Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

I agree with Philip Andrews letter in Shetland News- let's see a scale-model of the proposed 'windfarm'

 

- see exactly how high these things are going to be, and if there's any place in Shetland you won't be able to see / hear them?

 

Check the link in Philip's letter.

 

Look at the pics of the width of roads going to be needed to transport the bits of aerogenerators... is the SIC / Tax Payer going to have to pay for the roads to be upgraded / widened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Philip Andrews letter in Shetland News- let's see a scale-model of the proposed 'windfarm'

 

Fair point, I also would like to see a scaled model. Although I do think the images provided so far give a better perspective on the proportion of the turbines as opposed to a scaled down model.

 

Look at the pics of the width of roads going to be needed to transport the bits of aerogenerators... is the SIC / Tax Payer going to have to pay for the roads to be upgraded / widened?

 

I had a look at the video Mogling and I thought it was complete and utter sh*te as far as videos go! The language used, such as "wind monsters", a picture of a windmill blowing up due to failed braking system. Sensational forecasts of the future landscape of the UK. Four dead eagles, tragic as it is, but they don't really fit into the current discussions on VE's proposed windfarm.

 

If I had the time I could quite easily put together a far more hard hitting video on the production of oil and gas, on the effects to wildlife from oil pollution, the devastating effects when nuclear goes wrong.

 

There may be some valid arguments in there but the way it's presented leaves a lot to be desired!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOR ANY who might still be in doubt as to the probable impact of a large-scale windfarm placed at the Lang Kames, I suggest that the following link should be surfed - www.youtube.com/watch?v=doU20jzKdRk&NR=1

I've had a look at your video, Philip. What a load of scaremongering rubbish. Some dead eagles and half a dozen out of context quotes coupled with a load of deliberately edited and foreshortened photo's mixed in with some rather poorly photoshopped images deliberately designed to exaggerate the impact of wind farms. Could the people opposed to the windfarm please try to come up with something that is at least believable. :roll:

 

At least you could start by acknowledging the fact that the onset of global warming means that the landscape of Shetland will be affected in ways that we cannot predicted. (Or by stating that you don't believe in Global Warming, then we can ignore you completely.)

 

What has been the biggest environmental catastrophe in Shetland in recent years? The landslides at the South End. What caused them? An extreme rainfall event. What is the first predicted effect of Global Warming? More extreme weather events. How many wind generators were there in the area? None.

 

That mess at the South Mainland is just a small taste of what we have to expect from Global Warming. That sort of thing will soon be an annual event all over Shetland and will continue until there is no peat moor on the sides or tops of the hills in Shetland.

 

We cannot stop Global Warming, but, if we act now, we can limit the worst effects. That means switching from a fossil fuel based economy to a carbon neutral one as quickly as we can. That means building windfarms, wherever there is enough wind to turn them.

 

As I've said before (and will keep on saying), Shetland owes all of it's current prosperity to the oil industry. We owe the world (especially the third world) a debt for all the benefits we have accrued from the planet killing oil industry. And yet, all I hear is "not in my back yard", "we should only generate what we need ourselves". I didn't hear that when we were debating the oil industry. No, back then, it was " how much money can we make out of the oil"

 

Here's a suggestion for you. We knock back the windfarm, then we give all of the remaining charitable trust (oil) money to the WWF so that it can be spent in places where people care about the future of the Planet.

 

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm

 

Just to add some perspective (and urgency) to the discussion.

Initial results show that Pine Island Glacier has 'thinned' by around 4 centimetres per year over the past 5,000 years, while Smith and Pope Glaciers thinned by just over 2 cm per year during the past 14,500 years. These rates are more than 20 times slower than recent changes: satellite, airborne and ground based observations made since the 1990s show that Pine Island Glacier has thinned by around 1.6 metres per year in recent years.

:shock: :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a look at your video, Philip. What a load of scaremongering rubbish. Some dead eagles and half a dozen out of context quotes coupled with a load of deliberately edited and foreshortened photo's mixed in with some rather poorly photoshopped images deliberately designed to exaggerate the impact of wind farms. Could the people opposed to the windfarm please try to come up with something that is at least believable. :roll:

 

Some of the images provided by VE have been quite good, but it is still hard to get a good impression of the true scale and likely impact of the 160 turbines. I don't go along with these alarmist views, but I don't blame folk for investigating other examples since imformation on the VE project might seem inadequate.

 

At least you could start by acknowledging the fact that the onset of global warming means that the landscape of Shetland will be affected in ways that we cannot predicted. (Or by stating that you don't believe in Global Warming, then we can ignore you completely.)

 

What has been the biggest environmental catastrophe in Shetland in recent years? The landslides at the South End. What caused them? An extreme rainfall event. What is the first predicted effect of Global Warming? More extreme weather events. How many wind generators were there in the area? None.

 

That mess at the South Mainland is just a small taste of what we have to expect from Global Warming. That sort of thing will soon be an annual event all over Shetland and will continue until there is no peat moor on the sides or tops of the hills in Shetland.

 

We cannot stop Global Warming, but, if we act now, we can limit the worst effects. That means switching from a fossil fuel based economy to a carbon neutral one as quickly as we can. That means building windfarms, wherever there is enough wind to turn them.

 

As I've said before (and will keep on saying), Shetland owes all of it's current prosperity to the oil industry. We owe the world (especially the third world) a debt for all the benefits we have accrued from the planet killing oil industry. And yet, all I hear is "not in my back yard", "we should only generate what we need ourselves". I didn't hear that when we were debating the oil industry. No, back then, it was " how much money can we make out of the oil"

 

I believe in global warming, but this is equally just scaremongering, there is probably a movie somewhere on youtube showing catastrophic storms and landslides, you could find it and add the link here saying "if you don't accept the turbines you'll get more of this".

 

Here's a suggestion for you. We knock back the windfarm, then we give all of the remaining charitable trust (oil) money to the WWF so that it can be spent in places where people care about the future of the Planet.

 

That would be fair, wouldn't it?

 

 

That would be a smart move!

 

We definitely need a public enquiry if not proper public consultation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Philip Andrews letter in Shetland News- let's see a scale-model of the proposed 'windfarm'

 

- see exactly how high these things are going to be, and if there's any place in Shetland you won't be able to see / hear them?

 

 

A model would actually give a very poor impression of the actual impact.

 

The letter askes for a 1:1000 scale model..... well, if that model is to cover the 50km from Lerwick to Northmavine, that model would be 50m long.... a bit big for indoor display maybe.....

If on the other hand you made it a more practical scale, say 2m long, then the wind turbines would come out at about 4mm tall......

 

The turbines are not a big impact on the scale of Shetland, any impact is on a human scale, and models are not the best way to show that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said before (and will keep on saying), Shetland owes all of it's current prosperity to the oil industry.

 

I think there will be a fair few fishermen and others that would dispute that AT.

We have an oil terminal that is costing us money to keep open while the oil companies make £billions from our oil. A situation that I find obscene. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said before (and will keep on saying), Shetland owes all of it's current prosperity to the oil industry.

 

I think there will be a fair few fishermen and others that would dispute that AT.

Just how do you think all those super trawlers were paid for in the first place? If the Charitable Trust hadn't paid for the first generation of super trawlers in the '80's, there wouldn't be a pelagic fleet today.

 

Edit: By the way, is there any truth to the story I heard years ago that one of the first big pelagic boats had it's extension built on the slipway alongside the original boat at the same time? (The idea being that, that way they got a grant for building the boat and then another grant to extend the boat.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm

 

Just to add some perspective (and urgency) to the discussion.

Initial results show that Pine Island Glacier has 'thinned' by around 4 centimetres per year over the past 5,000 years, while Smith and Pope Glaciers thinned by just over 2 cm per year during the past 14,500 years. These rates are more than 20 times slower than recent changes: satellite, airborne and ground based observations made since the 1990s show that Pine Island Glacier has thinned by around 1.6 metres per year in recent years.

:shock: :cry:

 

Pine Island Glacier could be melting because there is an active volcano below it. Nothing to do with global warming. Allegedly.

 

"The volcano’s heat could possibly be melting and thinning the ice and raising the speed of the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica."

 

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/volcano-not-global-warming-effects-may-be-melting-an-antarctic-glacier/714

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ Fair enough, but from the same report... ^^^^

But while the Pine Island Glacier may be thinning because of the volcano, it’s highly unlikely the thinning of Antarctica’s ice sheet as a whole can be blamed on hidden volcanoes. For one thing, Antarctica has very few active volcanoes. Most glacial scientists, including Dr. Vaughan himself, blame warmer ocean waters for glacial thinning in West Antarctica.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not start debating global warming, there is already a thread about it somewhere else. I'm sure the ice is melting, and I just posted the link about the volcano for a bit of skimp. Sorry :twisted: As I posted yesterday, the windfarm will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, it has nothing to do with climate change because the climate will change whether the windfarm is built or not. Potentially it could earn a lot of cash, potentially it could lose a lot. Let's discuss that, instead of being distracted by irrelevant arguments about global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AT

The pelagic trawler story you cited is close, but not correct. Slightly embelished upon.

 

 

I was going to answer one of your earlier posts in a fit of pique but fortunately i was otherwise occupied and now i can see the funny side:

 

Do you really believe that all the hills are going to come tumbling down? Speak about scaremongering! :lol: And building the turbines would prevent this how exactly?

 

Mostly rhetorical AT, but i had to make the point.

 

Oh, and what you 'heard' being debated when the oil was coming here was not just how much money can be made, but how the environmental impact could be minimised, both aesthetically and with anti-pollution measures and also how the site be returned to an acceptable condition when it was all done and by with. Not exactly "SHOW ME THE MONEY!", hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pelagic trawler story you cited is close, but not correct. Slightly embelished upon.

Ok, I always did find it amusing tho', I think it was a tale from a Squad meeting many years ago.

Do you really believe that all the hills are going to come tumbling down? Speak about scaremongering! And building the turbines would prevent this how exactly?

Well if one side of the argument can rely on hysterical exaggeration.... but seriously, I believe that the landslides were caused by an unusually severe rainstorm, the first manifestation of global warming is predicted to be more frequent severe weather, i.e severe rainstorms, and given that these will eventually happen everywhere (tho' hopefully not all at once), I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that such landslides will eventually happen in many more places in Shetland. As far as building the turbines might prevent that is concerned, that will only happen as part of a global effort to limit the more severe effects of climate change by switching to renewable energy.

 

There, has that explained my reasoning for you?

 

Let's not start debating global warming

Why not? Surely the whole point of the windfarm is to do our bit in reducing carbon emissions and limiting the effects of climate change.

the windfarm will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions, it has nothing to do with climate change because the climate will change whether the windfarm is built or not.

I disagree, Every MW of power produced using renewable generating capacity is a MW that does not have to be produced by burning coal or oil. It is true that the climate will change regardless of whether or not the windfarm is built, it's too late to prevent that now, but the crucial thing now is how much the climate will change. It is still not too late (I hope) to avoid the more catastrophic effects of climate change, but to achieve this we must replace our existing fossil fuel dependency with renewable's as soon as possible.

 

The one thing I did not hear when the oil terminal was being discussed was "We should only accept enough oil for our own (Shetland's) needs", that's the point I was trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and every ton of carbon dioxide that is produced in constructing the windfarm and every ton of displaced peat that is destabilised is one more step down the ladder from neutrality that must be regained during the 25yr optimum lifespan of the windfarm. Lest we forget. :wink:

 

Creating a micro-renewables utopia in shetland on a smaller scale and with deliberately engineered returns to public funds would be equally, if not more responsible.

 

Now then, birds, yes birds, we haven't heard that old chestnut for a while so lets just remind ourselves of that:

 

Cath Harris, (RSPB Press Office) in the RSPB magazine, wrote:

Wind farms blamed for eagle deaths

Wind turbines have caused the deaths of four white-tailed eagles in Norway. The discovery of the dead white-tailed eagles, and the failure of almost 30 to return to nesting sites within the wind farm area on the Smøla islands, has increased fears that wind farms in the UK could have a similar toll on the native and migrating wild birds.

Mark Avery, the RSPB's Conservation director said, 'These findings are shocking, yet may only be the tip of the iceberg. Research on the islands is being stepped up and if more dead birds are found, and even fewer are able to breed, we will be doubly determined to fight wind farm plans that could cause similar disruption in the UK.'

The 68-turbine Smøla wind farm was built between 2001 and 2005. The Norwegian government ignored advice based on an environmental assessment, warning against the development because of the danger it posed to white-tailed eagles. Birdlife International took the case to the Bern Convention but the decision was not overturned.

A rose by any other name:

RSPB[/url]"]The merlin is listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, which affords special protection at all times. It is an offence to take, injure or kill a merlin or to take, damage or destroy its nest, eggs or young. It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb the birds at or close to their nest during the breeding season.

 

Violation of the law can attract fines up to £5,000 per offence and/or a prison sentence of up to six months.

 

14 merlin nest sites within windfarm limits, according to statistics gathered during the survey, if i recall correctly. So who is going to accept the fine or take the prison sentence if this "1+1=2" argument comes to fruition? Or shall we just close our eyes and cross our fingers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the landslides were caused by an unusually severe rainstorm, the first manifestation of global warming is predicted to be more frequent severe weather, i.e severe rainstorms, and given that these will eventually happen everywhere (tho' hopefully not all at once), I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that such landslides will eventually happen in many more places in Shetland.

 

The climate change predictions for the north of Europe are for increased rainfall and more severe storms. General predictions are for the greater increase in severe rainfall to be in the summer.

 

If you trawl the Met Office website you can get the Lerwick weather records since they started in 1931, and those show a pretty steady increase in Shetland's annual rainfall of about 25% over that time - yes the weather really was "better" when we were young ;-)

 

So far the summer rainfall has actually stayed almost constant here, with an even increase in the other seasons. There is a definite trend of "wet" and "dry" years, and that hasn't really changed just the mean line keeps moving up.

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...