Interconnector
Other renewable energy projects in the UK can proceed on a basis of building then connecting to the national electricity grid. This is not the case for Shetland. Because of our distance from the UK mainland (about 200 km to nearest landfall) a cable will have to be built. This cable is called the interconnector. Before electricity can be sent several hundred kilometres south, it must be converted from AC current to DC current. This converter station itself will have a massive environmental, not to mention physical footprint at the proposed site in the Upper Kergord valley.
The cable interconnector will be a massive project in its own right, and brings with it its own environmental, social and visual impact.
Sustainable Shetland object to the proposal for interconnector and converter station. This proposal must also be seen in context of the Viking Energy project. Without a cable we have more chance of sustainable wind farm development, on appropriate scale and appropriately sited. With a cable there is more chance of the Viking project proceeding, and more schemed following in its wake.
The interconnector cable is currently at consultation stage. We encourage people to contribute to this consultation by making their objections to the proposal known to the developers.Sample letter / email text here.
Cable landfall in Shetland is proposed at Weisdale Voe.
Sustainable Shetland member Alan Fraser says:
However as I understand it his company Viking Energy may require up to three DC circuits. That means SHETL supplying up to 25 metres width for the required six cable tracks since cables must be “around five metres” apart. Difficult to see how this can be ‘dug’ into the hard crystalline limestone of Weisdale without blasting or, (even worse), the constant hammering of rock breakers over long periods of time.
As I understand it the cable (unlike the Sullom Voe pipeline) cannot be laid in peat because peat is a poor conductor of heat. It appears that the cable is to be routed through about 2km of peat in Upper Kergord. If this is so then peat is most likely to be replaced with cement-based sand (for heat conduction). Perhaps they will find a convenient voe to fill with the extracted peat as happened at Orka Voe in the 1970s.
The cable is supposed to be delivered in 1km long sections. I can’t see how the cable track, with jointing bays every 1km along its route inland, can become invisible. Something else that won’t become invisible is the new wide access road that will need to be built to haul the massive transformer into Upper Kergord. Something else that won’t magically blend into the landscape is the huge 15m high converter station and its five hectare site while it waits 20 odd years for trees to grow high enough to screen it.
Another inadequate study that Mr Wishart quotes is ‘The Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism’ that was conducted on mainland Scotland. The study questionnaire was put to a mere 380 tourists. Of these only about 21 per cent were wildlife or outdoor tourists. No island groups were included in the survey. Certainly nothing describing the relative scale and impact that these proposals are likely to have in an area like the central mainland of Shetland were included in the survey. Even then, this report reveals that about 25 per cent of tourists preferred landscapes without wind farms
I’m not aware of Viking Energy contacting any Shetland tourism providers to see what feedback they have had from their clients. They seem happy to spin reports such as this that have little relevance to Shetland to make their case.
From the SIC’s own tourism survey the majority of tourists come to Shetland to enjoy wildlife, scenery, peace and quiet – something that will be sadly missing if this project gets planning permission. It is gratifying to know that tourism minister Jim Mather thinks that not every wind farm application will receive consent. He also says that renewables and tourism are compatible provided that they are “right developments in the right location” - this was certainly not my customers’ opinion of Windylights 1 when I showed it to them in 2007.
I have been told that Viking Energy intend to instigate a planning process in September. Environmental impact assessments have not yet been published and may not be (and need not be) until the day that planning application is submitted. This gives little or no time for public debate or consultations on these. This also says to me that VE have already made up their mind that the environmental consequences of the wind farm and cable are acceptable. Once the planning application is submitted, and the planning process underway, promises that “if the people of Shetland don't want this it won't go ahead” are empty because the final decision is taken in Edinburgh, not Shetland. I guess that VE’s response to this will be that they have a mandate to instigate this process – I bet they won’t test this in a referendum.
Consultation stage
The interconnector is at consultation stage only. No planning application has actually been name yet. However, from past experience it is clear that these consultation procedures are later used to try to justify support for controversial projects.
In our view the cable consultation process so far has been deeply flawed, with only two meetings in Shetland, and very limited information in the public domain.
The cable cannot be considered separate from the Viking Energy wind farm itself, and as such we object to the interconnector cable and converter station proposals.
If you feel strongly about this cable, please make your views known now, however, they key stage to object will be once a formal planning application has been submitted.
