface and keeping the air temperature down (global dimming). If you remove that, global warming will speed up rapidly.

 

When air travel was stopped over the US after 9/11, the air temperature rose remarkably fast. And that was just the removal of vapour trails! What's going to happen when you cut other forms of protective layering (such as greenhouse gases).

 

It's like we're caught in a no win situation!

[JustMe]

Global warming or not there is another angle to renewable energy. We are using the planet's stocks of fossil fuels at a rate many times greater than the planet can replace them. Therefore we just have to find alternatives such as renewables (or continue to expand nuclear) before we run out.

[crofter]

Global warming or not there is another angle to renewable energy. We are using the planet's stocks of fossil fuels at a rate many times greater than the planet can replace them. Therefore we just have to find alternatives such as renewables (or continue to expand nuclear) before we run out.

 

This is more relevant, IMO, especially since nobody seems to be able to agree whether the windmills will result in a net reduction in greenhouse gases or not.

[Ghostrider]

Well I suppose the answer is that the world needs green energy right now, urgently. In fact it needs it yesterday.

 

So we've been convinced to believe by the government.

 

The fact is that the world's temperature has risen and fallen over history. It has been much colder than it is now, but it has been much warmer also. The Global warming warning shouldn't be bought.

 

I'm sorry, but this global warming denial is not only nonsense, it is selfish, dangerous nonsense.

 

The most impressive achievement of the oil industry lobby has been to convince people that there is still some scientific debate about climate change. This is not true. There is no debate amongst scientists. The only people who disagree with the consensus view are non-scientists, the same people who are advocating "intelligent design" as a credible alternative "theory" to evolution.

 

An interesting fact: There have been a total of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers about global warming. Guess how many of them disagreed with the consensus position...that's right: none. Zero! Amongst real scientists there is no debate. They know the answer. Similarly, the IPCC have given a 90-95% certainty rating on the human causes of global warming. That may not be 100% but it is good enough for me.

 

There have, as you say, been vast changes in the earth's temperature throughout its history. But these changes have generally been caused by slight adjustments in the orbit of the planet over time (as well as very occasional super-volcanic eruptions etc). This warming is different as it is caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases, which human beings are partly, though certainly not entirely, responsible for.

 

Human civilisation has only existed for a short time in planetary history, and during this time the climate has been very stable. The changes that many scientists are predicting are beyond anything that civilisation has had to cope with before, and to sit back and do nothing about it would be to condemn future generations to a terrible world. If mankind is prepared to do that, despite all the warnings, then perhaps it deserves everything it gets.

 

This is all very well, but just how much trust can be put in scientists, their rhetoric and their "facts and figures". All are either on someone else's payroll, or trying to be.... Their version of the "truth" is no doubt a truth of sorts, but is it 100% accurate and is it the whole truth? How many of them are loyal to the truth regardless of whether that loyalty will cost them their future pay cheques?

 

There is much in the so called "scientific data" that is put about allegedly supporting "global warming" that doesn't quite add up. That is not to say it is necessarily wrong, it is saying though that there's a whole lot more to the picture that's not been told yet. Maybe it's because the scientists themselves do not know, or it may be it isn't "convenient" truths to divulge.

 

Bottom line, no-one wandering around Shetland in 2007 is experiencing climate conditions that they wouldn't have also experienced 40, 60, 100 or more years ago. In the face of that, scepticism is understandable, your average Joe Schmo is only going to believe in, and take global warming and it's consequences seriously, when he's wandering along the street o' Lerrick and he can look down the Closses and see the sea swittlin at the bottom of the steps with an ebb. Or, can't get his peat bank flayed for the palm trees growing on her.

[islandhopper]

What an absolute load of rubbish.

 

"Through sample drillings in Rock, Arctic ice and Soil it has been established that the carbon dioxide content in the air never rose above 280 parts per million during the last 12 million years. By 1958 it had risen to 315 parts; to 340 parts by 1988 and to 350 in 1993. This is a direct result of burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and diminishing of tropical rainforests which absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide as well as producing oxygen".

 

^ A small section taken from "The Green Imperative" by Victor Papanek. I suggest you read this, or any of his works for that matter.

 

Sorry, PoolHaddock, it is a bit curious to me to call something "a load of rubbish" and then quote an author who himself quotes the facts wrong or is outdated with some of the quoted information.

 

... that the carbon dioxide content in the air never rose above 280 parts per million during the last 12 million years. ...

That's wrong; we only can say - and that's what IPCC AR3 actually said - "we have no proof for higher value". Therefore this value was set as "pre-industrial data"/"pre-record data" and used for the mathematical climate models for IPCC AR3 2001 to start with. It was never set as "value for the last 12 million years" what makes a little difference when discussing about "climate changes".

 

By 1958 it had risen to 315 parts; to 340 parts by 1988 and to 350 in 1993. This is a direct result of burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and diminishing of tropical rainforests ...

To say so was already outdated by IPCC AR3 2001 which used values of 360 and 365 ppm for the 1990s - actually that value is calculated as about 385 ppm.

What is even more interesting is the fact that IPCC AR4 2007 for the first time gave a more detailed reason for this rapid increase:

In the past, the greenhouse warming has partially been ‘masked‘ by increasing atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic aerosols like sulfate and black carbon. Drastic measures to improve air quality would result in a rapid global warming of almost 1 degree within ten years. ...

In other words: It is not simply the burning of fossil fuel and CO2 set free when burning. Air improvement policies of the last 10 years were counterproductive in such a way that the former anthropogenic aerosols which lead to an overall global cooling were reduced in a way that was not adjusted against the reduction of carbon dioxide ...

The consequence of IPCC AR4 2007 is:

Thus, strategies to limit climate warming below a specified threshold need to be reconciled with strategies to reduce air pollution.

 

So all models about climate change will have to be recalculated what will be the job until IPCC AR5 announced for 2009/2010 - including some other finds up to now based on provisional data such as the "fact" that havier snowfall in Antarctica will reduce the average sealevel by some 5 to 10 cm over the next century and against the predicted overall increase of 20 to 30 cm whereof some 15 to 20 cm are probably due to the melting ice in Arctica. And of course - IPCC AR4 knows areas on our planet where the average surface temperature will be declining!

 

The report is full of such very interesting details which teach us again that mother Earth is a woman ... working in a way which is difficult to understand ...