derick

Iceland is still doing way better than the UK on pretty much any indicator

UN Human Development Index Ranking 2011

Norway No 1,

Sweden No 10,

Iceland No 14,

Denmark No 16,

Finland No 22,

UK No 28 (just below the Czech Republic and just above Greece!) http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

OECD stats 2012

Total Government Debt as % of GDP

Norway 26.1%

Sweden 33.8%

Denmark 39.6%

Finland 41.7%

Iceland 81.3%

UK 85.5% Higher debt than 'bankrupt' Iceland (and note Iceland's employment rate)

Employment rate Population aged 15-64, Q1 2012

Iceland 78.3%

Norway 75.8%

Sweden 74.2%

Denmark 73.1%

Finland 69.4%

UK 69.5% (last equal)

http://stats.oecd.org/

State pension – Replacement Rate for average earners (State + mandatory private)

Norway 60.3%

Sweden 53.6%

Denmark 89.8%

Finland 65.2%

Iceland 101.1%

UK 37.4%

OECD Average 67.6%

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/8111011ec019.pdf?expires=1347793346&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=78E9CBE1508F81C940E29B70E8583D3E

Been away from this forum for a while. Same old rubbish being posted I see.

I do have a sort of answer. But this is a rather long term solution. New fuel efficient ferries designed for the routes they will run on and funded by Scotland/Europe so that the only effect to the SIC budget is a reduction in operating costs. Or of course fixed links funded the same way.

Which brings wis neatly back to the huge renewable energy resource available.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/03/new-diesel-electric-hybrid-ferries-are-a-seagoing-first/

Shetland has a Central Belt problem. not the central belt of mainland Scotland, but the central belt of Shetland. All of the arguments aimed at reducing 'excessive' ferry costs in Shetland, can be applied to the Aberdeen/Lerwick route. Want to go there?

National Objectives in Providing Support to Ferry Services

33.

“To focus government and public services on creating a more successful country, with opportunities for all of Scotland to flourish, through increasing sustainable economic growth.â€

Like it says: ALL of Scotland. ALL.

Shetland.http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/files/documents/water/ferries/Scottish_Ferries_Review_Consultation_Document.pdf

"Onshore wind industry provided around 8,600 jobs and was worth £548m to the UK economy in 2011"

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/pr20120507.pdf

Pull the other one, Derik You'll be telling me it's pure coincidence next.......

more likely just the civil servants having time to actually get some work done, when the ministers were off their backs and away round the doors!

so yes, coincidence.

Remains to be see how 'International Entirety' do.

As a regular user I just didn't like Northlink - e.g Hjaltland where they removed the couches (which the cabinless could get a sleep on) and replaced them with unsleepable on chairs. The old Clair had a deck out back that you could sit on in the shelter, all teary eyed, watching the old rock disappear. And the toories could enjoy similar facilities to observe assorted inedible and offensive seabirds desporting themselves

AND Tavish Scott should be constantly reminded who was Transport minister in Holyrood when the boats with not enough cabins were specced.

Still think the boats should go to Rosyth, that you can actually get in to if there's a bit of swell.

......

 

And why on earrth was it announced today, of all days....?.

 

.........

 

Easy one:

 

SNP want to bury the news that they've dumped the Scottish Calmac/RBoS venture known as Northlink and given the contract the a UK company that has it's finger in many UK pies across the UK....did I mention the UK? Key word there....

 

And who also has contracts at Faslane...which is rather 'awkward', nay, an embarrassing situation for a political party that wants Faslane closed down.

 

Stuff like that won't go down well with 'Braveheart' voters who prefer romantic pish and myth to political, business and economic reality. They'd choke on their Irn Bru and Tunnocks at the thought of any business going to what they'd see as an 'English' company.

 

What better day to do it than when all eyes are on election results?

Dimwits - no political administration directly controls procurement. There are rules to prevent that sort of thing. For very good reasons.

Zero!

just when you think you're the stupidost guy alive along comes Popped-up corn and proves the opposote. thaunks!

.' I think almost all scientists would concur that the climate has never been anywhere near stable at any time. It is constantly changing. There have been various heating and cooling periods to greater or lesser degrees for eons, long before any mass industrial activity by man.

Focus on the timescale. 10,000 years to develop civilisation; 200 to develop industrial civilisation. The heating and cooling periods you refer to are on a much longer timescale, in response to natural forcings (Milankovich, volcano storms). The PETM was a natural event, with methane clathadrates as best guess for proximate cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

Mass extinction? significant (by which I mean beyond our capacity to keep building more piers further up the hill) sea level rise?

Do we feel lucky? well, Punk, do we?

and don't slag WIKI. it's not influenced by academic greasy pole climbing brown nosers.

"Higher gas prices have been the main driver of increasing energy

bills over the last eight years."

http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Media/FactSheets/Documents1/Why%20are%20energy%20prices%20rising_factsheet_108.pdf

even if you are illiterate and innumerate and can't understand that the overwhelming scientific evidence is that burning fossil fuels is going to result in the end of a stable climate - the price of fossil fuels is headed in one direction only. UP.

the cost of the fuel source for renewable energy will remain at current rates - free!

a 1% local temperature increase ANYWHERE in Shetland can only be a good thing.

Ah, Donald, wir Donald

http://asairfecht.blogspot.co.uk/

and CATS chose this guy for their backer. Oh right.

Ian Tinkler quoting the Daily Mail - that's your SOURCE????

Jesus on a bike.

http://scottishroundup.co.uk/2012/04/29/donald-where%E2%80%99s-yer-turbines/

love the cartoons!

is there not an alternative to buying people out - a disturbance payment to those living within 2km. Not unlike the SVT disturbance payment, but only to the properties concerned. Relate it to the output of the wind farm.

just a suggestion

 

[edit] I'm also more than a bit concerned that we are already not doing a great job as a community given that this windfarm, years before being built, seems to be doing a good job at polarising opinion and causing such grief to many folk.

Now THAT we can agree on. It is very disappointing (and immature) how personal the issue has become. It's much more important than that.

In the light of issues such as these, I can't say that I'm even remotely interested in promises of untold riches.

It's not about 'untold riches' - it's about making sure Shetland survives as a living community, post oil and that people aren't forced to emigrate for work, as was the case during most of the past 150years.

The point I was trying to make is that future generations don't have a voice, and can't have their picture taken for the paper - but the project will clearly affect them. Obviously, I think positively.

My field of endeavour in the past 10 years has been building social rented housing. And guess what, Heath says No Surprise, we get lots of spurious objections. Every time. But the people on the waiting list, sleeping on somebody's couch or with their kids crammed into too few bedrooms don't have a voice - but their interest is real.

A third for, a third against and a third 'not bovvered' is pretty standard for any contentious issue. That doesn't make the third against a majority.

Petition to revoke Donald Trump's membership of Globalscot here

http://www.change.org/petitions/globalscot-withdraw-donald-trump-s-membership-of-globalscot

^ Re the Vanadium Flow Battery, surely even more reason to hang fire and charge it via the Yell and Bluemull tides and no interconnector required. patience, man, patience !

I was more thinking of storing power for export through the interconnector(s) - for more will be built.

With you all the way on tidal - way to go in the long term. But don't see that should prevent use of the wind resource now. Less convinced on wave power as making structures strong enough to stand the Sea is not going to be easy. Then again human beings are capable of designing a motorised tea trolley, sending to Mars, landing it safely, and having it drive around for years digging holes and taking photos.

The problem I have with restricting renewables to a Shetland only grid is that it misses the export opportunity.

Given that expanding renewables is European, UK and Scottish Government Policy, and SIC, and the Energy Consents Unit have approved it, Chris Bunyan's point that it is going to be built now, is fair. The only question is, 'is Shetland going to share the benefits'.

Yes, a minority are angry and hurt about it - as I said above, people were angry and hurt when oil came. But it was for the best, on balance, in the end. What of the interests of future generations who will have to leave Shetland, when the oil ends. Don't make tragic photos for the Shetland News, but what about them? How will they live?

I would like to see a proper Carbon Tax to replace most or better ALL existing taxes - fuel duty, Income Tax and NI, VAT. Make fossil fuels pay their full cost, and the renewable subsidies could be discontinued much sooner.

Slide 13 of the 2011 IEA World Energy Outlook - "Renewable subsidies of $66 billion in 2010 (compared with $409 billion for fossil fuels)"

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/homepage/WEO2011_Press_Launch_London.pdf

Slide 77 of 2011 BP Energy Outlook 2030 "The contribution of renewables to energy growth increases from 5% (1990-2010) to 18% (2010-2030)."

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2011/STAGING/local_assets/pdf/2030_energy_outlook_booklet.pdf

World's liquid fuel supplies - this is from a 2010 presentation by Glenn Sweetnam of the US Department of Energy.

http://wnknisely.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b57769e201310ff4b929970c-popup

In that world context, a place like Shetland with almost infinite renewable power on it's doorstep will prosper - indefinitely when oil is gone (and that's a while yet). I have no doubt of that. IF the naysayers can be faced down.

Browsing youtube - is this a new video from sustainable Shetland?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQxXKzdmhvk

Weel, given that the man in the film is Billy Fox, I suspect 'yes'.

http://news.yahoo.com/worlds-largest-vanadium-flow-battery-goes-online-usa-165814823.html

^^^^^^^ SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

Close Scatsa to build a windfarm, jesus i've heard it all

Keep taking the pills.

How does 2 banana republic aircraft carriers, one of which will need to be sold as UK can't afford to run the thing, and the other of which still doesn't have a plan for any sort of planes to go with it, and both of which are being paid for by printing money in true banana republic style, thus degrading the currency, support 'our troops'

How, exactly?

Cud we no just drag yun twa carriers nort dan, close baeth Sumburgh and Scatsta and get on wi it. Du micht even a gotten een o yun Pasivhaus hooses an dan maybe du cud laev dy hovel tae de hens !

for £25-£75 a year total heating costs for a new hoose 15% extra over construction costs compared tae a standard hoose - da hens can hae ye olde hoose onytime!

http://www.sphc.co.uk/why-building-passivhaus

Try accommodating a couple of hundred bears at short notice on Unst, or on Yell if the ferry breaks down, or is cancelled because of the same weather that caused the aircraft to divert.

The overall problem is that if Shetland makes it too difficult for the oil companies (operating to/from Scatsta) to operate, they will simply up sticks and relocate somewhere else.

Can you see the flaw in your plan?

 

damn! forgot about the ferry! But then again, think of the extra trade for the Hilltop and Saxavord

 

I predict that in 30 years time the site at Sullom, currently occupied by redundant crude tanks will host a big redox flow battery.

If Scatsta (and yes VE should have seen that one coming) is going to prevent renewable energy - and I am thinking of Blawfield particularly, then Scatsta should be closed forthwith. There's a perfectly good and hugely underused airport at Sumburgh and a diversionary field in Baltasound.

It's not either onshore wind, or marine renewables - we need both. And both are just a part of the mix needed to deal with Peak Oil and climate change.

Energy efficiency being the largest. The £7 billion being wasted on 2 aircraft carriers with no planes could build 46,600 brand new houses built to Passivhaus standards which wouldn't need any heating system

attempted desecration of the whole central mainland of Shetland for the sake of filling the coffers of a few selfish and greedy landowners who just simply cannot wait a few more years for marine energy to catch up./quote]

 

Maybe I'm taking you wrong but that sounds awful like your basic Shetland jealousy to me.

 

How can you 'desecrate' a landscape that is already deforested and degraded by 5,500 of human mismanagement?

 

Would you care to explain and expand a bit on this " basic Shetland jealousy " issue you are on about derick. I lived in Yell for years and it seems to be something I have missed out on. Also, who were these 5,500 humans ?

 

5500 years, obviously. It is a setterday and I am doing idder things apart fae arguing aboot windmills.

 

I am actually been on da Weisdale hills numerous times - very nice but nevertheless you canna eat scenery. I would FAR have preferred Viking to go in the North Isles than the central mainland.

 

People forget how dirt poor Shetland was before the oil - which is a very temporary phenomenon. Pre-oil folk built bits of businesses up out of nothing - absolutely nothing - at a time when it seemed the Isles were finished. Employed a few folk, sank their money into an old fishing boat or a knitting machine. And when the oil came much of that was swept away overnight as it couldn't possibly compete. Very traumatic for some at the time and a real slap in the face for people who had struggled to keep the place alive. But now, I think very few would say on balance the oil was a bad thing.

 

And the same is the case for renewable energy. 40 years from now we will look back (well I likely won't as will be deid, or 90) and wonder what all the sound and fury signifying nothing was about.

 

It is interesting, is it not, how many of the objectors seem to either work in the oil, have worked in the oil, or for one of the semi-parasitic hanger on organisations with which Shetland is excessively 'blessed' - all of which also depend on the oil. Maybe at some subconscious level they find renewable energy a threat.

 

As for basic Shetland jealousy - well I think that is at the root of many objections to many things. "...filling the coffers of a few selfish and greedy landowners". as you say. Take the 'Hodge affair'. Pure jealousy to stop a man that was providing a service and trying to make a living.

 

There was a guy wanted to to set up a salmon hatchery on our common grazings while I was misguided enough to have a croft and B....sheep - same spurious objections 'the sheep will drown in the dam'( A Good Thing too I say) blah blah. Had to go to the bother of going to the bloddy grazings meeting to support it despite not really liking the man and thoroughly disapproving of him being in the toompushers. But at least he was willing to TRY.

 

As long as I live I will never understand why whenever someone tries to do anything, some other body immediately decides to try and stop them.

 

En passant - that there is a windfarm in detailed planning straight across the valley from my hovel - which is rather fantastic as I will be able to watch the turbines from the comfort of my sitting room. Just about exactly 2km from me. And there is the same sort of campaign of spurious opposition to that one (largely led by some misguided members of my SNP branch I might add). Total spurious nonsense. And likely to be another on the hill up behind me - well within the dreaded 2km (I will probably just keel over and die, the hens will go off the lay and the dog will get worms, just from having them there. Not. Why we'll be up to our oxters in dead birds. Not that we'll notice from the constant epileptic fits from the evil shadow flicker. Also not).

 

Same spurious nonsense at one that came a few years ago - public meetings, outrage in the local press. blah bloddy blah. Total rubbish. Some complainers moaned that there would be big lorries coming up the road. Muggins made the point at the public whinging meeting that the company could come up the road in a Sherman tank of the thing is licenced and insured. Those have been running for years - you can go right up to them - 3mw turbines - and all you hear right UNDERNEATH the turbines is soft 'whoosh'..........'whoosh'......quieter than the wind on the hill. Why I was lucky to survive the experience.

 

All that said OSCR was probably correct to call a halt til after the election. And if we recall there was a candidate who made this his main issue at the last SP election. He didn't get in.