|
Post by benjiesmum on Mar 7, 2007 21:17:19 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Mar 7, 2007 21:25:30 GMT 1
i've always found them to look nice... instinctively... so i find the 'eyesore nightmare' difficult to appreciate. From my eyes, they are happy things doing good (but then they aint 'perfect'... so I should be fighting against them... or something... because i'd rather watch the lerwick power station lumb reekin aa day... or something).
|
|
|
Post by allen on Mar 17, 2007 22:42:59 GMT 1
I wis at wan o da Viking Energy Windylights public meetings ere da streen. My feeling efter dat meeting dat dis project will du an aawful lok o damage tae da tourism industry in Shetland. Pairt o dir plan is tae cut 80 mile o acces road an hock quarries tae mak da roads aa trow da hills o da Central Mainlaand. I dunna keen how mony years dis'll tak dem (dey dunna keen demsels) bit I du keen da tourists ill no want tae come here tae be in da middle o an ongoin construction site. An dey'll cerntainly no want tae be looking at a laandscape scarred we black roads an quarries an dat's afore you consider da laandslips dis'll cause an da windmills demselves. Wan o da presenters hed da cheek tae say dat da tourists only come tae Shetland tae look at seascapes!!! I see dat dere is only wan public meeting in Nortmavine advertised as being fur Brae an Muckle Roe - If you ir concerned aboot dis latest mad scheme you should tink aboot gaaing tae a meeting an expressing your view. Da oweraa opinion fae da folk at at last night's meeting wis strongly against da Windylights scheme.
|
|
|
Post by maree on Mar 18, 2007 11:39:22 GMT 1
Pairt o dir plan is tae cut 80 mile o acces road an hock quarries tae mak da roads aa trow da hills o da Central Mainlaand. This part of the scheme really concerns me. Firstly, to attempt to create access roads strong/wide enough to support large trucks carrying huge parts for the turbine will be no mean feat considering some of the hills are so vertical, even a quad has difficulty reaching the summit at present. Then there's the amount of raw materials required to create a road totalling more than the length of the Shetland mainland. And finally, if each turbine base required 1,000 tonnes of concrete, this will total almost 200,000 tonnes - thats a helluva lot of cement which takes a helluva lot of energy to make, never mind the environmental impact of the rock extraction. What effect will all this have on the "carbon footprint" folk are so keen to reduce? And all this for 25 years of energy production.
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Mar 19, 2007 10:40:50 GMT 1
Tourists........I was always under the impression the vast majority went to:
a) Lerwick b) Scatness/Jarlshof c) Unst d) Eshaness
Maybe not exactly in that order of merit, but those are the common destinations?
They would have the pass through "turbine alley" to reach the latter two, but then they've possibly come through some pretty dire-looking landscapes on the UK mainland on their way to Aberdeen?
mhay - an individual turbine may only have a 25-year life (I widna keen da exact span), but I very much doot if da concrete base will only last dat lang - so you can bolt on anidder een - and anidder! Dir some lumps o concrete here at da Traecle Works a lot aalder dan dat, an by God dir still braaly solid.....
You only hae ta "stop" efter 25 years if you're perfected some idder method o green energy production, an I raelly widna hadd me breath ower dat een. Du'll maybe mind when we were peerie dey wir a lot o spaek o folk driving aroond in "hover cars" an da laek by da turn o da century - and dere's dee still sellin petrol no very different frae whit powered Model T Fords.......
|
|
|
Post by Pat on Mar 19, 2007 11:51:04 GMT 1
mhay - an individual turbine may only have a 25-year life (I widna keen da exact span), but I very much doot if da concrete base will only last dat lang - so you can bolt on anidder een - and anidder! Dir some lumps o concrete here at da Traecle Works a lot aalder dan dat, an by God dir still braaly solid..... Unfortunately, this is the case. My (and I'm speaking for myself here) concern is that after 25 years they do tear these turbines down and we're left with going on 200 ugly great lumps of difficult to get rid of concrete. Yet more carbon footprints to put things back that probably can't go back anyway - or maybe just leave them??? Again I state that I'm not against turbines - just that I don't see the need for so many.
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Mar 19, 2007 12:04:40 GMT 1
I think, if this windfarm makes it against all the odds, that it will be here long term - much much longer than 25 years. I think VE scored a bit of an own goal, PR-wise, by bringing the 25 years into it.
Two things are certain (short of meteorite-induced Armageddon):
1) the wind will always blow, and probably ever-stronger 2) we will run out of, and/or have to drastically cut back the use of for environmental considerations, fossil fuels
The future may bring ultra-safe nuclear technology.......but I wouldn't bet on it.
|
|
|
Post by allen on Mar 19, 2007 12:12:59 GMT 1
The Shetland Visitor Survey 2006 in the section Inspiration to Visit states that 'Overall their main inspiration to visit were birds, wildlife, nature and flora, followed by peace and quiet, remoteness and the scenery.' See: www.shetland.gov.uk/council/documents.aspAs a tourism business Shetland Geotours is strongly opposed to the development as outlined in the Windylights prospectus. I believe that this project will turn the Central Mainland into a construction site for the lifetime of a project that will take many years to complete. The 80 miles of access road and associated large quarries will horribly scar and deface the scenery across a whole swathe of central Shetland. This and the visually intrusive turbines will destroy the view from almost any of our 'classic' viewpoints on Shetland. From my background in meteorology, geology and pollution control I believe that the development of the access roads will so alter the drainage of the hills in the area that landslide and bogburst will be inevitable. This will lead to the permanent scars across the hillsides of the type that we see in the South Mainland. If Viking Energy receives planning permission I believe that the Windylights Project will be the biggest environmental disaster to hit Shetland since the Braer. The situation may indeed be worse as the environmental damage caused will be permanent. The Windylights project, if it happens, will be a serious blow to our visitors' expectations. Allen Fraser (Shetland Geotours)
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Mar 19, 2007 12:43:22 GMT 1
I just don't subscribe to the view that it will put all tourists off. It may well change the profile of tourism, in that it will for sure put off those who wish to see only virgin landscapes. But it may well open the place up to another type of tourist who is very interested in green energy generation on a large scale. Hunterston power station is one of the most (horribly) fascinating places I've personally ever visited on holiday.
As a very amateur dabbler in geology, the "windfarm" areas are some of the last I'd personally want to visit from a geological interest perspective. Yes, if you're really head and shoulders into metamorphic geology and the small details of the Dalradian fascinate you.......but I'm thinking the majority of geotourists aren't that dedicated and will be much more interested in the "shiny bright" stuff - Unst, Fetlar, Eshaness, Sumburgh Head, etc?
|
|
|
Post by allen on Mar 19, 2007 13:27:39 GMT 1
The majority of the tourists that I've guided through Shetland over the last three years were not geologists and had little or no interest in geology - so I think I am qualified to comment on what they like and dislike. Northmavine was far and away the most popular area I brought tourists to over the last three years - what they wanted was pretty much in line with the 2006 visitor survey findings.
You'd be surprised how many find the Lang Kames/Pettadale and Kergord/ Weisdale both dramatic and interesting (including a tour guide that had spent most of the last 40 years guiding in the Himalayas). The problem in Shetland is that familiarity with our landscape often breeds contempt - we get so used to the scenery that we think that visitors won't find it interesting
The proposed windfarm has a footprint of 62 square km or 4.2% of the land area of Shetland - I don’t think Hunterston covers this much of Scotland. The windfarm development area will visually affect practically the whole of Shetland to a greater or lesser degree. The number of tourists (green or otherwise) that will pay high prices to visit Shetland to see a windfarm construction site will be pretty limited indeed. There will be lots of windfarm sites in England and Scotland that they can visit for a lot less money. The value of tourism to Shetland was higher than the value of whitefish landed in Shetland in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Mar 19, 2007 14:54:05 GMT 1
Sorry, I thought you were called "Geotours" for a reason - my mistake.
If you want to go into straight economics - the value of this or that will be greater than the value of whatever - then it simplifies things a lot. Will the projected revenue from the windfarm be greater or lesser than the projected revenue from tourism during the same time period (assuming mutual exclusivity)? This then becomes the only question that needs answering, after which, end of debate.
I don't have any of the relevant figures at my disposal, but I imagine plenty of people do, and should be able to provide the answer soon.
The value of white fish is a red herring, if you'll pardon the pun.
|
|
peterj
Peerie Magnie
Posts: 53
|
Post by peterj on Mar 19, 2007 15:06:10 GMT 1
A couple of thoughts come to mind. Surely a huge project like this has the potential to put Shetland back in the news and on the map for the right reasons. It would surely be unusual for that sort of exposure to reduce tourist numbers?
Secondly, speaking as a fairly experienced tourist, the first thing I do when visiting a new area is look at the map for the longest, straightest, biggest road in the area and avoid it like the plague. Even without knowing as I do that the kames is about as boring a bit of scenery (eye of the beholder I know) as Shetland has to offer, I am reasonably sure that I would head north through Stromfirth, Bixter, Aith and Voe, and then come back south through Nesting. It would surprise me that any tour operator interested in showing the best bits to da tourists widna generally do the same. Once the farm is (hopefully) up and running though, I would be surprised that any tour operator would miss a drive past.
Also for interest, does anybody know what numbers of tourists were immediately before, during and after the SVT construction phase?
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Mar 19, 2007 16:57:25 GMT 1
And another thing - I took the liberty of reading the Geological Survey of Ireland's report into the Pollatomish bog bursts / landslides in County Mayo, and I quote from that report:
"It is also the view of the GSI that the construction of the Radar Station on Dooncarton, the operations of Enterprise Energy Ireland, or overgrazing were not contributory factors in the occurrence of the landslides."
Looking at the photos of these slips, the geography looks pretty similar to the slipped areas in the South Mainland, the bedrock geology is very similar (Dalradian metamorphics), and the description of the thin drift and other deposits underlying the peat again sounded very familiar.
Any properly constructed hill road will inevitably include drainage works - and drainage is the attempted solution for the landslip problem on the hill immediately north of Channerwick!
So that's both me and the GSI who aren't clear about why the construction of turbine bases and access roads, done to a proper standard, will increase the likelihood of bog bursts / landslides.
|
|
jac
New Magnie
Posts: 6
|
Post by jac on Mar 19, 2007 17:01:01 GMT 1
My thoughts on Tourism v Windfarm income.
Tourism income reported to be £15-20m last year note this is spend not profit.
Shetlands share of estimated profit from windfarm said to be £25m per year. My guesstimate of the gross income for the total project would be in the region of £75m per year assuming 3p per unit (not sure if this is a reasonable guess but would be happy if my power was this cheap).
Income from tourism is very variable and can be hit by world events pollution incidents media coverage etc it also takes continued investment in marketing and promotion to sustain it.
On the other hand income from energy production while it is affected by the world economy etc is relatively stable with know output ( provided the wind keeps blowing ) and the possibility of long term contracts. Unless some one finds a new cheap form of energy I don't see energy prices declining in the future.
As for the size of the proposed windfarm, from what I can gather it needs to be about this size to justify the National investment in the cable without which this and future developments ( tide wave etc) can not proceed.
So I think, yes it will affect tourism although the negative effects will be balanced to some extent by the increased news coverage etc and could be mitigated by the careful implementation of the project. On the other side of the equation the income will more that replace that lost several times over and hopefully allow shetlanders to enjoy the life we have built over the last 3 decades ( care centers leisure centers schools etc etc ) for many more.
|
|
|
Post by allen on Mar 19, 2007 19:41:16 GMT 1
I didn't particularly want to get into the arguments about the economics of the windfarm, as I'm not keen on sums - but from some of the counter arguments presented from the floor at the meeting, there were to many ifs and buts in Viking Energy assumptions. One of the buts was how long it would take to pay off loans before any money from the farm came back into Shetland economy - seemed to be about 25 years, the life of the farm. The point about the reference to white fish is that tourism is a growth industry. I'm not sure that a windfarm will put Shetland on the map for very long - but if they get it wrong a landslide leading to loss of life would keep Shetland on the map a lot longer. I would have agreed the bit about the Kames being boring because I spent 13 years driving up and down that road. Believe me tourists do find it fascinating and there is a lot of interest in the Kames for people who are prepared to stop and look around rather than drive through it at 100mph. The Pollatomish slides were due exactly to the same set of circumstances as in the South Mainland and shows what can happen without man's interference. Derrybrien shows what can happen: During the construction related activities of the 71-turbine project a major landslide of some 450,000 cubic meters of peat occurred on the 16th October 2003. Hibernian Wind Power Ltd, Galway County Council and the local residents each commissioned separate reports on the events surrounding the landslide. It is widely accepted that construction related activities caused the landslide. There are many issues of deep concern to the local residents such as unauthorised development, robust drainage, water quality concerns, the estimated 50,000 wild brown trout killed and the considerable distress and disturbance inflicted on this small rural community. See www.woodlandleague.org/communities/derrybrien/Central Mainland is the wettest part of Shetland and is the area most prone to heavy localised downpours as happened in S Mainland and Boscastle. At the moment rainfall runoff is dissipated over the hillsides and absorbed by sphagnum, heather, soil etc. The access roads around the hills with or without large drains will capture and channel run-off - this has to go somewhere it cannot be easily dispersed again. It could of course be channelled into the voes with the obvious risk to aquaculture. Draining the natural runoff and dispersion will enhance drying out of the raised bog and cause dieback and weakening of the anchor vegetation so increasing the risk of bogburst in periods of localised heavy rainfall following a dry spell.
|
|