Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/3805-battle-against-viking-far-from-over.html

 

@ Paulb - you obviously haven't read OFGEM's report. They don't consider Shetland to be part of the National Grid in the FUTURE.

 

"Shetland is not expected to become part of the MITS and is therefore unaffected by this"

 

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PT/Documents1/Project%20TransmiT%20Dec11.pdf

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but do the Community Councils spend all of the money they get already?

 

If you want to call me a NIMBY, then I'm PROUD to be one.

 

As for your comment regarding the fibre optic cable, someone with more technical knowledge will be able to explain a lot better than I but I should imagine (steady on, I freely admit to not knowing everything :wink:) that the size of the power cable will be somewhat larger than a telecoms cable. Whether you care to admit it or not, the seabed does move. If, however, VE and their cronies have found a way of combatting and beating Mother Nature, I'd be astounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes of course it will be bigger and if you look at the companies that make it you will see how well armoured it is.

the south end will be getting a share of the disturbance money. quite generous of the worst affected communities. unlink the council are trying to transfer things over to the community councils so the funding will become motre important.

 

they are using expected and could because its a future project.

 

the towers will be 90m high with the blades rotating at 55m long so at its maximum it will be 475ft tall,

 

12. The Scottish Government says wind turbines should not be erected within 2km of houses because this is unsafe.This is an inaccurate claim. The Scottish Government requires that each local authority identify broad areas of search for wind farm proposals and recommends these areas of search for planning guidance start 2km from the edges of cities, towns, villages and settlements.

The broad area of search does not imply an exclusion zone nor a hard-and-fast rule and the Government emphasizes that constraints such as these "should not, in themselves, lead to blanket restrictions on development."

The site chosen by Viking was identified and recommended by Shetland Islands Council Planners in 2003 following consultation with SNH and RSPB, amongst others. The proposed site has no environmental designations. Viking's proposals have been developed using actual assessments of impacts on actual households.

There is no evidence that wind turbines that are within 2km of houses are unsafe or hazardous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ The Planning Department rejected the windfarm and recommended to the Councillors that it should not be granted planning permission. This was a 69 page report. Instead, the Councillors chose to go with a hastily drawn up report of something like four pages from the Business Economic Development Unit or whatever it blooming well called.

 

Your attitude makes me rather sad. Do you not realise that if VE goes ahead and given that VE would only use a fraction of the capacity of the interconnector, that other windfarms wouldn't plight as much of Shetland as possible? If these were smaller in nature, they wouldn't require planning permission.

 

Do you not care about the people facing compulsory purchase orders for the cable laying for the converter station? Any dwellings in the way will be demolished.

 

Incomers are often accused of not appreciating Shetland's history and culture. I care passionately about Shetland and its future. Shetland will not be the Shetland I have come to love if it is industrialised by windfarms.

 

The south will be affected. Granted, we are somewhat protected by the fact we have the airport so close by; hell, they wouldn't even permit BT to put up a larger mast due to the flight path. For once, I'm grateful to the airport.

 

I'm not so sure about the additional air traffic though, Stilldelin. After all, will twitchers, tourists and other visitors want to travel to learn about windfarms when they can visit the likes of Whitelee without forking out huge wads of dosh to fly here?

 

Wishart has broken his promises over and over again - what makes you so sure he has the best interest of Shetlanders at heart? After all, lest not forget these beasts only have a lifespan of 25 years but that is not factoring in the unique climate up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I read the words 'business plan' a few posts back? Is there one?

 

If there is, will the trustees of the SCT have a copy of VE's business plan prior to their next meeting to discuss giving our money away? And as we are all stakeholders in the trust, why can't we have a look at it too?

 

If there is no business plan, with a 'worst case scenario', i.e. the loss of all the money invested, with no return on the investment, wind turbines fall or blow over, interconnector damaged beyond repair, and so on, finance markets crash again, will the trustees take all this into consideration? They should.

 

Perhaps supporters of the scheme have been looking at it with the rose-coloured specs provided by VE and need a reality check.

 

Also, it seems the Scottish energy minister can decide our future, but we who live here cannot. What happened to democracy.

 

Has Mr Ewing even been up here? I'm sure he'd be very welcome. He could come up by Northlink, enjoy the trip up on a windy night to be better able to judge the strength that wind can blow at in Shetland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ The Planning Department rejected the windfarm and recommended to the Councillors that it should not be granted planning permission. This was a 69 page report. Instead, the Councillors chose to go with a hastily drawn up report of something like four pages from the Business Economic Development Unit or whatever it blooming well called.

 

Your attitude makes me rather sad. Do you not realise that if VE goes ahead and given that VE would only use a fraction of the capacity of the interconnector, that other windfarms wouldn't plight as much of Shetland as possible? If these were smaller in nature, they wouldn't require planning permission.

.

wrong all turbines require planning permission. this i know for a fact as we had to get it. Shetland has never stayed still its always had to adapt to meet the future.

 

i care for shetland my childrens futures are tied to shetland. yet you would have us quitly become a povity stricken island.

 

we need this and other schemes to be a success. even if one of them it fails its far better to have tried than just quit trying.

lets look at the new mareel im not keen on it but its an effort by folks to improve shetland.

 

i want shetland to have a bright future i don't see this in your posts.

 

we can't depend on anyone industry to keep shetland going wether oil or fishing. personally i like the look of the turbines but hate the look of the mussel farms but i except them as needed as are the turbines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops, I made an error and hold my hands up - small windfarms don't have to have approval from the Energy Minister. See, I don't mind admitting when I've made an error ... however ...

 

... even if a wind turbine does require planning permission, is the Scottish system not the same as the English whereby if a Local Authority refuses said permission that those seeking permission can go to Appeal? If you allow VE to go ahead, a precedent has been set. Oh, and I could be wrong, but re your point about the Scottish Parliament getting it wrong about 2km - guess you aren't aware of the EU stance on it either.

 

Give it a go? I've said before and I'll say it again - stick up one VE proposed turbine, have it running for say a year or two , see how well it performs ... and then peeps can see how noisy and large it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i care for shetland my childrens futures are tied to shetland. yet you would have us quitly become a povity stricken island.

 

we need this and other schemes to be a success. even if one of them it fails its far better to have tried than just quit trying.

lets look at the new mareel im not keen on it but its an effort by folks to improve shetland.

 

i want shetland to have a bright future i don't see this in your posts.

 

we can't depend on anyone industry to keep shetland going wether oil or fishing. personally i like the look of the turbines but hate the look of the mussel farms but i except them as needed as are the turbines.

 

If the Mareel is a failure, it will be small/ insignificant by comparison. If Viking Energy is built and fails, the consequences will be catastrophic for both the local environment and economy (I should also mention health of people living near it). I am with you in that I want my children to have a bright future in Shetland, but differ from you in that I do not believe that, if built, the viking energy windfarm's success is a foregone conclusion.

 

This is not proof of success, it's publicity and bribery and shameful. Viking Energy cannot properly answer questions on cost and profitability because they don't know. They'd rather just grab and gamble another 6.3 million of public funds with little detail as to how they are going to use it. I hope that trustee exercise more than a bit of caution if that meeting goes ahead on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Quite amazing that they can say communities will get dosh before they even know how much profit they'll be making, if any.

 

Why are they going to the Charitable Trust to ask for more dosh? I was under the impression that VE are a company - don't companies usually borrow from banks? Why should the Trust cough up another £6 million?

 

.

 

The payment to the community fund is based on the installed output so I presume it will be paid out regardless of profit ie it is part of the operating costs.

 

According to the Charitable Trust banks are lining up to lend Viking money. Presumably they will put the money up if construction starts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT in the words of another Orcadian (more famous than I) callin Dratsy a moron is no big and hids no clever as for sayin hids lies about oil, well hids no, what the hell do you think lubricates the gearboxes (and they shed hid like an eighteen year old on their first major piss up).

 

You're right, I shouldn't have called Dratsy a moron, after all, he's quite capable of demonstrating the fact himself.

 

Of course there's oil in gearboxes, but do you (or PJ) have any evidence that this will cause a problem? Because, unless you do, then mentioning it is just more needless scaremongering.

 

Anyway thats no really why I am postin here I am askin you to mount a crusade on Goverments to ban all lighting other than LED, which overnight would drop world electricity output by 16% and also stop toxins like mercury being used, now If your such a good friend of the earth off you go and research hid and stop postin complete rubbish (without any form of evidence) on here and let the not so closed minded have a propper debate on this issue

 

Ah, now that would be an example of the "Red Herring" fallacy. The subject under discussion is windfarms.

 

t;]Don't forget the tens of thousands of gallons of oil these turbines will contain.

 

Oh come on, PJ. I know you're against this thing, but stop making up lies. It doesn't help your case.

 

If they are to be Siemens 3.6MW turbines then 104 of them would contain over 17 thousand gallons in their transmission system gearboxes alone.

 

http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/renewables/wind-power/wind-turbines/swt-3-6-107.htm#content=Technical%20Specification

 

And this is a problem, how?

 

Seriously, if you have any evidence of gearbox oil causing problems in existing windfarms, then lets hear it.

 

How much do you think will be in the Substation transformers?

 

Oh, you're not seriously going to start arguing against mains electricity are you? All large transformers have oil in them. It's never caused a problem before, why should the VE ones be any different?

 

Also, it seems the Scottish energy minister can decide our future, but we who live here cannot. What happened to democracy.

 

Billy Fox ran for MSP. He didn't win. That was your democracy in action.

 

Here's a link showing a partially prepared base for a much smaller 2MW turbine.

 

Turbine steelwork

 

The VE turbines are sustantially larger at 3.6MW, possibly rising to 4+MW in light of the reduced number. How can tearing apart our hills to build over a hundred of these and the network of roads, substations, crane pads, quarries and compounds be seen as "green"?

 

It's greener than tearing our hills apart to build a gas plant which will never pay back it's construction carbon cost, but I don't remember you protesting against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh. I've never posted on the windfarm issue before. Are you always this ornery, AT? :D

Allowing myself to start in to one these replying-to-each-issue-in-turn type posts is probably a bad idea, but here goes anyway.....

 

My reply about the volumes of oil was as a little supporting evidence for another poster you accused of lying. He was pretty much right, there will be "tens of thousands of gallons" involved in the turbines and ancilliary equipment.

 

As for me being against mains electricity - that's quite a jump is it not? :lol:

Transformers do leak sometimes. Do you think that VE should not consider the risk of oil contamination?

 

No, you probably don't remember me protesting about the gas plant you're referring to. I don't think I did any protesting about it on Shetlink, nor did I cite it as being "green". It is, however, a very localised development onshore that can hardly be seen from anywhere other than from the existing oil terminal. It is very different on so many levels from the proposed windfarm which, as you rightly pointed out earlier, is the subject of discussion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Quite amazing that they can say communities will get dosh before they even know how much profit they'll be making, if any.

 

Why are they going to the Charitable Trust to ask for more dosh? I was under the impression that VE are a company - don't companies usually borrow from banks? Why should the Trust cough up another £6 million?

 

.

 

The payment to the community fund is based on the installed output so I presume it will be paid out regardless of profit ie it is part of the operating costs.

 

According to the Charitable Trust banks are lining up to lend Viking money. Presumably they will put the money up if construction starts.

 

I'm surprised you make such an assumption to be honest. Assumptions are not certainties. I'd want a certainty.

 

What if SSE went bankrupt or ceased trading? What if the SSE made a loss elsewhere in their plethora of companies and could no longer put so much money into VE? What would happen then? Ah yes, and we also have it that it is being 'put about' that if we pull out, the SSE have other partners lined up.

 

Scoff some of you may but just how many of these utility companies have invested in windfarms AND interconnectors and what would their balance sheets look like WITHOUT the subsidies.

 

I am highly dubious of The Charitable Trust's claims; which banks? Have they named these banks? Have they stated the repayment period? Have they stated the APR (%)?

 

All this reminds me of flogging an old banger in the Classifieds - how many of you have gone to view a car and for the seller to say "I've got another 3 people interested and one is coming tomorrow"; the old techniques of trying to get you to rush into a purchase.

 

Not persuaded, I'm afraid.

 

Edit: Actually, I'm sorely tempted to telephone peeps I know on my local community council and tell them to stuff VE's money where the sun don't shine; I wouldn't take buy goods in a boozer knowing they had probably been nicked out of some old pensioner's flat and to me, the VE project is, quite frankly, daylight robbery.

 

I'm not a fan of community councils; and can't say that ours has done a job in even advising that such consultation was going ahead. Blow it (if you pardon the pun), I don't buy the local rag and note that consultation was in October 2010 and, I quote "177 people responded to the consultation by completing the response form on paper or via the web. There were 93 written responses stating concerns about the fund and 89 written responses indicating priorities that would benefit from the funding" - Remind me, what's the population of Shetland again?

 

I'd rather back a horse in the Grand National than back Viking Energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh. I've never posted on the windfarm issue before. Are you always this ornery, AT? :D

 

Only when I'm hungry. :twisted:

 

My reply about the volumes of oil was as a little supporting evidence for another poster you accused of lying. He was pretty much right, there will be "tens of thousands of gallons" involved in the turbines and ancilliary equipment.

 

Ok, and I must say I'm surprised at the amount. The thing is, PJ is always making wild, unsupported, statements of woe about the windfarm (He is "sustainable" Shetlands forum rep, so it goes with the territory, I suppose), and he rarely provides links or even reasoning to support his assertions, but, yeah I guess I owe him an apology this time:

 

Sorry, PJ.

 

As for me being against mains electricity - that's quite a jump is it not? :lol:

Transformers do leak sometimes. Do you think that VE should not consider the risk of oil contamination?

 

No more than any other electricity generator would. And that's my point, why even bring up the transformers in relation to VE unless you're prepared to make a case against all transformers and, by extension, all mains power.

 

No, you probably don't remember me protesting about the gas plant you're referring to. I don't think I did any protesting about it on Shetlink, nor did I cite it as being "green". It is, however, a very localised development onshore that can hardly be seen from anywhere other than from the existing oil terminal. It is very different on so many levels from the proposed windfarm...

 

Yes, it isn't as visually intrusive, but it does involve almost as much peat disturbance (especially now the windfarm has been reduced in size again), will cause vastly more environmental destruction due to it's facilitation of the burning of fossil fuels and will never pay back it's carbon cost, or generate as much revenue for Shetland.

 

Yet "sustainable" Shetland brushed these issues off as irrelevant compared to the BIG, NASTY, EVIL, windfarm.

 

... which, as you rightly pointed out earlier, is the subject of discussion here.

 

Damn, thought I'd got away with that one. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with modest building projects, the C.I.L. or section 106 money (as it is called here) is spent to improve the area, normally roads and such, a recent planning meeting I was at the developer had to improve all the cycle routes around the development, install a pedestrian crossing and improve a junction before they can build. Any one who knows about planning will know that is the case.

 

So yes, it does not matter if they profit or not, there will be investment in communities.

 

Many transformers in new installations should be bunded. You can ask this at the planning meeting. Though I am sure a look at the plans when they come will indicate this.

 

The larger transformers (>33kV) are usually flood painted, so the oil will not go far, if it ever should leak. I don't think it will be on the same scale as the 200 tonnes leaked into the North Sea recently.

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...