|
Post by mrgluss on Jan 26, 2007 16:39:14 GMT 1
I think windmills are beautiful - elegant, graceful, clean and reducing our carbon footprint. I do feel a bit concerned about birds flying into them , but then there were a lot of worries about the extent of damage which oil rigs would do, and I hear no word of population decline because of oil rigs. Ideally it would be better if they were spread out a bit more - 200 in one location will be noisy. My main worry is that Viking Energy screws up on the sales price for the electricity, and we end up losing our shirt as a community. Mind you, I think Sullom Voe oil terminal is beautiful by night across the water from my house, so maybe I'm in a minority?
|
|
yogi
New Magnie
Posts: 31
|
Post by yogi on Jan 26, 2007 23:09:40 GMT 1
I'm with you on the beauty of windmills mrgluss but maybe the antis could be converted if we built cairns around them! Everybody loves adding a stone to a cairn on hilltops so we just need to redirect them onto windfarms. In fact we could convince the tourists it's an age-old custom and get them to do the job for us Two birds wi' one stone and all that. (Oops... one bird - one windmill blade ;D). What we need is a promotional video. I suggest "Windy Ratter at Lang Kameberwick Green"
|
|
|
Post by Admin Mal on Jan 26, 2007 23:15:22 GMT 1
I suggest "Windy Ratter at Lang Kameberwick Green" ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by heimdal on Jan 26, 2007 23:32:37 GMT 1
Yes, I agree too, can be almost hypnotic to watch them revolving. I remember the first time I saw a 'wind farm' was very early one morning in summer 1995, approaching the North Danish coast, and I was on watch. The sun had just risen and the light was being reflected off the turning blades. It was not quite light enough for a while to see exactly what was causing the flashes, but when it did lighten, I was surprised to see just how many windmills there were, and how elegant they looked.
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Jan 27, 2007 11:11:00 GMT 1
SVT is beautiful at night across the water, and it's no dat bad during the day either. When you spent your youth looking across Sullom Voe at the dreich bare lump of moor which was Calback Ness pre-oil, it's a damn sight more interesting!!
Now it didn't look too fantastic when it was under construction, I can still mind the dust cloud in the summer that only settled when they stopped at dennertime! I dare say a muckle wind farm won't be too pretty when it's getting biggit either, but that phase only lasts a short time.
I've no strong feelings about the siting of windmills, but on balance it's probably better to concentrate them in a bit of Shetland which, as Nortower correctly observed, doesn't appear on a lot of tourist brochures. Other than that specific concern about tourism, they can put some of them in Northmavine as far as i'm concerned.
I really don't think folk are giving birds much credit. Most are believed to have far superior eyesight to humans, and I can see the turbine blades fine...... It's not as if they were small and ultra-fast revolving (like an aeroplane propellor), in which case I could see the concern for birds. The birds might not love them, but they'll soon learn to co-exist with them. Another good reason, perhaps, for concentrating them, so as to give the birds the maximum amount of "turbine-free hill".
I can't pretend to comment on the specific economic issues as regards Viking Energy - I just don't have the knowledge - but as a generality, the UK desperately needs to develop renewable energy soon, as does aawhere else. If it can't be done economically here, with our "top-quality" wind, there's not much hope for the future energy needs of mankind in general.
Unless you fancy a nice, noise-free, carbon-free, bird-friendly peerie reactor tucked unobtrusively into a hollow o da hills..........only joking of course!
|
|
|
Post by maree on Jan 27, 2007 17:52:08 GMT 1
The jury is out with me too benjiesmum. 200 windturbines will cause a lot of impact in many ways. I wid agree that they have a sculptural quality aboot them, but 200?
Comparisons are being made in the media and elsewhere with Sullom Voe in terms of both the economic and environmental impact, but with what I have seen so far there seems to be a world of difference as far as financial gain to Shetland and the land mass covered.
I'm with laura in the self-sufficiency camp. Could Shetland not aim to be self-sufficient in renewable power - by whatever means, not just wind - instead of feeding places who will never allow turbines for fear of them spoiling the green and pleasant land?
|
|
|
Post by benjiesmum on Jan 27, 2007 21:10:39 GMT 1
Well, I've been thinking about this subject again while out walking dog this morning. I've come up with againsts after doing a bit of "research." And please don't shoot me down in flames (that'll just cause more green house gases!) ;D These are not my thoughts necessarily, they are just the arguments I have come across. Here we go: 200 wind turbines need 30,000 tons of concrete to be hauled up a mountainside for infra structure and roads. Each turbine needs 1,000 tons of concrete to keep it stable. And, apparently the process of making cement is extremely polluting. To get this up the mountainside large earth moving equipment would dig 300 feet into the ground for the foundations of each tower. 49 wind turbines saves 165,000 tonnes of annual CO2 emissions. That sounds good until you realise that one jumbo jet emits 520,000 tons of CO2 per year and the UK emits 560,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. So, that is why anti-campaigners feel the sticking plaster falls off. It's why they say the destruction of an ancient mountainside isn't worth the imperceptible benefits gained. Some say it is like comparing a wind farm's effect on climate change to the damaging greenhouse gasses caused by one flatulent ant. I like this one!! If every home in the UK were given one more low energy light bulb, one conventional power station could be decommisioned. Are wind farms the sign of a sustainable nation? No, according to some, they are a sign of a sustainable thought pattern. A sustainable nation would consider the source of these harmful gasses and lead the way by imposing radical bans. If the only answer we have 17 years after the Rio Summit is building a wind farm that can't even dent the emissions of a single airliner then some say the anti-campaigners might have a point. I must say, and these are my own thoughts, I didn't realise airliners gave off so much C02. Ground the lot and the hole in the ozone layer would soon mend itself. I still think wind farms are an inevitable solution but think maybe solar power is the preferred option. And, you don't need blue skies and hot sunshine to generate it. I've got some "fors" too but I'll leave those for now. I'm off to the pub to read the jokes!! Too much serious debate hurts my brain! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Jan 28, 2007 3:14:35 GMT 1
But then... that argument on mere CO2 emissions basis falls down by the very fact that its only considering the impact of CO2 emmissions for a basis of deciding whether wind farms are a good idea. Unfortunately its not just about the environment. No justice exists on a purely environmental basis (and if you want me to go into environmental justice and blurbed a whole lot of rubbish then please feel free to ask). Socio/economic factors i'm afraid play just as important a role in what is apparently 'environmental' issues. That might seem a little anthropogentric, but unfortunately its perfectly arguable to say that only those things that stir us (as an entirety into action) is matter that directly affect us. Environmentalist thoughts processes are not sufficient as a sole stance to decide on whether such projects are worthwhile in my point of view. Anthropogentric it might somewhat be... but its not all about 'protecting the environment'.... thats is just one side of the factor the balance. 'Lopez Ostra v Spain' and 'Guerra v Italy' decmonstrate this somewhat (ECHR decisions). It would be easy if it was just 'its good for the environment or not'... but is that viable approach for the human race to be able to take... well, no. The issues are far, wide, and numerous. If anybody cared I could explain what i'm having to learn in Environmental Law at the moment... I guess you might think "who cares about the legal side of it", but much of the study of law is a study of philosophy at times... if we don't know the basis of thought, we can't understand the law properly... so no turning noses up at the 'lawyer!' But alas. I'm quite drunk... and should be proping up the Magnie's rest... but i fear it might have closed over an hour ago... does it have an extended licence. The ramblings of a non-sober student... excellent. enjoy Oh and 'radical bans'... they can be a terrible approach in practice. Command and Control methods of controlling the environment are really not ideal. That has been the basis for much of environmental regulation... but a lot of aspects of environmental policy is turning its back on command and control. Whilst it may, on face value, appear to be 'effective'... it does little to strive for the BEST most effective means availiable at any given time. As soon as you limit yourself to statutory measures, you are limiting the ability to advance with technology and keep up. You are effectively settling for scenario's that are second best... you are not enforcing the drive of technology and understanding, but rather enhancing the scope for complacency when the feelings "but we are within statutory limits... it'll be fine, even though we could do more". But i must stop. A rambling drunk is a terrible thing. I'm probably spikin a lot o shite! I could go on in more detail for hours... sleep might be for the best...
|
|
|
Post by benjiesmum on Jan 28, 2007 7:16:32 GMT 1
1. Unfortunately its not just about the environment.. 2. But alas. I'm quite drunk... and should be propping up the Magnie's rest... but i fear it might have closed over an hour ago... does it have an extended licence. 3. The ramblings of a non-sober student... excellent. enjoy Three things: 1. You are right, sadly it is not just about the environment. But maybe it should be. We only have one planet. And, I worry more and more about what we as thinking animals are doing to it. I have a theory that one day something will trigger a catastrophic reaction that will be irreversible and that would be a terrible legacy to leave to future generations. However, I am not going to worry unduly unless the animals start lining up two by two for the next space shuttle. 2. This has clearly been a terrible oversight. An extended licence should be applied for forthwith. I believe George has contacts with the "authorities." 3. If that's you arguing the case when you're rat-legged could I appoint you as my brief!!! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Jan 28, 2007 10:50:26 GMT 1
"loosely coherent"... terribly written... but thoughts in the right place(ish)! I'm open to all offers!
|
|
|
Post by maree on Jan 28, 2007 16:48:14 GMT 1
Weel NortOwer......When doo gains dee degree an comes back ta Shetland ta defend aa da hoodies dat will inevitably be caught on da new cctv in Lerook toon centre, I wid suggest a few peerie nips in da Magnie afore doo enters da coort room.......doo'll win every time afore Sherriff Young-boy-drivers-should-be-kept-aff-da-rod-till-dir-nearly-thirty-but-da-weel-ta-do's-bairns-can-sell-drugs-hammer-onybody-an-get-away-we-it-nae-budder. Oops sorry I'm openin up a new can o worms, sorry, thread.
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Jan 28, 2007 18:21:56 GMT 1
Spot on, mhay, aboot wir law-giver! I windered if onyeen else had spotted da apparent socio-economic differentials in da justice dispensing department....... I keen it laekly dusna belong in dis thread, but it wis fine ta see it said onywye.
Noo dan, back ta windmills (which should probably be somewhaar else as weel, bit someen started on aboot dem here!)
Benjiesmum, I would like to dispute just one of your figures. There's no way a turbine would need a 300-foot deep foundation in Shetland. I wish we did have top-soil like that, but alas, good-quality bedrock at very considerably shallower depths is the order of the day! I can't argue any of the other figures, as I don't have sufficient civil engineering knowledge.
What I can say is that I very much doubt if we're going to come up with a power-generating technology anytime soon which doesn't require concrete, steel, or plastics, to build it in the first place. I fear we will always have to expend some energy in order to gain more.
You then use the emotive term "ancient mountainside". a) There aren't a whole lot of "young" mountainsides outside Iceland or Hawaii...... b) The area being suggested for a wind farm in Shetland couldn't be classed as a mountain - more like several ranges of low, featureless, boggy, hills, uninhabited and uninhabitable. Nortower might post a picture or two next time he's home.
My next point concerns the reduction in CO2 emissions. Are you suggesting that we should never start to reduce emissions, simply because we have to "start small"? Because if you are, and if enough other people think that way, then there will assuredly never be anything done about it. I wish I had a pound for every time i've stood looking at a very large pen of sheep, thinking "God, this is going to take forever........" However, if you don't catch the first one and start shearing, they'll all be running around with two fleeces hanging off them this time next year...........!
mhay touched on NIMBY-ism with her comment on "green and pleasant lands" which would not allow turbines. I deplore that particular -ism, for the simple reason that I deplore hypocrisy generally. "Oh, renewable energy's a great idea, but not HERE...." I trust we're not being even slightly guilty of that attitude in Shetland at the moment?
And finally, for those who would rather wait for wave and tidal power (not perhaps specifically mentioned on this thread yet). As soon as a viable technology is put in place for both or either of those, you can just bet that someone, somewhere, would "rather not see them from MY window, but i'm sure they'll be fine somewhere else..." Not to mention their environmental impact on the fish and the crabs!
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Jan 28, 2007 18:53:03 GMT 1
Spot on... this is how i can't understand anybody being able to stand beside their environmentalist approach with conviction... they contradict themselves something shocking even when they claim not to be doing so.
|
|
|
Post by benjiesmum on Jan 28, 2007 18:53:47 GMT 1
Benjiesmum, I would like to dispute just one of your figures. There's no way a turbine would need a 300-foot deep foundation in Shetland. I can't argue any of the other figures, as I don't have sufficient civil engineering knowledge. You then use the emotive term "ancient mountainside". Bonna, hello thank you for your comments - but I was quoting what others have said! Not particularly what I think or feel. I wouldn't have the faintest idea about how far down you'd have to dig to make sure a wind turbine didn't fall over! But I suppose also this depends on the size of the wind turbine. This info. was gleaned from an article I had read earlier this year where the author sets out the pros and cons of wind farms. And the "ancient mountainside" phrase was not mine either but I quoted it verbatim to fuel the debate. I agree most mountains are ancient but some are less ancient (relatively speaking than others!) ;D ;D ;D ;D My personal view I have recorded earlier in this thread where I say that "the jury is out." I just like having a good debate!
|
|
|
Post by benjiesmum on Jan 28, 2007 19:06:32 GMT 1
Sorry, missed a bit of your question: My next point concerns the reduction in CO2 emissions. Are you suggesting that we should never start to reduce emissions, simply because we have to "start small"? Because if you are, and if enough other people think that way, then there will assuredly never be anything done about it. I wish I had a pound for every time i've stood looking at a very large pen of sheep, thinking "God, this is going to take forever........" However, if you don't catch the first one and start shearing, they'll all be running around with two fleeces hanging off them this time next year...........! :)Not at all Bonna. My view is that we should reduce CO2 emissions starting BIG!! If you remember after the awful events of 9/11 when all planes were grounded for a few days, it was alleged that the air became so very much less polluted and clean over a lot of the world. So, personally I'd ground the lot. (said that tongue in cheek, by the way!) ;D And with regard to those sheep - yes quite so, two fleeces and maggots to boot no doubt! Pesky sheep. That's why I only have nine of the critters. Couldn't start wrestling with sheep even if I wanted to. Too old for all that! ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|