Windfarm apologist

Yes you're right it doesn't add up. If cats were actually comparable to turbines hypothetical kill rate on whimbrel then we would probably have no whimbrel at all in Shetland as we speak. There are many more than 30 cats at large in Shetland and the whimbrel are still hanging in there. The cat is not to blame. She need not worry. It's the one proposed windfarm we need to worry about. Thats poor logic.  If we need to worry because the windfarm will kill 3.7 birds then our cats killing more must also be a problem and one that deserves equal or greater worry.  If we don't need to worry about the cats then its nonsense to worry about something that might (and only might) kill less.   If the windfarm killing birds is bad then anything that kills birds must also be bad. To distinguish only on the grounds of your attitude to the different type of bird-killer is hypocrisy. Hence the lady's concern about being judicially reviewed.  Â

If we only accept actual dead birds as evidence then you accept the windfarm will kill no whimbrel because there has never been a recorded case of a windmill killing whimbrels. Usually you assess what is likely and include even what you cannot prove. So what is more likely? Option 1. A proven bird-killing cat has suddenly decided after 8 years to catch its first whimbrel? Or Option 2. The cat has killed many whimbrels but this is the first the lady has seen? My cat brings in probably 1 in 20 of the sparrow things it catches. Even if we guess the lady’s cat is only half as good as mine then thats 10 birds. I make that up to 34 turbines now. More importantly, there’s only one proposed windfarm. How many cats are there? Lets take your figures then at 3.4 turbines each.  That means we can only allow about 30 cats in the whole of Shetland. Statistics eh?

It’s taken a while but I thought the statement above needed investigation. I’d be pleased to see other evidence but, as far as I can tell, unlinkedstudent’s allegations here are mistaken. The nearest I could find to Ofgem stating ‘they have no plans for an interconnector’ is a late stage options consultation from Ofgem’s Project Transmit process published in December 2011. For whatever reason, Sustainable Shetland have a news item on their webpage referencing the Ofgem Project Transmit Consultation and claiming that because the consultation report says "Shetland is not expected to become part of the MITS" and because MITS is the acronym for Main Interconnected Transmission System then this means no interconnector for Shetland. I can find nothing else to support the claim that Ofgem are stating they have no plans for an interconnector. However, this is probably an example of people who are not experts reading something they don’t understand and jumping to an incorrect conclusion. It is perfectly possible to be connected to the UK high voltage transmission network without the physical cables involved becoming part of the MITS. The proposed Shetland connection has never been expected to be part of the MITS. Maybe one day if there are cables running from Shetland to Faroe and Iceland and outwards to offshore windfarms or oil rigs then the link from Shetland to Scotland might become part of the MITS. That’s a long way away. There is also sub-plot here where it would be useful if Viking Energy could get the Shetland link classified as part of the MITS in advance in recognition of that possibility but it doesn’t mean the cable doesn’t happen otherwise. The licensing point was much easier to dismiss. The interconnector is being developed by Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd on behalf of National Grid plc. Both these businesses run existing transmission networks and already have all the necessary licences. Hence no new licences are required. Just thought it worth clearing that up. Amazing what you learn when you ask the right person.

I suspect Aaron Priest knows the figures very well. The obvious reason for not admitting the VE business model allows for even higher figures is that it somewhat undermines the hope of an even lower figure. "I'd be happy to pay £70" isn't a useful contribution to a negotiation where you might be aiming for £50 or £30.

Asked friend who works with viking about trust meeting tonight. He said they would prefer the trust didn't have a meeting.