It boggles the mind to think that a wind farm, whatever its size, could be built on active blanket bog. This form of vegetation acts as a carbon sink 10 times more effective than forests. It is protected under European legislation, and helps reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

The Viking project is rooted in absurdity. The wind farm is supposed to save on CO2 emissions, yet vast quantities of peat will be moved in order to construct 150 turbine bases, 14 quarries, 8 construction compounds, 3 substations and 73 miles of new roads. Once removed from its substratum, the peat will oxidise and rot, releasing its carbon into the atmosphere. So the proposed plan is as absurd as would be the felling of a native forest in order to plant eucalyptus.

Viking Energy’s own submission says that the CO2 payback period could be as long as 48½ years. But if one considers the increased carbon emissions by fossil-fuel power plants as they back-up the intermittency of wind energy, it is likely that the Shetland wind farm will in effect produce more CO2 than it will save.

World-famous Professor James Lovelock, who firmly believes in global warming, recently wrote: “The Germans, who have invested more than anyone in this form of energy, are finding that despite more than 17,000 wind turbines across Germany the nation is emitting more CO2 than before it built them.”

It will be worse in Shetland and in many parts of Scotland where blanket bog is to be destroyed during the construction of wind farms. By all measure, the Scottish government’s wind farm policy is devoid of reason.

There are many other reasons to object to this absurd project:

- too close to human settlements, some turbines being as close as 0.9km from houses. The wind turbine syndrome is a clinically-recognised affection, up to two km. (2)

- landscape : it does not take a 100-page study to demonstrate that Shetland’s landscape is fragile, and that 400 feet wind turbines will have a devastating effect on it.

- tourism: as the landscape is ruined, tourism will be affected. A turbine-free Shetland would attract many visitors in the future, disenfranchised as they are likely to be by a mainland Scotland covered in wind farms.

- property values : all around the island the price of real estate will be affected by the loss of appeal of Shetland once the wind farm is built.

- wildlife : Viking Energy’s own estimates suggest that in total a minimum of 5,700 birds may be killed through collision during the 25-year life cycle of the wind farm. But we know from experience that mortality predictions are vastly underestimated, as the purpose of an environmental impact statement is to get a project approved. The rule of thumb for underestimate of raptor mortality is one order of magnitude (ten times). For other birds, it is much more still. Let’s calculate it from the most objective studies available :

- wind turbines kill on average 25 birds per turbine/year, as shown by biologists Lekuona in Spain, Everaert in Belgium, and Winkelman in the Netherlands.

- 25 bird kills x 150 Viking turbines = 3,750 birds killed per year - 3,750 kills x 25 years = 93,750 dead birds

- Shetland being a migration hot spot, we can easily multiply the figure by two : ~200,000 birds killed in 25 years.

- the wind turbines will in all likelihood be replaced by new ones at the end of their useful life (once the costly infrastructure is in place, it makes business sense to take advantage of it).

Over one hundred years, the wind turbines may therefore destroy 800,000 birds. Their power lines will kill another large number of them (up to 500 per kilometer per annum in migration zones, according to Birdlife international), so we are talking about a death toll in excess of one million birds over 100 years ; and that is likely to be shy of reality as scientific estimates tend to be conservative, especially as regards wind farms.

The RSPB has objected to the project, mainly on account of the peat loss. But we are familiar with RSPB objections: most of them are subsequently removed. Lloyd Austin, RSPB Scotland's Head of Conservation Policy, said : “However, we would be prepared to review our position if these issues could be satisfactorily resolved.”

We have little doubt that the RSPB will remove their objection in due course: they usually do.

The RSPB entertains a business relationship with Scottish and Southern Energy, which sells “RSPB energy” to electricity consumers. The latter are led to believe that, because RSPB endorses wind energy, birds will be safe.

A deep-rooted conflict of interest, money versus birds, prevents RSPB management from doing the right thing: protect the birds, not wind industry's interests.

In the article quoted earlier, Professor James Lovelock said: “Even that much-loved and respected charity, the “RSPB, is now using our subscriptions to lobby for wind energy.”

For all of the above, and more reasons still but there isn’t time to develop them, I strongly object to the Viking Energy project on Shetland.

May Shetland remain a charming island, a haven for birds, and a paradise for tourists. These will come in droves if tourism agencies worldwide can put on their leaflets : visit the Scottish natural jewel that has remained free of wind turbines.

Mark Duchamp
Environmentalist
Partida La Sella, 25
03750 Pedreguer
Spain
save.the.eagles@gmail.com