Twenty-one turbines may be built on hills above Brig o’ Fitch
Ryan Taylor
Plans have emerged for a major new windfarm which could see turbines measuring a maximum height of 145 metres appearing near Lerwick and other nearby areas.
Peel Energy is the company behind the radical new proposal. It hopes to see up to 21 new turbines erected in the future.
The new project operates under the name Mossy Hill Windfarm.
No official details have so far been announced on exactly where the turbines are being planned.
But public consultation meetings will be held later this month for Lerwick, Gulberwick, Tingwall and Scalloway, and it is understood the windfarm will spread across those four areas.
This week’s announcement comes less than a week after the community-led windfarm was officially opened in North Yell.
The organisers behind the Peel project say a community benefit scheme is also being proposed for its latest development. Peel Energy already has an interest in Yell as the company plans to build 17 turbines at Beaw Field north of Burravoe.
An application to build and operate that windfarm was submitted to the Energy Consents Unit in March last year following what the company described as “a full environmental impact assessment and a detailed programme of community consultation”.
Now the company has announced it will formally submit outline plans for its new project. An initial scoping report will be dispatched to Shetland Islands Council next week.
In a statement, Peel Energy explained the turbines would have a maximum height of 145 metres and residents would be invited to a series of public consultation meetings.
The company stated that those attending the meetings would be able to learn more about the proposed plans.
They would also be invited to ask questions and share their views on the plans.
According to Peel Energy the project could deliver real economic benefits to the isles.
Development manager Bernadette Barry said: “This will be the first stage of a consultation process leading up to the submission of a full planning application for Mossy Hill Wind Farm.
“At these events we want to explain our plans and seek residents’ views as well as outlining our proposed community benefit scheme.
“We highly encourage residents to attend these meetings to find out more.
“Our aim is to provide a clean and secure source of electricity and ensure long lasting and tangible benefits for local Shetland communities and the surrounding environment.”
The consultation meetings have been planned as follows:
• Tuesday 25th April – Staneyhill Public Hall, 2pm to 7pm;
• Wednesday 26th April – Gulberwick Community Hall, 11am to 3pm;
• Wednesday 26 April – Scalloway Public Hall, 6pm to 8pm;
• Thursday 27th April – Tingwall Public Hall, 2pm to 7pm.
According to Peel Energy the final proposed design will depend upon the outcome of the consultation and reports from its environmental and technical studies.
This will be presented in a full planning application which will be submitted to Shetland Islands Council next year.
Peel Energy described itself as having 20 years of expertise in renewable energy, with its hand in several renewable projects across the country.
Christopher Johnston
Shetland’s maximum winter electrical demand is 47MW and the minimum summer demand is 10MW. Absent a mainland Scotland export connector, how will this additional wind energy be used?
Suzy Jolly
“Our aim is to provide a clean and secure source of electricity and ensure long lasting and tangible benefits for local Shetland communities and the surrounding environment.”
That won’t be a wind farm then.
Ian Tinkler
Remember we have a Council Election. I will fight this, scream shout and be as obnoxious as it takes. We are not dealing with gentle folk but hard-nosed bankers, greedy lairds and the something for nothing mentality. (we will make loads of money and it all goes on your electricity bill! lol).
Haydn Gear
Ian Tinkler promises to be as obnoxious as it takes? Surely not! I find that impossible to believe! ( just joking Ian ) As I have mentioned in a previous post, he is a man with get up and go and he would continue to work for the good of the people of Shetland and he deserves to have a formal voice. He often seems a bit rough around the edges but so are saws and they cut cleanly and efficiently. As he states, it’s time to squeeze out greed and make way for a fair and beneficial crack of the whip for Shetlanders
Ray Purchase
Satire surely?
Ian Tinkler
Love me or loathe me, Ray, at least I tell the truth as I see it. None of this fence-sitting bland nonsense we see from so many career politicians. I will always call a spade a spade and say it as it is, unlike the bland bunch of the disingenuous we seem to be so much infested with.
Robert Sandison
Why don’t they build a load of them on Bressay ?
Robert Sandison
With all the new roads through the hills and being so close to Lerwick this could open up opportunities for new house sites .
David Spence
They say it may benefit the community of Shetland………….In what way would this benefit 23,000 or so people, and what price will 23,000 or so people have to pay to reap any benefits from such a scheme?
Is it just the case, in any business plan, it will only benefit the very, very few but at the cost to the many? A typical trait of any business plan where greed, selfishness and the dreaded shareholders are priority regardless to any social, environmental and ecological damage it may do…………..but as long as it makes a profit, right???? Why does one think of the VEP on the said subject??? lol
Rachel Buchan
Wind turbines are not a source of clean green energy. Anything but.
Alastair Edwards
You’re absolutely right there! Great way to line the pockets of the great and the good, though!
John Tulloch
Who owns the land?
Haydn Gear
Ray Purchase , no not satire—— it’s a truthful fact
Robert Sim
No, it’s your opinion.
Haydn Gear
Many opinions can be shown to be factually correct Robert Sim whilst others can be shown to be factually incorrect. It just so happens that from observations made it seems apparent to me that my opinion is correct. Maybe your opinion does not tally with mine but I’m sure it will all come out in the wash (another opinion!! ).
Nigel Sennett
If Scotland votes independent then the main customer, England, will cancel future Scottish green energy projects and concentrate on rest of UK. UK subsidises green energy, so why do Scottish Greens want independence? Alex Salmond once said Scotland would be Saudi Arabia of Green Energy – but not if Scotland votes to leave UK as England is main customer subsidising Scotland Green energy. I hope Shetland Islands votes to stay in UK so Shetland whisky and gin benefits from UK trade deals across the world. Currently, India charge 150% tariffs on Scottish whisky – Scotland biggest export. 67% of Scotland exports go to rest of UK, but if Scotland goes independent and enters EU, then UK would be forced to charge tariffs on Scottish goods if there was a “hard” Brexit, as much as 30%. Shetland whisky would be cheaper in UK than Scottish whisky in that case if Shetland stayed in UK.
Derick Tulloch
Amused.
The export market for Scottish renewable energy is Europe, not Little Britain.
If Scotland and England separate there will be no UK to stay in – it will have been dissolved.
Scotland will be in the EEA, probably by joining Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein in EFTA initially. Therefore any restriction in trade imposed by England would be a restriction in trade against the entire EEA. Which will consist of the 27 EU members plus 3 of the 4 EFTA members.
In reality the bulk of Scotland’s supposed trade with England is simply passing through to the big container ports and the Channel Tunnel. The idea that 67% of trade goes to one country is laughable. By comparison just 13.5% of Ireland’s exports to the UK, and 9.8% of Norway’s exports go to Sweden.
As the North Sea Supergrid takes shape (see the Northconnect project which will connect Norway and Scotland) the market for Scottish renewable energy will increasingly be Europe.
Shetland Whisky: who knew!
Ali Inkster
Showing your ignorance on how business and exports work Derick, if a company in Scotland sells something to a company abroad it is registered as an export for the company no matter which port it leaves the UK from.
The snp are going to take us back into the EU not the EEA or EFTA so that will mean returning to the CFP. Now never mind what perceived deal or lack of it the tories will get. What I want to know is what boats from the Shetland fleet should be scrapped when we lose the hague agreement which the UK has with the EU giving the UK a far larger share of quota than the CFP would normally allow?
Ian Tinkler
Derick Tulloch, what is really amusing is, if one iota of your hypothesis was credible, whatever on Earth, in your and the Scottish Governments wildest imagination, would lead you to believe Theresa Mary May’s little England would fund the Viking Energy Interconnector? I think Sturgeon killed Viking Energy stone dead with her Indyref2 proposition. The SNP’s tunnel vision for Scottish independence is certainly costing Scotland dear, but I suppose every cloud has a silver lining..
Michael Garriock
“As the North Sea Supergrid takes shape (see the Northconnect project which will connect Norway and Scotland) the market for Scottish renewable energy will increasingly be Europe.”
Thats strange. The Norski seemed to be under the impression not all that long ago that the Scotland/Norway cable will export to Scotland at close to its annual capacity.
Derick Tulloch
Further amused!
“NorthConnect will connect the two complementary and previously disconnected power systems of Scotland and Norway, helping both nations to balance the grid between the two countries, and allowing wider trading across Europe. This will ensure security of supply and stabilise electricity prices for consumers.”
In essence the project will allow Scottish renewable energy to be stored in Norwegian pumped storage and returned when the wind does not blow. Trade both ways. And onward transmission and export via the Scandinavian grid to other countries.
James Watt
“Thats strange. The Norski seemed to be under the impression not all that long ago that the Scotland/Norway cable will export to Scotland at close to its annual capacity.”
That’s strange, the Conservative MEP Ian Duncan seems to have a different impression of what the cable is for,
“Duncan, who described the project as “the most exciting project to hit the North Sea since the discovery of oil”, said that it would allow green energy to be transmitted from areas of high electricity production but relatively low demand to the more densely populated parts of Europe.”
“A North Sea grid would allow green energy produced in Scotland to be stored in Scandinavian pump storage hydro schemes until demand peaked elsewhere in Europe.”
Ali Inkster
So the Norskies are going to buy Expensive Shetland wind power and use it to pump water up hill so they can sell cheap Hydro power. That is most generous of them. How long will it take to transfer the Norskie oil wealth to holyrood using that scheme.
Ian Tinkler
Strange way for the power to flow, Derick. Hydroelectric generated electricity in Norway is a fraction of the cost of Scotlands Wind farm folly and Norway is going to produce ten or twenty fold more electricity than it needs.
Poor little England will be using Shale at one tenth the cost that Viking Energy electricity would cost. What a clever energy plan Salmond, Ewing and Sturgeon developed. That is what happens when scientifically illiterate career politicians are left to make technical decisions. No doubt the near religious zeal of the Green lobby still will remain blinkered.
Funny fact is it not that recent research has shown biomass woodchip to produce more CO2 and raw pollution than burning coal. Well done, HIE SIC, SCT, SHEAP and the Lerwick District Heating Scheme. Gas from the Total plant is one tenth as poluting and would save £millions in plant and import wood!!!. You just could not make it up!!!
Ian Tinkler
@ James Watt. “That’s strange, the Conservative MEP Ian Duncan seems to have a different impression of what the cable is for,” “Duncan, who described the project as “the most exciting project to hit the North Sea since the discovery of oil”, (James Watt). As I said earlier, “scientifically illiterate career politicians”!! No one party has the exclusive rights on ignorance, Duncan does it well!! This is the twit who advocates and praises the “NAENS” 2000, square miles of offshore windfarm all within 12 miles of the Shetland coast. Projected up to 250 meters in height floating turbines (Bye, Bye Puffins et Garnets et al). I understand this document was discussed by the SIC in Camera, I can not imagine why the press was excluded.. ( The North Atlantic Energy Network project )
James Watt
Cool story bro!
Stuart Paton
Since all the current wind turbines were erected in Shetland has the power stations burned any less fuel ?
John Ridland
Just the same as the engines are left running on stand by in case the wind stops blowing or blows to much
The whole wind turbine thing is a farce/lie..!!!!
John Irvine
Ian Tinkler,
you said “Funny fact is it not that recent research has shown biomass woodchip to produce more CO2 and raw pollution than burning coal. Well done, HIE SIC, SCT, SHEAP and the Lerwick District Heating Scheme. Gas from the Total plant is one tenth as poluting and would save £millions in plant and import wood!!!. You just could not make it up!!!”
But like all the other so called green/sustainable idea`s, the examples you use and wind farms alike are not fueled by a desire to help or save the environment, yes there are those who have had the wool well and truly pulled over their eye`s who may believe the guff but the overwhelming drive towards these scheme`s are personal gain.
Ian Tinkler
EU Green super nonsense.”The Renewable Energy Directive 2009/28/EC envisages an increase in the use of biomass for the production of electricity, heating and cooling to the point that it is expected to account for more than 50% of renewable energy consumption in the EU in 2020. ” The Green Lunatics really are taking over the Asylum! Burning wood for electricity emits around 40% more carbon pollution than burning coal to produce an equivalent amount of energy, the NRDC reports, as the carbon that trees have accumulated over long periods of time is released into the atmosphere when burnt. Moreover, the use of trees for biomass disrupts vital carbon sinks and impedes ongoing forest carbon sequestration.
SIC regards renewables as a major plank of its planning policy! That must change until the SIC understand the most simple of science. Further comment. “Using wood pellets to generate low-carbon electricity is a flawed policy that is speeding up not slowing down climate warming.” (23 February 2017
From the section Science & Environment. BBC). Just how much money has HIE and the SIC wasted here?