Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Classic example of "cherry picking" by Mutton here am afraid folks.

 

To read the full Research Findings please go to

 

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

 

 

While we are waiting for the EIA in which public representation are properly made and more misleading matchstick montages from VE, here are a few more cherries picked about a similar scenario on another island...

 

Busbridge (2004) also utilises the VisitScotland figures to argue that the impact on tourism in the Western Isles of the Lewis development would be serious. He points out that for island communities the opportunities for local displacement are limited. He reinforces his worries with evidence eventually presented in TMS(2005).

 

 

Table 3-6 shows the key table from the report. Even if we assume that all who did not answer disagreed with the statement two thirds of those surveyed would have agreed with the statement that wind farms “..will destroy the natural and visual landscape and less tourists will visitâ€

 

 

Unfortunately we will not know public opinion on this matter in Shetland unless such a survey is undertaken here, but I would guess the outcome would be quite similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we are waiting for the EIA in which public representation are properly made and more misleading matchstick montages from VE, here are a few more cherries picked about a similar scenario on another island...

 

Busbridge (2004) also utilises the VisitScotland figures to argue that the impact on tourism in the Western Isles of the Lewis development would be serious. He points out that for island communities the opportunities for local displacement are limited. He reinforces his worries with evidence eventually presented in TMS(2005).

 

 

Table 3-6 shows the key table from the report. Even if we assume that all who did not answer disagreed with the statement two thirds of those surveyed would have agreed with the statement that wind farms “..will destroy the natural and visual landscape and less tourists will visitâ€

 

You're referring to the report which was commissioned by the Western Islands Tourist Board, yes? Whereby 402 of its members were surveyed on the possiblity of a large windfarm in Lewis. Only 139 (35%) felt strongly enough about it to actually complete and return the forms. Of those 35%, 105 could be said to be strongly against such a scheme which work outs at just over 25% of total surveys sent. That doesn't sound that conclusive to me!:wink:

 

Unfortunately we will not know public opinion on this matter in Shetland unless such a survey is undertaken here, but I would guess the outcome would be quite similar.

 

Anyway, am not that hung up on surveys. Unless everyone being surveyed is as fully informed as possible then it makes it pretty much pointless IMO!

 

I would be all for a Shetland-wide survey if everyone was fully informed. Say we marched everyone through a process where they were given relevant information from both sides, VE and Sustainable Shetland. Then were given a test to make sure they'd fully understood the arguments for and against. On passing this test they could vote for or against the motion, simple, eh? :wink:

 

Sadly, as is usual in Shetland, I would say apathy is winning the day! Won't be the first time and sadly won't be the last! It's depressed me how many times I bring up the topic in conversation and it's met with lacklustre responses. "Oh, I dunno.... no sure... anybody see Eastenders last night?... AARGGH!:x

 

At least users on here have shown they care what's best for Shetland, regardless of stance on this project. Well done everyone! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well pointed out Fjoll If everybody here had the same opinion the Shetlink fourm would be pointless. what ever I think or say or even post is my own personal view I don't expect any one else here to agree with them. but at least I am a free person to say what I think for now anyway. Thats more than a lot of people in this world can do, the Middle East and China to name but some. What ever happens the Shetland people will have to get on with there lives regardless. There was a windmill not far on by Voe a few years back and all the times I went past it. It was never turning like Dales Voe the whole thing mite just turn out to be another white elephant?

 

The cost that Njugle has pointed out, See his post on page 38 (Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:05 pm) the total cost mite just turn out be a lot more than anybody bargained for even a change in the shetland way of life as we all know it. And that may turn out to be the biggest price of all for everybody. And I understand why a Lot of people dont want that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

The more I read in this topic, the more I realise that Viking Energy will win.

Shetland will become a wind farm.

Shetland will become a joke, and an example of how money can ruin natural beauty.

But that doesn't matter.

Throughout history Shetland has been screwed by the lairds. So if Shetland is now screwed by VE and a few people who stand to make a lot of money, what is the difference. None!!!!

Viking Energy are just giving Shetlanders what they want, and deserve. To be treated like minions by sphincters in high office.

I would cry for the demise of Shetland, if I had any tears left in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

^^^

Fjool,

I Hope that your children, like mine, can enjoy Shetland as we have.

But, that's just wishful thinking.

I can still remember the fun I had with my oldest daughter, when she couldn't believe that there was no TV when I was her age, (6 years, at that time). Perhaps that will be something like the future for Shetland.

Just imagine your grand children laughing when you tell them of a time when Shetland wasn't an industrial ruin.

Maybe I'm just sentimental, but does sentiment mean nothing these days??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ Ok Rasmie, that's the worst case scenario for the complete failure of the VE project, and I still think you are exaggerating. The "industrial ruin" will only ever affect the NE corner of the mainland.

 

Now consider the worst case for climate change. The Greenland icecap melts. That's a seven metre sea level rise. The western Antarctic ice cap melts, that's another seven metres. Just how much of your beloved Shetland is left then? Damned little.

 

These icecaps may take a couple of centuries to melt but melt they will if climate change is not addressed NOW! We may not live to see the ultimate effect of climate change, but our grand children's grand children will and they will curse our names if we fail to act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

^^^ Afraid I don't believe that a wind farm can have any positive impact on climate change. In fact more likely a negative impact.

Other forms of alternative energy can, and will make a difference. But never wind farms.

To have any real impact on climate change we need to change our use of energy. Simple little things like switching off lights which aren't needed, turning down central heating thermostats a few degrees, and walking short distances instead of using a car. Those are things which will have a positive impact on climate change.

 

On a lighter note. I saw an advert on TV last night which suggested that eating less beef could have a positive impact on climate change. The point of it was that less demand for beef would mean less cows farting greenhouse gas. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Arabia Terra I must inform you the you are showing yourself to be completly detached from reality.

Do you really believe this windfarm will save the planet ?

The truth is the human race and the civilliasation & infrastructure that has evolved over the last 2-3 centuries is now committed to burning fossil fuels till the fat lady sings.

We have a planetery population of 6+ billion & rising and the system for growing and distributing the food we all eat relies on the continued use of fossil fuels. You cannot stop this , it is a juggernaut without brakes.

I am all for wind & other renewable energy and find it quite sad that shetland is not trying to progress towards to be self sustaining from wind & other types of renewables now rather than this insane plan.

Whats more there are several wind farms being planned and already being built all around the uk mainland which is good , power being generated as close to the end user as possible and done with the minimum of energy outlay to put in place.

Your hysterical notion of this global warming you use as your main point for this project to go ahead is quite frankly insane , so far the human race has burnt very near half of all the oil down there and many billions of tons of coal and wood . ( China's burning of coal actually doubled in the last 5 years from 1 to 2 billion tons ) All this has gone on and apart from the odd high spring tide I have not noticed the sea rising that much .

I do not disagree that the climate is changing , for it has always been changing , as i mentioned before the Ice caps used to stretch down to the meditteranean and they retreated all the way back to not far from where they are now before the first engine was fired up.

In any case this is going of the topic , and possibly the steady increase in the price of oil may make this project unviable. It is now at $110 a barrel and forecasts suggest it will break $200 within the next 12 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You're referring to the report which was commissioned by the Western Islands Tourist Board, yes? Whereby 402 of its members were surveyed on the possiblity of a large windfarm in Lewis. Only 139 (35%) felt strongly enough about it to actually complete and return the forms. Of those 35%, 105 could be said to be strongly against such a scheme which work outs at just over 25% of total surveys sent. That doesn't sound that conclusive to me!:wink:

 

Yes, I was referring to the report where 76% of respondents were opposed to the specific proposed development on Lewis and this is conclusive to me.

 

Anyway, am not that hung up on surveys. Unless everyone being surveyed is as fully informed as possible then it makes it pretty much pointless IMO!

 

I would be all for a Shetland-wide survey if everyone was fully informed. Say we marched everyone through a process where they were given relevant information from both sides, VE and Sustainable Shetland. Then were given a test to make sure they'd fully understood the arguments for and against. On passing this test they could vote for or against the motion, simple, eh? :wink:

 

 

It will never be the case, when it comes to measuring public opinion, that everyone will be "fully informed", let alone respond and apathy is one of many reasons why that might be the case. In the real World you have to rely on the opinion of those who bother to turn up and vote, or send back the questionnaire. When it come to a question of wider public importance (public money, environment, scale), everyone should be given to opportunity have a say and to deny that shows a lack of integrity IMO!

 

I don't know about your test. Should we be tested to see if we have understood all the major political parties policy pledges in their manifestos before being allowed to vote in the next general election?... or would a dictatorship be the solution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the more likely "worst case" we will have to worry about is more based on fuel prices. I doubt there are many people who do not expect those to keep rising, and the rises are looking pretty steep from where we are now.

 

Given the Gremista power station setup, Shetland's electricity is pretty expensive, and I can see the electricity companies being less and less willing to subsidise that extra cost as the generating costs rise proportionately more here.

If we look 10-20 years ahead and think that UK electricity prices may be 3 times or more what they are just now, unsubsidised prices in Shetland could be much higher, other cost of living increases would affect Shetland disproportionately, and it's not hard to imagine the the population falling at a higher rate than is already predicted.

 

At some point the local economics may well end up bad enough that the people left would be glad to go for any windfarm options they could get, at any "cost"..... and the only difference might be the amount of people left here to see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The western Antarctic ice cap melts, that's another seven metres.

 

Okay, this is off topic, but as it's coming up again and again as a reason to support VE and their likes, it has a certain relevance.

 

It's statements like the above that go a great deal of the way towards keeping me a sceptic of the predictions bandied about by the doom-mongers of global warming, and doubtful of the whole predicted scenario, and thus by default the urgency to do, what some folk would consider, radical things about it. The VE proposals being a prime example of this.

 

I never had much time for school, but I seem to recall it being said that Antanctica was simply an ice mass, there is no land under it, it's one huge iceberg. I also seem to recall it being said the vast majority of an iceberg is submerged. I don't have figures to hand, so I'll keep this to generalisations, but somewhere around 80-90% submerged sounds in the right ball park to me.

 

Moving on, it's a known fact ice occupies a greater mass than was occupied by the water that was utilised to produce it, therefor it follows that if part/all of the Antarctic icecap melts, the submerged portion of it's mass will actually be a lesser figure. At this stage of the equation, it seems to me at least, sea levels should actually drop somewhat as a result of the submerged ice melting. There is of course still the above water ice mass to account for, however, firstly it's mass as water will be less than it's mass as ice, then we have to deduct from that water mass the amount equal to the difference between the ice mass and the water mass of the submerged portion, to simply maintain sea levels exactly where they are.

 

At this stage we are left with a mass of water, which represents the current visible ice cap mass, at it's lesser water mass, less an amount which equals the difference in mass between ice and water of the submerged portion. Even if the % difference between water and ice mass is not great, the fact that such a high percentage of the total mass was submerged, and that small loss in submerged mass must be compensated from such a small percentage of the whole (visible portion), it would seem to follow that the amount required to be drawn from the visible portion would be significant. A 5% reduction in 80% of a mass requires to draw 20% from the remaining 20% of the whole to be replaced after all.

 

I'm aware the visible Antarctic icecap is composed of a significant depth of ice, but even allowing for that, looking at a map and superimposing the visible area of Antarctica as many times over as it takes to cover all of the world's oceans (it's quite a few), plus allowing for the deductions as detailed above, I have a very hard time making it all add up to a 23 foot rise in their surface level. Seven metres x the square metre current surface area of the world's oceans, plus of course the additional acquired as land floods during the progression of such a rise, is a mind-boggling cubic metres of water, I just don't see where in Antarctica it's going to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Antarctic ice is mostly not floating, but resting on bed rock, which is why it would make such a huge difference it it were all to melt, usually quoted as a sea level rise of 70m - yup, it's a big big volume of ice, and the sea level at the moment is about 130m higher than it was at the peak of the ice age.

 

Luckily in the short term, like the next 100 years, there is not predicted to be rapid melting of the majority of the non-floating antarctic ice, so we would - as best as we can tell at the moment - be limited to a rise of about 1m this century.

 

The most recent evidence in Greenland has all been towards faster melting of the ice than expected though, so I would guess it would run like most climate change predictions, where the estimates get revised upwards :(

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Antarctic ice is mostly not floating, but resting on bed rock,...

 

So, what they insisted we were supposed to "learn" at school about there being "no land" under Antarctica was, at best, a half truth. Well, surprise, surprise.... :roll:

 

Okay, so it changes the proportions a bit, but there's still going to be a need to draw some of the volume from the visible mass of ice to compensate for the lesser melted water mass of what currently is ice below sea level. I don't have figures to hand to argue the point, but from just looking at the current coverage of Antarctic ice mass and then looking at the current coverage of the world's oceans, I'm having a very hard time seeing how so much can be obtained from so little.

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...