Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh, Jesus wept! Whit next?

 

Nonsense, utter bloody nonsense!!

 

 

Hold on a moment! Full marks to Dave Hammond here! He's only doing an equal and opposite to VE. They chose to plonk their turbines in full view of the lowest concentration of population (i'll let you decide why). Dave's just letting the good citizens of lerwick (of which i'm proud to include myself :wink: ) have a sneak preview of what it would look like out of their own front window!

 

I could easily take the moral high ground like Pertocelli and say I dont have anything to gain from this, but like him, I dont have to to live in the shadow of it.

 

I've deliberately not contributed to this debate so far because it affects more people who have to live with it closer to home than me.

 

I'm fast coming to the conclusion though, that the biggest factor in this is financal rather than environmental concerns. Not that there's anything wrong there though as long as you're being up front and not trying to pull thew wool over someones eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, stick with reality here people. Go and have a look at VE's website, there are loads of images there which give a TRUE reflection on where the turbines are actually planned.

 

I would imagine when the revised plan comes out at the end of this month we will get more pictures, hopefully the interactive map will be there too.

 

Really!! :roll:

 

I've been to the VE website and down loaded the pictures and seen the matchsticks on the horizon and know that that comes no where near the real visual impact of the proposed turbines.

 

Until I see something more convincing I will be happy to accept the excellent efforts of amateurs over the slanted publicity material of VE. If you want reality, you will have to use your imagination!

 

Well done Dave, top marks for effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interconnecter cable for Weisdale valley then, joined onto a bloody big converter station, but it's ok because Mr Thompson say's it's out of SIGHT up the valley.

 

You cannot TRUST any body associated with this terrible project.

 

Shetland's whole heritage is at stake here, this must not be taken lying down,

OH and Petrocelli if your not on Viking energys payroll, you should be!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've been to the VE website and down loaded the pictures and seen the matchsticks on the horizon and know that that comes no where near the real visual impact of the proposed turbines.

 

Until I see something more convincing I will be happy to accept the excellent efforts of amateurs over the slanted publicity material of VE. If you want reality, you will have to use your imagination!

 

Well done Dave, top marks for effort.

 

Sorry still can't work out this quote thing....

 

I have to agree with ched on this one, Dave Hammont has made a good representation of what Bressay MIGHT look like with 20 turbines. It is not the fact that he has chosen Bressay - it is purely to demonstrate the scale of the things. something VE is convienently glossing over.

If we are looking for possible locations how about putting a few dozen on the Ness of Sound. Please correct me if I am wrong but as I remember the Council already bought this from Brian Anderson back in the nineties so they should be able to put theme here for free. :wink: :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we will have to accept that there will be sacrifices made but in the bigger scheme of things how great will those sacrifices be?
The sooner David Thomson and his fellow directors come out and spell out exactly what they are commiting and in what form the better! David has stated before that his personal finances should remain so but I would feel happier if he just came out and said it exactly as it is. Why leave a grey area when everyone would be happier to deal with the facts.
As I said before if no agreement can be reached with the immediate communities affected then I would not like to see this go ahead. I live in Lerwick and I will in no way be affected by a windfarm situated 20 miles north of here. Obviously, communities close by may be affected and if all the surveys come back with negative responses, and the communities themselves are dead against it then it simply should not go ahead.
Co2 emissions, am no gonna get to hung up on this whole debate Crofter. There are too many "unknown, unknowns". My gut feeling is that it has to be for the better capturing power from wind. I'll leave it to everybody else to squabble about if, how, why much is actually being saved. It's not top of the list of the reasons for me why we should be doing this, but it is a valid reason.
I hold absolutely no ill feelings against anybody who opposes the windfarm for that is their right. If they manage to stop the project from happening then they'll have done their jobs and, I would like to think, done them well. Although, if it should be stopped I won't be leaving on the next ferry!

I am definitely getting a distinct feeling from several of you that that sentiment is not reciprocated!:cry:

And Petro I'm not thick as mince and I do think you have some connection with VE, if not financially then one or more of the Burradale boys is your mate.

How would that work Shagger? Unless you know me I wouldn't be able to prove that I have no connection to VE. Let's just say that one day my identity may become clear, maybe a letter to the paper, who knows! Anybody who has followed this thread will be able to put 2+2 together and make the connection. However, if you are willing to reveal your identity to me I may be willing to do the same.:wink:

I'm fast coming to the conclusion though, that the biggest factor in this is financal rather than environmental concerns. Not that there's anything wrong there though as long as you're being up front and not trying to pull thew wool over someones eyes.

To answer your question Muppet, yes, it is more about money than the environment for me. Although there are obvious arguments on that front, but as mentioned before these appear to be highly contentious.

OH and Petrocelli if your not on Viking energys payroll, you should be!!!

I'll take that as a compliment PJ, thanks! :wink:

 

I have an archive of information on the VE project. Every article, letter or brochure printed about this project. I have followed it since I first heard about it. I am trying to make myself as informed as possible as to the best way ahead for Shetland. Would you deny me that right?

 

This forum is on Shetland's proposed windfarm. Unless folk like me are on here then cynics/sceptics like yourselves would only end up arguing with your own arses! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent effort at simulating what we might expect in Shetland. Minus of course the roads, electricity substation and the pylons.

 

With Ward Hill about 250m high and the turbines 140m to the top of the blade, there would seem to be some scaling problems. The perspective doesn't seem to match up either.

 

For photo-montaging to be accurate you need to match all the virtual and real cameras properties, and it doesn't look like that has been done.

 

The visual impact will be one of the main concerns people have, and it would be better to judge things from solid information.

 

Also, if there *was* to be a windfarm built on Bressay, the turbines would be sited on the higher ground - further away from Lerwick - which would reduce the visual impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

[Also, if there *was* to be a windfarm built on Bressay, the turbines would be sited on the higher ground - further away from Lerwick - which would reduce the visual impact.]

 

1. I don't think a few hundred yards further away will make much difference to the visual impact of these things.

 

2. If they are on the hill tops they are totally against the skyline and so are more visually intrusive.

 

3. I suspect that there are several residents on the west side that will end up much closer to the turbines than the distance between The Bressay simulation and the point where Dave Hammond is 'standing'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I don't think a few hundred yards further away will make much difference to the visual impact of these things.

 

2. If they are on the hill tops they are totally against the skyline and so are more visually intrusive.

 

3. I suspect that there are several residents on the west side that will end up much closer to the turbines than the distance between The Bressay simulation and the point where Dave Hammond is 'standing'.

 

Look at the turbine Dave has put at the top of Ward hill, the "smallest" looking one in his simulation. If they were put on the hilltops, that would become the "biggest" turbine in the simulation. I accept your third point, and we should also remember that this is only 20 machines....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just say that one day my identity may become clear, maybe a letter to the paper, who knows!

 

There is a good letter from Laurence Farmer in the paper today. He writes:

 

"Put simply, if our council gets this wrong the financial loss and environmental damage could be enormous and devastating to our future. Therefore we must insist on rigorous scrutiny."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a good letter from Laurence Farmer in the paper today. He writes:

 

"Put simply, if our council gets this wrong the financial loss and environmental damage could be enormous and devastating to our future. Therefore we must insist on rigorous scrutiny."

 

I totally agree, Crofter. This whole project must be given "rigorous scrutiny".

 

Laurence also mentions that: "VE only appearing to have estimates of probably income (for us all or not?)."

 

At the moment am afraid this is all it can be, estimates. If we were signing up to long term deals with estimates then I would be extremely worried. However, that would not be the case for if this ever goes ahead it will be with concrete contracts, both on length of contract and fixed price of energy units.

 

But to challenge the project we must also make solid arguments. Dave's simulation is a classic example. Yes, fair play, he's done his bit, but it is quite clear that it is not even remotely accurate.

 

A lot of the stuff that's being bandied around detracts from the real issues and concerns. I too have concerns and I will not hesitate to ask questions when we receive further information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

Agreed! 'Rigorous scrutiny' is absolutly essential. However this is not a concept which sits well with the powers that be in Shetland. If rigorous scrutiny had been applied in the past the Shetland Trusts etc might not have been allowed to 'loose' so much money in certain directions over the years. I see no sign of this changing in the near future.

Again, I stand to be corrected, but I am led to believe that the trusts are not included under the freedom of information act. Is this a good starting point for rigourous scrutiny? Does anyone know, for example, how much public money is being spent as we speak in supporting VE, and their campaign to inflict this project on Shetland?

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...