Jump to content

Windmills / SIC Cut Backs


croftygair
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The £930 million is the money generated after the cost of building have been paid (interest on loans, maintenance costs etc).

 

Wow AT, you are privy then to information that the rest of us are not! So are you saying then that ahead of the tender stage that you know the total build cost and also the APR of the loans? I'm impressed! :wink:

 

The fact that the returns quoted were profits paid out after everything else was paid for has been public knowledge right from the start.

 

Unlinked, I think you should go back to the VE website and actually read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The £930 million is the money generated after the cost of building have been paid (interest on loans, maintenance costs etc).

 

Ok fair enough. I think I can see how this might be possible after a bit of further guess work with factors like output and efficiency and kwh's and roc's etc. and googling possible rates [and the back of fag packet].

 

I can't see how 370MW would work to deliver these promises, from my very limited perspective, but can see how bigger might do it financially (450MW with bigger turbines, and can see why there would be huge pressure for significantly bigger, providing factors affecting profitability stay consistent over the next 25 years?)... that does not placate the environmental and social issues which is why I remain opposed, particularly with the prospect of continued enlargement in the future.

 

Do you know... is VE's income based on 50% (wholesale price + subsidies) or is it more complex than that, like liability for a portion of other costs e.g. interconnector and converter station/ transmission. The contents of the partnership agreement would helpful if you could lay your hands on a copy.

 

Obviously, since the size of the windfarm has been reduced again, those figures will be subject to change. Though that also depends whether they can maintain the output by using bigger turbines. But, as I understand it, VE's income would indeed be 50% (wholesale price + subsidies) - running costs, of which 5% goes to the private shareholders and 45% goes to the CT.

 

As far as the converter station and interconnector goes, they will be built by a separate company (SHETL) and VE (along with anyone else who builds renewables up here) will pay a fee to use them. This fee will be set by OFGEM. These fees are under review at the moment as they currently discriminate against generators which are far away from the power markets. (They were designed that way to prevent the power companies from relocating the existing power stations away from populated areas after privatisation). The figures which I have been quoting are based on the charging regime staying as it is, though there is a good chance that the review will reduce the charges, making the windfarm more profitable.

 

Oh, and if you are trying to work out the figures for yourself, then remember that the windfarm returns are based on an assumed efficiency of 40%, whereas the return from Burradale has been >50% over the ten years or so it has been operational.

 

... particularly with the prospect of continued enlargement in the future.

 

I am not aware of any plans to enlarge the VE windfarm in the future. Do you mean other windfarms being built elsewhere, such as the one proposed for South Yell?

 

^ But it ISN'T VE's website, is it? The website belongs to Shetland Aerogenerators Limited.

 

P.S. Which VE are we talking about here anyway? Seeing as there are at least two.

 

:roll:

 

This website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not aware of any plans to enlarge the VE windfarm in the future. Do you mean other windfarms being built elsewhere, such as the one proposed for South Yell?

 

^ But it ISN'T VE's website, is it? The website belongs to Shetland Aerogenerators Limited.

 

P.S. Which VE are we talking about here anyway? Seeing as there are at least two.

 

:roll:

 

This website.

 

Firstly, the 'P.S.' was mine.....

 

Yes, we assumed it was that website you were on about, being as it seems to be the only Viking Energy website Google can find. The point though is, whose website is it?

 

'Viking Energy' couldbe applied to at least two different entities - Viking Energy Ltd, and the Viking Energy Partnership - one of which has recently become Viking Energy Shetland LLP - or maybe it hasn't, and a third entity has been created, given that Jeff Goddard in a single paragraph in his notice of the special SCT meeting on Monday refers to both titles.

 

Which of these two,or is it three entities are actually the 'Viking Energy' behind the 'Viking Energy' website is anyone's guess, as a domain lookup states vikingenergy.co.uk is actually registered to Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd at 10 Charlotte Street, . Who, as far as we've been told, has nothing whatsoever to do with Viking Energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My figures are quit correct and there has been no other options put to sustain Shetland with the industry you say it needs. Instead, divert the attention away from the subject and talk about a subject totally unrelated and untenable. Removing Shetland from the EU would remove the opportunity to fish in other waters unless a deal could be made etc etc. So basically, you have no other options really. Of course you can continue the bellyaching.

 

So, what is the industry you are talking about that will sustain Shetland?

 

It was very clever to highlight Ireland, but many of the other vessels are from the same club.

 

The question, remains though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead, divert the attention away from the subject and talk about a subject totally unrelated and untenable.

 

It was you that changed the subject peat now you moan that the subject has been changed.

 

But here go's again

With control over our own waters we would be able to do deals with other nations like Norway Faroe Iceland to fish in their waters and for them to fish here of course we would all have to stick to the same rules ie land all you catch, no trawling within 12nm of land.

But to be quite honest with control over our own waters we would have a large enough renewable resource to keep every man and woman in Shetland working and well paid.

With control over the sea bed we would have riches beyond the dreams of avarice we could reduce the tax on the oil companies making it more attractive for them to develop even the smallest of wells which would extend the life of the east Shetland basin by 20-30 years before we even start out west.

With control over our own destiny we could insist the oil companies build a gas fired power station at Sullom Voe to supply our electricity needs for the next hundred+ years, giving us time to investigate alternative energy sources that are not so destructive to our landscape as the wind farm will surely be.

With a reduced tax rate we could encourage companies to set up here and provide jobs for our now steadily growing population.

With control over our destiny we could deport rapists, thieves and other scumbags that move here while having the money to rehabilitate or lock away for good those that are born and bred here. (I would even insist that you were to work with them while in prison).

If we must spend our money it would be far better spent getting us clear of the EU and the UK not on despoiling our land for the greed of the few.

 

And so to your last comment yes there are many others in the same club but my point which went completely over your head as usual was that Ireland also caught their boats landing black but damn all was done about it.

But since you mentioned those other countries here we go I will state here and now without reservation that each and every one of those countries has a problem with illegal landings, they just choose to do nothing about it. Just take a trip to their fish markets and it will laid out before you and their fisheries officers for all to see.

I have done this, it one of the things I do when I am travelling all over the place and I have yet to visit a fish market in Europe where there wasn't illegal fish for sale in open view.

Not something they like to put in their official stats on google

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Obviously, since the size of the windfarm has been reduced again, those figures will be subject to change. Though that also depends whether they can maintain the output by using bigger turbines. But, as I understand it, VE's income would indeed be 50% (wholesale price + subsidies) - running costs, of which 5% goes to the private shareholders and 45% goes to the CT.

 

As far as the converter station and interconnector goes, they will be built by a separate company (SHETL) and VE (along with anyone else who builds renewables up here) will pay a fee to use them. This fee will be set by OFGEM. These fees are under review at the moment as they currently discriminate against generators which are far away from the power markets. (They were designed that way to prevent the power companies from relocating the existing power stations away from populated areas after privatisation). The figures which I have been quoting are based on the charging regime staying as it is, though there is a good chance that the review will reduce the charges, making the windfarm more profitable.

 

Oh, and if you are trying to work out the figures for yourself, then remember that the windfarm returns are based on an assumed efficiency of 40%, whereas the return from Burradale has been >50% over the ten years or so it has been operational.

 

I was actually assuming 50% efficiency.

 

Costs and projected profits to date are only estimates and clearly there are many dependent factors, transmission charges is a good example of a variable that is critical to profit margins (and what about losses on transmission). Estimated costs on a big project are usually lower than actual costs (increased by risks, prices changes, inflation, myriad of unknowns etc...) and estimated profits can be unrealistically optimistic, designed perhaps to win public support.

 

I am not aware of any plans to enlarge the VE windfarm in the future. Do you mean other windfarms being built elsewhere, such as the one proposed for South Yell?

 

I think there will be enormous pressure to enlarge this windfarm, or to put it another way enormous pressure to increase the number of 3.6MW+ turbines in Shetland, from further applications from VE or proposals from other organisations... its all the same to me with a drive to maximise cable capacity (whatever that capacity might be... 600MW?, 1200MW?). Viking Energy have not been told that the 370MW (or 450MW) is their maximum.

 

Changes in government policy and waning support for onshore windfarms is good (particularly on the grounds of installations in insensitive or unsuitable locations), but it might also come down to the priorities and values of future councillors and the decisions they make as a planning authority... if they retain adequate control. The way things look right now Shetland stands to be besieged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since you mentioned those other countries here we go I will state here and now without reservation that each and every one of those countries has a problem with illegal landings, they just choose to do nothing about it. Just take a trip to their fish markets and it will laid out before you and their fisheries officers for all to see.

 

Yes, I agree. I have been to Rungis market in Paris in the middle of the night - every species, all sizes. Baby tuna, tiny squid, eels, frogs legs, whatever swims is there. But if you take a common sense approach (as the French do) the problem is not illegal landings, the problem is discards - the solution is "illegal" landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was actually assuming 50% efficiency.

 

Costs and projected profits to date are only estimates and clearly there are many dependent factors, transmission charges is a good example of a variable that is critical to profit margins (and what about losses on transmission). Estimated costs on a big project are usually lower than actual costs (increased by risks, prices changes, inflation, myriad of unknowns etc...) and estimated profits can be unrealistically optimistic, designed perhaps to win public support.

 

Transmission charges won't be going up. The current review was instigated to look at the best way to reduce charges to encourage the building of renewables where the renewable energy is, i.e: on the periphery of the UK.

 

As far as losses on transmission go, they are a few percent (<5%) with modern interconnectors.

 

I am not aware of any plans to enlarge the VE windfarm in the future. Do you mean other windfarms being built elsewhere, such as the one proposed for South Yell?

 

I think there will be enormous pressure to enlarge this windfarm, or to put it another way enormous pressure to increase the number of 3.6MW+ turbines in Shetland, from further applications from VE or proposals from other organisations... its all the same to me with a drive to maximise cable capacity (whatever that capacity might be... 600MW?, 1200MW?). Viking Energy have not been told that the 370MW (or 450MW) is their maximum.

 

There may be pressure, but there are no plans, at least as far as VE is concerned.

 

Changes in government policy and waning support for onshore windfarms is good (particularly on the grounds of installations in insensitive or unsuitable locations), but it might also come down to the priorities and values of future councillors and the decisions they make as a planning authority... if they retain adequate control. The way things look right now Shetland stands to be besieged.

 

Besieged? Any further windmill development will be considered on it's own merits. I think you are falling for "sustainable" Shetlands habit of exaggeration and hyperbole here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There may be pressure, but there are no plans, at least as far as VE is concerned.

 

I take your point, "there may be pressure". That's enough for me to consider it a serious threat.

 

Besieged? Any further windmill development will be considered on it's own merits. I think you are falling for "sustainable" Shetlands habit of exaggeration and hyperbole here.

 

I'm definitely keeping a wider view of this, but if you want to infer otherwise maybe I'll say you've fallen for all the hype and unrealistic promises of Viking Energy and been misguided by the "supporters" group.

 

I'm expressing an opinion and an opinion I share with many of yours and mine fellow member of the Shetland community. The people of the central mainland will be besieged and people living elsewhere will be besieged if more groups of turbines are built in close proximity to communities elsewhere. The more it happens, the more surrounded and oppressed people will feel. I can find plenty of other ways of expressing the impact of enlargement and I'm sure I'll get plenty of agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The few who benefited the most from the Black Fish landings were the ship owners and those employed to handle them. There is no levy that I can find that is paid into a fund to benefit the whole of Shetland. With the vast turn over of cash the industry creates, and seeing that there have been no reports of identifiable reduce fish stocks, fishing could be part of the way out. The Black Fish landings will play no part in the sum reported in the next set of figures released, so, it distorts the true capability. The landings are wrong because there is a law that sez they are, so is the dumping of a catch to make up a small portion of a remaining quota.

Now, if you think that fishing alone will bring social care and education back to better times level, will it on its own? Firstly, you would need to remove just Shetland from any EU membership and support if and when it may be needed, you will need to be able to stop other nations fishing in the waters you may claim, and of course be ready pay off the cost of going it alone from the mainland.

The identity of the boats seem to be a problem as well, you will have to ban UK registered boats, as said, it could be a flag only. This would in turn could get Shetland registered boats banned from all EU waters.

 

So as my question about industries remains un answered, is there really enough stock in the sea to fish to sustain Shetland? How will the money get to the auld woman needing a visit 4 times a day? Tax? Perhaps a nationalised fleet, there to pay for all of the islands needs?

I will leave you to extrapolate from the figures I have given. After all, you are the experts, I am just putting forward suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No peat the question has been answered you just choose to waffle more BS.

you quoted landing figures earlier so have a look at de bit of paper and see how much of that fish landed goes straight on a truck and is shipped south for processing, providing no economic benefit to Shetland whatsoever.

 

Crofter I agree that the dumping of fish is a problem but the sheer quantity of undersized fish compared to larger "legal sized" fish on the market in the whole of mainland Europe would tend to indicate that they are deliberately targeting the smaller fish.

I even remember one Spanish boat being caught with over a tonne of undersized monks on board and the Sheriff fined him 8 grand. what the fisheries officer failed to mention in court was that the monks had been tailed so the vast bulk of the weight had already been dumped.

 

But lets get back to the windmills we could have another thread to discus the criminal treatment of our fishermen by the Scoty, UK, EU govs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...