|
Post by mucklelaalie on Jan 29, 2007 19:14:13 GMT 1
I'm going for the 'let everybody else blow themselves out then catch them on the hop late on if need be' approach I'd like to find it more pleasurable to make my voice properly heard... but alas i can only ever think of 100 things that i'd find personally more fulfilling when these opportunities arise. However, if its being made a complete hack of... i'll chip in before it turns worthless me doing so.
|
|
|
Post by benjiesmum on Jan 29, 2007 19:21:18 GMT 1
I'm going for the 'let everybody else blow themselves out then catch them on the hop late on if need be' approach Good man! ;D Thems that wait wins the debate!!!! Is that "wind blown", by the way??? Tur-bine or not tur-bine That is the question!! Aawww, I'm just getting silly now! I've had a hard day.
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Jan 29, 2007 22:11:13 GMT 1
To return briefly (I hope!) to Pat's photo and points raised:
Firstly, I couldn't agree more that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I do have to say that this picture is of one of the more attractive corners of the quite large area in question, and one which I don't think anyone intends to put turbines on. Nortower mentions other parts of Da Kames which could also have been featured, such as bleak hillsides destroyed by decades of overgrazing and struggling to grow enough moss and coarse grass to cover the eroding peat.
Secondly, if you believe that people, in addition to wildlife, have some right to attempt to make a living from our bonny isles (as I do), then I think you must accept that some parts of the landscape HAVE to be modified to allow us to do that. I'm sure the indigenous wildlife would rather the very pretty crofting landscapes around Cunningsburgh and Gluss (to name but two from many!) had been left in their natural states, which I'm dead sure bore little resemblance to what we see today......
And, yes, I think most people would rather see turbines erected in the Kames than on places like the abovementioned, if you believe they should be erected at all.
mhay raised a couple of good points, one a bit back regarding the likely benefit to the community vis a vis Sullom Voe Terminal. No, I don't think we'll ever again see a golden goose like SVT in Shetland, more's the great pity, but we might just have to accept a bit less in future. The other one concerns the localisation of windfarms. Yes, that's fine, but we're talking here about a (proposed anyway) income stream for Shetland as well as local "green energy" provision. I'd be delighted to sell megawatts to da Wastern Isles while they faa oot among themselves over turbines, and to leafy middle England which is far too fastidious to face the messy realities of life while expecting the benefits!
|
|
|
Post by maree on Jan 29, 2007 22:29:18 GMT 1
Maybe we could dot dem aboot some of our uninhabited islands.....no, I dunna mean Papa or Fetlar! ;D?!
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Jan 29, 2007 22:46:05 GMT 1
"Soon to be uninhabited" dan
|
|
|
Post by Admin Mal on Jan 30, 2007 13:31:17 GMT 1
I renamed this thread from 'Tourism Revenue' to 'Tourism Revenue & Proposed Windfarm' to reflect the content of the thread and moved it to the 'Renewable Energy' board. It does concern tourism as well though - it's one of those topics though, which could span a number of boards on the forum!
|
|
|
Post by Admin Mal on Jan 30, 2007 16:42:49 GMT 1
According to the Guardian today - environment.guardian.co.uk/energy/story/0,,2001823,00.html - <copy & paste whole URL> it appears that "a feud has broken out on a Scottish island with accusations of dirty tricks involving one of the country's largest charities, an energy adviser to Tony Blair and some of the biggest wind power developers. At the centre of the row is the RSPB, which is accused of taking a tough line against wind farms, except for one proposed by Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE), a company with which it has a commercial relationship." The West Highland Free Press (WHFP) newspaper article - www.whfp.com/1813/top1.html - questions the financial relationship between the RSPB and Scottish and Southern Energy, who are partners in RSPB Energy. The RSPB receives payments of £20 for every customer who switches their energy supplier to the RSPB Energy brand. Interesting. I know charities need money to survive, but I don't think a bird charity and an energy company make particularly good bedfellows. It can make them open to the very criticisms which are now being made. Pinning my colours to the mast, I'm pro windfarm in principle but have some reservations. I was asked <no doubt along with many others> to make the 'Shetland against Windfarms Group' (SAWG) website, which I declined on the basis of being pro-renewables. However, you do need the arguments from both sides. Like most ordinary punters, I just don't have all the necessary technical and financial knowledge to make definitive judgements. Also, having a dash of healthy scepticism, I don't always believe all the facts and figures that both sides are coming out with. If this project does come to fruition, which is dependant on various factors, we should be clear in our reasons for going ahead with it and for the massive scale of the project. Regarding the council's part in it and the businessmen who are involved in the wind generators here, the jury is still out for me on what proportion of their interests lie in the environment and what proportion is economics-led. They would probably say is was a bit of both, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The scale of the project is concerning some people. Why does it have to be so big? Can't Shetland just be self-sufficient? Again, I don't know all the answers. Perhaps it needs to be a certain size for viability? 150-200 turbines will have huge visual impact. Taking a quick look at Viking Energy's draft <a pun if ever there was one..> images, I wonder about the houses nearest to the turbines, eg - www.vikingenergy.co.uk/images/draft/A_Laxo_500.jpg. According to the Viking Energy website, the proposed turbines could be twice the size of the Burradale ones - "the development proposal has been based upon a machine with a tower height of around 90m and a blade diameter of around 100m. This would give a maximum height to the tip of the blades of around 140m. There are options to consider slightly larger or smaller turbines. To provide the target capacity, smaller turbines would have to be more numerous and the fewer, larger turbines would be more visible. As a comparison, the existing turbines at Burradale Windfarm have a 45m tower and 50m diameter blades." Some people have mentioned the noise, although most people are driving through the Kames! Environmental impact relating to wildife? Don't know all the facts but I'm guessing that wildlife would adapt. Look at the otters which live at Sullom Voe. If turbine locations are carefully selected, it could minimise potential problems. Back to economics. Would all these windfarm projects be mooted were it not for the massive subsidies? Certainly not this one on this scale. Some interesting comments made below the Scotsman article - thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=102142007 - including: "Do they really want these blights on the landscape?? They'll wreck the tourist economy!! Say NO, Islanders!!! Unless, they can be horizontal. Why not invest in wave converters instead???" "I would still visit Shetland. Yes to more wind power in Scotland." "Imagine, if the accumulating wealth from Shetland's 30 year old oil fund, and potential renewable energy 'windfall' could be replicated across Scotland?" "Good luck to the Shetland Islanders . They are to be commended for looking ahead and taking steps to arrange some economic future for their descendants after regional North sea oil and gas deposits cease to be viable.....Given that by the time this mega construction project is starting to tear up the Shetland landscape the technology of subsea links will have moved far enough to permit export of the power, Will the costs of subsea cable systems have stabilised enough for the return on investment to be worthwhile?.....It is all very well for the Shetland Islanders to live in hope. Are we right to wish them well in their aspirations when such a power project as is now being suggested to them rests on so many inpoderables which are totally outwith the control of those engineers and sponsors of this project." "As someone who has visited Shetland several times at different times of the year......the visual impact of such a number of those huge wind turbines fills me with dread." "It will cost UK taxpayers 105 million pounds in subsidy over the coming years. It will not significantly reduce emissions from UK power stations. It will not facilitate closure of nuclear power stations....Perhaps they <Shetlanders> should also cover the cost of subsidising the wind farm and connecting it to the grid?" "With figures of around 1 billion Euros likely to be required simply to link 600 MW capacity to the areas of c greatest demend in the UK and , presumably..eventually to the European grids..can we be sure that this super wind farm is not ( sadly) far too remote from the marketplace to ever make any actual investment in the whole idea worthwhile?" "It does surprise me that the Shetlands are prepared to put up with a minimal return of £25m pa from their investment, bearing in mind that at a 50% load factor they would be producing over 2,500 million MegaWatt Hours each year......The fact is that Shetland would be very considerably better off selling their production to Norway, and installing a new Direct Current link in a joint venture with Statnett rather than being taken to the cleaners as currently envisaged." "The Council and landowners will make money out of this, but what little electricity is produced will barely warm the cables in the National Grid, will demand fossil fuel generating backup and will make the National Grid likely to fall over. If the Shetland Council was principally interested in reducing climate change they would disconnect themselves from the Grid and use wind turbines for all their local needs. Will they do this? No, because they wouldn't get the subsidy, the electricity would be too expensive and wind turbines don't even work unless you supply them with decent, reliable electricity in the first place. The environmental effect will be dire. They're just selling out their landscape for the money."
|
|
peterj
Peerie Magnie
Posts: 53
|
Post by peterj on Feb 4, 2007 22:01:40 GMT 1
Just a few thoughts on the debate:
Solar power - unless an awful lot has changed very very recently, just isn't economically viable if there is a grid supply anywhere near. Even with a 50% government subsidy the payback period on a small grid connected PV installation is still approaching 20 years in Australia, which is to sunlight what Shetland is to wind. The company I worked for in Australia did a detailed feasability study for a state of the art PV station a couple of years ago, and even with counting economies of scale, and the added value to the community of increased tourist traffic it was just in no way financially viable. Solar water heating is a different matter, but I doubt if it's viable in most of the UK.
All the wave power technology I've read about has been around in experimental form for many decades, which makes me gravely suspicious that its unlikely to be economic anytime soon.
Personally I'm a great fan of windpower, which has become a mature technology since the days when I had a very small involvement with putting the experimental unit up at Susseter in the 80's. The most commonly cited technical problem with lots of wind power is the need for duplication of generation capacity to keep the grid stable and cope with calm and'or stormy weather, but I would think that the amount of gas turbine capacity installed in the UK in the 80's would make this problem less significant than in most countries.
Now I do wonder if you were to cut Northmavine adrift at Mavis Grind by digging a canal with a lock across, and put a turbine in the middle, what sort of output you would achieve. You might even score more remote assistance for now being an Island?
I would say though that one of the biggest advantages to Shetland of the Kames project if it gets up, will be the interconnector, which would make the present fairly hugely expensive (both financially and environmentally) power station redundant. It would also make any future renewable schemes potentially more viable than they would otherwise be.
On jet travel, I have read that CO2 production per passenger per mile is on a par with a car (sources vary on this). With the considerable reduction in empty seats that the discount airlines have made in recent years, I wonder if this has improved further since most of the studies I have read were done (typically 5 years or more ago). On top of this I wonder what increase in CO2 release would come about from the extra need for road construction and repair if a substantial % of air passengers went by road instead.
Think how much Co2 would be saved if you could persuade car say 30% of city car journeys to be made on public transport, by motorcycle or better still pushbike. Now that would "pay" for a lot of airmiles ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Pat on Feb 7, 2007 17:06:11 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Feb 10, 2007 12:41:02 GMT 1
What in the world posseses folk to write into the Shetland Times proclaiming to be the bearer of 'reason'? If ever, there is a balanced, reasoned letter into the Shetland Times on this matter... please, flag it up to me, the novelty of reading it would just about see me through the rest of the year smiling. Surely the first thing you'd want to do is to know you had a COMPLETE grasp of what you are saying before you put your name down beside an ineptly writen and argued letter... urgh.
Anybody want to join my "Save the Peat Campaign" or "Lets only focus on worst case scenario, the worst projections, the dooms day scenario, which I'd hope we'd all understand is a factor in ALL aspects of life, business, ventures, ideas, proposals but we are going choose to ignore that aspect of reason and concentrate on bringing this evil down campaign" (there is a counter to every argument, if you are going to write into the shetland times, you better keep it short to a few points, evaluating things properly, not some emotional based trite justified often on little but emotive personal opinion, of which you might suddenly see as not so reasonable if you took the care to write out the argument in FULL before coming to your 'reasoned' conclusion... it might be so obvious then! Anybody who has too strong a stance on this windfarm scares the hell out of me... I wouldn't trust you to take an important decision with or for me by a long shot!)... Urgh
*readies for the "Look its the blind faith brigade campaign" accusations... hold on... I'm I not just being realistic about the needs of our community as a whole? No? Oh right...*
Save the Peat. *fist clenched and weakly punches the air* David
|
|
|
Post by bonna on Feb 10, 2007 14:12:25 GMT 1
Yup, dis week's ST letters page wis a bit OTT. I most admit ta no readin dem aa in detail, for I keen dey'll only annoy me.........
Save Da Peat? If we dunna develop windpower we'll aa hae ta be oot castin it as hard as wir fit! We'll use it wan wye or anidder....
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Feb 10, 2007 15:44:46 GMT 1
I read them in amusement. Annoyance lasted only seconds... I had to make a trip to Tesco, brightens anybody's day that...
I was hoping the sarcasm (another favourite for some <--- more sarcasm) of my campaigning issues of choice was clear... if not... well, there you go. *I'm not claiming the individual who wrote into the paper regarding the peat issues would necessary support or wish to see a 'save the peat campaign'... i used the notion in an over exagerated form of 'jest' at just how easy it is to lopside your argument from 'reason' to either pro or against all to quickly... I'm sure it was meant in a manner to flag up one of their own personal concerns, such flagging is never a bad thing... observing the evidence only in a manner to support an initial, previously held belief is a bad way to go. Anybody can scew an argument in their own favour by being selective. Detach yourself, look at the entirety... please, good god look at the big picture!*
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Feb 10, 2007 16:57:00 GMT 1
I see the letters in the paper this week have gone down well with some over on shetlink forum... some really 'good' letters apparently. I know the word good is hugely subjective in its application, but to be honest, its only open-textured up until a point... a cross-over resulting in 'not good' and the realms of largely unsubstantiated, emotive driven garbage.
This is exactly why i don't bother debating... i'm what some hate, the one who sits at the back saying nothing... but really, i sit at the back saying nothing because it seems a god damn waste of my time convincing people that whilst there opinion is great, its formed and delivered terribly, and if you really were as balanced and as reasoned as you hoped to be, you wouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly and probably not the one you just did. But being that you are probably too blinkered to appreciate that your opinion might be rubbish because its based on little but your own 'inner conviction', then really, i'll just sit at the back and say nothing.
I'm not saying i'm any more reasoned... I just wish people would think a bit harder... properly hard. Think of your pro and recognise they are probably at least two strong cons that you can source back to a substantive basis, be it ethically or morally... and then suddenly and very quickly your 'correctness' becomes very doubtful.
So to the messiah's writing to the paper, bravo in demonstrating to me your complete and utter inability to formalise a full reasoned opinion. If you had, you wouldn't be falling back onto weak emotive argument to convince the masses. On a matter that is so complex there is NO easy 'right' and 'wrong' and portraying it as such just emphasises your complete lack of reasoning and extent of your limitations... whilst not necessarily of intelligence, certainly of other areas.
And if you were bothered, inferences you could make from above about my manner is why i'd make, in some aspects, a terrible lawyer.
Wheres my camera, wheres my piano... and then to get unreasonably drunk at a joint birthday bash for my flatmate and his sister!
'Pah' to them all!
|
|
|
Post by maree on Feb 11, 2007 11:34:16 GMT 1
Debate.......mmm......tricky subject. I would congratulate folk for having the balls to put their heads above the parapet and express what they feel/think about the issues. This opens up the chance for a debate and folk who feel differently can counter with a different perspective.
"Reasoned" argument/debate can be very difficult when solid, concrete evidence and information is in short supply. When looking at the pros of windfarms for Shetland, the debate has seen a lot of probable/possible outcomes and information. Like the wind, the information fluctuates depending on what you read........and how much is believable and based on fact? So folk express their gut reaction...........but planning issues and "important decisions" have never been decided on emotive grounds or gut reactions.
|
|
|
Post by mucklelaalie on Feb 11, 2007 12:11:42 GMT 1
hmm, i wasn't meaning the final decision will be granted without good grounds... it was more just a go at folk 'fuelling' the debate with needless pleas of their imagination. Could get on with things easier/quicker if some thought a bit harder before putting their opinion 'out there' which only goes to fuel a bigger debate that never needed to occur... its big enough already without throwing in more concerns that seem routed in the worst corner of imagination.
On the flip side to that... if folk are happy to yap away, with their apparent great wisdom, go for it, absoluteky go for it. I'd only be even somewhat bothered if it was a debate i planned on taking a strong stance on. But the long and the short of it is... I personally, will never know whether the windfarm is or will ever be for the 'good' (whatever 'good' is to me or the next person). So best to let them get on with it, as I wouldn't want anyone to think i'm with the evil blind faith brigade... (also possibly the apathetic brigade...?) because that is so very terrible apparently... oh, hold on, thats just anothe.........
Still... i wouldn't trust anyone writing into the paper, proclaiming the simplicity of the matter, as far as I could throw them. Which really, was all i was ever getting it... for what reason? I don't know, just amusing at the slight double standards going on. "you are non-reason, for we hold it all *evil laugh from doom/gloomers*... *proceeded with some yapperation*"
Anywho. Must go out with my camera for a while. I've been seeing people on here taking FAR too many photos... my lack of time making me quite jealous of being stuck in the library far far far away from my own little dear...
|
|