Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Europe_antarctica_size.png

 

From Wiki:

About 98% of Antarctica is covered by the Antarctic ice sheet, a sheet of ice averaging at least 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mi) thick. The continent has about 90% of the world's ice (and thereby about 70% of the world's fresh water). If all of this ice were melted, sea levels would rise about 60 meters (200 ft)

 

Western Antarctica is covered by the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The sheet has been of recent concern because of the real, if small, possibility of its collapse. If the sheet were to break down, ocean levels would rise by several meters in a relatively geologically short period of time, perhaps a matter of centuries.

[Fjool]

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....

Arctic ice floats on the sea. It's not resting on land. Perhaps this is what they meant.

 

The Russians have been arguing about who owns the seabed below the Arctic recently. There might be some oil there, or such? If so, wouldn't this suggest that there was plant and animal life in abundance at one stage?

 

Hmm... anyway; there's a thread for the global warming stuff already.

http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1843

[petrocelli_]

Post deleted

[petrocelli_]

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.

 

Fair enough. If you really think we should place any great importance on 105 members (out of 402) of the Western Isles Tourist Board when it comes to the Shetland community building a windfarm here in Shetland then fine. I doubt we'll be basing any decision on that survey though.

 

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?

 

I was being slightly facetious here, Ched. However, there is a serious point at the root of it. I've mentioned this point in other forums but my feeling is that we elect, and more importantly pay politicians/councillors to spend the time to become informed and make these decisions for us.

 

If you don't have any faith in them doing this then maybe we should opt for a dictatorship!

 

^^^^

Apologies for the extra posts. I've been having problems all day on Shetlink and I kept getting page not available messages so didn't think the posts had gone!

 

Mods might want to delete them. (***Mod Edit - Most extraneous posts removed***)

[petrocelli_]

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.

 

IMO that's a very possible scenario you've painted there, Carlos.

 

On a slightly different note, does anyone here have any knowledge of Sustainable Shetland's opinions on renewables in Shetland?

 

Given that there is currently very little, if any, extra capacity on the Shetland grid for any renewable projects how do they visualise this happening. I did read that they were backing stand alone projects such as have been developed in Fair Isle and are to be used in Foula, surely these do not give a practical solution for Shetland on the whole, do they?

 

Credit where credit's due though, the name "Sustainable Shetland" suggests positive undertones despite their main objective being to oppose large scale windfarms in Shetland. I'm genuinely interested to see if they can come up with real alternatives.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

I was being slightly facetious here, Ched. However, there is a serious point at the root of it. I've mentioned this point in other forums but my feeling is that we elect, and more importantly pay politicians/councillors to spend the time to become informed and make these decisions for us.

 

If you don't have any faith in them doing this then maybe we should opt for a dictatorship!

 

We are talking about something exceptional here, petrocelli_, not a decision about where to put a new pedestrian crossing or funding for a care home.

[mgb2010]

Don't forget the powerstation at Sullom Voe. This provides a significant portion of Shetland's electricity and runs off gas that would otherwise be flared off. This must earn green points for recycling unwanted waste?

If Shetland became self sufficient in energy this must play a large factor in determining local energy prices.

[Para Handy]

Some how I don't see everybody in Shetland getting free electricity just because it let some folk put up windmills

[Njugle]

Make no mistake: as stated during the public consultation process; a scheme such as the VE one will in fact make electricity, if anything, more expensive by a small margin to enable the perceived carbon reduction.

 

But, even with a scheme other than the VE one, nobody should ever get free electricity, prices should be comparable to grid prices and in the case of Shetland the benefits of any micro-renewable scheme should fund the CT, or similar community based fund. Give everyone free electricity and they'll soon be sitting on the patio with the 3 bar electric heater going on a summers night, which would do nobody any good.

[crofter]

Give everyone free electricity and they'll soon be sitting on the patio with the 3 bar electric heater going on a summers night, which would do nobody any good.

 

Nothing is "free" but "cheap" electricity would be the best sweetner VE could offer.

[Carlos]

Some how I don't see everybody in Shetland getting free electricity just because it let some folk put up windmills

 

Free is not going to happen, but the amount of wind/wave/tidal energy produced here locally may end up having some effect on how close we are to the national price in the longer term - certainly would be a different position from the current power station only.

 

Hard to say what will happen in 20,30,40 years of course, as I was reminded yesterday googling for long term energy cost predictions.... and finding one with the highest estimate (3 predictions, high/medium/low) for crude oil at $36 a barrel....... for 2020........from an industry prediction made in....... 2003

 

Gives you some confidence

[crofter]

Anybody know how long the "micro" turbines take to pay for themselves and begin generating for "free"?

[ArabiaTerra]

Give everyone free electricity and they'll soon be sitting on the patio with the 3 bar electric heater going on a summers night, which would do nobody any good. Wink

Actually, provided the electricity was generated from a non fossil fuel source, there wouldn't be a problem with that. It isn't energy use per se that is causing global warming, just the burning of fossil fuels.

 

Edit: So a nuclear powered patio heater would be just fine.

[Hardwadder]

 

Edit: So a nuclear powered patio heater would be just fine.

 

 

Tell you what A.T. - if that interconnector goes in we'll have a nukey power plant here before you can say Sandy Clueless. Mind you there would be less damage to the the environment..

[petrocelli_]

We are talking about something exceptional here, petrocelli_, not a decision about where to put a new pedestrian crossing or funding for a care home.

 

Yes, agreed! It is something extraordinary, Ched.

 

Would it just be a straight vote, as in YES/NO to the windfarm? How would you see such a referendum taking place?

 

That said, my feelings on referendums haven't really changed and I would still be against such an idea.

 

Tell you what A.T. - if that interconnector goes in we'll have a nukey power plant here before you can say Sandy Clueless. Mind you there would be less damage to the the environment.

 

If you've been following this thread, Hardwadder, then you'll know fine well that simply doesn't make any sense! It is blatantly obvious that there would be no advantage to building a nuclear reactor in Shetland. Please read back through to find the relevant postings.

 

In fact, anybody who still believes that there is a remote possibility of a nuclear reactor being situated here please shout "AYE!".