Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is 103 turbines less than the critical mass needed to justify the project in terms of cost/ profitability? [give it a go]

 

If it isn't, then the project wouldn't go ahead as it wouldn't be profitable to do it. As the interested parties seem to be keen to go ahead with it, then I would surmise that they have done their sums and found it to be worthwhile in terms of cost/profitability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't have any expertise in ornithology, in fact, I'd never heard of a whimbrel before the objections based on it were raised. However, when those objections were raised, I got my google on and did some research on the beastie.

 

What I found was that the natural range of the bird extends right across Northern Europe into Siberia, they are not even close to being endangered, globally. Shetland is at the extreme Southern edge of this birds range, and, numbers in Shetland have been steadily declining over the past few decades.

 

Now during my research into Global Warming, I found that it is well documented that many species of animals and, especially, birds are moving their natural range northwards in response to Climate Change.

 

The changes in the Whimbrels population in Shetland fit the pattern of a species responding to climate change. Thus, it seemed ridiculous, to me, to be using a species which was clearly responding to climate change, as a reason to object to a project which had the primary purpose of combating climate change. A species which, in Shetland, was inevitably going extinct anyway.

 

Sure, the VE project might kill a few whimbrel, but when the ultimate outcome will be extinction (in Shetland) anyway regardless of VE and the only difference is that VE might cause that extinction in 8 years, rather than 10 years, then to object to the project on behalf of the whimbrel seemed to me to be pointless.

 

Neither of us has expertise in ornithology then. I do find it a bit distasteful that you write off a species in Shetland in such a manner. Just kill a few, because they'll die anyway. It flys in the face of many peoples principals and the principals of these organisations, i.e. protection and preservation of species and the natural environment. In these cases I tend to err on the side of the protected species. Contrary to what you suggest, there is no certainly about the future fate of these bird species.

 

To be fair, SNH were not dead set against the windfarm, the whimbrel was one of several factors that they were considering. I can't find their full letter of objection to reference and the following may not be the most recent, but surely from a supporters view you must see this is the language of fair compromise (certainly more compromising that I would be on a personal basis).

 

Heritage agency maintains objection to Viking windfarm amid threat to birds and landscape

“Our advice is that the current proposal will have significant adverse impacts on birds and landscapes of national interest and we are maintaining our objections on these issues.

 

“We consider that a large windfarm can be accommodated in this general area. We are happy to further advise the applicant if they wish to identify appropriate changes, so that a large windfarm can be developed without significant adverse impacts on the natural heritage.â€

 

It's just sad that this was not better accommodated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is 103 turbines less than the critical mass needed to justify the project in terms of cost/ profitability? [give it a go]

 

If it isn't, then the project wouldn't go ahead as it wouldn't be profitable to do it. As the interested parties seem to be keen to go ahead with it, then I would surmise that they have done their sums and found it to be worthwhile in terms of cost/profitability.

 

I don't share your faith in the developer. The windfarm has shrunk overnight from 127 to 103 turbines. I would suggest that there is plenty of uncertainly as to how worthwhile the new size will be. There in no information in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that, according to this report, the environment and the way we are using it is the bigger worry. Of course there can be local issues. It also seems many sea birds get caught up in fishing nets and are killed, but that seem a price worth paying for fish and a local industry.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/20/uk-wild-bird-numbers

 

Also, on the way home I remember seeing at least 4 flat birds on the roads, no doubt more. A price worth paying to pop to the shops using a car?

 

I remembered last year seeing a domestic animal kill a bird. A price worth paying for some part time company and fleas.

 

It sometimes worry me that in this country, we worry more about the deaths of a few birds than the plight of fellow human beans starving, watching their children die and corruption and crime increase to take advantage of that because of drought that could have been caused by deforestation/fossil fuels/greed/complacency/climate change.

 

Hopefully, someone here may have had a job in all of those areas and tell us how it is because they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is 103 turbines less than the critical mass needed to justify the project in terms of cost/ profitability? [give it a go]

 

If it isn't, then the project wouldn't go ahead as it wouldn't be profitable to do it. As the interested parties seem to be keen to go ahead with it, then I would surmise that they have done their sums and found it to be worthwhile in terms of cost/profitability.

 

I don't share your faith in the developer. The windfarm has shrunk overnight from 127 to 103 turbines. I would suggest that there is plenty of uncertainly as to how worthwhile the new size will be. There in no information in the public domain.

 

Don't forget the 100 MW waiting in the wings if Beawfield takes off, site now updated http://beawfieldwindfarm.com/Project.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Yep, why not throw in half a dozen when they're at it !!

 

Did anyone hear the rather shambolic speak easy on Radio Shetland last night when Bill Manson was asked about why no health assessment had been carried out. All he could do was keep reverting to the previous question about the referendum that never was and kept wittering on about how any outcome would have favoured their point of view anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radioscotland/news/rs_good_evening_shetland/

about 25 minutes through the program, and sadly that's the chairman of our Charitable Trust !

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...