[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Sustainable Shetland attacks ‘astonishing’ reduction in windfarm carbon payback  

Credit:  The Shetland Times, www.shetlandtimes.co.uk 22 November 2010 ~~

The reduction in the carbon payback period of Viking Energy’s proposed windfarm to less than a year is “astonishing” and based on flawed assumptions, according to opponents Sustainable Shetland.

The group makes the accusation in its submission to the Scottish government’s energy consents unit (ECU), which it submitted before the deadline on Friday and made public last night.

Sustainable Shetland’s submission builds on its original objection to the windfarm, in which it called for a public inquiry, claiming that even with a cut in the number of turbines from 150 to 127 the windfarm would still be unacceptable for a small island like Shetland.

The 15 per cent reduction in the number of turbines has, the group notes, been accompanied by a 96.2 per cent fall in the carbon payback period.

“The methodology by which this astonishing reduction has been achieved we believe to be fundamentally flawed, if not misleading, and indeed one of the assumptions used in the calculations has been publicly described as an error by an independent reviewer.”

This was Dr Dick Birnie of Aberdeen’s Macaulay Land Use Research Institute who said at a meeting last week that Viking Energy had wrongly assumed that the whole windfarm blanket bog area was eroding as if it were bare peat.

Sustainable Shetland contends that construction activity will increase the risk of peat slides, adding to the possibility of carbon release and further undermining the payback predictions.

“We find the carbon payback calculations presented in the addendum to contain errors, contradictory measurements and a misrepresentation of the worst case scenario. We can have no confidence in the figures produced as results, and we believe that the carbon payback period for best, intermediate and worst case scenario could be significantly higher. In the latter case the figure could rise dramatically if different parameters had been assumed and more appropriate data inputed …”

The group believes the construction of the windfarm and its existence would be a “major deterrent to tourism”.

Sustainable Shetland repeats its criticism of the “fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interest between the same individuals actnig as both elected councillors and trustees of Shetland Charitable Trust”.

Source:  The Shetland Times, www.shetlandtimes.co.uk 22 November 2010

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.