Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Windfarms - Peel Energy


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Frances144

Frances144

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3448 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 09:16 AM

http://www.independe...by-8890201.html

 

This makes interesting reading.  They are behind the Windfarm proposals at "Mossy Hill" and also the proposed windfarm in Yell.

 

http://www.shetnews....rm-near-lerwick

 

(*** Mods *** - I did a quick trawl for the original Windfarm thread but couldn't see it, but please add this if you feel it is appropriate) :???:



#2 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3102 posts

Posted 09 April 2017 - 10:17 PM

This seems to be fulfilling the prophecy that once the Viking windfarm came it would open the floodgates for every hill in Shetland to be covered in wind turbines.


  • Frances144, mogling, Kavi Ugl and 3 others like this

#3 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1804 posts

Posted 10 April 2017 - 07:00 AM

Looks like Viking Energy via the back door..  Wonder whose interconnector they intend to use or, do they intend to install their own?


  • mogling likes this

#4 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 478 posts

Posted 10 April 2017 - 09:03 AM

Well look on the bright side, there  will be a lucrative decommissioning project,when we have used up all the wind . :ponders:  :rofl: 


  • mogling likes this

#5 mogling

mogling

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 496 posts

Posted 10 April 2017 - 08:10 PM

Well look on the bright side, there  will be a lucrative decommissioning project,when we have used up all the wind . :ponders:  :rofl: 

 Not necessarily...

 

"A spokeswoman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said: "Any decommissioning plan will be carefully considered by the government, taking into account environmental, safety and cost implications, the impact on other users of the 'area' and a public consultation."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-39528090



#6 shetlander

shetlander

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 301 posts

Posted 11 April 2017 - 08:14 AM

Interesting to read the outcry about this development already (21 turbines) compared to the South Yell one (17 turbines) which hardly raised a peep in the way of opposition.

Kinda says to me that objectors dunna really give a stuff about bird strikes, carbon release from peat disturbance, environmental damage etc and it's really all about whether they have to look at them or not.
  • jz and George. like this

#7 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 478 posts

Posted 11 April 2017 - 03:22 PM

Interesting to read the outcry about this development already (21 turbines) compared to the South Yell one (17 turbines) which hardly raised a peep in the way of opposition.

Kinda says to me that objectors dunna really give a stuff about bird strikes, carbon release from peat disturbance, environmental damage etc and it's really all about whether they have to look at them or not.

I would not think that many birds will come to harm among the big slow turning wind turbines,but this will be a different story among the fast turning ones we see outside public halls and located near to private houses. Do not hear much opposition to the latter!

 

Cannot understand why so much opposition to this project when we have so much "free" wind that could be used to the benefit of us all.

 

Grant it something of a less ambitious size and owned and operated by "wiz Shetlanders " would be a much better option.Why does everything have to be owned and operated by "sooth moothers"



#8 Suffererof1crankymofo

Suffererof1crankymofo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 498 posts

Posted 11 April 2017 - 05:34 PM

 

Interesting to read the outcry about this development already (21 turbines) compared to the South Yell one (17 turbines) which hardly raised a peep in the way of opposition.

Kinda says to me that objectors dunna really give a stuff about bird strikes, carbon release from peat disturbance, environmental damage etc and it's really all about whether they have to look at them or not.

I would not think that many birds will come to harm among the big slow turning wind turbines,but this will be a different story among the fast turning ones we see outside public halls and located near to private houses. Do not hear much opposition to the latter!

 

Cannot understand why so much opposition to this project when we have so much "free" wind that could be used to the benefit of us all.

 

Grant it something of a less ambitious size and owned and operated by "wiz Shetlanders " would be a much better option.Why does everything have to be owned and operated by "sooth moothers"

 

 

Are you seriously not seeing the larger picture here?  This won't go ahead, allegedly, unless the interconnector is in place.  In other words, this is the start of the flood gates to back up the VE project.  They need to build LOTS of windfarms all over the Shetland Isles to make the interconnector viable.

This isn't about benefits to the/a community.  This is about corporate companies earmarking sites so that even if VE doesn't go ahead in the foreseeable future, they want the planning permission in place so that they can sell the 'rights' on to another developer in the hope that subsidies will be reinstated/become more favourable so they can rip off more of us plebs via the extra dosh we pay on our electricity bills to subsidise 'green' energy projects.  IF they get refused planning permission or IF people object, the developer will not give a stuff because they will just go and appeal to the Scottish Government, no doubt.

It won't create lots of jobs in the long term.  It WILL destroy the environment that it is allegedly there in the long run to protect via 'green' energy.  It will be an eyesore.  It will be the start of many.  Now if you want hundreds of wind turbines on an industrial scale dotted around the Shetland Isles and offshore, together with the reported ill-health effects, then you crash right ahead and support this con - I'm most definitely not supporting it.

The sums they are spouting about in general of X to the community can easily be already generated via the stock market as is already proven with the SIC's fund managers and will bring in MORE than wind farms for investing elsewhere without destroying this lovely set of isles.  Take away the subsidies and they don't make money, it's that simple.



#9 menkeeeaneahi

menkeeeaneahi

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

Posted 11 April 2017 - 06:14 PM

Interesting to read the outcry about this development already (21 turbines) compared to the South Yell one (17 turbines) which hardly raised a peep in the way of opposition.

Kinda says to me that objectors dunna really give a stuff about bird strikes, carbon release from peat disturbance, environmental damage etc and it's really all about whether they have to look at them or not.

 

yell folk generally speaking give the impression that the majority of them are for windfarms if theyre not complaining anyone else complaining is going to be accused of dictating to them



#10 Urabug

Urabug

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 478 posts

Posted 11 April 2017 - 06:54 PM

What we need is a public vote on this .

 

We do not require massive wind farms, but suppose there was a couple on the Staney Hill to assist in the heating of the Clickamin Centre,,Pool,New School and Hostel surely that would help keep the running costs down .

 

There could be district heating schemes through out Shetland all sourced from wind .

 

Would that not benefit us all .

 

Trouble here in Shetland nothing is ever done in moderation.