Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

^^^ That's nice to see. ^^^

Wednesday, 8 November, 2000, 19:00 GMT

But it is a very old report (in the context of this debate, anyway), I fear things have changed since then.

 

Anyway, even if that is true, I think it makes the moral argument for the windfarm even stronger if, as the report suggests, we can dodge the worst climate effects.

 

It won't make any difference to the sea level rise though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Speaking as someone fully aware of global warming but not inclined toward the 'all or nothing' approach i think perhaps your mind is not so open AT. Forgive me if i am wrong.

If we owe it to the world to do everything we can, then surely investigating the all financial and environmental consequences are of utmost importance in that process.

 

If i needed to build a shed in my garden i would be considered a fool if i bulldozed the flower border and put up a 42sqm tin shack for my lawnmower, half of which was on my neighbours A's land, with guaranteed rental paid and reliant on receiving a rental from neighbour B for the housing of his lawnmower to sustain itself. Subsequently neighbour B builds his own shed and i'm left with a monstrosity, big guaranteed costs, no rental, and no flower border! :wink:

 

If the net reduction in CO2 production in the long term was proven to be greater by micro-renewables within Shetland, and the UK's energy need were more completely offset by a cable to Iceland would it still make sense to blow the CT fund on the VE scheme?

 

Oh, and once again, your investigation seems minimal as there is another wind turbine supplier in Shetland who does good work and has nothing to do with VE, he has even posted here.

 

As for climate change, it is only ten years or so since scientists from Aberdeen University's marine labs were monitoring the slow down and projected stop of a north Atlantic current that helps maintain the Gulf Stream's north-easterly vector. at that time it was projected that within twenty years it would stop and Shetland would encounter a climate befitting it's latitude. It's not happened yet, but i'm still contemplating building a ski lift on spec. 8) Oh, and that would make it drier here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the same report:

But the Tyndall Centre's director, Dr Mike Hulme, said that, almost without exception, the countries threatened most starkly by global warming produced the smallest amounts of the greenhouse gases believed to be causing it.

And we, who have benefitted the most from the climate wrecking oil industry, will get off the easiest.

 

:evil: Thank God I wasn't born in Africa. :evil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I should have said that the load factor we can expect in Shetland is twice what they are getting in Denmark.

No! Load factor in Denmark 20%, Shetland 52%... you do the math?

 

OK, 2.6 times better. But if you took the 4 top performing machines in Denmark and compared them with the Burradale farm you might get a different result :wink:

 

 

 

If you agree that Shetland is a good place to build wind turbines, then why do you oppose such an idea?

 

Because I think it is too massive. A better idea would be to build it about half the size and incorporate a hydro power station into the plans. That way we could produce electricity even when the wind stopped blowing.

I'd be interested to hear how you think the potential profits could be spent to best effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those likely to warm least - three degrees C or less - are the UK and Ireland in the Northern Hemisphere, and Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and New Zealand in the south."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/1013601.stm

 

The first one from my search. I agree there are difficult times ahead, but If the climate is going to change, some places will be affected worse than others. It is possible (I am not suggesting this will definately happen) that the climate in Shetland will improve as a result of GW.

 

The predictions I have seen suggest Shetland will not be particularly badly hit by the direct climate changes - a little warmer, a little windier, a little more annual rainfall. Not really an kind of improvement, but maybe no big shock to the system. As I posted above we have already had at least 75 years of increasing rainfall (through whatever cause(s)) so it'll possibly just be more of the same.

 

Increased summer rainfall is also likely, and increased likelihood of severe rainfall also appears in all the predictions I've seen. Not so good there then, and possibly making landslides more likely...... although if we assume the southend slides happened because of heavy rainfall on dried out peat..... well if the peat never dries out.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we owe it to the world to do everything we can, then surely investigating the all financial and environmental consequences are of utmost importance in that process.

Absolutely, and as far as I am aware, nobody has come up with any convincing evidence that the environmental impact of the VE proposal will be anywhere near as bad as the environmental impact of doing nothing.
If the net reduction in CO2 production in the long term was proven to be greater by micro-renewables within Shetland, and the UK's energy need were more completely offset by a cable to Iceland would it still make sense to blow the CT fund on the VE scheme?
The thing is, nobody has yet come up with any evidence that this is the case. Currently, there is no micro-renewables proposal or Icelandic cable proposal. The VE windfarm is the option that is being offered. The only other option on the table right now is doing nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twerto mentioned planting trees on the hills, better off with some large scale afforestation of native trees, and a scheme for willow coppicing that crofters could look into starting up, or anybody else for that matter, grants available from the CT ?, this would have to be done in the more sheltered valleys though.

 

Shetland is far to small for an industrial scale wind farm like this one, the enviromental damage just in the construction over several years will put pay to any wild life habitats., some thing that seems to come last place behind the financial squabbles.

 

You can't just rip up hundreds of hectares of peat and heather and at the end of construction, spread it all out and expect it to nit together again, it just won't do it. The implications of this on the landscape change it for ever.

 

I think when the true scale of the proposal and it's long term affects on the enviroment of Shetland, and the widespread intrusian to the lives of Shetlanders is fully understood, the project will be stopped in it's tracks.

And i'am not a NIMBY or a NUTTER, just some one who knows that going about stopping global warming in this fashion is complete BONKERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, nobody has yet come up with any evidence that this is the case.
The VE windfarm is the option that is being offered. The only other option on the table right now is doing nothing.

 

So where is the evidence that building this windfarm will result in a net reduction in CO2 emissions? If you can post a link I would appreciate it, because I have been searching the net but all I can find are some vague statements on pro-windfarm sites. I might be persuaded that it should go ahead from a purely financial argument, but to present it as somehow "good" for the environment is unjustified IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re. Co2 emission, if you're referring to the Danish example then again this is clearly wrong. There are no reduction in emissions in Denmark because all their energy is coming from hydro or nuclear, which is Co2 free already.

 

No, I am meaning in general. I don't think Denmark has got any nuclear or hydro power stations, but they have plenty of coal and gas fired plants, along with some fired from biomass. The Nuclear and Hydro electricity which is replaced by Danish wind power is in Sweden and Norway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as far as I am aware, nobody has come up with any convincing evidence that the environmental impact of the VE proposal will be anywhere near as bad as the environmental impact of doing nothing.

 

You are quite right. I would like to see a convincing and I mean a convincing EIA for this proposal. Isn't it normal that the developer commissions an EIA... so won't be very convincing will it? Did someone do a peat survey last year... was that published, if not why not? or did it say something that VE didn't want to hear.. it would be good to see it in its original form.

 

We could have a better debate here, but we are just being kept in the dark for an awfully long time.

 

... in the meantime lets just keep going with the "CLIMATE CHANGE SCAREMONGERS" V "NUTTER" (has anyone been keeping the score?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting report here:

 

http://www.countryguardian.net/Whiteco2.pdf

 

REDUCTION IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS:

ESTIMATING THE POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION

FROM WIND-POWER

A Report by David White, BSc, C Eng, F I Chem E

Commissioned and published by the Renewable Energy Foundation

 

• In conclusion, it seems reasonable to ask why wind-power is the beneficiary of such extensive support if it not only fails to achieve the CO2 reductions required, but also causes cost increases in back-up, maintenance and transmission, while at the same time discouraging investment in clean, firm generation capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, 2.6 times better. But if you took the 4 top performing machines in Denmark and compared them with the Burradale farm you might get a different result :wink:

 

Ha ha! :lol: Listen, when we build the windfarm I'll take the top four here against your top four any day!!:lol: By the way, if you have the data for that top four, let's hear it?

 

I'd be interested to hear how you think the potential profits could be spent to best effect.

 

Here are a few.

 

Wouldn't like to put exact figures on it, for obvious reasons, but I would like to see a good portion go towards research and development into other renewable technologies here in Shetland. Forms of energy which can be used to supplement wind, even replace it, eventually making oil fired power stations in Shetland redundant.

 

Help fund micro-renewable projects. Steps such as these could make Shetland totally self-sufficient in renewable energy.

 

I view the VE windfarm as an exciting first step on a ladder which could open various doors for future generations of Shetlanders. Sure, the current SCT funds could probably see me out. If I was to be selfish about it then, hell, let's keep the status quo until the money's all gone.

 

But for me that's simply not good enough! We can do better than that, we can think bigger than that, future generations of Shetlanders deserve better than that!

 

Shetland could be the test bed for so many renewable technologies of the future. But, we would need to fund it ourselves or else we could find ourselves at the disposal of of big business. If we generate our own funds then, like the SEE agreement, we could develop alongside partners with industry expertise such as mentioned.

 

If we build the windfarm I'm confident that we could generate income which could self-fund all this, and more, for years to come.

 

To sit and watch the pot run dry would be the biggest sin we could commit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, if you have the data for that top four, let's hear it?

 

I think the Danish offshore windfarms can manage about 30%.

 

Here is what Viking energy reckons on CO2:

 

· That volume of electricity could result in an annual reduction of over 2 million

tonnes in CO2 emissions.

· A reduction of that volume of CO2 would be the equivalent of over 4% of

Scotland's annual emission level.

 

http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/downloads/SIC%209-5-06b.pdf

 

And SSE:

 

Against this, a wind farm on the scale envisaged would be able to provide the energy for 25 per cent of Scottish homes or be piped down south to England. It would also cut Scottish carbon emissions by 5 per cent according to Sir Robert Smith, Scottish and Southern’s chairman.

 

http://www.oilbarrel.com/feature/article.html?body=1&key=oilbarrel_features_en:1187796594&feed=oilbarrel_en

 

Still looking for independent verification!

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...