Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

they were ment to clean up the camps as well but i remember that it was the council who had to pay.

 

The camps were built on private land and the landowners were given a lump sum to pay for demolition, as you can see the landowners kept the cash and decided against demolition.

 

SVT is a petrochemical facility in the same way that an oilrig is, legislation was brought in several years ago to the effect that the owners are responsible for the decommisioning of every piece of steel right up to the moment it is melted down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

they were ment to clean up the camps as well but i remember that it was the council who had to pay.

 

The camps were built on private land and the landowners were given a lump sum to pay for demolition, as you can see the landowners kept the cash and decided against demolition.

 

SVT is a petrochemical facility in the same way that an oilrig is, legislation was brought in several years ago to the effect that the owners are responsible for the decommisioning of every piece of steel right up to the moment it is melted down.

i will belive it when i see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point that they ignore is how unchecked global warming will affect Shetland's blanket bog. They seem to have this assumption that we will sail serenely on, totally unaffected by global warming while the rest of the world goes to hell around us. Talk about heads in the sand. :roll:

 

Hmm. I have said it before, but might as well say it again. This windfarm will do nothing to combat global warming. Nothing. It might even contribute to it. That said, I would support it if I thought it might earn some money for Shetland, but like Ghostrider and north I am still sceptical.

And I will say again, you are talking rubbish. As part of a national strategy to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the UK, a European strategy to do the same. And an international strategy to implement renewable energy worldwide, this is the only thing which will combat climate change. The windfarm, taken in isolation, will not solve the problem. But it is not isolated, it is part of an, admittedly small and uncoordinated but nevertheless growing, effort to slow down the effects of climate change.

 

The windfarm cannot be looked at in isolation in terms of the fight against climate change, no more than Shetland can be looked at in isolation in terms of the effects of climate change. This problem effects the whole world and needs to be addressed by the whole world. That includes Shetland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as a local councillor said at a meeting get used to the fact that oil and the way we run our lives is nearly over we need to adapt or die.

 

I hardly think so, if it were true the multi-national oil corporations would be in the vanguard of the alternative energy source business, not a gullible councillor and a section of the public who've swallowed the whole hype and spin hook line and sinker. These corporations have for far too long gotten used to being in charge of the goose that lays the golden egg to just sit blithley by and watch one die on their hands without having the next prepared and up and running long beforehand. When BP, Total, Exxon et al start panicing about oil running out, so will I.

 

Oil from which Shetland can draw income will inevitably run out within an unspecified number of years, but that's no reason whatsoever for us to go in to panic mode and half destroy the place, plus risk losing every penny we've so far saved from all the oil we have thus far drawn income from, with some half-baked dubiously profitable scheme in a panic stricken greed fuelled headlong rush to maintain the level of income oil has given us for the last 30 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The windfarm cannot be looked at in isolation in terms of the fight against climate change, no more than Shetland can be looked at in isolation in terms of the effects of climate change. This problem effects the whole world and needs to be addressed by the whole world. That includes Shetland.

 

Why must we fight it? Notwithstanding the fact that it is actually happening, will continue to happen, that mankind has anything to do with it, or has the power to influence it all have yet to be proven to me, I'm not entirely sure climate change, as it is promoted by those who think themselves experts in such matters, and if they are indeed anywhere near correct, is an entirely bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hardly think so, if it were true the multi-national oil corporations would be in the vanguard of the alternative energy source business, not a gullible councillor and a section of the public who've swallowed the whole hype and spin hook line and sinker. These corporations have for far too long gotten used to being in charge of the goose that lays the golden egg to just sit blithley by and watch one die on their hands without having the next prepared and up and running long beforehand. When BP, Total, Exxon et al start panicing about oil running out, so will I.

If you read Paulb's post properly GR, you will see he did not mention oil running out. He said we need to stop using it. There is enough oil in the ground across the world to keep us going for much of this century but we can't afford to burn it due to climate change. The same goes for the coal, gas and even the peat. The alternatives, even if we reduce our demand for power with better built and insulated houses and all the other energy saving strategies, are renewables and nuclear. That's the bottom line. So do you want a windfarm or a nuclear power station? I vote for the windfarm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The windfarm cannot be looked at in isolation in terms of the fight against climate change, no more than Shetland can be looked at in isolation in terms of the effects of climate change. This problem effects the whole world and needs to be addressed by the whole world. That includes Shetland.

 

Why must we fight it? Notwithstanding the fact that it is actually happening, will continue to happen, that mankind has anything to do with it, or has the power to influence it all have yet to be proven to me, I'm not entirely sure climate change, as it is promoted by those who think themselves experts in such matters, and if they are indeed anywhere near correct, is an entirely bad thing.

i think i have some sand somewhere that you can put your head into. you will gamble our future on the multinational oil companies. that sound logical why would they promote alternatives to there oil reserves. they have most of the oil reserves in the world and as it gets rarer there profits will increase. so why would they want to find an alternative to oil. does debeers incourage the use of man made diamonds as an enviromentaly friendly alternative to there products . no and you will never see the oil companies give up there postion. so is your view that global warming is a load of rubbish. or is it that were stuffed and we should just put up with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The windfarm cannot be looked at in isolation in terms of the fight against climate change, no more than Shetland can be looked at in isolation in terms of the effects of climate change. This problem effects the whole world and needs to be addressed by the whole world. That includes Shetland.

 

Why must we fight it? Notwithstanding the fact that it is actually happening, will continue to happen, that mankind has anything to do with it, or has the power to influence it all have yet to be proven to me, I'm not entirely sure climate change, as it is promoted by those who think themselves experts in such matters, and if they are indeed anywhere near correct, is an entirely bad thing.

So a 7 meter sea level rise is not "an entirely bad thing"? I'd hate to be caught up in a natural disaster which you would consider a bad thing, GR. :shock: :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^ And anyway, we had this debate on the Global warming thread, where I challenged you to produce evidence that either GW was not happening or was not man-made and you produced nothing, nada, zero, zilch. Because there is no evidence that it is not happening, or is happening but is entirely natural. Whereas there is an ever growing mountain of evidence that it is happening and is our fault.

 

So, unless you have found some evidence, GR, the consensus of opinion stands. Global warming is happening and it is man-made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ You cannot prove a negative, its up to the GW camp to prove there is a change, that it is un-natural, and the cause for it.

 

I asked for on the ground evidence of GW, proof of temperature increases, of stormier conditions, of a rise in sea level etc. I'm still waiting, and the Fair Isle weather data for the last 30 years actually suggests the opposite is happening as regards stormier conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The windfarm cannot be looked at in isolation in terms of the fight against climate change, no more than Shetland can be looked at in isolation in terms of the effects of climate change. This problem effects the whole world and needs to be addressed by the whole world. That includes Shetland.

 

Why must we fight it? Notwithstanding the fact that it is actually happening, will continue to happen, that mankind has anything to do with it, or has the power to influence it all have yet to be proven to me, I'm not entirely sure climate change, as it is promoted by those who think themselves experts in such matters, and if they are indeed anywhere near correct, is an entirely bad thing.

So a 7 meter sea level rise is not "an entirely bad thing"? I'd hate to be caught up in a natural disaster which you would consider a bad thing, GR. :shock: :wink:

 

Sea level has clearly altered that amount and more, certainly upwards, and quite possibly down as well in the past, the world and us are still here.

 

So, we lose some low lying land, but with the accompanying temperature increase habitation at higher, and currently unviable altitudes will become viable. Its a relocation exercise.

 

There's evidence to suggest that in the period of Shetland's early habitation the climate was considerably more temperate than it has been for centuries, habitation and productive cultivation was ongoing at numerous sites where the former would be bordering on dangeous today and the latter impossible due to the annual temperature cycle being so low that both soil and foilage has changed to Alpine and Tundra suited plants. We're probably going to get back to the climate we had back then, if of course the forecasters are right, and this is "bad"?

 

Notwithstanding of course that the sea does actually rise seven metres, I am too yet to be convinced that they're gotten that sum right either, take all the ice in the world, melt it, and it becomes a layer seven metres deep over all of the world's oceans, plus lesser depths on the flooded low lying land. I'm just not seeing that quantity of ice when I look at a world map and compare the white bits and the blue bits, especially as ice shrinks its mass considerably when melted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just not seeing that quantity of ice when I look at a world map and compare the white bits and the blue bits

Although it should be pointed out that Antarctic ice is, on average, over 2km thick. And, in other places, as we all know, floating ice is ~90% below the surface.

 

There's a lot more ice than is visible on a map. Whether it's enough to raise sea-level by 7m, I'm not sure... but there is a lot of water locked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And an international strategy to implement renewable energy worldwide, this is the only thing which will combat climate change.

 

I agree. But building the windfarm will not result in a reduction in the amount of coal burned elsewhere because there is no international strategy. It might result in more coal being burned, we could argue about this forever but it is pointless. Viking energy promoted the (spurious) green arguments to make the windfarm seem more acceptable, but really we should carefully examine the finances and not the environmental arguments. I will support it if they can show a guaranteed return, regardless of the ultimate environmental impact, but if their financial projections are as far out as their CO2 calculations we are in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Does anybody know anything about how co2 is measured ? I find it hard to understand how the various components of air is converted into weight , the percentage content i can understand but i cant get this millions of tons wieght business , who exactly is responsible for this data ?

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...