2 March, 2010

In reply to Les Lowes’ letter ('Why the Total silence'; SN 25/02/10).

There is a misconception amongst wind farm supporters that Sustainable Shetland is comprised of a bunch of heathery broo huggers. Not so.

We are a fairly pragmatic bunch in fact. That is why there is no response from us on the 350,000 cubic metres of peat Total will displace in building their terminal.

We are pragmatic because this gas terminal is unfortunately necessary. I have stated in previous correspondence that fossil fuels will be with us for many decades to come. There is no slot-in alternative, burning fuel gas is at least amongst the cleanest, the resources exploited through this development will displace much dirtier coal and oil burning facilities.

So there is a carbon displacement that can genuinely be set against disturbing this volume of peat. It is recognised within the generating industry that gas fired power stations will be the preferred backup for any variable renewables generation for the medium term.

At least Total have a plan for dealing with their peat, although personally I will be interested to see how prolonged storage of peat will work out.

The gas terminal development is localised and next to the existing oil terminal, with which it will share its utilities and emergency response services, helping to secure existing jobs. This development is crucial to the UK's medium term energy needs, without it we are in trouble.

In terms of the Shetland economy this really does bring benefit with up to 500 construction jobs over four years and 60 to 70 permanent jobs on completion. The terminal is also on part-owned council land (let's hope they are negotiating a good deal), and local materials are now to be sourced as an option during construction. All in all a major development with a minimum 30 year lifespan to which our distracted council has not attached the importance it deserves.

The Viking Energy Partnership proposal on the other hand is spread across almost 20 per cent of Shetland's central and north mainland on a scale that will be seen from almost every corner of the islands. Their first figure on peat displacement came in at over 1,558,035 cubic metres, later reduced to 875,650 cubic metres, but with no explanation how this reduced figure was reached. If you don't believe me look at Viking Energy's Environmental Impact Assessment. The original figure still sits in their carbon payback models, another boob in revision or just a typo?

The revised figure sits in their peat extraction and reuse section. Taking this speculative revised figure they admit that only approximately 320,000 cubic metres can be reused and have no realistic solution for dealing with the remaining 550,000 cubic metres. The Viking Energy wind farm makes much of its green credentials, but they do not stack up. The carbon payback model illustrates this, an opinion shared by more organisations than Sustainable Shetland. The promised addendum will not change this greatly either.

There are also questions on the data inputted into Viking Energy's carbon payback model with 100 metres hydrological impact being used on worst case when scientific advice would suggest the figure should be 200 metres. There is also a claim, which cannot be fulfilled, that habitat and hydrology will be 100 per cent restored on decommissioning.

So that is where our problems arise with Viking Energy. We may not like massive wind farms, which will destroy the environment and quite probably Shetland's finances, not to mention our quality of life, but it is realism that we preach.

We need an energy future, but variable renewables cannot form a base load supply, it can only play a relatively small part. The sooner Viking Energy supporters take this on board the better for all of us.

Billy Fox
Chairman
Sustainable Shetland