Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

So you support wind because it will open up the real power (tide and wave according to you) erm no it wont it will open up all the more more opportunities for wind because you will have set a precident and once planning has been consented how can they say no to more wind after that. I for one will be leaving shetland once it has been turned into an industrial estate. I love the place but you are making such a mistake (by the way I am no nimby I am an engineer who has worked on SSE projects in the past and know what a mistake this will be (unless all you care about is subsidised cash to fund your Islands please oppose this unsustainable mode of power).

 

On a totally different cant you should be shouting about and supporting your guys in Unst (PURE) who are really trying to make a difference, the work they do in the background is really awsome (of course this is only an engineers point of view and unlike Viking I only work with facts). I am not good at bullsh*t or spin so probably will not get much attention from the layman in Shetland who seems to believe anyone spouting bull in a suit. This is your islands and I really in years to come dinna want to be an I told you so .....Its in your hands so please make the right choice,all I ask is dinna listen to spin, do your own research and make an informed decision not what someone else persuades you to do ( us islanders are so good at that) I am also guilty of that in the past.

I thank you for your attention

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest posiedon

^ I assume you're responding to mate64 but you don't say so and it looks like your post is aimed at me.

Please use the quote tags or at least say who you're replying to.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A realist, PJ, not an evangelist. Evangelists promote fantasy. Global warming is all too real.

 

And the Chinese are building more renewable energy capacity than the rest of the world combined at the moment.

 

Maybe so, however the total electrical capacity provided by geothermal/solar/wind in China is so insignificant it does not even make a mark on the graph of their overall generation by fuel.

 

http://www.iea.org/stats/pdf_graphs/CNELEC.pdf

 

Why would they be doing that if it was all a hoax? They certainly believe AGW is real.

 

Perhaps because they understand that if they don't take action to reduce the amount of acid rain they experience their local crop production will be so adversely affected that their reliance on imported produce will need to increase to levels which potentially could threaten their economic security?

 

you should consider that any new coal stations the Chinese do build are efficient modern ones which are replacing old Mao era coal stations which the Chinese have been closing at a rate of one or more a day for the last few years.

 

Oh dear! Do you actually know how may coal fired power stations there are in the whole world, let alone China? Simple arithmetic tells me that this is, as you say, 'bollox'

 

The carbon footprint of the average Chinaman is 6 tonnes/year. The footprint of the average Shetlander is around 20 tonnes/year. We have a loooong way to go before we can even start criticising China.

 

Comparing Shetlands per capita data with that of China is meaningless. China emits more CO2 annually than any other country in the world and will continue to do so an an increasing rate in the medium to long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....a private firm will build turbines anyway and the community won't benefit.

 

You ruined a very valid post by signing off with that line.

 

The SIC (the Shetland public) is one of the largest owners, if not the largest owner of the VE site. If VE were to be quoshed, no private firm can build the turbines on the same site without SIC (the Shetland public) approval and agreement of terms. IOW, no windmills can be built anyway by anyone else unless they enter in to an argeement with the SIC (the Shetland public) to buy, lease or otherwise legally occupy the same site, for which, I would really hope the SIC (the Shetland public) still has enough good sense left to charge them a sum appropriate to the potential value of the site, and in doing so the SIC (the Shetland public/comminity) will benefit.

 

GR, I think Greysuit's quote is a valid one but I'm not so sure about yours!

 

I asked the question at a wind farm meeting a while ago, how many turbines would be sited on land owned or controlled by the SIC. The answer I got back then was 26. I think some turbines have been removed since then so that number could be less.

 

That was hardly the most appropriate question to ask, as regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the number stated, its not only the windmills that themselves are sited on SIC property that matter, as it also affects those which rely on access roads etc crossing SIC property to enable them to be constructed and maintained. If the necessary construction traffic etc cannot gain a viable access route to one or more windmill sites, those will never exist either.

 

Its been bandied about in various places since VE was mooted that the SIC owned the majority of the proposed site, or that they owned the largest individual percentage of the site (depending on which version you heard), without ever being challenged or disputed as far as I'm aware. Even if it is only the latter version that is true, it still leaves significant doubt as to what the accurate numbers for anything really are. To be the owner of the largest percentage of the site, yet only end up with 26 or less windmill sites on that property, from a 100+ windmill site overall development, seems on the face of it to be less than credible. You'd suspect that something somewhere in there is wrong.

 

I'm not in a position to argue for or against any of the above as I simply don't have full information available of the extent of the SIC's property holidings in the relevant area (Does anyone? Shouldn't a responsible public body, answerable to the electorate, such as the SIC or SCT have included in all their promo bumpf a map showing not only the extent of the proposed development, but also showing what portion(s) of it was proposed to be sited on land that was already in their (and by default public) ownership). What a public body proposes to do on land already in their, and the public ownership, and what a public body proposes to do on land leased etc from private ownership, is, to my mind at least, two very different considerations.

 

I would imagine a Freedom of Information request to the SIC for a map showing the extent of their land ownership in the central and north mainland would, or at least IMHO should, be feasible. Overlaying that map with an already VE produced map showing windmill sites, roads, quarries, etc, and striking off all sites within the SIC property area, plus all sites that rely on roads, quarries etc sited on SIC property necessary for their construction, would produce the most reliable data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the Chinese are building more renewable energy capacity than the rest of the world combined at the moment. Why would they be doing that if it was all a hoax? They certainly believe AGW is real.

 

But, but;

 

And after the complete betrayal of the Copenhagen conference, I'm feeling a little jaded by the whole debate.

 

Wasn't it big bad China who scuppered the deal at Copenhagen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The carbon footprint of the average Chinaman is 6 tonnes/year. The footprint of the average Shetlander is around 20 tonnes/year. We have a loooong way to go before we can even start criticising China.

Comparing Shetlands per capita data with that of China is meaningless. China emits more CO2 annually than any other country in the world and will continue to do so an an increasing rate in the medium to long term.

China is the most populous country in the world, It should have the highest emissions, everything else being equal (which it's not). Per capita data is the only fair way to compare individual countries or regions emissions.

 

you should consider that any new coal stations the Chinese do build are efficient modern ones which are replacing old Mao era coal stations which the Chinese have been closing at a rate of one or more a day for the last few years.

 

Oh dear! Do you actually know how may coal fired power stations there are in the whole world, let alone China? Simple arithmetic tells me that this is, as you say, 'bollox'

Your right, it probably is. It's just something I read somewhere a while ago.

 

And that's exactly my point. The "New power station every week" claim has just as good provenance as my claim above, i.e: none whatsoever. I have never actually seen a source I could check for it, yet it gets trotted out regularly every time anyone criticises Western Countries climate change policies. I suspect it's just another zombie lie concocted by the deniers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The "New power station every week" claim has just as good provenance as my claim above, i.e: none whatsoever. I have never actually seen a source I could check for it, yet it gets trotted out regularly every time anyone criticises Western Countries climate change policies. I suspect it's just another zombie lie concocted by the deniers.

 

Try this story from the BBC

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6769743.stm

 

China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said.

 

And if you are wondering who John Ashton is

 

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/who-we-are/special-representatives/john-ashton

 

John has been continuously active in climate diplomacy in various capacities since 1997. He was involved in negotiating the EU 2020 package on climate change in spring 2007 and the decision in December 2008 on funding for CCS across Europe. He helped negotiate the agreement in 2005 between the EU and China to demonstrate zero emission coal technology in China, and was closely involved in the EU’s engagement with Russia over the Kyoto Protocol. He played a key role in the first UN security debate on climate change in April 2007. He was a senior member of the UK negotiating team in the UN climate negotiations from 1998-2002, and again at Copenhagen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The "New power station every week" claim has just as good provenance as my claim above, i.e: none whatsoever. I have never actually seen a source I could check for it, yet it gets trotted out regularly every time anyone criticises Western Countries climate change policies. I suspect it's just another zombie lie concocted by the deniers.

 

Try this story from the BBC

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6769743.stm

 

China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said.

I think this is the relevant bit:

Last Updated: Tuesday, 19 June 2007, 22:22 GMT 23:22 UK

4 years ago. That's before they began their major push for renewables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The "New power station every week" claim has just as good provenance as my claim above, i.e: none whatsoever. I have never actually seen a source I could check for it, yet it gets trotted out regularly every time anyone criticises Western Countries climate change policies. I suspect it's just another zombie lie concocted by the deniers.

 

Try this story from the BBC

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6769743.stm

 

China is now building about two power stations every week, the top climate change official at the UK Foreign Office, John Ashton, has said.

I think this is the relevant bit:

Last Updated: Tuesday, 19 June 2007, 22:22 GMT 23:22 UK

4 years ago. That's before they began their major push for renewables.

 

What "major push for renewables"? Look at the graph JGHR posted; wind solar and geothermal do not even register as a component in the Chinese mix. Hydro, yes, but that is nothing new, just a sensible way to generate electricity - unlike wind. I suspect this "major push" is just another claim with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...