Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[PJ of Hildisvik]

One very sad fact due to this ridiculous wind farm , and that is communitys becoming divided, and a lot of bad blood starting to flow, no amount of compensation can cover that.

[ArabiaTerra]

... It reminds me of the clearances all those years ago.

So you'll be 150 years old then?

 

After all the money has gone we will be having clearances of a different dimension, when all our children leave for lack of opportunity.

As opposed to all our children leaving 30 years sooner because you knocked back the one example of a significant wealth generator that could potentially replace the oil?

[Infiltrator]

 

Were you around before the mid 70's, do you remember Shetland as it was before oil was heard of and realise just how much oil has changed and affected the place? If you were, and feel what we've gotten from them is adequate compensation for the changes and grief they've brought, that's okay, you're entitled to your opinion. I was around, and I do remember, and as far as I'm concerned they've been laughing all the way to the bank every since they first set foot on Shetland soil. Just start lookiing at the value of oil that's passed through Sullom in the last 30 years and compare it to what we've gotten in return for putting up with letting it do so, then add to that we have the dearest petroleum products in the nation and you'll start to see where I'm coming from.

 

Yes I was around before the mid 70's - please enlighten me, what grief has Sullom brought?

 

I didn't mean to suggest that the oil companies shouldn't pay - merely why should they be expected to fund our incompetence to invest. It's a bit like spending your complete wage by the middle of the month and demanding the bank give you some more money to cover to the end of the month.

[MuckleJoannie]

Were you around before the mid 70's, do you remember Shetland as it was before oil was heard of and realise just how much oil has changed and affected the place?

 

I doot I'm older as dee, Ghostrider, as I was born in 1953. When I was a bairn on the Wastside the big entrepreneurs were Billy and Jackie Irvine, who had a block making plant and a couple of trucks. I mind my best pal's dad, who drove one of their trucks, being at home for weeks because he was laid off, but least he had a job in Shetland. Many men at that time went to sea as that was the only option. Women just stayed home after they married.

 

In the 1960's the local ecoomy picked up with the fishing and woollen industries providing jobs. When the oil companies wanted to come there was strong resistance (this seems to be a Shetland trait when any new investment comes along - see the Mareel thread also!)

 

The oil industry has enabled many Shetlanders to remain in Shetland doing jobs that were unthinkable in the 1950's. When I went to college in 1971 I didn't expect to return to Shetland to work in my chosen profession.

[sheepshagger]

The figures for losses due to transmision distance can be proved by a simple little thing called ohms law,

I'll leave all you experts to look it up for yourself but the rest of you can take my word for it that a known material has a known resistance proportional to its cross sectional area and length, and the resistance is what gives you your losses.

 

As for all the doom sayers out there (you know I mean you AT ) an interesting little program called " A convenient fiction" preseted by Dr Steven Hayward may just open your eyes a little bit, thats if you care to check out the facts that he presents for yourself and not take uncle Al's word for everything.

Also read State of Fear by Michael Crighton a good story backed up by facts.

[OriginalUsername]

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

 

I understood your argument, don't worry about that. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't said in the article, rather, you arrived at it because of the article. Being pedantic is sometimes very important when it comes to quote attribution, what with all the accusations of 'spin going around' (like turbine blades... oh dear do I love a good pun).

 

And I wasn't being quite literal when I asked what the definition of eyesore is, just pointing out that it's a term which differs based on individual viewpoint. A bit like beauty being "in the eye of the beholder" - although a little more explicit because it actually has the word "eye" in there. My subjective view just happens to be that windfarms are quite beautiful, though I accept that you don't agree. Neither of us is right or wrong, we're just different people, and isn't that the beauty of the world? Or perhaps not, anyone is welcome to interpret freedom of perspective as "something unpleasant" if they want!

 

So of course his article had "incentive" behind it, but just because it differs from what you believe doesn't make it wrong.

 

Do you have any facts/figures (which can be verified by a reliable source that we can all access) to prove that "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 understand that it may cause more of a visual impact (though whether positive or negative is subjective remember), but to claim that the landmass doesn't have the "capacity" for "giant" windturbines "towering" over it.... well, it's quite clear what the "incentive behind" your words is!

 

I just think that all of us ought to be very careful to be clear when stating our views or attributing words to others. This is especially important when it comes to debate which is a semantic minefield! Acknowledge that which is subjective (i.e. personal opinion), base your points on sound, verifiable fact and at least ATTEMPT to use objective language when stating said facts. I know the last point is incredibly difficult, due to the ol' individual perspective and the innate subjectivity of the medium itself, but everyone loves a trier! BTW, I'm not just aiming this at you Cheryl, just something that I hope we can all try in order to weed out some of the spin.

 

Computer screens make my eyes-sore.

 

Sorry

[ArabiaTerra]

As for all the doom sayers out there (you know I mean you AT ) an interesting little program called " A convenient fiction" preseted by Dr Steven Hayward may just open your eyes a little bit, thats if you care to check out the facts that he presents for yourself and not take uncle Al's word for everything.

Also read State of Fear by Michael Crighton a good story backed up by facts.

"A convenient fiction"... I'll have a look at that SS, is it a youtube job? And BTW, I've never actually seen Al Gore's film, I was a climate change believer (ie:I believe the scientists over the oil business which has a vested interest in denying climate change) long before that actually appeared. You might find this interesting:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414115107.htm

 

"State of Fear"... So let me get this straight, you believe a science fiction author before the majority of the earth's scientists? Don't get me wrong, I like a good Sci-fi novel, (I have a collection of over 2000) but the operative word here is "fiction", as in not true.

[sheepshagger]

So let me get this straight, you believe a science fiction author before the majority of the earth's scientists?

 

Arthur C Clark science fiction writer, inventor of the communication sattelite. Gene Rodenberry most employee's of nasa tribute their careers to watching Star Trek, and how many folk do you know with a flip phone?

 

As for the oil companies spreading lies contradicting the man made global warming myth, look at the oil price just now another record high, global warming does'nt seem to have done them much damage, in fact they get tax breaks for putting up a few windmills and refining much needed food into fuel.

 

I have spent more than half my life working in the oil industry I have a hell of a lot more reasons to misstrust them than you but I still don't buy your arguments.

[Para Handy]

Massive wind energy plan refused

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7358315.stm

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Great news for the Lewis peatlands and all the people with common sense who opposed the wind farm.

 

Now to stop the destruction by viking energy and SSE of our protected species and fragile wild open spaces.

[Rasmie]

How much money altogether do we the shetland residents pay to make the windfarm go ahead?

Do we have enough cash or will someone borrow it in our name?

 

if we are investing in it knowingly or unknowingly, what return will each of us get?

[PJ of Hildisvik]

The initial sum of approx 60 mil, will come out of the chari-trust, to enable securing loans of 250 mil, that would be minimum. the remaining 28 mil from the Burradale lot.. i think this a truly un-acceptable gamble with Shetlands PUBLIC money.

[crofter]

The initial sum of approx 60 mil, will come out of the chari-trust, to enable securing loans of 250 mil, that would be minimum. the remaining 28 mil from the Burradale lot.. i think this a truly un-acceptable gamble with Shetlands PUBLIC money.

 

In the new "windylights" they say:

 

"The equivalent return from investing the same amount of money [£50 million] on the stock market is projected at about £4 million a year. That's a big difference by anyone's standards and, as we all know, the stock market is far from risk free."

 

Hmm, are Viking Energy implying that a £50 million investment in turbines is risk free???

 

I am pretty disappointed by the latest VE spin. No CO2 calculations. No peat data. All the sky in the simulated pictures is grey, almost the same shade as the windmills. One interesting point was that 42% now oppose the windfarm, compared to just 6% in the original MORI poll.

[Guest Pronto]

I think the windfarm should go ahead in its present form.

 

Building it now would allow alot more of the money to stay in shetland (even if it does mean a few more gold plated quads roaming aboot).

 

With BT planning its own wind turbine in da soothend (for "carbon-offsetting") this could easily turn into a few more, when other companies get wind (no pun intended) of this they too will do the same. Over alot more years we will eventually end up with what VE are proposing now only itll all be owned outside of shetland.

 

As for the carbon emmissions of building it, there is no way you could even try to predict how much or how LITTLE co2 the cut peat would give off. Anyway, building and running the windfarm can only pump out a fartsworth of co2 compared to the monstrous diesel engine their running at Gremista to supply us with energy now.

 

p.s. WHO WANTS TO LOOK AT THE LANG KAMES FFS

[teenie]

p.s. WHO WANTS TO LOOK AT THE LANG KAMES FFS

 

Ummm, dat wid be me Pronto, being as how I wid hae tae drive up and doon past it each and every day of me life.

 

I agree we dee in theory about the point you make aboot Shetland having some "control" over the project. I do not, however, feel it should go ahead at the level and scale it stands at. For one I have major reservations about the amount of time money and effort it will take to get the great and windy factory they propose off the ground and spinning so to speak. HOW do we ken that the project is viable in its present form? Yeah, I have read the figures and it all neatly ties up into a glorious green package but I would be much, much happier if they would trial the bl**dy thing first. Its an awful lot of money, risk and upheaval to take place based on some projections. I am afraid, for me, the figures dunna add up.

 

Secondly, I live in a bit oh Shetland where I will, unfortunately, be surrounded by the twirling things. Yeah, they say they have "cut back" the project by a "substantial percentage" (ahem), but I still think it is too much too soon. As for fears regarding the fact oh we should get in their first before we get turned into a stationary wind factory by faceless companies coming up here to harness wir natural windyness (nae farts included in the proposals so far), I say we should stop fearing. Lewis has succesfully deflected a bid to have a great muckle monstrosity of a windfarm on their Isle and I think we should concern ourselves we the same. If we have to have it, lets think about the project in a rational manner and think about what would fit with wir natural environment. I fail to see how the Windylights project takes this into account, or fits in, no matter how muckle spin and boanny pictures they use on their booklets. God I could go on and on for days and days and probably spik meself roond in circles aboot this carryon.

 

Viva la Lang Kames -