Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

We make the argument that the positive economic benefits to the community of the project will outweigh the subjective negative impacts that cannot be otherwise avoided.

 

I am waiting to hear what these positive economic benefits are going to be. They will have to be pretty damn good if you are expecting people to support such a vast area of the Shetland Landscape being developed as a windfarm.

 

I bothered myself to actually go and read the article and I don’t see that the recognition is automatically threatened by the windfarm. I encourage differing opinions from others who have read the article but I don’t think they are ranking islands essentially for scenery or attractiveness. The opening paragraphs state they are examining the integrity of islands against the pressures of population pressure, climate change, storm damage, invasive species and tourism overkill. That is quite a different type of ‘unspoilt’.

 

I am would be astonished if the recognition is not threatened by the windfarm. Do you not think that industrialisation of a landscape could possibly be ignored in such a survey?

 

Population Pressure---> Industrialisation... this is exactly the sort of thing that would effect the 'unspoilt' status of an island!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've gone through the 42 pages and can't find anywhere that he states risking his own money or house.

 

Remember that David is on Shetlink with his own real-world name and is answering questions - this is something he did not have to do!

 

he's also in the real world asking us to risk our money and our landscape/environment for his profit.

yes he claims we will all benefit but he will benefit even if it does go tits up.

 

you can be sure of one thing the salary paid to the directors will cover any initial token investment.

I am a great believer in, if it is a good idea it will pay for itself and if it is not a good idea it will fail.

 

SSG ring any bells. It went tits up and the directors walked away with pockets full of our cash. Ltd companies are fair enough if you invest your own money in your idea but not when it is other peoples money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very obvious that David Thomson will stand to gain financially if the VE project gets the go ahead and proves to be successful. Therefore his promotion of the windfarm has to be viewed in that light. He is to be complimented on his responses to negative comments about the proposals but I remain to be convinced about the benefits of such a massive industrialation of the central mainland of Shetland compared to what would be lost.

Much smaller windfarm proposals attract much opposition on mainland Scotland. The scale of opposition here is uncertain since VE have chosen not to reveal results of their 'consultation' so far. Presumably these were not too favourable or we would have heard about them by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scale of opposition here is uncertain since VE have chosen not to reveal results of their 'consultation' so far. Presumably these were not too favourable or we would have heard about them by now.

 

The scale of opposition is unknown since VE have done nothing that I am aware of to objectively measure support for their proposals in their so called 'consultation'... of course MORI polls might have been carried out, but I have not met anyone involved, anyway this is market/ opinion polling and its value would depend on the questions asked and who was asked and 'any' interpretation can be made of such a poll by a determined or bias developer who would want to make public opinion look as favourable as possible for them. If you want the answer to public opinion on such a thing, the developers are the last people you should ask.

 

From personal experience and discussions with other attendees I estimated more than 80% of participants in public meetings objected to the VE proposal.. I was there and counted (that is not to say that people were against the concept of a windfarm, just this windfarm).

 

Their 'consultation' leaves a great deal to be desired if you consider what form 'public consultation' should really take... interesting subject if you read into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DavidThomson wrote:

 

We make the argument that the positive economic benefits to the community of the project will outweigh the subjective negative impacts that cannot be otherwise avoided.

 

Would it not be fairer to say:

 

We make the argument that the subjective economic benefits to the community of the project will outweigh the subjective negative impacts that cannot be otherwise avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flaming Mo,

you are probably right. Nevertheless I don't see a prob, because David was the only one who sticked to the flag ... and did answer the quesions whether we do like his answers or not.

He might have personal interests but lobbying/fighting for such interests is no shame.

 

What is by far more interesting is the question why the Council did transfere the risks to the trust ...

 

They transfered the the risks but they are still acting as councillors ...

They wanted the new Museum and they voted as trustees in favour ...

They want the windfarm, they tranfered and will vote as trustees in favour ...

 

If they would have declared their interests according to Scottish laws they should have not voted on both the matters, they should have declared their interests but leave the decission to the remaining two independent members. That's all ;-)

 

Ten or 22 councillors at the trust's board ... where is the difference, when none of them sticks to the rules ? ... no reason to blame David for anything ... ;-)

 

@David: Be sure that I will join into the "the fight" when the results will be published on the VE-website ... ;-)

 

BDW: David, the VE-2005-website promised a lot of details due to be published in 2006 ... by now there are neither updates nor any additional information ... looking from abroad that really "dis-qualyfies" the whole approach ... but that's a different problem ... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to imagine how it could work, but not so easy to get the technology in place and working efficiently on an industrial scale: - just catch all the CO2 > compress it > pump it down old oil wells for handy storage.

 

I remember something about a new coal fired power station proposed for the south of England, that will be "CO2 capture compatible"...... in other words they can't do it at the moment, hope they have some idea how it might work, and will try to not mess up that future chance in the design.

 

It'd be nice if it did turn out that way, seeing as we have some coal left.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have actually seen proposals for carbon capture. The problem is that the capture and sequestration process will use up so much of the energy output of the power station (75% was one figure I heard) that the power station becomes unviable.

 

I'll try and find references for this, I think it was in a Peak oil book I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With plans to install 7000 turbines offshore UK how can a wind farm 200+ miles from the consummer be viable. Read the waffle (** MOD EDIT **) in the Shetland News (** MOD EDIT **) I'll quote him

 

Viking and SSE hope to have the windfarm operating by 2015 and if offshore developments go ahead they could provide interconnector cables which Shetland could plug into

 

why dont they just build a few more turbines closer to the consummer then there is no need to use an expensive interconnector all the way from Shetland. Do you really think that the turbines are going to be built anywhere near here they will be built in blackpool bay, the Severn Estuary, of the coast of Norfolk, of Humberside, in the Firth of Forth, in the Firth of Clyde close to where the power is needed not hundreds of miles away.

 

David Thomson, who also chairs the Shetland Renewable Energy Forum, said if offshore turbines were installed on such a scale, then the

infrastructure they required, such as underwater power cables, would be of use to Shetland.

 

They will only be of use if they are already passing Shetland David. :roll: I for one don't think you are stupid, but you must think the rest of us are bloody imbeciles. Forget it and be happy with the money you are making from Burradale cant fault you for that enterprise, but what you are suggesting makes no sense economically or environmentaly. Shetlands money will not be sqandered (** MOD EDIT **).

 

[mod]

- please draw your tone in and or give information and or reference to "no sense economically or environmentally". Everyone knows you can post eleqouent arguments. Please refrain from what amounts to no more than a direct attack against a member of the public. Even if you do state "I for one don't think you are stupid". Please help Shetlink to help you provide a platform from which we can all benefit![/mod]

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...