Maybe Comhairle nan Eilean Siar should take a wee trip to the Shetlands to get themselves an education. The best they've done so far was to lose us £25 million to the BCCI.

I can well imagine wind farms doing well in The Shetlands :)

Acouple of years with yhat kind of money.
They should secede.

So should Scotland.

It will be an Ugly place to Visit Then.

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???

Shetland may be the best place for a wind farm and it is important to reduce carbon emissions, but what about the impact on our breeding and wintering birds? Shetland has some of the rarest birds in Britain, possibly Europe, so once the wind turbines are up these birds are gone and once they are gone they may never come back. Another example of man putting his own selfish interests first. I for one hope they NEVER get planning permission. Bring on the campaign against the windfarm in Shetland.

I would still visit Shetland.

Yes to more wind power in Scotland.

My only concern is that this really isn't a "community wind farm". A real community windfarm would be owned by the community - see: http://www.baywind.co.uk

But rather this than coal, gas or nuclear.

I actually think the wind thingies are visually pleasing.
Well they are much nicer than the old coal bings of West Lothian.

Imagine, if the accumulating wealth from Shetland's 30 year old oil fund, and potential renewable energy 'windfall' could be replicated across Scotland?
Lachie Todd.

Should Put Most of them At Holyrood .Lots of wind Etc!

1) That was then, let's move on.
2) Gosh no video to back up this statement of the obvious.
3) Read the article again, projected to run 50% of the time and make £25million pa. And it wont detract from the beauty of these wonderful islands.
4) Maybe they will and Join Denmark
5) Maybe we will and join Shetland, they seem to know what they are doing up there.
6) I wish you'd stop displaying your ignorance, Apart from Sullom Voe and Scalloway the mainland is a uniquely beautiful place, and the wind farm won't detract from it, it's better looking than the other two sites I mentioned.
7) It's their business, and they have very sensible heads on their shoulders, they know what they are doing. It will not detract from the tourist trade, it will
afford more facilities for tourists, and probably be an attraction in itself. Souters Ducks turned out not to work too well, bit of a pity really.
8) I think for many centuries the Shetlanders have been far more aware than most peoples about environmental issues. They know the flora and fauna
and habitats well and protect them because they know they have to. They do not need your interference, and it won't be welcome.
9) Mostly agree, I am surprised by the claims for it's output and can't understand why they don't put it on one of the closer uninhabited islands. But like I say they know what they are doing.
10) How very true.
11) Dream on my friend, Like I say the Shetlanders know what they are doing better than mainland Scotland does.
12) And even more outside your house.

# Max F - this is a community owned wind farm because the Council are the developers. Baywind is a social enterprise but investors such as at Boyndie are not necessarily local people.

#3 No one is going to build a windfarm that doesnt perform well for the majority of the time - Shetland has an excellent wind resource, better than mainland Scotland, they are onto a winner here

# Dr Dro - the windfarm is tiny in comparison to Shetland's land mass - there's plenty of room for birds, people and turbines - get back to your original position - climate change is hurting our planet, people and wildlife. The most extensive studies of birds and windfarm impacts go with these plans - windfarm operators know more about birds now than even the RSPB in places!

I think it is a wonderful idea. As a Shetlander now living 'Sooth' I found that the original aerogenerator at Voe in Shetland was a pleasing sight, as are the new developments outside Lerwick. So to see many of these in action, knowing we are helping our environment surely outweighs the few lame arguments against them.
Go Shetland!!!!!!!!!! Show the rest of the country what you can do!

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.

But as with all plans of this type, signing an agreement to allow this project, and getting the project off the " drawing board" are two very different things.

I see that work is supposed to have started on the longest sub sea HVDC cable link ever built - to connect Norway and the Netherlands. This will be a distance of 580 km, at a cost of over 600 million Euro . If this system can be made to work it will deliver Norway's Hydro power direct to the Netherlands.

It appears also that ABB systems have developed a continuous extrusion system to create the cables for undersea links, and the technology is moving forward.

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 ?

Then there is the question of the location of the shore terminal to which this huge new energy stream will be delivered. If it is to come ashore at the northern extreme of the present national grid at Dounreay, then does the whole project pre concieve that by that time the north south upgrade of the Bristish grid system will be in place to accept this huge extra load. Here I am not just talking about Beauly - Denny upgrade which has hit the headlines, but I also have in mind the main North south links with England.

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 t

"13" Mostly agree, but better to do do crosswords, than have them!

No wonder we are getting so much bad weather with all those wind farms creating a fan effect. Any more and we will take off :))

Sorry about the typos as usual Conceive...British...Inponderables etc...you get my drift ... ?

Re posts
8 and 16 Joost a personal view, but Shetland haes tae offer tae da rest o Scotland da following:
Not Oil. Altho still 30 years at least left
Not Renewable Energy (incidentally, wind is trivial, compared tae da potential tidal resource, an hydrogen production may offer a better use o renewable generation than baseload electric). Not cables: pipelines and tankers. No whaur did I see tankers??

Whit Sheltan haes ta offer is an example of SELF CONFIDENCE and a CAN DO attitude. And so modest.

PS - existing wind fairm at Dale runs in full gales
PPS - windmill blades dunna go roond fast enoch ta shred birds - so no 'skwak, tweetle' NZZZZT! Fear not Dr Doolitle..
PPPS an wha gies a monkey's nadgers whit fitba team Slimy Gordo supports - 'The slithy toves that gyre and gimbal' uuuuurgh shudder.

There is no logical reason to have wind turbines that have to be turned off when the wind is blowing above a certain level. Shetland would be far better to use wave power all around its coast. But like the reaction to this when it was proposed for the Severn River, the environmentalists complained that it would affect the birds on the mud flats. There is far too much false talk about wind farms helping to reduce climate change. If they are used to generate any power there will be a negative result with the usage of this power. The blot on the landscape will be horrendous and who will have to pay for the dismantling of these beasts when their time is up. Then there is the horrendous noise when they are turning. If they are going to be built they should be built out to sea not inland. The havoc these turbines will cause to the bird flocks will also be horrendous. It appears that because Shetland is so far away from government whether Scottish or UK that it is out of sight out of mind.
Because they cannot produce power above certain wind levels and below certain wind levels there will be the need for back up power stations either oil, gas or nuclear.

Derick - ex Mid Yell inhabitant here - excellent! Glad to hear first hand praise from a Shetlander.
Well done!!!!

What an apt week - BOUGHT AND SOLD FOR MAINLAND GOLD.

Hi Sue,

Dear God, what is ta be done wi aa dis Niaebys (Not In Anybody Else's Back Yard Either) types?

AHA - Maybe we could burn dem fur renewable energy in boiler-enabled Wicker Men (oh, but whaur wid we get da wicker? Blast. Foiled!)

Trees bigger as people? It will nivver wirk.

Weel meet Derick frae Yell, ye is da livin proof if proof were needed o da level heidedness o da islan folk.
Mich a tak tae ye as ma granmidder frae Girlsta wu'd ae taked tae me. It's awfu guid tae see dat there is a local person wit kens wit he is takin aboot an is in support o keepin da islands alive. See wit dat foreighner frae berkshire is saen tae ye aboot no pittin it inland, wit is it he kns, ah'm thinkin no vera much, if he kent the islands ataw he wud ken there isnae nuckle ye cud ca inland. An wha is said aboot them makin an awfy racket weel ah hivnae cum across wan that did.
Aye dae ye ken der are idders wit wad say tha sum o they windmills kin brak da soon barrier, huv ye ebber heard o sic a thing, they should awa an boil their heids. An as fir they ootsiders tryin tae tell
ye wit tae dae they should stick der stoorsookers up der bahookeys, dey micht larn tae tal mair sense.
Ah'm tellin dem tae mind their ain an leave da Shetlanders tae mind ders. Ye ken whit yer daen
Guid tae crack on wi ye. Gie ma regards tae da bonnie lasses in da travel agency next time ye're in toon. Aefauldie

When all is said and done and the true costs of this exposed it will be the biggest white elephant ever.

This will NEVER provide 25% of scottish homes with electicity.
It is only being done because of the massive subsidy payments involved.

All in all the islanders will regret this folly.

27) I do find the figures quoted somewhat odd
a quarter of Scottish homes is dubious and if it were so
then 25 million pa seems a small return, perhaps that
is in need of reappraisal, but the Shetlanders are a canny lot, they know what they are at, these are there islands let them be.

Why not nuclear? Electromagnetic interference is usually accompanning this kind of electric generators such us Denmark studies at Risoe National Laboratories where done.

Derek fae Yell. and Arthur, (unless you are one,) you should think about a double act on stage, your posts are superb, keep them coming.

Good to see Shetland leading the way in renewables well done.

"The winds on Shetland are expected to keep the turbines turning at full power 50 per cent of the time - compared with the average load factor on the mainland of between 30 and 35 per cent."

This may be true - but the advantages of higher load factors will be negated by transmission losses (2.5% per 100km) and balancing generation. The unpalatable truth is that the UK onshore wind resource is not located near to centres of high electricity demand, otherwise known as cities. Ideally, the financial benefits that accrue to the Shetland windfarm should be adjusted to account for transmission losses and balancing generation.

An why is it dat don Duncan micht be tinkin dat eeder Derick or masel wid takin tae wirsels,
dat widnae be makin an awfu lot o sense wid it?

31) An ye dinnae tink den dat da engineers wid build a transmission system dat widnae tak dat intae accoont.
Der wid be greater losses at da industrial consumption
end, but den they wid sort dat oot wi power factor correction. Maybe they huv got superconductivity up in
da islands ye ken it's aye cauld enugh.

No. 22

You seem to be missing the point. Yes wave power sounds great, but it isn't without its impacts on the landscape and environment either, and is less efficient than turbines producing electricity for 50% of the time.
Can you explain how producing power from re newable souces is going to produce negative impacts as this power is used? Surely if the demand for power is met from renewable sources , rather than coal or oil fired power stations, then emissions from these stations will be reduced, hence a beneficial effect.
Also, the operators of wind farms are liable for dismantling and reinstatement at the end of the planning consent which is usually awarded for 25 year periods. Of course, if the projects are successful, it is likely that energy companies will seek to extend thier operations through planning applications, and this is likely to be granted unless
advancements in technology have provided us with more efficient methods.

The real secret to all this is to reduce demand but how many of us are willing to go without or cut down? In reality, not nearly enough to make a difference... Yet. ( I am an optomist. )

No 31.

Can you give me a reference for the statistics that you listed in your posting?
That is the transmission losses of 2.5% per 100km.
Thanks
(I'm not disputing them, but would like the source for my own use.)

As someone who has visited Shetland several times at different times of the year, I can confirm that it is gey windy in the islands most of the time, so I can well imagine that wind turbines would be able to operate for a far longer period than those sited anywhere on the mainland - or even Orkney Isles for that matter.
However, the visual impact of such a number of those huge wind turbines fills me with dread. Unlike some contributors here, I don't find them visually attractive. That said, there are large areas of the island with which no development of the land is possible so, if the islanders are in favour of the project - and they are a canny lot - and it will generate income and improve their lot, then good luck to them.

Tony B Liar should drop his pants and put his arse to the turbines as he full of wind

re35

Lost in transmission!

I obtained data from the REVOLT website - estimates for transmission losses fall in the range of 2% - 3% per 100km, based on National Grid figures. If you are interested in transmission issues it would be worth contacting this group (http://www.revolt.co.uk). It should be emphasised that the above loss estimates assume stable voltage distributed under ideal conditions. It is possible that the fluctuating output of wind turbines (nb which varies according to 3rd power of wind speed) is subject to greater losses in transmission.

Transmission losses in the UK approach 5TWH annually, equivalent to the combined output of ~950 2MW wind turbines – it would make more sense to design a transmission grid that minimised power losses, rather than to expand the grid to accommodate near to useless wind farms. Wind power faces several technical obstacles. To overcome intermittency, wind farms need to be spread over a huge area, yet this involves increased transmission losses – in other words, solving one problem exacerbates another. The wind industry is well aware of these issues, which are the motivation behind the European “supergrid” which would utilise HVDC transmission. However, the cost of this development would exceed 20 billion pounds, in addition to the cost of the ROC scheme. If this approach to deploying wind power were implemented, the costs could exceed those required for nuclear power decommissioning – yet we would still need conventional generation plant to cover our peak demand (~65GW) in full. I suspect the answer to our energy future is “blowing in the tides”

25 Hello Duncan,

No, one is not one wi Arthur. But I laek his Guid Scots style!

Renewable energy practical example. I hae oil fired central heating. The oil tank used to need filled twice a year. ££megabucks. This summer we installed a solar water heater on the house roof. Incidentally, the panel was heating the water today 20 January (in between the sleety showers). The oil tank which was filled last March is still not needing refilling. The renewable element reduces the fossil fuel requirement. Same thing for wind generators.

The, or at least one answer to transmission losses, and storage of intermittend renewable energy is hydrogen.
See
http://www.pure.shetland.co.uk/index.html

34 Digger-dawg (ony relation to Deputy?) is spot on. Demand reduction is very necessary

3
Yes .It would be far better to have a nice nuclear reactor like youve got at Torness,and transport the waste by train through our capital city,and bury it somewhere safe (like 3 billion light years away)
The Antartic ice shelf is collapsing and species are in danger of being extinct and we alreday have an island which has been abandoned because of disease caused by flooding.
What a brilliant idea!
Any more?

I don't know if any of the readers have seen the windfarms in the south western part of Alberta. They feed off the winds that flow over the Rocky Mountains. Personally I have no problem seeing them from the highway, and knowing that every time each one completes a revolution, a little less gas or coal is burned to supply the energy needs of a growing Province. Yes, there does need to be trade-offs, but if we don't start looking after our environment, Mother Nature is going to give us a real nasty kick in the butt.
WAY TO GO SHETLANDS. Keep up the good work.

36
Im glad you posted this.I love the Highlands and whilst Ive never been on Orkney or Shetland Im only too well aware of what is there(I know people form the islands) and as you say large parts of the islands would be pretty useless for anything else.It generates not only electricity but money for the islands economy and they should count it as a blessing that they have a small population and are one of the few parts of Europe who will NEVER be short of power. The huge expanse of Rannoch Moor and the like would NOT be spoiled by a wind farm.ON the contrary it would be somewhere to remind you that civilisation is only a few miles away, and it would continue to be a barren wasteland but of some value in both a productive and a picturesqe sense.Theres nothing else there lets face it.The number of tourists might increase!

22
Scotland currently uses approx 30% (only) of our potential Hydro generation and coupled to wind wave and solar power, our biggest problem is avoiding electrocuting ourselves!
We need to stop using our current fuels and transfer to renewables BEFORE we screw up the planet royally,not after they have been exhausted.
The use of gas oil and the like should be minimised and where possiblle resisted.Think of future generations not in short term gains.The cost of ignoring this will be high indeed .so high the Scottish highlands will be the only part of the UK which is not under water one day,if we dont get our head in gear NOW!

These wind farms will not harm the birds as they will avoid them and as far as shuting down in high winds this is acomplished by feathering the blades so that turbines will still turn and generate power. They are installed at manny places in the western US on top of ridges where the winds blow constantly. These are a non poluting power resouce and should be built.

38
re transmission losses

See post from 'Windymiller' on May 23, 2006 7:39 on this page.

http://www.shetlink.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=...

As far as can see, 6% estimated loss, but still economic.

<<07>>Why not invest in wave converters instead<<

That's because they haven't had the whit and nouse to make wave energy work yet. Lack of investment?

There is a massive amount of free energy available through the tidal flow of the sea, day in day out, come rain or shine, all around the UK. So why aren't they investing in research?

44. Obviously in Ca. the birds are too high....According to a study released in 2004 by the California Energy Commission, an estimated 1,700 to 4,700 birds die each year from flying into whirring turbine blades or from being electrocuted by transmission lines that thread through the 50,000-acre Altamont Wind Resource Area. Protected species are among those killed.

The Real Inconvenient Truth about Wind Power: from Eon-Netz a major operator, in their report for 2005. http://www.eon-netz.com/Ressources/downloads/EON_Netz_Win...

Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent.

Their dependence on the prevailing wind con­ditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. Conse­quently, traditional power stations with capaci­ties equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.

High volt­age (HV) grids are increasingly reaching their capacity limit and they can take no further electricity from wind farms. As a result, E.ON Netz is currently planning just under 300km of new high and extra-HV overhead lines in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony.

In 2004 two major German studies investigated the size of contribution that wind farms make towards guaranteed capacity. Both studies separately came to virtually identical conclusions, that wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system, by providing 8% of its installed capacity.

As wind power capacity rises, the lower avail­ability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity

45) Soutars ducks require maintainance to such a degree that they are uneconomical, they are even less efficient than wind power which is why the development stopped. Yes there are CO2 emission problems in the tower construction, but if you get 20 years generation from a tower this far outweighs these emissions. I cannot understand how you people want to have sustainable renewable energy without some change
you are the very same who have halted nuclear research, which should have been developed and hopefully made safer. No pain No Gain.

Da Lang Kames where this windfarm is to be built is the most unnatractive place in Shetland. Nobody lives there, the land is peat bog and most of it is out of sight from the rest of Shetland because the Kames are long hills running North to South at the Eastern and Western edges of the bog. We have a lot of rare birds here and they have nesting places right across Shetland, not just here, so this farm is not a threat to the survival of any species as far as I can see.

If you want to see the visual impact for yourself got the Viking Energy website and look at the interactive map. If you click on the viewpoints you will see instantly what the visual impact is seen from that viewpoint.
http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/interactive_map.asp

We have dealt with the international oil industry for over 30 years in these islands and this community has felt the benefit of that engagement.

If you want to tell Shetlanders what should happen in Shetland you need to be living here, enjoying our superior wind and rain on your skin. This is only the start of course. We will be harnessing the tides next - and we have plenty - and leading the way in hydrogen energy technology from the Shetland Island of Unst. That's the island that was Britain's cold war front line defence until it was abandoned by the RAF who withdrew, decimating the population and almost making the community there unviable.

As I said, if you want to have a say in what happens here, come here and say it. Careful you don't upset us though. We might just turn off the oil.

40. I wonder where you got this amazing information. Perhaps you watched the nonsense on ITV news this week where they went to the antarctic in the middle of summer when much of the sea ice melts, in order to show viewers global warming. Mid-December and January (mid-summer) are Antarctica’s warmest months, what a scam.

Antarctica facts: Total sq. km. 14,000,000 (8.7m sq miles), area lost in 50 years: 8000 sq km (4972 sq miles), which is 0.057%. This is equal to 160 sq.km./year (99 sq miles). A simple projection shows it would take 87,500 years for the ice pack to melt. Which of course is not next week.

These science departments are not so sure about the Antarctic melting:
Geophysics Program, University of Washington, Inst. for Quaternary Studies and Dept. of Geological Sciences, University of Maine, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Inst. for Quaternary Studies and Dept. of Geological Sciences:

"We suggest that present instability of the Siple Coast grounding line may reflect ongoing recession and is not a consequence of anthropogenic warming. In other words, the future of the WAIS may have been predetermined when southward grounding-line migration was set in motion thousands of years ago and continued retreat is possible. If the ice sheet does collapse, it is more likely to be part of a natural collapse cycle, or as a response to climatic change that occurred many thousands of years ago, rather than a response to current climatic change."

Not sure which island has been abandoned because of disease caused by flooding. If it's Tuvalu etc. tectonic movement has caused some islands to sink. Sea level has not significantly increased over the last century. The islands have not been abandoned, no-one had to flee to NZ as Al Gore claims. Just because he says these things doesn't make them true, but repeated often enough people start to believe.

re #46

Does Mr Windy Miller have financial interests in wind power? If so I would take little notice of his comments. His estimate for transmission losses Shetland to Central Belt (6%) is too low. 15% is probably a minimum (but realistic) figure. Mr Miller also fails to correct the output of the Shetland wind farm for balancing generation, which could easily exceed 40% of output given the relatively unstable (and hence unpredictable) weather systems found there. Furthermore, we already have sufficient wind farms in construction or planning near/within the Central Belt to satisfy our electricity needs. Finally you might remind Mr Windy Miller that the character “Windy Miller” enjoys copyright protection !

(http://www.t-web.co.uk/trumpcop.htm ; http://telegoons.org/rubovia/Bios/Bio_GM.htm )

Can any of the 'experts' who write to this thread inform me where the turbines are made. I notice these huge steel tubes and blades being transported by road but no obvious source of manufacture. Wha kens?

52) So your loss figures are now in excess of 15%
when your first claim was a ridiculously low 2.5%
why the change? why are you so against something which I understand will be built no where near you, and may even benefit you. Let the Shetlanders make their own decision.

52 Am-Bodach
Whit ida neem o Sgurr Mhor is dy point?
Trivial copyright issues re an internet haundle - as a means o dissing renewable energy???.
Get a grip. Does du wirk fur BNFL?

53 Whaurivverr turbines is made, it's no in dependent Scotlandshire. Yesss surr (tugs forelock, while kneeling in front o Laird). Hello? Does onybody on da mainlaund o 'britain' hae da slichtest bit o sense??

re #50

"Nobody lives there, the land is peat bog and most of it is out of sight from the rest of Shetland because the Kames are long hills running North to South at the Eastern and Western edges of the bog."

Surely you mean “Nobody lives there, however the land is an important CARBON SINK?!.

Friends of the Earth inform us that “Coined global coolers, peatlands remove or sequester carbon from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and are known as “carbon sinks” or “pools”. Peatlands are thought to contain between 329 and 528 billion tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 1,200- 1,900 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide). Unless the bogs are disturbed by human activities, much of this carbon can be stored for near geological time-scales.

re #52

"So your loss figures are now in excess of 15%
when your first claim was a ridiculously low 2.5%
why the change? why are you so against something which I understand will be built no where near you, and may even benefit you. Let the Shetlanders make their own decision."

Why the change?
2.5% was PER 100km.
15% is total from Shetland to Edinburgh.
OK?

"Why are you so against something which I understand will be built no where near you, and may even benefit you. "

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.

"Let the Shetlanders make their own decision."

Perhaps they should also cover the cost of subsidising the wind farm and connecting it to the grid?

Almost everyone here has taken for granted that a lot of other infrastructure will be in place before the Shetland Islanders will receive a penny/Euro cent or dollar for their wind energy.

As I tried to point out in my post ~ 16 there are already huge inadequacies within the existing UK grid. It will be inadequate to cope with the Mainland Scotalnd projects currently past the planning stage, let alone those that are still at the consultation stage. Just to assume that because 200 turbines are turning 50% of the time in Shetland, does not mean that any consumer outside the island group will actually get to use the power. Huge investment will be necessary within the UK grid before any electricity generated in Shetland can ever reach the marketplace. This investement is outside the control of either the Shetland Islanders or any of the companies at present offering the Islanders such huge rewards.

Who would have to sponsor any sufficiently large capacity grid extension ? ...Silly question...every consumer will be paying for decades to come.

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?

#55 You missed the point I fear. Can it be possible that the 'foreign' manufacturers are promoting and unloading wind turbines in the UK as in their own countries there has been a change of opinion on the worth of this as a source of power. Economics not 'anti English' or an S Nut P bleat.

When are the "greens" (e.g. 8 & 9) going to appreciate that wind power does not reduce emissions because it always needs their hated gas and nuclear energy in almost the same quantities as if they were not built. See 48 who is nearer the truth. And if manufacture of blades from hydrocarbons, towers from steel and concrete base is factor in, we get an increase in carbon emissions.

56) have you looked at the link in item 50 I think this answers all of your luddite points

55) Derick, Dinnae go blowin a gaeket noo, cos o tha
luddite writins, they is so far up onder high horses dat
they isnae lookin at da big pictur, whit you an windy miller sae amply present they dinna want tae ken whit
du has tae say aboot it cos they is richt aw the time.
I hope ye dinnae think I,m wan o they mainlanders wi nae sense. I'm wi you, ye ken

HYDROGEN

for Peats' sake.

Arthur

Crossed posts.

To summarise
(Sensible) Mainlanders OK.
Scots Language OK, in fact excellent.
Gaihdlig OK.
English OK (weil I wake up alongside a.n. English Rose ivry day and scho is Terrible Nice. An V. sexy. oops)

To aa da rest o you. WHAT THE F*CK IS WRONG WI RENEWABLE ENERGY!

Re #56

No, Am-Bodach, I mean naebody lives dere.

Dey might viseet tae disturb da paet if dey need it fur da fire. Hit gits braaly cald at nicht hereaboots in da winter, but den, when a dis cheap green energy comes furth fae da wind, dey winna need tae work wi dis paets onymair. Hits eco-soond du keens, an better fir da folk as weel. Dey do say, dat de haet in da paets is mostly in da raisin o dem....

I dinna keen about yun carbon sinks. In dis pairts we call dem paet banks.

Energy transmission stats.

I have always understood losses to be around 8%.

That's why I am keen to see the sources for these other claims ranging from 2.5% to 15%+.

Frankly I doubt these figures, but am willing to be convinced.

For a quick reference giving figures of 7.4% UK 1998 and 7.2% USA 1995 see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#...

I feel this is perhaps a more reliable source.

63) Aye Windy lad, ah ken whit don highlander is on aboot carbon sinks, an I ken aboot da peat bogs an aw
an ah cannae see whit difference it's goin tae mak diggin oot a cupple o hunner sq fit o the stuff fir the bases o da toors, ye'd lose a lot mair that tha ower a year fir yer fires.
Ah am a wee bit cuddy jookit aboot da peat tho, ma Gran telt me when a wis a wee laddie dat maist o da peat hud been dug oot an ther wis no muckle left o it.
She used tae get sum sent doon on ocassion jist tae remind her o hame, thon wis a braw reek so it wis.
so if she wis richt, back in da sixties, hows it aw cum back noo.

Digger Dawg, the reason that wind power does not replace any other source of power is not only its intermittency (no wind or too much wind can be predicted fairly easily). The problem arises at middle wind speeds where the output from the wind turbines will vary by a factor of 64x and not a straight relationship either. At the bottom end of the operating range, there's about enough energy to boil 5 kettles or so and at the top end we get full power. As anyone who has stood in any northern wind will know there are huge varyiations all the time: the blades flex to take up a few seconds worth of variation but longer than this has be covered by having spinning reserve (from gas stations) running at nearly full burn so you don't get blackouts. Only the dexterity of the National Grid operators keeps us warm and fed free from blackouts (and brownouts when there's too much power, but that's another story and one you may here more of as more wind power comes on stream).

Methinks those who are whining against the Shetlands' proposed windfarm would do good to shut their 'puters down and stop contributing to the depletion of non renewable energy...

BTW, Am-Bodach, "Windy MillEr" may well be copyrighted, but the Shetlands' lad is "Windy MillAr"...

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.

It's all about "costs" and SSE's "shareholder value" though isn't it?

SSE and the Grid are REALLY "dipping their bread": firstly through operating costs, and secondly in the outrageous transmission costs.

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.

Furthermore, why pay the financial costs of borrowing when it is quite possible to raise interest-free finance simply by selling production forward to investors through a "Community Energy Partnership", and thereby not only financing the turbines, but also potentially the link to the end user.

Shetland should cease their dependency on the UK and look elsewhere for a fairer, and much more rapid outcome. Keep SSE as a development partner - essentially as a consultant - by all means, but it is the Shetlands who should be receiving the Lion's share from their natural assets: not the City.

Paets?
Bernes!
you debate dis wi a Yell man at your peril.

If removed: Paet growes back. Climate allowing. It takks 1,000ish years: a triviality.

Dunna confuse Raised Bogs (natural, rare, reduced tae a remnant bi Garden Centre Industrialisation), wi Blanket Bog (unnatural, caused bi human deforestation. A Wet Desert).

OK, da Kames is currently covered bi blanket bog. It wid naturally be covered bi birch scrub (as in da nort o Norway). It is curently a degraded, deforested, depopulatit Wasteland.

Wind turbines can onnly improve dis situation, makk employment fur folk and alleviate CO2 emissions.

WHIT TA F/.,K is da problem???

68 Chris Cook. - er dis soonds a bit laek da usual unionist divide and rule pysh, rebranded. Tut tut.

#65 One compliment to Arthur from Duncan! # 30
Whit're ye daeing, mon ye glaikit gowk
Scots is a Germanic language closely related to English and spoken by about 1.5 million people in Scotland. Descended from the language of the Angles who settled in northern Britain, in an area now known as Nortumbria and southern Scotland, in the 5th century AD. The language was originally know as 'Inglis' and has been influenced by Gaelic, Norse, Latin, Dutch, Norman French, Standard French and English.
Wud ye wheesht ye havering eejit

14 - Grant Thomas

You say "this is a community owned wind farm because the Council are the developers. "

I say this still doesn't make it a community owned windfarm.

I also know from friends on the island that there has been next to no community involvement (other than what is required under planning law). Just cosy deals between council and SSE.

Don't get me wrong - I want windpower on Shetland and the rest of Scotland - but don't try and con us all that this is some how a community owned scheme.

An alternative to these wind mills.....

Everyone move to the islands ,
eat prunes and fart a lot .

GC

51
Fact
Opinion between University Proffessors is divided on what is happening.I accept this.
We have two possible routes therefore,we play safe or we just assume that one group is correct and risk the planet.
If you are seriously suggesting that we risk this because you know better than a growing and I stress growing number of academics,then Im afraid I would want something far more reliable than your say so.!
The point is NONE of us know for certain,but the last advice I would give anybody is It will be alright on the night.If we want guarantees on this we act now and discover if it was neccessary later.I am not prepared to risk the planet when the cost of being wrong will eventually wipe out much of the life forms on earth.
When you are in a position to make guaranteed statements then we should listen but your reassurances only have a purpose when they carry that guarantee.
We are nowhere near that.
I presume that you did not assume that because the TV report was screened during the Southern hemisphere summer, that it was filmed during their
summer?I dont know when it was shot but obviously it was a while ago in order to get back here and edit for viewing.
You may be correct and I accept this possibility,but thats all it is,and therefore exactly the same as my position.The difference is I can be wrong and no harm done in the sense that it was happening anyway,whereas you are playing with the lives of every single one of us If you are proven incorrect.It therefore makes infinite sense to presume that Man made global warming exists until we establish to the contrary.If you cannot see that,heaven help us.

Taking a few steps back, it has started to look more and more as if big-monied interests on all sides of the global warming debate are sniffing a new motherload. This includes the investment bankers, the electrical equipment manufacturers, the energy and carbon credit traders, and of course the legions of lawyers needed to support the policy and business structures --- a potent and unavoidable cocktail. Add to this the ever-increasing strategic need to decouple from Middle Eastern oil and the acceptance of the rising economic power of Russia and China, it seems likely that the people of Western nations can expect to witness during the next few years a rising tide of political messages that will claim acceptance of the 'threat of global warming' and the need to aggressively respond to the threat. Arguing the science will marginalize to an irrelvant academic exercise. For investors this will mean 'where do I make money' and for politicians 'how do I use this to get elected.' Unfortunately for most consumers, it will mean 'watch your wallet' in the form of taxes and energy costs. And of course, socializing the costs of dealing with global warming will hit those people with the least political leverage, the poor and defenseless, the hardest. To that suffering, the arc of History has said 'so what.' But if 'global warming' is used as code for 'global war for Arab oil within 15 years that could include a nuclear detonation' and the ablity of a people, including the poor and defenseless, to collectively pursue their safety and well-being, the calculations of societal costs and benefits take on an entirely new set of values. Pray for the strength and peace of mind to make wise decisions. Pray that political decisionmakers in the future do the same. And, please pardon the intrusion from another American with no standing in your discussions.

Seems Mr. Arthur is on a roll on this subject.;-) The university where i work gets approx. 6% of its energy from the wind turbines in West Virginia (on the mountains, you know,). I have driven past them, and I did find them to be more interesting, rather than a blight on the landscape. The only problem I've heard is the problem of birds and bats being killed by them. I don't want the bats killed, they tend to reduce the mosquitoes that make my summer life a hell...:-)

Windmills are good but intermittant.
Thus 100% back-up generators are necessary.
Uneconomic on all counts and will require a huge
Govt subsidy. Prepare for costs upwards of 50P/KWHr for consumers.

.#14 Grant Thoms, says

"#3 No one is going to build a windfarm that doesnt perform well"

...Govts are suckers for mega complexes!!...

...A CON MAN sold the Govt of Canada a scheme to make HEAVY WATER(for Candu Reactors)
$ Hundreds of Millions went into building

"DEUTERIUM CANADA" A huge stainless steel maze of TALL SILOS, Fractionating Towers ,Holding Tanks, surrounded by a CHAIN LINK FENCE AGAINST TERRORISTS. The plant has stood like a ghost,silent since completion, about 30 years ago.

ALL BECAUSE THE CABINET WERE NOT ABOUT TO EXPOSE THEIR IGNORANCE BY ASKING "DOES THE TECHNOLOGY ACTUALLY WORK" BEFORE COMMITTING MONEY!!

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.

To Am-Bodach No 38

Useful links to read;
Oswald report Nov 2006 - the only publicly available report on the UK wind power generating units available - provides detailed performance figures obtained from the renewable OBligation certificate claims details (which will be accurate because they derive 70% of their income from ROC's compared with 30% from selling the electricity to the grid - so the Shetlands scheme is esssentially a device to obtain their share of subsidy)
http://tinyurl.com/ypvbvd

Dong Energy Dec 2006
http://tinyurl.com/2xtvsm

This is the report on the Danish offshore farms and has this alarming factoid dropped in

"in 2004 the availability for Horns Rev was low due to a comprehensive repair of the gears and transformers on all the Vestas turbines."

They have also had to devise a scheme and a machine for cleaning the blades because they have discovered that sea water contains salt which dries and crystallises and changes the aerofoil sections of the blades and hence their performance.

All of which add to maintenance costs and badly affect the forward looking costs of production.

Whilst considering maintenance costs remember the 2 turbines 800metres offshore at Blyth, Northumberland, were hit by lightning before the Minister opened them, requiring an unexpected cost of over £300,000 to replace the blades - including hire of special vessel / crane etc. They have not been producing electricity because the shore bound cable has snapped / worn / broken - it was left unprotected on the rocky sea bed! Read more http://tinyurl.com/yuslwx

Report (Interim) of the union for the co-ordination of transmission of electricity UHTE (the European co-ordinators of the electricity transmission grids)
for th

I'm a wee bit disappointed that there's nothing in this article about the pioneering work that's been done on Unst
(also in Shetland) with their
Promoting Unst Renewable Energy (PURE)

A pilot project that demonstrates how wind power and hydrogen technology can be combined to provide for the energy needs of a rural industrial estate.
http://www.sigen.co.uk/downloads/papers/CS005-PURE.pdf

Lets face it, if Westminster is not going to connect the Islands to the National Grid, and its a reserved matter, then the only other way to export this energy will be in the form of hydrogen for fuel or for fuel cells.

Before too long I can see internal combustion engines being replaced by vehicles powered by fuel cells.

This country should be investing in this technology as a matter of priority.

I also see that BP is now threatening to drop its hydrogen fuelled power station project, using carbon capture technology, at Peterhead because of lack of support from our government.

This powerstation would produce enough power for three cities the size of Glasgow AND save an amount of carbon dioxide greenhouse gas equivalent to 400,000 cars.
http://www.peterheadhydrogenpower.com/go/doc/1141/119911

Another case of us showing 'how its done', and having to eventually pay someone else to do it for us?

btw The voices on Radio Scotland this morning seemed to suggest that the naysayers were all 'white settlers', not wanting this cute 'picture postcard' spoiled whilst those in favour sounded more like the athentic native.

No. 66 Francophile,

I never for a moment thought that we didn't need back up from conventional sources. I am fully aware of the fluctuations in output. I was actually responding to No.22 who seemed to imply that the power generated would cause further emissions on use, which is obviously incorrect.

As for the claims that the CO2 from the production of concrete for the bases etc will lead to a net increase in emissions, I would ask for real evidence of that. I think this is scaremongering at its best.
Scottish Power claim that the Blacklaw site at Forth in Lanarkshire negated the CO2 emissions from the construction of their 54 turbines within 2 weeks of the site going into production. If asked, I'm sure they will be able and willing to back up their claims with facts and figures. I have had no need (or the time) to ask for hard evidence of this up to now, but it strikes me that some people here are making claims that are ludicrous in order to undermine renewable energy development.

I'm sure if we can start the process of reducing emissions, then further research and development will eventually lead to good solutions. Bear in mind that in 25 years when these sites will have to apply for Planning Permissions to continue operation or face dismantling them, the likelyhood is that there will be further alternatives that may be far more efficient and so the need for continuation of turbines may eliminated and the reinstatement process may begin.

In reality these developments will buy us time until acceptable, efficient technologies are developed.

I do not have the technical knowledge to know for certain if windpower will have the ability to provide all the energy that it is alleged it can.

However, I hope it DOES and that we can gradually reduce reliance of fossil fuels.

Can anyone with the necessary knowledge answer the following questions:-

(1) if the Shetland Islands wind project
succeeds, is it possible the Shetlands could
become financially independent?
(2) if the Shetland Islanders became so
wealthy and wished to withdraw from the
UK (or an independent Scotland) what
would be their position with regard to
International Law?
(3) if the Shetlands Islands DID beome
independent how much (if any) of the oil
revenues would they be entiltled to?

We had ten of these absolutely hideous things built on our magnificent coast just a few km away. The experts gave figures for how much power they would produce, how many homes would benefit etc.
Now they tell us it did not quite do it's sums and we need another dozen or so to get anywhere near the original estimation.
They also try to flog us 'Green Power" at vastly inflated prices-it really comes from the main generating station.
That's life, commercial interest above everything.

It is a bit like your teenager coming home with a terrible haircut - you don't let it worry you, because you know it is not permanent, it will grow out and be back to normal eventually. You just have to put up with it in the meantime, even though it is ugly, but it is just a passing phase.

The ugly windfarms are the same. Maybe at this point in time they are worth a go, because present day technology doesn't offer a better alternative, the damage they do won't be permanent (unlike a nuclear accident) and as soon as science comes up with another idea, they will take their place in history and Shetland will return to normal.

Let's keep some balance - Environmentally and Economically.

As for the wildlife, I recall reading somewhere that the impact is not as great as one would imagine. The wildlife is not going to suddenly disappear and the biggest danger is from the rotating blades. Although, it is apparently extremely rare for a bird to be injured or killed. I know, I know, one death is one too many. I whole heartily agree, but we have to be realistic and consider all sides.

Sorry I can't recall the paper, but I believe I saw it when reading about the possible impact wind farms would have on the rare and highly endangered Orange Bellied Parrot.

An alternative to these wind mills.....

Everyone move to the islands ,
eat prunes and fart a lot .

GC

83 Digger-Dawg
"some people here are making claims that are ludicrous in order to undermine renewable energy development"
Aren't they just! Quite sad really

86 Old Copper

"gradually reduce reliance of fossil fuels."
YES, PLEASE! EVERY LITTLE HELPS.

"(1) if the Shetland Islands wind project
succeeds, is it possible the Shetlands could
become financially independent?"

NO. But it would be a help in maintaining employment, post oil. The overall value of internal Shetland economy is £518m, of which £116m (declining) is Oil related. So another £25m would not make a huge difference (actually it won't even offset the declining share of Oil). Source: 2001 figures from Shetland in Statistics - it's online.

"(2) if the Shetland Islanders became so
wealthy and wished to withdraw from the
UK (or an independent Scotland) what
would be their position with regard to
International Law?"

My opinion: THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A UNIONIST SCARE STORY. Classic divide and rule tactics. As a native Shetlander I find it quite insulting to be used in this way.

Shetland could probably legally secede from the UK, but is not financially viable as an independent state, long term. Think about costs of Health Service, universities etc which we get from the mainland. Faeroe has a degree of autonomy which is attractive, but it still gets these sort of services from Denmark. After Scottish Independence the UK will no longer exist, and Shetland is DEFINITELY not part of England.

The ferry goes to Aberdeen (12hr trip) - do we really want to sit on the boat all the way to Newcastle? Our students by and large to to Scottish Universities - do we really want to pay fees as part of Greater England. I don't think so. Lerwick gets its water from the Sandy Loch ('loch' - a Gaelic word, incidentally), not 'Lake Sandy'.

Legally I suppose Shetland could secede, bu

I think that a wind farm would work and the shetlands are a great place for them but jokingly a better place would be on the chins of our politicians as they spout loads of hot air.

enough to power the planet lol

Not many contributors seem to have been to Shetland whose people call it Shetland and not The Shetlands.

I am delighted to read the comments by Shetlanders. They are canny folk who chose well when they appointed the other Smith to lead them when Sullom Voe was being negotiated. If you have not been there then it is unlikely that you have any concept of the vastness of the mainland. Sullom Voe is the best part of a hundred miles from Sumburgh airport. There will be no ill effect on tourism and the loss of peat moor will be miniscule.

I hope that Shetlanders still give up their overtime to go with their tuskars to the peat banks – Arthur?

How many of you are aware that everything for Sullom Voe had to come in by sea to a dedicated jetty at the terminal so as not to disrupt the local roads and economy?. How many of you know that the SIC collects the rates and land rent for the terminal and that the SIC owns the jetties so that it can turn off the taps. Canny, or what!

Finally, a wee word of warning to greedy Scots. Many Shetlanders believe that they are not Scots and that they should secede and take their oil with them.

91 derick fae Yell

Many thanks for your informed answer.

As I said previously, I hope the wind farm is a success and brings helps us to at least reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Here's hoping other `windy' locations look at the possibilities of wind farms in their back yards.

Re #76 >>Windy millar - and we might just turn off the shetland tourist industry.....!<<

Nae chance Bogman, der are ower muckle cruise liners queing up tae enter Lerwick harbour. Man ye canna pass the briggistanes o' da Thule Bar fir dem folk in shorts dat cam wi dem....

Hit maks fir dry Shetlan simmers, du kens.

Navvy. AWAYNBILEYERHEIDYAGLACKIDMUGYE (Y)

39 DEREK and 82 LIVILION.

I was looking ar an article on Mother Earth about building one. I have few six inch nails and some corrugated iron round the back might give it a try. Welldone keep up the good work. Have looked at the Pure project several times. A great example of what can be done, 10 out of 10 to them, just a pity these guys don't get more support. But heh we have to get some new submarines!

39 DEREK and 82 LIVILION.

Missed a bit at the beginning. I was referring to the solar heater. Don't know what happened.