Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Well done Cheryl you tell them, you're from Aith, so according to Angus Ward, you won't even notice them!!!

You cannot compare the Burradale turbines with this proposed industrialisation of Shetland, it's not just the lang kames you know, Weisdale to Dale lees not a big area ?, try hiking from one end to the other, not as if i've seen any pro windfarm supporters up there!

 

The peat on the summits that has probably seen it's fair share of heavy rain fall over the last several thousand years, is weathered in places, and suffering from over grazing, but where sheep numbers have been reduced by crofters ,the vegetation is making a speedy recovery, creating perfect cover for the many breeding bird species, and also our local mammal population, often overlooked, especially the mountain hare and stoat.

 

Also the correct height for Ronas Hill is 450M not 400M.

Turbines will be 145M high, the hills in the site area reach up to 281m in height. so plonk one on top of the other and you get what???

 

The converter station, situated in upper kergord, apparently will be screened by imaginary super fast gowing trees, i've been in Horticulture for 30yrs, and quite frankly, that sort of statement insults my intelligence.

these people are just taking the micky out of the residents of Shetland.

 

Also the opening of 9 quarries and the extraction of 1 MILLION TONS of rock, plus cement works to make at least 120.000TONS of cement.

 

The list goes on and on, now thats a carbon footprint.

[mgb2010]

I cannot put it more simply than that. What part of my logic don't you understand? Is there a massive hole in my logic that I can't see? If so please point it out because I don't want it to happen any more than you do.

 

Yes, I do think there are flaws in your argument. You are using a 'foot-in-the-door' technique of reasoning. That is obtaining effective compliance of a person to a large example by first setting them up by having that person agree to a modest example.

The technique is often used by children; such as, "Can I go over to Andy's for an hour?" is followed shortly by "Can I stay the night".

 

You are stating that a particular landslip was caused by rainfall. Therefore increased rainfall will wash "all the peat off the hills".

 

I therefore ask, was this landslip caused solely by high rainfall? Were there other underlying causes, such as altered drainage or underlying geological features? What was the physical nature of this peat compared to others?

How do all the driving variables of this site and occurrence compare to the rest of Shetland? On this basis how much rainfall would be required to cause slips in other areas? When you have shown which areas are susceptible to landslip and demonstrated the amount of rain that would be required to cause them, then we can start talking about the levels of rain we can expect from climate change.

 

Without a reasonable level of scientific justification to your claims we have only your logic to verify them. If, as you claim, we are to expect rainfall to wash "all the peat off the hills" then there could be serious safety concerns that should be high priority for the council to mitigate.

 

On balance, I think that I will stick with something I know will happen and with measurable effects (ie the wind farm) as opposed to dramatic and unsubstantiated claims (ie destruction of Shetland's landscape by rainfall).

 

 

We can responsibly generate electricity in Shetland and (as per my previous submission) we can do this without degrading the landscape and lives of people in Shetland. It's just a matter of cost. How much is Shetland worth to you?

[OriginalUsername]

He states that large windmills are less of an eyesore in Germany and Denmark... well did he consider the difference in Landmass between Germany and Shetland? Big slow moving windmills will not have the same effect of tranquility when applied to the smaller surroundings of Shetland.

 

Actually, what he said was that he had travelled to Germany and Denmark to look at different sizes of turbines. He then compared the larger turbines he had seen to the smaller ones.

 

He said nothing about windfarms being "less of an eyesore" in those countries. Nor did he compare the visual impact of the windfarms in those countries to the visual impact Shetland could experience.

 

He merely stated that larger turbines have a slower blade rotation speed which, in his opinion, appears more tranquil than the more rapid rotation speeds of smaller turbines.

 

Sometimes we hear what we want to hear.

 

And what makes an "eyesore" exactly? I happen to think windfarms are beautiful. These kind of arguments are subjective.

 

I believe Mr Ward was trying to state facts and where he stated his opinion (that he finds the slower rotation speeds more "tranquil") he was clear that it was subjective.

 

The basic fact he provided was about turbine rotation speeds, not subjective visual impact.

[ArabiaTerra]

So to say that the VE windfarm will destroy vast areas of peat in Shetland, whereas not building it will save the peat is simply wrong. The peat is at risk whatever we do. This point needs to be acknowledged.

Above is the critical point of my argument. You are saying that the windfarm will disturb the peat, I am not denying that. I am simply saying that the peat is at risk anyway due to climate change.

how do you know that wasn't just part of a 1 in 100 or 1 in a 200 year storm that caused the landslides?

I don't, the point I've been trying to make is that what used to be considered 1 in 100 or 200 year storms are becoming more like 1 in 10 or 20 year storms due to climate change. That's what "more extreme weather events" means.

edit: have you read the report done by Halcrows into the landslides?

No, I haven't, but I would like to. Do you have a link or a copy I could borrow or is it in the library?

How is monkeying around on top of the hill with roads and turbines going to reduce the likelihood of landslides?

I never said it would (or at least I don't think I did) apart from as a part of a global effort to reduce the impact of climate change by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. I just don't buy your argument that not building the windfarm is somehow going to preserve Shetlands peat bogs for evermore.

Without a reasonable level of scientific justification to your claims we have only your logic to verify them.

Whereas your counter, that the peat will be unaffected by climate change, flies in the face of all the published climate research of the past 30 years. Climate change will affect Shetland. Exactly how we will be affected is, I admit, largely unknown as yet, but to infer that we will be unaffected is the least likely outcome.

 

I believe that the landslides were caused by an extreme weather event which in turn was a manifestation of climate change. I can't prove it, but neither can you disprove it and given that it fits with exactly what is predicted (more extreme weather) by climate scientists, I believe I am justified in citing it as one of the possible effects that we will see more of in the future.

[Ghostrider]

So to say that the VE windfarm will destroy vast areas of peat in Shetland, whereas not building it will save the peat is simply wrong. The peat is at risk whatever we do. This point needs to be acknowledged.

Above is the critical point of my argument. You are saying that the windfarm will disturb the peat, I am not denying that. I am simply saying that the peat is at risk anyway due to climate change.

 

....but, which is the lesser evil? To a VE sceptic like me I'm just not buying that changes in the climate and weather patterns can do more, or even as much damage to the moor as the VE plan has the potential to do.

[cheryl.hughson]

OriginalUsername I'm not here to talk about how he put his views in the paper, i'm talking about the incentive behind it, its in black and white in the Shetland Times.

 

Here is a paragraph from Sounding Off on page 17 of this weeks paper

 

"However I have travelled to both Germany and Denmark and looked at all sizes of turbines and am personally convinced that large turbines provide less of a visual impact than smaller ones. This is because the blades of large turbines rotate at a much slower speed than the smaller ones, this much slower rotation speed makes large turbines appear tranquil when compared to the Burradle machines. The use of large turbines also means that the overall turbine number is less for a given wind farm output."

...

"If we build the windfarm significantly smaller then it is likely that export cable charges would render both the windfarm and cable unviable."

 

So basically... we need bigger turbines to make it all viable? Which is where my visual impact point comes from, not to mention arguments on the massive cost and irreversable damage. Shetland's small landmass doesn't really have the capacity for giant windturbines towering on top of relatively small hills as compared to Germany. I don't think I need to say anymore because its pretty self explanitory.

 

eyesore

–noun

something unpleasant to look at

something (eg a building) that is ugly to look at

[Carlos]

There will be different types of break-even points financially, but I imagine we do need something "large" to be truly break-even, something that will pay back it's capital costs and give a good cash return in the future.

 

Smaller scale wind power projects could be done on the basis that they cover a bit more than their revenue (running) costs and give us slightly cheaper power bills, but the VE proposals will give some idea of the MW per £ that are needed to look good to outside investors.

[mgb2010]

Whereas your counter, that the peat will be unaffected by climate change, flies in the face of all the published climate research of the past 30 years.

 

This type of argument is commonly referred to as a ‘straw man argument’.

You are presenting a misrepresentation of my submission and then refuting it.

 

At no point did I enter into a discussion as to the validity of the scientific theories behind climate change.

 

You made the claim that climate change would wash all the peat from the hills and by implication destroy Shetland’s landscape. You based this on one landslip to which you do not know all the main causal factors. If you can demonstrate that the circumstances underlying this event are comparable to other areas in Shetland and that the climate change models forecast the inputs necessary to produce more of these, then we can believe your claims. At the moment you are making very dramatic claims with no reasonable scientific backup in the hope to promote a project to which many have major concerns.

 

On one hand you readily admit that you do not know how Shetland will be affected by climate change, whilst at the same time you claim that we will experience extreme weather that will destroy our landscape. Using bluff and bluster does not further you argument in the promotion of a project that will cause certain, measurable and long-term changes to our landscape.

[mgb2010]

Out of interest, a quick look at the the met office's website shows that their own climate change forecasts do not predict a dramatic (if any) increase in precipitation for Shetland.

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/modeldata/HadCM3_IS92a_map_P_ann_19601990_20702100.gif

[mgb2010]

the point I've been trying to make is that what used to be considered 1 in 100 or 200 year storms are becoming more like 1 in 10 or 20 year storms due to climate change.

 

Please could you give us a reference to the reports/research from where you have gathered these figures? If this claim is true then it could have a dramatic effect on the design and construction of buildings, bridges, wind turbines etc. BS6399 lays down wind speeds to be used in the design of structures, with a range of statistical measures to account for the life of the structure against the likelihood of experiencing extreme wind events. If your claim were true then I can think of several large structures in Shetland that are not fit for purpose and would fail structural modelling to your statistical forecasts.

Please give us facts to support your arguments rather than spectacular arm waving and doom forecasts.

[Carlos]

Out of interest, a quick look at the the met office's website shows that their own climate change forecasts do not predict a dramatic (if any) increase in precipitation for Shetland.

 

Interesting...... that predicts about a 60mm rise in annual rainfall from the 1960-1990 figures......

 

Average annual rainfall in Shetland has grown steadily since the records start in 1932, and is now at 1250mm per year compared with around 1000mm back then. If you dig on the met office site you'll find monthly historical records for the Lerwick observatory.

 

If that trend just continues, then rainfall will rise at over 1mm per day...... about 360mm over the next 110 years.....

 

 

Quite a bit of detail here....... although I am not sure they agree with my numbers either

http://www.sniffer.org.uk/climatehandbook/index.html

[Muppet]

Interesting...... that predicts about a 60mm rise in annual rainfall from the 1960-1990 figures......

 

Am I reading it wrong? To me it seems to say between -0.2 and +0.2 mm per day, i.e. zilch!

 

I remain to be convinced just how much climate change is attributable to us and how much is down to natural cycles, there have been freezes and thaws going on long before man discovered fire, never mind the infernal combustion engine!

 

The only thing I can be certain about is that we sure can't carry on burning oil at the rate we do. We've only done it for a relatively short period of history and it ain't gonna last forever.

 

I'd like to know how many of the people who support VE's proposed windfarm would still be in favour if the SIC had nothing to do with it and some (any) conglomerate had rolled up in Shetland asking to build it purely for their own profit? The 'green' arguements would still be the same after all.

[Ghostrider]

I'd like to know how many of the people who support VE's proposed windfarm would still be in favour if the SIC had nothing to do with it and some (any) conglomerate had rolled up in Shetland asking to build it purely for their own profit? The 'green' arguements would still be the same after all.

 

As one of the anti-VE camp, as I've said on this thread before, the above scenario would actually cause me to increase my support for the project. My biggest concern at present is letting the SIC loose in charge of all of this given their IMHO thoroughly abysmal track record in making good investment and business decisions. I fear that if sums have been gotten wrong, and this doesn't become a profitable venture, what might in other hands have been a managable loss will be a spectacularly unthinkable one by the time the SIC is through, and if in other hands it could have made a modest profit it will make a significant loss in the SIC's.

 

An outside entity arriving with a business plan might just have the business investment and track record to make it work and pay, and if the SIC could be trusted to negotiate ground rentals for all the sites of which they are owner, at a more realistic rate than they sold out for at Sullom 30 years ago, they could sit back doing nothing, not risking any local funds, and have a damn good cheque arriving regularly. Certainly not one that could match the questionable earnings projections bandied about by VE, but if they were smart enough to link rentals to site output at a reasonable figure, it would be damn good money for doing nothing and risking nothing.

 

The visual and enviornmental impact of this is always going to be there, and needs to be considered as a stand alone issue regardless of the people behind the plan. Personally if it was just the visual and enviornmental issue alone I would be very much sitting on the fence awaiting more information before coming to a decision, but even if the best case scenario of visual and enviornmental affects is used, adding to the mix, the bunch of business buffoons that seem to hold sway in the SIC as regards business and investment decisions, already makes this a very bad idea in my opinion.

 

If this is so great, let an outsider come in, let them take the financial risks, let them run it and make it work or fail best they can, squeeze every bit of rental you can out of them in every possible way, make sure the developer's plan is the least damaging one possible to both visual and enviornment, and make sure the developer makes a down payment equal to the cost of reinstating the site before he's allowed first access. Then, and only then I might consider supporting this, otherwise, no way. If it's as profitable as the spin is trying to make us believe, let big business with experience and access to investment capital get on with it, and screw them for every penny we can for the privilege, and let the SIC get back to doing what it does best, providing "not for profit" public services. The mindset of workers, and business practices which are necessary to make Government services work, on any level, are chalk and cheese with the mindsets of workers and the business practices of commercial enterprise, the two have never successfully co-existed and probably never will, lets just do what everybody does best and keep them apart.

[Carlos]

Interesting...... that predicts about a 60mm rise in annual rainfall from the 1960-1990 figures......

 

Am I reading it wrong? To me it seems to say between -0.2 and +0.2 mm per day, i.e. zilch!

 

I took it to mean a maximum change of +-0.2mm x 365 days

+-73mm over the 110 years, given the units on the graph it could mean something else..... but anyhow, yes that says the change could be zero.

 

As I said though, we have 250mm change measured over the last 75 years on a very steady straight line climb. I was more interested that the predicted rate of change was smaller than those that had already been measured

 

The SNIFFER report has a lot more data/projections for Scotland as a whole. That supports increasing intensity of rainfall, and has some not so solid data for increasing numbers of days of gales.

[JustMe]

http://www.necn.com/Boston/SciTech/Galapogos-Islands-go-green-/1207945571.html If you hang on through the advert this news clip shows a bit of the construction of some wind turbines on the Galapogos Islands.