18th November 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Biased and blinkered? (Derick Herning)

Last week my wife and I went to see Nigel Spence’s film Con With the Wind. There was a capacity audience and I think most of us were overwhelmed by the stark picture it presented of environmental destruction, disastrous impact on human lives and potential financial loss.

If you were already anti-windfarm it confirmed your worst fears and if you were pro-, it must surely have raised some doubts in your mind.

Apparently not a single councillor was present. Are our elected representatives so biased and blinkered that they are unwilling\unable even to examine new evidence when it becomes available?

I think that this film should be shown in every school in Shetland (at least at the secondary level) and further that it should be shown to a plenary session of the SIC.

Derick Herning
Hayfield Court,
Lerwick.

81 comments

  1. Gordon Harmer

    Anyone with a grain of sense would have researched this film and found out that it was full of anti wind farm propaganda and rhetoric before they went to see it. That is probably why no councillors were there or any one who expected to see a truly unbiased film.
    If this piece of propaganda should be shown to school children then so should pro wind farm propaganda so that healthy minded children can make up their own minds instead of being brain washed.

    Reply
  2. John Tulloch

    Well said, Derick!

    It’s a democracy we live in and we muddle through decision-making by our attempts at reasoned argument and informed debate.

    Al Gore’s global warming propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth” won him, ludicrously, the Nobel Peace Prize, jointly with the IPCC of all people, however, it was decided in a UK court of law that the film contained several “convenient untruths.”

    That and Al Gore’s more recent pronouncements on global warming have made him a laughing stock among “climate change infidels” – even the Guardian has questioned his usefulness to his own cause – and yet he has been feted at the Scottish Low Carbon Conference last week, treating Alex Salmond and other luckless attendees to yet another outpouring of his special “own brand” fertiliser.

    Mr Gore usually charges $140,000 to $175,000 for a speech, however, I expect since Mr Salmond is such a loyal disciple and since Scottish government workers are on a multi-year pay freeze, he likely waived his fee on this occasion? Maybe aye an maybe no? Maybe someone else paid him?

    Perhaps someone can answer the questions “how much was he paid and who paid?”

    Tavish Scott should know, his party is in the vanguard of renewable energy enthusiasts.

    So, if it’s true that this is a “propaganda film” I’d say showing it in schools would only help to restore balance and indeed, would provide a wonderful opportunity for classes to hone their debating skills by actively criticising it – if it’s propaganda, it shouldn’t be too difficult for (science) teachers, if no-one else, to spot the flaws.

    Mind you, their track record has been pretty lacklustre, to date.

    Reply
  3. David Spence

    I find it rather disturbingly amusing that Mr Gordon Harmer should used the word ‘ brain washed ‘, in light of a film which reflects on the negative aspects and impact of wind generated energy. I am sure Viking Energy has been brain washing the Council and the population of Shetland with its own rhetoric in favour of wind energy as an alternative to fossil fuels or other forms of energy production. However Mr Harmer, isn’t it just so that the ‘ propaganda ‘, used by Viking Energy and certain members of the Council is equally as flippant and based on ‘ guess work ‘ and ‘ speculation ‘ in regard to the pro’s of wind energy? The priority of the whole scenario of Viking Energy is based on commercial gain and financial profit for a minority of people within and without Shetland. The ‘ quick buck mentality ‘, prevails regardless of any long term damage which may occur as a result of this project going ahead. Brain Washing people under the guise of ‘ get rich quick ‘, is far more damaging than any film or propaganda being shown to contradict what the real reason for Viking Energy’s existence and the necessity for the Council to change the rules of democracy to suit the greed orientated selected Councillors is by far proving to be more damaging as recent events have proven. Breach democracy, breach Council Policy and to hell with the people of Shetland in favour of a project which will cost the Shetland people dearly for a very, very small minority of people to get rich and untold damage to the Shetland environment and wildlife.

    Reply
  4. ian Tinkler

    Gordon, was it not Viking Energy that was reprimanded for propaganda and dishonesty by The Advertising Standards Authority? Also was it not VE that presented its own propaganda in schools, hosting displays of biased and slanted information, even awarded prizes to children for writing essays and letters in laudation of the VE project. Get your facts in order Gordon Harmer, or at least do not write in ignorance of them. Viking Energy is a truly toxic and tainted project, dishonest to the core.
    Ref: (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/136517-wind-farm-firm-rapped-over-misleading-advertising/) (http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/news-detail.asp?item=56)

    Reply
  5. Gordon Harmer

    @ David Spence, same old argument David and it does not hold water, the VE project is a long term investment not a “quick buck mentality” investment. There are many projects the length and breadth of Shetland were the initial investor along with the council have benefited financially. These projects bring jobs and wealth to these islands not greed as your misguided Luddite and obviously socialist rantings project.
    @ Ian Tinkler, I have come to the conclusion that you are a professional debate assassin as you never follow the thread of what is written, instead you reply to what you think is written. I have not stated any facts in my letter I simply said let the children see both sets of propaganda and use their active and up to now unbiased minds to decide for them selves. Neither did I say anything about Viking Energy’s propaganda I said pro wind farm propaganda, of which there is plenty.
    The point I was making, which you in all your wisdom obviously missed was it is going to be today’s children who will have to live with this wind farm. Therefore let them find the facts for them selves by seeing things from both sides instead of being brain washed by one side or the other.

    Reply
  6. ian Tinkler

    Mr. Harmer, you state, “This projects (VE) will bring jobs and wealth to these islands not greed” That is complete rubbish, with the projected 25% drop in subsidy; this project will bankrupt Shetland Charitable Trust. Your argument sink to insults “your misguided Luddite and obviously socialist rantings “. These childish prattles do not enforce your argument, you trivialise yourself. Further to that, for your information, there is no such thing as a “professional debate assassin”; your use of rhetoric is flawed, puerile and idiotic. You also appear ignorant of what brainwashing is. I feel if you are wishing to make a point, the use of clear, precise, intelligent and referenced argument may help. I repeat “Viking Energy is a truly toxic and tainted project, dishonest to the core, and proven so”. Now prove that statement wrong, if you can. Ref: (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/136517-wind-farm-firm-rapped-over-misleading-advertising/) (http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/news-detail.asp?item=56) http://news.scotsman.com/environment/Cut-looms-for-wind-turbines.6826574.jp

    Reply
  7. Gordon Harmer

    Mr Tinkler what you have written has nothing to do with what is being debated here that makes you a professional debate or sensible dialogue assassin, I have created this tag especially for you therefore it exists. If you want to debate stick to the subject instead of lowering it to this juvenile immature incoherent garbage which I feel obliged to follow. Also your use of never ending internet links is getting quite tiring, try making your own reasonable and sensible argument. If any of your drivel attacking Viking was relevant to what they are going to build you may have an argument, but you don’t. Any thing you use is not relevant or compatible to what is being built here or to the environmental elements involved.
    If your not happy with what may transpire in the future on these islands then I advise retreat to from where you came as you may be depriving some quaint village of its idiot.

    Reply
  8. Jeemie Smith

    Is there any chance of a reasoned argument on this??
    I suspect not.

    Reply
  9. ian Tinkler

    Gordon, you make my point for me. Back to childish insults. Your argument speaks for itself. Nothing more need be said.

    Reply
  10. Marina Thomason

    They call it a community windfarm, yet deals were being struck apparantly as early as 2004 when the people of Shetland barely knew what was happening. They persist in calling it a windfarm in “Central Mainlaind” Shetland on the Viking Energy website when reference to any ordnance survey map will show that 40 of the turbines are in North Mainland Shetland.

    The people of Shetland have been misled.

    Reply
  11. Gordon Harmer

    Thank goodness for that Ian as I don’t seem to have the ability to stop myself being dragged down to your level of argument.

    Reply
  12. Miranda MacDonald

    One simple question: if wind turbines are so useless then why has every single continent on the planet got them ? They are all over China, U.S.A., Argentina, Canada, Germany, etc etc, etc. They are not some pet project of Alex Salmond. They are global. Now, if they are a con then it is a global con – and that takes some doing ! ( and it is certainly not Alex Salmond’s doing ). If they are not a con and, as we have been warned repeatedly, the oil is running out and we fail to install them then where does that leave the UK in relation to the rest of the planet ? Lastly, planning consents are for 20 years only not forever therefore if they are a con and dont make money they will simply be pulled down in 20 years time or before. So just what is the problem in givng them a try ?

    Reply
  13. W Conroy

    @ Miranda MacDonald… I may be wrong but I don’t think the problem is so much the wind generators themselves but where they are possibly going that seems to be the issue. Some don’t want these turbines near their homes as they will destroy their view, some are worried about possible ambient noise from these generators and some in regards to the carbon footprint that projects like this are supposed to be helping (I believe a problem arises with the peat getting dug up as peat is a natural soak for carbon – this will be released when the peat is dug up therefore cancelling any possible carbon footprint saving) and then of course you have people like Ian Tinkler who just likes to moan and argue as he has nothing better to do…

    Hope this helps!

    Reply
  14. W Conroy

    Sorry… meant to say “peat is a natural soak for carbon dioxide” not carbon.

    Reply
  15. ian tinkler

    Miranda, no country on the planet is emulating Salmond’s policy of total reliance in wind, tidal and hydro electricity by 2020. This policy will literally put Scotland power at the mercy of the elements. Last year is a good example of the stupidity of such a policy. After the investment of countless millions/billions of pounds, in pounds in green energy production, Scotland electricity generation dropped by 6% (little wind and less rain than expected). The only reason the lights were kept on in the pre Christmas cold snap was by importing French nuclear generated power! The only country on Earth that comes close to Salmond’s energy policy is Denmark. Denmark has now totally stopped development of onshore wind farms due to the high cost of the electricity and environmental damage turbines create. As a result it Denmark’s green energy policies are producing the most expensive electricity in Europe and most of its industrial base is now relocating outside Denmark. Denmark is regarded as the world leader in wind farm development, its people have learnt to their cost and regret the folly of trying to depend on green energy alone. I thank W Conroy for his input. I note when devoid of rational argument and intellect, he like others, trivializes himself by resorting to child like insults and name calling.
    ref: http://news.scotsman.com/news/39Green39-Scotland-relying-on-French.6672024.jp
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/heat-is-on-ministers-after-dip-in-green-energy-output-1.1127046

    Reply
  16. Richard Gibson

    Nigel Spence’s film is about the risk of close proximity between wind turbines and houses yet, when asked, in the discussion afterwards, what he thought a reasonable separation would be he replied 2km – as recommended by the Scottish Government – with which most of the VE scheme complies.  So instead of accepting the hysterical nonsense in the film as fact, we should welcome the opportunities a connection to the national grid would bring – but negotiate for best practice.  The hard edge line taken by SS is very risky in terms of control, finance & community benefit.

    Reply
  17. ian tinkler

    Richard Gibson, please study the facts before passing comment . More than half (74) of VE’s turbines are within 2k of private residences. In one situation, four 145 metre high wind turbines are proposed within just over one kilometre, and six within two kilometres of an occupied dwelling. VE is well outside planning guidelines and that is one reason why SIC own planning officers did not approve and rejected the VE project. SIC councilors then overturned their own planners. Money talks to those directors of VE within the council, the environment means nothing to them at all. Maybe there is an ellement of truth in “Con With the Wind”

    Reply
  18. Gordon Harmer

    As time goes by and the oil is running out and what is left is to expensive to use to generate electricity, other than building a nuclear power station on Shetland where are we going to get our electricity from. Some advocate the use of gas, a fuel with a limited life span, so in 25 or 30 years time just where will we get our electricity from? With no wind farm we get no inter connector cable which means we cannot export electricity nor can we import it.
    With the whole world being financially challenged every bodies purse strings are going to be pulled tightly shut. The British public will soon object to subsiding the cost of us generating electricity by probably the most expensive and environmentally unfriendly means possible at Gremista. They certainly will not fork out for an inter connector cable just so we can receive electricity from the mainland.
    So to all the anti wind farm lobby do I start to teach my children and grand children how to use a tushkar and how to work a tilly lamp. Do I encourage them to stock up on candles and paraffin to ensure they have light and heat in the years to come. So do you have a answer to the question, where will my children and grand children get their electricity in thirty years time?

    Reply
  19. ian tinkler

    Certainly no electricity fro VE in 30 years. Just masive concret structures still leaching lime into the soil. Gordon I thought you knew VE has a projected life of 20 to 25 years.

    Reply
  20. Gordon Harmer

    Absolutely Ian but you can rebuild, refurbish, modernise wind turbines you cannot magic oil and gas out of dried up wells. Ruling out nuclear power, tell me where future Shetland generations will get their electricity from without the inter connector cable? Ian it is also a known fact that in thirty years time electricity generated by wind turbines will be massively cheaper to produce than it is now.

    Reply
  21. ian tinkler

    Gordon, why rule out nuclear, nil CO2, not dependant on the weather, total unlimited power. The Fukushima incident did not result in a single case of radiation sickness; the reactors were 40 years old of obsolete design and withstood earthquake, tsunami, and meltdown without mass casualties. Radiation leaks were mostly contained and evacuated areas outside the plant will be safe within a year or so. Less people died as a result of the Chernobyl reactor explosion than have died in wind farm accidents. Nuclear only scares people who have little scientific knowledge. I have worked in a nuclear base and have been trained in nuclear decontamination techniques and the treatment of radiation causalities. Many of my past dental patients were submariners whom live, slept and worked within feet of reactors and weapons which are hopefully will soon be part of history. I do have an informed opinion. I see absolutely no scientific argument to rule out nuclear power apart from the cost. The Fukissima accident actually showed how safe modern protocols are in dealing with nuclear accidents. Uranium reactors are only one type, fusion is not that far away, Thorium reactors are feasible and producing power; they do not create the same radiation waste hazards as uranium reactors. Wind turbines are already nearly obsolete, Maglev wind generator designs will certainly be here soon, tidal is far more reliable; all will these power sources will be here in less than 30 years… There are far better ways of power generation than Viking Energy, it was and still is no more than a convenient way to milk state subsidies and make a few fat cats wealthier than they are already. Incidentally subsidies will soon to be cut by 25%, which will stop this VE project in its

    Reply
  22. ian tinkler

    tracks

    Reply
  23. Bert Morrison

    Indeed Gordon! Maybe American geoscientist Dr M. King Hubbert was mistaken – oil and gas will go on forever and ever. After this fad across the planet for renewable energy has ceased in the next 25 to 30 years, what will produce our electricity – oh please, please enlighten us Ian!

    Reply
  24. Gordon Harmer

    Ian I have nothing against nuclear power and I would personally rather to see one built here but I just cant see that happening. We will probably have nuclear powered ferries in the future to service these islands so why not a nuclear power station. It would still need the inter connector cable, but I think (and I may be wrong) that there would be even greater opposition to it than the wind farm.
    Ian if things world wide carry on as they are we will eventually be held to ransom by country’s that are still producing oil long after our oil has run out. So with out a lot of forward thinking and a massive proactive attitude we are going to be stuck in the middle of the north sea with out a paddle and no electricity.
    So Ian I ask you again leaving aside the nuclear option (which I admit I may be wrong about) what options do we have to provide electricity on these islands for the future generations.

    Reply
  25. ian tinkler

    In answer to yours, Gordon, firstly, whatever energy source Shetland adopts in the future, it must do minimal damage the unique and priceless environment of Shetland. All energy sources can be considered to make Shetland energy self sufficient, no more no less. VE is massive, damaging and wholly unnecessary, a pipe dream of politicians, some avaricious, some ignorant and some driven by idiotic dreams of independence from the UK at any cost to the environment. Very few politicians have a once of scientific understanding and most are self serving, and by their very nature slaves of dogma and public perceptions, right or wrong. Small discrete wind farms, tidal generators, wave generators, solar generators, geothermal and individual turbines attached to crofts and private residences all have a place. All options should be held open. Profit should never be the motivation. Environmental protection should be paramount without environmental protection we have nothing. The VE project, interconnectors and switching stations will tear our own environment apart; their effect on world CO2 emissions will be totally inconsequential. Further to the above, far more employment chances will be generated by multiple small energy sources than the VE project, also electricity feed tariffs would go to individuals, not the Banks, landlords and Energy companies (SSE). There would be no threat to The Charitable Trust funds; indeed Trust funds could provide small individual loans to Shetlanders to help install small generators.

    Reply
  26. Gordon Harmer

    Taking point one of your comment Ian the environment, I truly do not understand where you and others are coming from on this issue. Mainly because there has been no opposition to what is happening at Sullom with the Total gas plant. I don’t know if you have seen the amount of peat that has been disturbed up there but to me it looks like there is and will be a greater amount of peat disturbed between the site and the pipe line than what will be disturbed by the wind farm. Also Total is a French company geared up and working to one goal and that is profit for themselves and their shareholders (something I take you to be against). All we will gain up herefrom this is several years of jobs during the construction phase and a reasonable amount of long term jobs which is also on offer from the wind farm.
    Second point politicians pipe dreams, I agree with you 100% on the subject of Alex Salmond I believe all he is after is a monument in his memory next to the Wallace Monument as the saviour of Scotland. I strongly disagree with you on the subject of the Shetland council and I truly believe the Viking project can only serve to boost and add longevity to the charitable trust fund.
    Third point wave and tide power generation is a long way behind wind and wind has been proved efficient at Burradale probably the words most efficient wind farm. No one really knows how wave and tide will work up here but I think we should be open minded on this and wait and see what the future brings. All the other methods you propose are a bit of a hotch potch conglomeration and as they would create all sorts of planning anomaly’s. The cost would be so high every body would need a grant to even think about going down that road and a lot of people would lose out. We would still need a large wind farm to provide power for the towns and heavily populated areas where multiple small energy sources would be impractical.
    One thing I do believe Ian is we need the inter connector cable because what ever the future holds at least then we can import electricity. You probably believe the wind farm would be to high a price to pay for that but I see nothing but benefits.

    Reply
  27. ian tinkler

    Gordon, Total is environmentally inconsequential in comparison to Viking. Its footprint by comparison is tiny, the environmental damage minimal. Precious little wildlife disturbance, no rare species threatened, no massive damage to hill tops and upland peat fields, no lime run off, no quarries, no tall structure close to residences and minimal noise pollution. The comparison is specious and not relevant to the VE debate… With regard to the interconnector, its capacity would be almost completely taken up by Viking. There is little spare capacity for tidal or offshore energy transference. If Shetland achieves energy self sufficiency with small discrete wind farms (like Burradale), tidal generators, wave generators, and solar generators, geothermal and individual turbines… The import of electricity from the mainland is wholly unnecessary. It is only necessary if we depend only on wind farms, for example Viking. If we achieve self sufficiency by multiple power sources the interconnector is simple not required and superfluous to need. Tidal energy alone would easily supply population centers like Lerwick. We are already able by electrolysis of water to store hydrogen as an energy source, within a few years I am sure projects such as VE will be utterly and completely obsolete technology, many already regard such projects as obsolete, for example Denmark.

    Reply
  28. Gordon Harmer

    Ian over 260,000 cubic meters of peat has been disturbed on the Total site and that does not include access roads and the twin pipe line track. If you take into account that 67% of the turbines are to be built on peat that is already eroded or degraded the comparisons are greater than tiny. There will be noise pollution from the roar of how ever many more flare stacks are constructed and these will contribute to light pollution at night. There will be as much if not more concrete poured on this site so I would imagine the lime run off will be significant, all in all Ian quite a comparison to the wind farm in my book.
    The inter connector cable is a 100% requirement as Ian up to now even third generation tidal turbines are only 25 to 30% efficient a good 25% less efficient that Burradale. Even if we built a nuclear power station we would need the inter connector cable to ensure electricity 100% of the time as well as being able to export power to boost the Shetland economy.
    Shetland is probably one of the few places on earth where wind powered electricity would work because of the near guaranteed weather patterns and its geographical layout. This makes Denmark and other countries a poor comparison.

    Reply
  29. ian tinkler

    Some comparison, Gordon, the Total plant, peat disturbance, is estimated at 260,000 (Two hundred and sixty thousand) cubic meters. The Viking Aggregate extracted from up to 12 new quarries is, for concrete alone is estimated at 1470000 (1.47 million) cubic meters. Gordon you state also that The Total plant used comparable amounts of concrete as the Viking project… That is patently ridiculous, would you please reference your information source, as it is clearly not true and could be well regarded as deliberately misleading. The lime run of from the Total plant is minimal; it is positioned by the sea. Viking energy lime run of literally threatens hundreds of square miles of peat land and several peat lochs, the ecology and eco systems would be utterly destroyed. As for noise pollution just how many residences could hear the Total plant? Where do you get your statistics comparing tidal energy with Burradale wind energy, I put to you again they are a fiction, wind and tidal cannot be scientifically compared on efficiency. The comparable and only relevant data would be the energy output, the energy/power produced. If the wind is not blowing even at 100% efficiency wind turbines produce nothing. The tide is predictable, and even King Canute could not stop it. Energy production only stops at slack water; this occurs at different times in different places (Two hour differential between the east/west coast of Shetland). Several small tidal stations surrounding Shetland would ensure a permanent and predictable energy supply. The interconnector, if we are energy independent, is absolutely unnecessary. We, by definition would not need to import energy; we would be producing our own. Just the same as we do now, just different types of generator. We manage at present quite well without an interconnector. Scotland, according to Salmond will be energy independent by 2020, England, with its nuclear mix, already is. If, Scotland, when the wind stops blowing, needs more energy, English and French nuclear would be a far cheaper option, it is already available. No wind in Scotland could well mean no wind in Shetland, just as last November and December, when Scotland had to use French nuclear. Clearly spending hundreds of millions on an interconnector and Switching station would appear a little rash if not utterly stupid. Just where would we export excess electricity to, and who would need it?

    Reply
  30. John Tulloch

    Renewables are all fine and good and there is certainly a place for them, however, the insurmountable drawback is the cost of them – as a former employer of mine many years ago used to say at moments of inefficiency, “Weel, SOMEBODY haes tae pay for it!”

    We can stand subsidising only a modest amount of renewables, the level of UK fuel poverty is soaring and if we invest in renewables, either, others have to pay or we have to pay ourselves.

    May I suggest that those who, like Bert Morrison, agonise over whence our future power will come, check the following link which contains a short summary of a BBC Radio 4 programme on the discovery of vast shale gas resources in the UK.

    Similar discoveries have been made around the world and the industry is particularly well-developed in the US where gas prices are now one third of what they are in Asia, leading to booming rebirth of the US chemical industry.

    The Total gas plant is just up the road, a BP-led consortium is to invest £4.5 bn in the Clair Field and gas is going to become very plentiful and very cheap, indeed.

    Readers may draw their own conclusions, however, it sounds like “Peak Oil Theory? BOOM!”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15248683

    Reply
  31. ian tinkler

    Gordon, Bert, You may rest reassured. We now have 40 years supply of gas from Clair. Not CO2 clean but it proves American geoscientist Dr M. King Hubbert was mistaken. Like most pure academics he clearly got a bit carried away with his own prejudices. So to the entire wind farm lobby you do not need to teach your children and grand children how to use a tushkar and how to work a Tillie lamp. Do not encourage them to stock up on candles and paraffin to ensure they have light and heat in the years to come. So Gordon, you do have an answer to the question, where your children and grand children get their electricity in thirty years’ time? I hope that completes this discussion.

    Reply
  32. Gordon Harmer

    Ian reading your last two posted comments just proves to me and any one else who has read them just how tenuous your claims to be concerned about the environment are. Firstly you claim you care about the unique and priceless environment of Shetland, then you totally dismiss the damage that the Total gas plant will have on the environment as minimal. You disregard the colossal amount of peat disturbed the light and noise pollution the habitat of several families of otters that has been destroyed. The pollution that could be caused in the event of an incident after the plant is operational it all counts, but not to you because it does not have the Viking stamp on it.
    Furthermore Ian as a self proclaimed environmentalist you have just supported what is happening to the west of Shetland and proclaimed we may rest reassured that we have a 40 year supply of gas. When the oil giants them selves are taking action to protect against a possible oil spill twice the size of Deepwater Horizon happening to the west of Shetland surely the hair on the back of your neck should be standing in absolute horror. Your support for the environment is some what selective, if actual or possible damage is done or predicted by an oil company it is ok by you. But should the Viking wind farm even threaten the environment through even the most tenuous of exaggerated claims you are on their case.
    Ian if I may strike a comparison, and this is a comparison I am not saying you have said this so please don’t go off on one about it. The above is like you saying as you have that killing pilot whales is abhorrently wrong and then following up by saying it is ok to kill porpoise and dolphin because they are smaller. You are either an environmentalist or you are not that is why I said several comments ago I don’t know where you are coming from on the issue of the environment.

    Reply
  33. Richard Gibson

    Ian Tinkler, in reply to your comment of 10th Oct, you rather make my point and you clearly don’t have an answer to the combined threats of global warming, peak oil and population instability.  I accept these are risks rather than facts, but nevertheless Shetland must prepare for an uncertain future rather than hoping for the best or relying on the undeveloped technologies you suggest.  With this in mind, I cannot see what other decision responsible councillors could make.  They were correct to ignore the planners recommendation because, having excluded the impact of economic & social policies from their report, they removed the basis for making a balanced recommendation.  Yes, there are turbines closer than 2km, but because the report was flawed, the opportunity to recommend conditions to attach to any Energy Consents Unit decision, were lost.   

    Reply
  34. Gordon Harmer

    Ian maybe you should read the article in today’s Shetland Times “Community-owned tidal scheme a step nearer”. The second last paragraph says “but the Shetland wave farm cannot happen until the inter connector power cable is provided to the Scottish mainland”. Like I said Ian we need the inter connector cable, so a little more open mindedness and a compromise here and there and we all could be happy.

    Reply
  35. Peter Marwick

    “a little more open mindedness and a compromise here and there and we all could be happy.”

    I greatly admire your optimism Gordon!

    Reply
  36. ali inkster

    gordon maybe you should read the article again as the interconnector has nothing to do with the community owned tidal project.

    Reply
  37. Bert Morrison

    Peak oil is no myth. As the worlds population rapidly grows and aspires to the energy consumption of the West, there will be an energy crunch at some point and probably sooner rather than later. That is why energy supplies must diversify. Shetland is fortunate to be in the hub of not only the British oil and gas industry but also a potentially large renewables industry which will provide future jobs and prosperity, not to mention home produced energy to British homes.

    Reply
  38. ian tinkler

    Richard Gibson, are you truly saying responsible councilors should put the health of Shetlanders at risk by ignoring Scottish planning regulations for unspecified, arbitrary economic and social reasons. Gordon, in response to your recent comments, firstly The Total plant is not relevant to this discussion. Derick Herning and I are debating the merits of wind farms, specifically Viking energy, the interconnector and the film “Con with the Wind”. Further to that my views on the Total plant and petro chemical industry are not the issue, nor relevant to this debate. I would however point out to readers that no otter families were deliberately destroyed or killed in the construction of the Total gas plant. Gordon’s statement that whole families of otters were destroyed was simply not honest, a deliberate deception and a simple lie. With regard to the Pelamis / Vattenfall wave farm, why is this development dependant on an interconector? The fact is it is not. As a power source exclusively for Shetland Pelamis / Vattenfall do not need an interconnector. If however the export of electricity to the mainland of Scotland is what is proposed by Pelamis / Vattenfall, Shetland would seem an inappropriate place for a wave farm. For wave energy any Atlantic coastline would be appropriate. Further to this there would be no spare capacity in the proposed interconnector if Viking and the other the proposed offshore wind farms were developed. As a matter of fact very, very many more HVDC transmission circuits and converter stations would have to be constructed if any projects beyond Viking were to be developed. I refer to Salmond’s grand power plan for Scotland, 1000 square miles of offshore wind farms around the Shetland coast. (https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/05/27/five-sites-identified-around-shetland-for-possible-offshore-windfarm-development)

    Reply
  39. Paul Riddell

    From Gordon Harmer, posted by the editor due to technical problem

    Ian you are the master of deliberate deception and lies, I said the habitat of several families of otters not actual otters had been destroyed. You should become a politician your ability to twist and corrupt what has been said is formidable. The only problem is you are so transparent we can all see through you, yes so transparent I suppose I can forget an apology.
    The Total plant and its effect on the environment are so very relevant as your total disregard for this proves beyond all doubt you are a fraud when you claim to be concerned for the environment. True environmentalists would show concern at any development that affects the environment how ever small, not only if it has a Viking stamp on it.

    Gordon Harmer

    Reply
  40. ian tinkler

    Bert, it is clear petro chemical resources are not finite and do produce CO2 when burnt. It is also clear American geoscientist Dr M. King Hubbert predications were wildly inaccurate and at best he was badly mistaken otherwise simply scaremongering to promote his own now discredited views and bias. With regard to green energy Viking Energy and its linked interconnector is no more than a way a few already wealthy individuals and companies can speculate and cash in on state subsidies. Those subsidies all already under review, and The DECC are considering a 25% cut in funds available for onshore wind farms. That cut will totally destroy VE profitability and if the project were to continue would bankrupt The Charitable Trust, of that there is no doubt whatsoever. If this VE project, which already with guarantees and hand outs has cost Shetland more than £6 million, continues unchecked many, many jobs will be lost. Just ask yourself what and who has profited from that £6 million monies spent or guaranteed to date? Why are Viking Energy and the SIC repeatedly ignoring requests under freedom of information laws to publish accounts and specify directors fees and costs squandered so far. With regard yours, Gordon, I did misread your letter and will apologies to you if you can prove the habitat of several families of otters has been destroyed. I believe your statement to be unfounded, speculative and a fiction, a simple lie. It is actually a fact several families of otters live happily in Sullom Voe and are flourishing alongside heavy petro chemical plant, dock facilities and tankers.

    Reply
  41. ian tinkler
  42. ian tinkler

    Re, Bert should read not infinite!!!

    Reply
  43. Colin Hunter

    While it is indeed true that otters do thrive in and around the harbour installations, both at Caldback Ness and Sellaness, there is also little doubt that some of their natural habitat was destroyed during the construction phase. I have actually seen more otters in my time at Sellaness than anywhere else. They appear to like man made structures and the habitat they provide for smaller creatures, upon which they prey. The fact that almost the whole of Orca Voe is now no longer there is beyond dispute and was no doubt home to a great many wild creatures.
    In the case of the Total development, if you then cover an entire hillside with concrete and “Dams” to hold peat which has been disturbed there has doubtless been a burn or two which has gone west in the process! And, by association, a place where otters or other creatures may once have lived. There is nothing to say, that once this new construction is complete and running, and everything settles down, that the displaced creatures won’t find a home among the plant, as they have at Sullom Voe. The point is that they have been displaced. Sadly it’s as inevitable as it is unavoidable in such situations, and will unfortunately happen again, when and if the wind turbines are built.

    Reply
  44. John Tulloch

    Gordon,

    “Ian…… You should become a politician your ability to twist and corrupt what has been said is formidable.”

    SIC councillors are politicians, every one!

    Reply
  45. Bert Morrison

    I guess that Ian Tinkler and I will never reach agreement on the future of oil and gas reserves. If production goes on merrily for the next half century, meeting the ever increasing demand from the likes of China and India and still at a cost affordable to all, with renewables consigned to the dust bin of history then Ian you win the Mars bar! Personally, I foresee pressure on future supplies to meet demands and ever increasing power and influence on market prices from countries such as Russia and Saudi Arabia. Maybe Ian would like to do a little research on how Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev use Russian gas supplies as leverage for their strategic political aims (and why not, it’s their gas!). One day Britain and Europe will be begging at the Kremlins door “Oh please comrade, just one more therm, we’re freezing over here!” Maybe Ian cannot see the danger in this vision, but I suspect many Europeans can and this is partly why there is such a huge drive towards energy efficiency and renewables. We are at the dawn of a new age in energy and if any place is perfectly sited to taking a leading role in it – it is Shetland. Strategically the interconnector is vital for Shetland if it is to play a part in this new age.

    Reply
  46. Gordon Harmer

    Ian, Colin has partly made my point for me there where otters living feeding and playing in the burn that runs down the hill adjasent to where the Total plant is being constructed. I have on many occasions seen them, they will now be displaced, not necesarily a tragidy as they will move on and survive. My point is they have been disturbed which is something that will happen with the Viking wind farm but they will survive and probably return. So if this disturbance worrys you if Viking are responsible why are you not woried when Total are responsible.
    Ian the proof you want is in the seeing, go across to the Ollaberry / Sullom side of the voe with a pair of binoculars. It is quite scary to see how much of the hill / wid animal, bird habitat has been ripped up. Dont think I should hold my breath for an apology though eh.

    John I would disagree with all councillors and say yes maybe some would make good politicians because of such qualities.

    Bert your vision is bang on, it was reflected perfectly on a news item today which stated that today’s population of nearly seven billion will have doubled by the end of the century. this will every year that goes by put an enormous demand on the worlds resources, hence using them up far quicker than we could imagine.

    Reply
  47. John Tulloch

    £6 million! Add that to the £6 million from outside sources and we could have had Mareel for nothing!

    Reply
  48. Colin Hunter

    I don’t think Ian is particularly worried about the fact that we may, someday, be energy self sufficient in Scotland. If Alex Salmonds vision for that self sufficiency is allowed to come to its ultimate fruition then we may have no further need of Vladimir Putin, or his gas. I am beginning to think that it may be a more personal motivation. Envy or even hatred of the fact that someone, other than himself, has had the vision, and the balls, to put their own money up front and has actually made a success of the venture! If that is all his argument is based upon, then it is baseless!

    Reply
  49. ian tinkler

    I really do not think are views are that far apart, Bert, everything you say with regard to the necessity of being energy independent of external national powers I agree with. CO2 free energy is the ideal to strive for; I do not however accept Viking Energy as being little more than a subsidy milking cash cow to a greedy clique of directors and SSE. The benefits to Shetland without subsidy are negative, the environmental damage and financial risks are huge. Even now the authorities on the mainland have failed to endorse VE. With the SNP obsession with Scotland being a net exporter of power I can only speculate why. I believe there to be far better options than The VE project, most I have already listed at length. I am sure the Total project disturbed otters, but as a single otter has a range of 15k coastline plus and a territory of at least 4 to 10 square kilometres, the affect would be minimal. I can say with absolute certainty that Gordon is talking utter rubbish, in his claim that “the habitat of several families of otters has been destroyed”. You would never find several families in that close a proximity. The dog otters would kill rival male otters and certainly drive youngsters out of their territories. I would ask Colin for some logic, he claims Salmond (I think) has had the vision, and the balls to put money up front and I somehow I resent this. He states I have “Envy or even hatred of the fact that someone, other than myself ” did this. Just for you information Colin, Salmond and the SNP have put up no money of their own whatsoever. It is UK taxpayer’s money they are using, £ billions of it. VE are using Shetlander’s money, £6 million to date. I would have thought you would have the intelligence to realize that! I would indeed praise Salmond if he used his own money, some chance. I do resent this utter waste of public funds on massive subsidized the wind farm turbine fantasy; I list better options for Shetland. Small discrete wind farms, tidal generators, wave generators, solar generators, geothermal and individual turbines attached to crofts and private residences all have a place, and Thorium reactors within ten years. You will note, Gordon, I do not and never have supported or advocated petro chemical options, merely contrasted environmental plant footprints. You were too biased and your mind too closed to realize that.

    Reply
  50. Colin Hunter

    Anybody know a decent brickie? I need a wall to beat my head against!

    Reply
  51. Gordon Harmer

    Wow I see ARE Ian is now an expert in the field of the Shetland otter as well as every other subject under the sun. He miss read my comments about otter habitat and answered wrongly with a diatribe of lies and abuse. Now ARE Ian has answered Colin Hunter in a similar manner ARE Ian obviously does not read what is printed but sees what he wants to believe is there.
    Ian you will note I have never advocated that you do support petrochemical options, once again you cannot understand the simple English. What I am saying is how can you condemn the environmental impact of the wind farm and not condemn the significant environmental impact of the Total plant.
    Colin and I have made ARE points and you choose to miss read them you are either a very clever wind up merchant or just a totally deluded sesquipedalian.

    Reply
  52. John Tulloch

    Bairns, whit nixt, a’ll be comin doon wi’ a bout o’ hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia if I dunna watch oot!

    Reply
  53. ian tinkler

    No Gordon, no expert, just able to pick up a book. Try it someday, yuo minght look a little less stupid.

    Reply
  54. Gordon Harmer

    Ian don’t just pick up a book try reading it instead of misinterpreting it , then give it to Colin to bash his head against.
    Or better still give the book to the three families of otters I used to watch on the shore of Basta Voe who all lived within a mile and a half of each other. I am sure they would like to know they were not living by the gospel according to Ian Tinkler. Any way enough of this I am away to join Colin for a grain of head banging it minght knock a bit of sense into my stupid head.

    Reply
  55. John Tulloch

    There is an article by Professor Dieter Helm, Oxford University, who is an economist specialising in utilities, infrastructure, regulation and the environment, and concentrating on the energy, water, communications and transport sectors primarily in Britain and Europe.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/18/energy-price-volatility-policy-fossil-fuels

    I certainly don’t share his or the Guardian’s view of the threat of climate change, however, he makes a number of points which are directly relevant to this debate and which are well worth reading – paraphrasing Orwell, “If the Guardian says it, it must be right, 2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad!”

    Reply
  56. Gordon Harmer

    I don’t read the words you have written, I read what I think you have said,
    Then I twist it and I corrupt it, because I know it does in your head,
    I’m an expert on all possible subjects, as I google things on the web,
    I know every thing about otters, how they play and cavort in the ebb,
    I know their territorial limits, as I picked up a book and I read,
    15 kilometres for huntin and fishin, and a hole in the ground for a bed,
    Anyone who says any different, is talking out of their bottom,
    Cos I know all of the answers, as I went on the web and I got em,
    I get the better of Colin and Gordon, cos I throw lots of big words about.
    I am a very modest little person, with a lot to be modest about,

    Reply
  57. ian tinkler

    The prove of the lie. Gordon. “The habitat of several families of otters has been destroyed by this plant, your words, and your claim. Talk about dishonesty, can anyone believe a word you say? You make it up as you go along! Read the following recent science, if you are able! Otherwise get Colin to explain it. If you wish to lie at least ensure the truth is not available for all to see. Only idiots do that.
    reference: (http://www.laggan-tormore.com/downloads) (onshore-eia pdf ) Table 7.7 Otter Presence in the Vicinity of the Laggan-Tormore Development (Conroy,2007, 2009a, 2009b) Further to that Figure 7.17 Distribution of Otter Holts and Sightings in the Vicinity of the Onshore Development (identified from 2007 and 2009 surveys and SSMEI, 2008. No otter families at all on the site of the plant. One on the coastline of Orca Voe. All the otters are coastal; the plant is about 500metres in land.!!

    Reply
  58. Gordon Harmer

    Ian believe what you want I have seen what I have seen and I would rather believe my eyes to your ever contradictory rhetoric. The fence on the east side of the BP terminal is even further up the hill than the Total site and myself and others have watched otters getting through the fence to enter the BP site.
    There is also a memorial to those workers who came to grief during the construction of of the terminal which is even further up the hill and I and others have seen otters there. It is also a known fact otters do travel several miles in shore so where you get your Idea that they would not travel 500 meters in land from is anybody’s guess.
    If Viking had offered the the evidence you have just offered you would not believe it and you would dismiss it as made up rhetoric and propaganda and that is just what I am doing.
    Anyone who walks Shetland,s hills and coast line as we do will know there is virtually no where in Shetland where you will not see otters if you are lucky enough to be there at the right time. If you know where they are and you have a pair of binoculars it is possible to watch them as often as you want. So Ian I suggest you take your books your rhetoric and you lies and you shove them up the nearest otters holt ( that’s if you admit to one being near to you). I should have realised long ago debating with you is a waste of valuable time, so I have promised my self not to do it again, “willpower please stay with me”.

    Reply
  59. ian tinkler

    Gordon. You’re just like the VE project propagandists. When proven dishonest revert to insults

    Reply
  60. John Kryton

    Gordon please don’t stop debating with Mr Tinkler, as his comedic retorts are an fantastic source of amusement for me. I have to use a therapy light this time of year as I suffer from seasonal effective disorder (SAD). I find that Mr Tinkler’s reply’s to you and others such a great tonic I don’t think I could get through the winter with out them.
    I just about ended my self at his last comment as he has insulted the whole of the Shetland Island
    Council, all the Viking Energy directors not to mention Alex Salmond as well as everyone he debates with.

    Reply
  61. John Tulloch

    I see the UK government has cut the renewables obligation subsidy, both onshore and offshore wind are affected; the money is apparently going to small wave and tidal power installations instead.

    Advantage Tinkler!

    Reply
  62. Gordon Harmer

    Under the new plans set out on Thursday 19/10/2011, windfarms escaped relatively lightly. Onshore windfarms will have their subsidies cut, but only gradually by 10%, while offshore windfarms will be granted a breathing space until 2015, after which their support will be reduced by 5% in successive years.

    Hartnell said: “Onshore wind developers should be able to live with this. It’s a modest reduction, but it will have an impact on smaller and community schemes. Offshore wind remains at the higher level introduced by the emergency review, which is welcome news.”

    Deuce!!!!!!!!

    Reply
  63. Gordon Harmer

    UK onshore wind subsidies are to be cut from 1 Renewable Obligation Certificate per MWh to 0.9 ROC/MWh, while “enhanced” co-fired biomass in existing coal plants is to get 1 ROC/MWh up from 0.5 ROC/MWh, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said Thursday in banding review proposals
    “We are targeting only the most cost effective onshore wind farm deployment, recognizing that it is one of the more mature, and cheaper, technologies ,” Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said in a DECC statement.

    Game set and match Viking.

    Reply
  64. Billy Fox

    You couldn’t be more wrong Gordon. The requirement for an extremely expensive interconnector cable makes the Viking Energy proposal the least cost effective of them all!

    Time to forget this nonsense and concentrate on renewables for Shetland only, we have a project already initiated called Northern Isles New Energy Solutions (NINES). Pursuing this provides a golden opportunity to demonstrate in microcosm what should be happening globally. An integrated energy supply, combined with energy conservation measures and off grid renewable to heat projects instead of the ROC induced focus on producing electricity.

    Time to stop throwing good money after bad vis-a-vis the £3.42m already spent by the Charitable Trust and the £1.896 letter of credit the council holds as contingent liability to the National Grid.

    Reply
  65. ian tinkler

    Our political classes are waking up to the futility of more and more onshore wind farms (subsidy cut 10%), at last at bit of sense. Far more important and relevant is the increase in grant towards tidal and wave power, a levelling of the energy playing field at last. Shetland, with intelligent leadership now has a chance of energy self sufficiency, without the horror of the Viking project. I feel the present incumbent directors in the council may still not have the perception and intelligence to see the writing on the wall. VE always was speculative financially; it now looks little more than an idiotic gamble, damaging Shetlands precious environment and wasting shrinking cash reserves (probable £6million lost to date).

    Reply
  66. ian tinkler

    Good to see a bit of leadership from Billy, where is Tavish? Still impaled on his fence post?

    Reply
  67. Gordon Harmer

    Billy I new nothing of the NINES project but I will read and try and take it in before I make any comment. I would not read too much into what I have put above just a bit of one-upmanship and politics going on. As you probably guessed I am a wind farm supporter but my mind is not closed if a more efficient, cost effective and environmentally friendly solution was available.

    Reply
  68. John Tulloch

    Funny, I’d swear I can hear the sound of fingernails scraping down “ivory towers” with ever-increasing speed?

    Reply
  69. Gordon Harmer

    Fine words John who did you steal them from. What you are hearing is someone making sure of their facts before answering, unlike a certain someone you support.

    Reply
  70. Gordon Harmer

    Billy how will the inter connector cable make the Viking project the least cost effective of them all, where are your figures to prove this, who will pay the cost of the cable?
    “Time to forget all this nonsense and concentrate on renewables for Shetland only”. I find this statement quite selfish when you consider that Scottish electricity customers on the mainland have been subsidizing the generation cost of our electricity to the tune of nearly 20 million pounds a year. Because we have delayed the building of the Viking wind farm we are actually adding to the burden of poor families in Scotland who are facing fuel poverty do you really think that is fair.
    There are proposals that public subsidies for a range of renewable energy technologies are to be cut in England and Wales. At the moment only proposals, ok they are likely to go through and it is more than likely that Scotland will follow suit. The 10% cut in subsidy to onshore wind farms as I see it will make no difference to the Viking project as when carbon pricing on polluting power stations and the base power price are taken into consideration it all falls back to a level playing field. Also taking into account that wind power will as time goes on become cheaper if not one of the cheapest forms of power generation even an annual reduction in subsidies will not rule out the wind farm.
    NINES is an innovative trial and the results are not certain. There is a potential risk that the trials are unsuccessful and, in the worst case, demonstrate that none of the proposed approaches could deliver benefits. If this happens, Scottish consumers would have paid for the project, but derived no financial benefit. Although a great idea and I believe some of the proposals could work along side the Viking wind farm I think they would be discriminatory to people who could not afford them or if grants were not made available. Which raises the question who will pay for them at what ever level they are introduced.
    Burradale has proved that wind power is efficient in Shetland, the NINES project does not have the same kind of actual working proof it will be on a par or better than wind. We are in a position where we need to extract the digit and do some thing positive for our selves and the Scottish power users who are subsidising us.

    Reply
  71. Erik J Smith

    To Ian Tinkler and John Tulloch: Please do some research on fossil fuel production subsidies before you go any further with this debate. It dwarfs any subsidy the renewables industry receives by orders of magnitude.

    The renewables subsidies are simply an attempt to level the playing field.

    Oh, and to Billy Fox, the cost of the interconnector will be borne by the National Grid and therefore spread across the whole of the UK. It might add a couple of pence to your annual bill, but no more. As a self styled expert on this subject I assume you know this, so why are you still lying to us about it?

    Reply
  72. Erik J Smith

    And back on topic, I didn’t see the film in question, but I did see in the pre film advertising that it included the views of “Lord” Monckton. I know from previous experience that any documentary which includes the views of this proven charlatan, except to comprehensively mock them, is simply NIMBY propaganda.

    Google Monckton vs Abraham for a comprehensive takedown of Monckton and his lies.

    Reply
  73. John Tulloch

    “Erik, Erik, pick up thi’ musket!”

    Then consider this, once all cars are electric running from renewables, where will the government get its TAX from to replace the 60% charged in tax at petrol pumps? The tax represents 150% of the price of the fuel. Imagine if a tax of 150% was added on to the cost of the electricity!

    Then take your own advice and do just a little research, I suggest you begin at the International energy Agency document found at the following link http://www.iea.org/files/energy_subsidies_slides.pdf
    It’s very easy, nice pictures with large print, come back once you’ve had a look, not before.

    Reply
  74. Billy Fox

    Who will pay for the interconnector? It is a good question Gordon I think you may have hit the nail on the head. Whoever does pay, the costs are essentially recovered through transmission charges, which Viking Energy are lobbying to have reduced, this would place further cost on the UK consumer.

    The best way to reduce Shetland’s cost to all of Scottish Hydro Electric Power Distribution (SHEPD) customers is NINES, that is why OFGEM instructed SHEPD to come up with a best way forward. OFGEM’s remit is best value for the electricity consumer UK wide, which is why expensive interconnectors require high transmission charges.

    OFGEM’s consultation document on NINES published in August 2011 recognises that even if Viking Energy went ahead, there would still be a requirement for a new Lerwick power station to meet SEPA emissions and guarantee supply, because the vagaries of wind cannot give such guarantees. An integrated scheme such as NINES could offer the best solution, it is, as you correctly point out, innovative and could place Shetland in the forefront of such technology. It would also mean developing on a scale more in keeping with the Shetland landscape rather than large scale industrialisation of our hills.

    I find your twinge of conscience on subsidy a bit ironic given the heavily subsidised nature of wind generation. You are kidding yourself if you think the VE project is being proposed with anything remotely resembling such altruism.

    Reply
  75. Lindsay Wiseman

    Erik, you said “the cost of the interconnector cable will be borne by the National Grid and therefore spread across the whole UK”. Well the SSE didn’t consider it feasible in 2002 when they refused to lay an interconnector cable to Foula from Walls because they were unwilling to pay the £4.6 million. This fact was reported in the Shetland Times last week. So how much more would it cost to lay one from Shetland to the Mainland of Scotland over such rough & rocky seabed?? Does financial gain mean more to them than folk’s comfort & lifestyle in these modern times.

    Reply
  76. Gordon Harmer

    Billy what the views of Viking Energy are towards the wellbeing or welfare of the Scottish bill payer is not the point as every one has to pay extra towards the cost of subsidies. The point I am making is that if the Scottish consumer did not subsidise the cost of generating our electricity, our electric bills in Shetland would increase by 200%.
    There is no irony in entering an 18 year old single parent’s home in Aberdeen and seeing her and her child huddled up in bed in the middle of the day wrapped in half a dozen blankets to keep warm. All because they could not afford £5 to purchase an electric token to power up the heating, subsidising us could just have been the straw that broke the camels back. At the very least we are part of the problem, so for me it is more of a kick from a horses hoof in the conscience rather than a twinge.
    Shetland could be at the forefront of all renewable technology and because of the wind we can also be at the forefront in wind turbine technology. I understand where you are coming from with your objections to the Viking project and I respect that. I am not going to change your mind neither are you going to change mine, as I see a great future for Shetland not only in generating power from wind but developing it.
    With good local governance and a policy not to over develop and a desire to make turbines much more efficient and cost effective I truly believe we have to potential to be at the hub of a great future industry.

    Reply
  77. ian tinkler

    My heart bleeds for Gordon’s poor family in Aberdeen. What shame green energy via wind farms is so expensive? Every green energy job created to date has cost between £100,000 and £200,000 in subsidy. All put on our electricity bills. To quote, Gordon “There is no irony in entering an 18 year old single parent’s home in Aberdeen and seeing her and her child huddled up in bed in the middle of the day wrapped in half a dozen blankets to keep warm. All because they could not afford £5 to purchase an electric token to power up the heating” Once again Gordon is not up speed on his facts. Gordon, if you do not have the facts do not just make them up. Reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/8849093/Chris-Huhne-attacks-curmudgeons-and-faultfinders-who-dont-like-wind-farms.html

    Reply
  78. Gordon Harmer

    My comment was meant for some one else Ian not you, but seeing you have added you ten peneth of moronic garbage to the debate yet again, my will power has no power to stop me replying to you. You seem to have a liking for the way the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are governed Ian so why not move there.
    But alas ministers from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man signed a deal to work together to exploit the region’s wind (WIND Ian) and marine energy resources.The ‘All Islands Approach’ aims to help and encourage developers to make the most of the commercial opportunities for generation of transmission of local renewable energy.The co-operation should also increase the integration of the different regional markets and help improve security of supply. Oops this could lead to conflict maybe better to stop where you are, eh! better the devil you know and all that.

    Reply
  79. ian tinkler

    I find no fault with using wind power Gordon, or tidal, what I object to is VE exploiting Shetland and Shetlanders. Is that a bit too deep for you? Never mind invent another little story and make it up as you go, nothing changes. Hill otters and poor single parents, whatever next?

    Reply
  80. John Kryton

    Ian I’ve said it before and I will say it again you would make a good politician because of the way you twist and distort things people have said. Now you have another glowing qualification for a political career and that is like most politicians you are so out of touch with reality. Some of us have lived life, seen life in all its dishevelled glory, we don’t have to make up stories because we have been there. So comments like yours from someone like you who has been protected from the real world by the ivory towers of the circles you move in mean nothing. I don’t need to make up stories as there are to many people who read this who know the truth and know it is not me but Ian Tinkler who is the mendacity machine on which the sun will never set.

    Reply
  81. ian tinkler

    To quote, Gordon, whose argument for Viking Energy could not be more fatuous and wrong? “There is no irony in entering an 18 year old single parent’s home in Aberdeen and seeing her and her child huddled up in bed in the middle of the day wrapped in half a dozen blankets to keep warm. All because they could not afford £5 to purchase an electric token to power up the heating. Viking type projects risk doubling and trebling fuel poverty. Just look to 2020 projections for Salmond’s green Scotland. “Alex Salmond’s flagship renewable policy could push more Scots into fuel poverty”, a major new report has warned. The Herald revealed on Wednesday that leading financial organization Citigroup had warned the green energy target could add almost £900 to the average fuel bill. Reference: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/scots-fuel-poverty-fears-over-green-energy-plans-1.1133039?90224
    With regard to John Kryten’s comment, when John is bereft of reasoned argument he reverts to throwing insults. John is in absolute, total ignorance of the fields in which I move. His writing attempts at ridicule and insult, they are written in ignorance and he only belittles himself, and his view this way.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.