Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

Pull the plug on all subsidies, tax breaks and whatever gives all generators preferential trading terms in comparison to other businesses, and let the market set the price. Theoretically at least, we should be no worse off, as its an infernal merry-go-round anyway. Like you say, we all pay anyway, so let folk pay for the cost of what they actually use, and not for the cost of accountants and civil servants keeping tabs and records of all these ROC's, tax breaks etc power generators, distributors etc play monopoly money style with too.

I would support this, provided the fossil fuel generators are charged for the damage their exhaust does instead of being allowed to spew it into the atmosphere for free. Nuclear power already incurs a charge to cover the costs of decommissioning and waste storage, why shouldn't fossil fuels?

 

Of course, this would immediately double the cost of energy, as the carbon capture and storage equipment uses up half the power output of the station it's attached to.

 

As for the tidal turbines, bring them on. Though they will also increase the cost of energy by a lot more than onshore windfarms ever will. At least they are clean, and by building them in different, dispersed tidal rips which peak at different times of the day you can avoid the intermittency of wind, providing base load power. They will be a b*gger to fix when they break down though.

[Malcolm]

This lot are worried about 9 turbines (reduced from 13 though).

 

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2184826?UserKey=

[Ghostrider]

Pull the plug on all subsidies, tax breaks and whatever gives all generators preferential trading terms in comparison to other businesses, and let the market set the price. Theoretically at least, we should be no worse off, as its an infernal merry-go-round anyway. Like you say, we all pay anyway, so let folk pay for the cost of what they actually use, and not for the cost of accountants and civil servants keeping tabs and records of all these ROC's, tax breaks etc power generators, distributors etc play monopoly money style with too.

I would support this, provided the fossil fuel generators are charged for the damage their exhaust does instead of being allowed to spew it into the atmosphere for free. Nuclear power already incurs a charge to cover the costs of decommissioning and waste storage, why shouldn't fossil fuels?

 

Of course, this would immediately double the cost of energy, as the carbon capture and storage equipment uses up half the power output of the station it's attached to.

 

Can you back this up with data? For example the type and quantity of waste by product from a coal fired station is very different to that of a diesel station, and to handle each appropriately common sense would dictate at least somewhat different methods and processes would be applicable.

 

Is such a power hungry waste reclaimation system really necessary anyway, after all Rova Head is burning fuel which I would be very surprised if it isn't as much of a noxious waste producer, if not more so that coal or diesel. Yet, if memory serves, they can achieve what are considerd "safe" emissions with minimal need for power input.

 

Given that we, the end consumer aka taxpayer are already paying an apparently difficult to quantify "subsidy" to both fossil fuel and "green" generators though various initatives, which are subsidies in all but name, I find the immediate 100% increase in power charges difficult to accept. Especially with the alleged levels those "subsidies" are at currently for "green" producers. We might well pay somewhat more, that I won't argue, but I would see it as more of an exercise in redistribution of what we are already payingm and at least we would be paying according to the actual cost of production, and not according to some politically motivated manufactured pricing structure.

 

As for the tidal turbines, bring them on. Though they will also increase the cost of energy by a lot more than onshore windfarms ever will. At least they are clean, and by building them in different, dispersed tidal rips which peak at different times of the day you can avoid the intermittency of wind, providing base load power. They will be a b*gger to fix when they break down though.

 

As I see it tidal is the only sensible way to go, and certainly the technology being developed and deployed at present certainly suffers from the negatives stated, which is why tidal developers need to think outside the box. So far they're at the point in evolution which equates to neanderthal man having discovered a round rock makes a wheel, and spends his days looking for more round rocks to make more wheels. When they get to the next stage, which was when neanderthal man and his wheels had the thought that if he could find a way to make the rocks he already had close at hand round, instead of wasting so much time and energy looking for already round ones, he could be more efficient and productive, then they'll be starting to get someplace with it.

[paulb]

This lot are worried about 9 turbines (reduced from 13 though).

 

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2184826?UserKey=

thats what i have been saying each group use the same arguments.

[clanchief]

The campaign for a referendum on the windfarm was refused - it strikes me that a way around this is for Sustainable Shetland to put up a "single issue" candidate in the upcoming election for the Scottish Parliament. I for one would be willing to contribute towards the cost.

 

Of course, the pro wind farm group could also put up a candidate.

[Ghostrider]

^^ I've said it on here somewhere before, unless a referendum is held, the next SIC elections will be won or lost on the single issue of VE. Whether candidates stand on official VE or SS tickets or not it won't matter, the next crop of councillors will be elected according to their personal stance on VE. It will become the referendum that they wouldn't hold, and we will end up with yet another disjointed disfunctional council as a result, as the members of it will have been elected to it for wholly the wrong reason.

 

A Scottish Parliment candidate might make a difference if elected, but at the end of the day its the council that hold the final Aces as to whether VE steams right on ahead or is scrapped.

[Guest Anonymous]

I would support this, provided the fossil fuel generators are charged for the damage their exhaust does instead of being allowed to spew it into the atmosphere for free.

 

Absolutely AT and VE should be made to pay for their destruction of Shetland, after all fairs fair

[clanchief]

^^ A Scottish Parliment candidate might make a difference if elected, but at the end of the day its the council that hold the final Aces as to whether VE steams right on ahead or is scrapped.

 

The point of my suggestion is that an anti windfarm candidate would prove the strength of opinion against the project. If the candidate was elected their job will have been done and he/she should immediately stand down and trigger a by election

[paulb]

that would be a waste of public funds.

a council is more than one issue. oh hang on they mess up all of them. so lets have council members for or against turbines. for or against schools being shut and everything else that annoys us.

the council members are ment to represent their areas views. shame that most of the time they don't listern. so yes kick them out but you will need good quality replacements.

[MuckleJoannie]

The Viking decision will be delayed until after the Scottish election on 5 May

 

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2011/March/news/Viking%20decision%20to%20be%20delayed.htm

 

The same article also reveals one bank who are interested in investing in Viking

 

a senior banker with Lloyds Banking Group will meet trustees of Shetland Charitable Trust on Thursday to discuss the investment into the wind farm.

[stilldellin]

^^^ I widatocht Lloyds Banking Group were in big enoch budder as things staand already !

[paulb]

not forgetting the ones backing the power company

[clanchief]

The campaign for a referendum on the windfarm was refused - it strikes me that a way around this is for Sustainable Shetland to put up a "single issue" candidate in the upcoming election for the Scottish Parliament. I for one would be willing to contribute towards the cost.

 

Of course, the pro wind farm group could also put up a candidate.

 

Great news today that Billy Fox is standing as an independant candidate - he has emphasised that he is not standing as a "single issue" candidate, but for sure he will get my vote as being a candidate who is against the windfarm.

 

Its great that Shetlink has once again influenced politics in Shetland

[stilldellin]

^^so how much did you contribute clanchief ?

[clanchief]

Nothing, the Shetland News report says that he is paying for eveything

himself.