Jump to content

OriginalUsername

Members
  • Posts

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

OriginalUsername's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. I concur. And regarding how many "hits" their page gets - can I ask how you know this? I would imagine only the moderators/administrators can see hit counts. I find it very sad that the tone of this debate has slipped so far. Shouldn't this thread be about the pros and cons of Viking's proposals? Personally I believe that criticism ought always to be contructive - afterall, you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. If you think the website/Facebook/anything they produce is "poo" then maybe you ought to write to/email Viking and outline how you think these things can be improved? That would certainly be more constructive than the comments made here.
  2. I use BT Vision Freeview. It's always been reliable and great for pay for view films etc. as it is connected to the phones.
  3. Believe it or not, some people actually view Viking as a green project. I know that, even if the Trust wasn't involved, I would still think it was a good project. Not the amazing project I see now, but good and worthwhile and I would send a letter saying "yes" to the ECU. As it stands, I would send a letter saying "hell yes!" You may perceive it as being all about "greed and money" but have you stopped to think that perhaps it's because you're so hell-bent against it that you see this? I agree with this. Though I do think that if we didn't have the material comforts, this wouldn't be an issue. People in poverty don't have time to go out observing wildlife for pleasure unfortunately. On the other side of the argument: as home to a world class wind resource, amazing infrastructure already in place and one of the largest carbon footprints in Britain - building a large wind farm here is entirely appropriate. Yes I have read it. I thought it was a good document - great compared to other ES' I've seen actually. There are a few problems, but if you speak to the developer most questions can be answered. I wouldn't say that the RSPB and SNH have pulled Viking's ES to bits. In fact, I would say that they went out of their way to praise Viking and leave room for further debate on the subject. Considering the scale of the project, I guess this means Viking have done something right! John Muir object to nearly every windfarm development going and that makes sense, considering their remit, so fair enough to their objection. I won't comment on the Amenity Trust objection - I'll merely point out that some of the things they suggested should've been done by the developer would cost tens of millions. This doesn't make much sense to me. A good chance. Green tourism is a very fast growing industry. We would still have the stunning coast and seabirds that many tourists come to witness. And we would have a means to help combat fossil fuel price rises. Most tourists cite the cost of transport to Shetland as a top priority for change. This is simply untrue. I have never seen anything from Viking claiming that tourism is not important or wouldn't be missed. That is your interpretation it seems. It makes me sad that you feel the need to make statements like this. Couldn't you say "I disagree with VE on the effect the wind farm will have on tourism" and then back up your argument with some facts? The majority of the peat on the site surveyed for the wind farm is in poor condition. This means that the site is already a net carbon EMITTER. It is not storing carbon, it is releasing it into the atmosphere as we speak. VE plan to build on the poorest quality peat and actively restore and enhance the rest of the fragile peatland on site. Doing that will cost money. Money that won't be there without VE. Without VE our peat will actually be contributing to climate change. With VE, this could possibly be prevented and then some (if you take into account that the most likely scenario involves the wind farm offsetting carbon for over 20 years). I'm pretty sure VE's Habitat Management Plan isn't a "tiny mitigation project" and again, that is your interpretation of the plans. Well that would require planning permission for an extension in the first place, so yes, there is plenty to stop that! Lucky for us you're not the developer I think! VE have already outlined a vision for a future Shetland where marine renewables can be developed and exported using the spare 60 MW on the cable. Sounds good to me. Again on the greed thing. It's interesting to me that you keep going on about that. You need to comprehend that other people have different opinions. For one person generating £37 per annum into the Shetland economy is the height of generosity - think of the amazing public services! But for you this is greed. This is where we differ. I think of community green schemes funded by CT money and schemes to help the marginalised in society to integrate. And yes, care-homes. I'm not entirely sure what you picture - big fat old business men clad in gold spun robes in a castle-like old folks home?! I kid. But if you could explain your interpretation of how the SCT money would be used "greedily" I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. I agree on all the green points you've made above though. These big emitters, in my opinion, need big solutions. Community projects are wonderful, but they will not balance out our lifestyles. I'm all on board with everyone who says we have to stop living the way we do but every little only helps a little. Unless we all get our asses off the computer and go right back to basics, we are still going to need big projects. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE58S4L420090930?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews - a very scary thought. "A rise of at least two meters in the world's sea levels is now almost unstoppable, experts told a climate conference at Oxford University on Tuesday. "The crux of the sea level issue is that it starts very slowly but once it gets going it is practically unstoppable," said Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at Germany's Potsdam Institute and a widely recognized sea level expert. "There is no way I can see to stop this rise, even if we have gone to zero emissions.""
  4. Not everyone in Shetland is against this project - so it's even less than 22,000. mmm, have we got enough Police to stop say at least 5,000 demonstrators then? Considering it was only 3,447 (not 5,000) people who took the time to sign their names to a petition (some of whom are not resident in Shetland currently) and probably less than that who took time out to send a letter of objection to the ECU, then it seems quite unlikely to me that we're suddenly going to find ("at least"!!) 5,000 Shetlanders protesting in the street!
  5. Not everyone in Shetland is against this project - so it's even less than 22,000.
  6. Hey! I take offense to this ridiculous sexist notion. Many men are perfectly capable of keeping their "pants zipped up" (how do you zip up pants? unless you're American I suppose..). And there are many laydiez out there who have absolutely no control over their crazy physical appetites. At least that's been my experience!
  7. ^ I think that just taking "blind votes" isn't the best method - despite Sustainable Shetland's pushing for this. Listening to the reasoning behind the votes and recording those reasons makes a lot more sense because, let's face it, a lot of people have an opinion on the project but are misinformed about various facts regarding it. If someone said "I'm against this because it will only export power to south with nothing for Shetland" or someone else said "I'm for this because it will only be in the Kames and nobody likes the Kames" - then the council will know that the reasoning behind these opinions is not entirely reliable. In my opinion, a show of hands means that "unreliable" opinion is recorded. There is an argument that every opinion counts regardless of what it is based on, but I guess I figure that if these two hypothetical people found out that what they thought was true is in fact, untrue, they might change their minds. So we might as well try to find out why it is that people are deciding this or that about the project. This also gives the council an idea of what information is not getting through to the public and what is. That's why I'm quite happy with the council opting for a more detailed analysis of public opinion than a show of hands. This way they can actually analyse the arguments behind the opinions.
  8. Qu'est que cest? Le double négatif, il blesse mon cerveau. The helpful point I was trying to subtly make was that this double negative would suggest that there are 48hours in a year when Burradales turbines are turning. I doubt that was the desired meaning. Though the more I read it, the more confusing it gets. Not helped by la comediennes either. Oops! My bad. Please excuse the resulting confusion of my carelessness...
  9. I'm not sure if you are asking here about load capacity or actual production time, but I'll tell you what I know about both. As far as I'm aware there around 48 hours in the year, total, that none of Burradale's turbines are not turning. As for the load factor, Burradale averages at around 53% and, as ArabiaTerra pointed out, in terms of load factor, is the most productive wind farm in the world. You may not realise that more traditional fossil fuel power stations also have a load factor, as far as I'm aware, typically around 60% (though this varies depending on the age of the station). This means that wind turbines in Shetland are very very unique in their productivity when compared to the mainland (average load factor there - 28-30%). Keep in mind we're talking load factor now, not production time. I don't know any figures on mainland production time, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't compare with Burradale... All of those things that you have are because someone else let some sort of land-altering practice happen on his/her land. What is the difference? Well, the difference is - someone else will have to pick up OUR energy tab. All of the things we use here are, when traced back to source, land-altering and carbon emitting. Why shouldn't we do our bit and generate something rather than just consuming? Why shouldn't we be the ones to pick up the tab? Someone has to. And they have done, over and over - we wouldn't be living our current lifestyles if they hadn't. In Shetland we have a MASSIVE carbon footprint (when you consider everything here - not just electricity - from domestic transport, industrial transport, electricity, the oil industry and all other activities chased to their carbon emitting source). Erecting the wind farm here would mean that we are paying for our own consumption rather than, once again, asking someone else to do so. I, for one, think that is a marvellous idea and as beautiful as our lovely hills! And by the way - there are NOT 500 windmills planned. It is 540MegaWatts. That's 150 3.6 MW turbines, not 500. No offence meant, but considering a few of the basic mistakes you're making in your argument, I think you ought to do a bit more research before completely deciding where you stand on the issue. You may or may not feel differently, but at least you'll feel informed!
  10. The whole bit about projected profit is just one big what if It might be a big what if-nt Power Purchase Agreement? No? Despite public perception, the biggest risk in the project is now - planning. After that, money's pretty much in the bag. But of course, how dare I talk about money! Everyone knows that this project is "all about money!!!" We just tend to forget that it is money that funds our care homes, schools, leisure centres, groups, support for the vulnerable in society, ferries and all the other amazing services and amenities (including the Amenity Trust, lest they forget!) here in Shetland. How greedy of VE to try to put more money into these kind of things in the future. Tut tut!
  11. Of course they have. It would be impossible to make any predictions without this. And then of course, they've also had access to Burradale's wind surveys and production data. So I take it you haven't seen this? - http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2244492/national-grid-takes-wind-energy Many people see them as elegant and magnificent structures, heralding the arrival of a green future. Some people even find them sexy it seems... - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article6682305.ece If you really believe the landscape should be left in it's natural form, perhaps you ought to get off that computer and go live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle stat. Everything it takes to live our modern Western lifestyles involves changing the natural landscape. Where does your food come from? Your clothes? The power you currently use? The materials in your house? The shopping bags you use? What does it matter if forests are being torn down in foreign countries to provide land for various crops grown to fulfil our Western needs, so long as the countryside we see out our window still brings us enjoyment? Even if I found turbines very unsightly (which I don't), I would be quite happy to sacrifice my view in order to harvest some "home-grown" electricity. It's about time we in the West actually saw the sources of our lifestyle on our own soil and stopped trying to keep it in other countries "out of sight, out of mind" as they say. Indeed they are! The scale of the wind farms needed only serves to demonstrate the scale of our consumption. If we need large wind farms to address large levels of consumption... well, it makes sense to build a large wind farms whilst trying to reduce consumption in my head!
  12. It's difficult for me to take unlikely "what ifs" as a reason not to go ahead with this wind farm. The way I see it is: the what ifs for not going ahead with it are far more probable and just as, or even more, destructive as the what ifs for going ahead. If we sat worrying about every unlikely scenario (and I stress unlikely) of what could go wrong, instead of taking them into consideration but keeping it in mind that these situations are unlikely, we would never do anything at all. Ever. For me, decisions should be made based on all available evidence and appropriating said evidence with a corresponding "weight" based on how likely is it an outcome will occur. Then these "weights" can be set on either side of the see-saw and we can see which way it swings. Every time I do this, the "pro" Viking Energy arguments just seem more weighty. But then again, I'm not likely to give a lot of weight to arguments about the view for example. I will give it weight, but comparitively speaking it will not be as important as something like financial security. I'm also likely to give a lot of weight to arguments about climate change and energy security which I'm sure deniers do not. It's interesting to ponder where everyone else distributes their weight
  13. I distrust the shetland-news when it comes to journalism. I mean, just look at the pictures in that story! Clark looks like a rather well-fed incarnation of Satan... contrast that with the angelic photo filled with family values.. hmm. That being said, something seems to have gone very wrong here. I just don't trust shetland-news to let us know what.
  14. Not to put words in anyone's mouths, but I presumed he was calling them "numpties" because trying to get planning permission in a reserve is taking on a losing battle from the offset - in short, a bit of a numpty mission to take on in the real world (regardless of views on birds).
  15. Indeed you did - hence why I didn't quote you in my response But yeah, I agree with the above posters - you simply can't compare Orkney and Shetland. The price, distance and travel time have quite big parts to play in the difference in our tourism industries. And of course - it's only going to get more expensive to travel in the future. I think this is going to have a far bigger impact on Shetland's tourism than the wind farm could ever have.
×
×
  • Create New...