Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Kavi Ugl]

 

I'm no expert on all the different pots of money but I thought roads, schools and ferries came out of capital and government monies and had no bearing on the CT oil money...?.

 

As for swimming pools and leisure centres I never use either and the care homes cost a criminal fortune if you're in there off your own back!.

 

As Skunnered says, if the existing funds were used wisely it would do but perhaps the existing "lifestyle we've become accustomed to"(that's a very posh phrase that is!) is a bit OTT.

[Ghostrider]

^^That certainly brings it to life!

Actually, looks not a bad place for it. Perhaps they should put one up there?

 

I've said it before, when the skyline from the Bard to Score Point, and from Rova Head via the Staney Hill and Shurton to the east sea has them lined up as tight as they can stand, I'll be happy to see any other local skyline with the same. Until then, nope. The few proposed for Rova Head is a start, albeit a small one, so c'mon boys, keep going!

 

I would be very interested to see the results of the surveys, memberships of pro and anti groups etc, broken down to show the pro/anti stance toon vs. country. The toon population is large enough that it "could" well be swaying overall opinion, and creating something of a "toon deciding what the country does" situation. Which, IMHO is neither fair nor just, the toon will not and does not need to see Viking, unless they want to go and look at it, the same cannot be said for a very large tract of the rest of Shetland.

 

It would also be extremely interesting to see the same figures broken down once the Rova Head ones start rising, for the toon to see. I would hope that no change would be evident, as it should to prevent accusations of hypocrisy, but I'll only believe no hypocrisy exists once the numbers are there to prove it.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ GR, the results of the poll were broken down by region in the Times report but it's not in the on-line version. I don't have a copy of the paper handy or I would quote it here, but the information is there.

 

IIRC, the highest "against" responses were, predictably enough, among people living closest to the development. The Northern Isles and the South End had the highest "for" ratings. I don't remember seeing anything about a Town/Country divide though.

[Ghostrider]

Yup, I saw that. I suspect that an urban/rural breakdown would have yielded telling results of their own.

 

To say town vs.country was probably wrong of me, as Shetland now is no longer just Lerwick and Scalloway as the only "urban" enviornments, arguably developments in the last 40 years have turned the likes of Brae and the area around the Central in Sandwick etc, in to urban "villages" in their own right. A breakdown according to actual address would probably be needed, as the point I'm trying to get at is, I would expect folk living in an "urban" setting, regardless of what area of Shetland it is in, would be more likely to accept an "industrialisation" of countryside than those actually living in a rural setting.

[Spinner72]

I'm no expert on all the different pots of money but I thought roads, schools and ferries came out of capital and government monies and had no bearing on the CT oil money...?

 

You only have to compare roads/buildings/services between here and "sooth" to see the difference.

 

Take the recent example of gritting - there is hell on here of side roads aren't cleared by midday, yet virtually no other local authority in the UK ever ventures near sideroads at all!

 

Yes, the SIC gets the same proportional budget, but has historically, and still but to a much lesser degree, can "balance the books" using its reserves. (which is, of course, another subject well covered and suddenly a bone of contention to local govt elsewhere who can't.. funny that huh?)

 

The subsidesed interisland ferries are a great example. Commuting from one island to another for work is financially impossible in any other island group.

 

The very fact people don't notice these things and think they don't exist is testament to how complacent we are with our unique position.

[KTL]

Decent roads, leisure centres, swimming pools, superb facilities for the old, properly equipped schools, subsidised ferries, money available for investment in local businesses and industry. Do I need to go on?

 

The Charitable Trust spends our money on things like leisure, recreation, culture, equalisation of care home charges, local business investment etc. All well and good. SIC spend on roads, transport and things which used to be called public services in the old days.

It is unlikely that SCT can afford its own share of the windfarm. To afford their £60m deposit, they either have to cut spending (currently about £12m a year) or run down capital. This isn't for just one or two years. It's for up to 5 years of the construction period. If the SCT also wants to put up the money for a new Anderson High this creates some interesting prospects.

 

SCT have about £180m in funds. They then commit: £60m to Viking Energy. £60m of 5 years current spending. £49m to a new AHS. That leaves about £11m. At that point the SCT would be on its knees and close to collapse. One more year of spending, any delay in Viking Energy etc. and the Trust would be finished. If you don't like that version, the alternative is to make a huge cut in the £12m annual spend. The easiest targets are leisure and culture. If SCT reduced their core funding, these organisations have to save costs by cutting opening hours, cutting staff, reducing service, increasing charges. What would Shetland look like after 5 years of that?

 

Some within SIC have made noises that maybe the SIC could "invest" as well. Same people you understand, just different playing different roles. If this happens, then we can look forward to even bigger SIC cuts than are currently on the table, because their cash would come from the reserve fund, which underwrites a lot of the current SIC spending.

 

No investment can ever be guaranteed. The higher the potential returns, the greater the risk. Traditionally, the high return - low risk pitch has been aimed at the desperate, the gullible and the greedy. This was the philosophy underpinning the recent financial meltdown.

 

Governments might have bailed out the banks, but they won't bail out Setland.

 

This was, and remains, a very high risk investment. Any assumption of guarenteed profit with low risk is a dangerous exercise in self-delusion.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ So what's you're (or should I say, "sustainable" Shetland's) solution?

 

"Fit for scale and purpose". What does that phrase mean? Extending the Sullom Voe power station and shackling us to fossil fuels for the next 30 years, with all the uncertainties of volatile fuel prices and possible carbon taxes?

 

Building small scale renewables for each and every home, school, leisure centre, business etc? They did that on the Island of Eigg and the total cost was around £30,000/household. If we say 5000 households in Shetland, that's £150,000,000 and that's only households. For everything else as well, you can double that at least, so that's £300,000,000 with no extra income generated from the export of electricity, and Shetland covered with thousands of windmills, everywhere.

 

So where's that £300,000,000 going to come from, KTL?

 

If "sustainable" Shetland had an alternative, I would be willing to take them a lot more seriously, but they don't.

 

All they've got is: "Not In My Back Yard".

 

That just doesn't cut it.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^^^ So what's you're (or should I say, "sustainable" Shetland's) solution? ...

 

If "sustainable" Shetland had an alternative, I would be willing to take them a lot more seriously, but they don't.

 

All they've got is: "Not In My Back Yard".

 

That just doesn't cut it.

 

And nor, AT, does your reply. I am, quite frankly, gobsmacked at your response. Sustainable Shetland have not just got "Not In My Back Yard". I'm quite prepared to read through and digest what VE print and give it due consideration whereas you appear to dismiss everything SS put forward. You know damn well that smaller scale windfarms could mean, for example, 1 wind turbine for say every 10 houses within a community-based scheme.

 

Edit: And before you "jump" on me, I'm using the above as a hypothetical example - I'm not saying that every single household would need a wind turbine. There are other alternative green energies also.

[keetiebairdie]

^^+ to go back a few comments, to Arabia Terra's comment:

 

"The plan is to leave the foundations. The removal of the foundations would require breaking up huge pieces of reinforced concrete which would be a complete nightmare. I believe the plan is to cover them with topsoil and reseed. As I understand it there will be nothing visible left after the turbines are gone".

 

That is not actually true.

 

Although I have just trolled through the first Windylight's prospectus again and found no promises on what VE plan to do with the land afterwards, I have heard VE's representatives state at meetings on more than one occasion that they "would reinstate the land".

 

Reinstating the land does not, to me anyway, mean chucking a few clods of peat back on top of the very deep concrete - which, by the way, will cover many acres, but digging all the concrete up, disposing of it, then cover the site with topsoil and reseed.

 

However, since then I have noted that the VE reps now add the tag-line 'if thought necessary'.

 

Perhaps we should have clarification on this? Mr Arabia Terra?

[paulb]

being a supporter of the farm I'm not impressed with mr wisharts comments.

a council member even acting as a director of viking should not criticise officers of the council. if they believe there are errors then correct them. for shame mr wishart.

[ArabiaTerra]

And nor, AT, does your reply. I am, quite frankly, gobsmacked at your response. Sustainable Shetland have not just got "Not In My Back Yard". I'm quite prepared to read through and digest what VE print and give it due consideration whereas you appear to dismiss everything SS put forward. You know damn well that smaller scale windfarms could mean, for example, 1 wind turbine for say every 10 houses within a community-based scheme.

 

Edit: And before you "jump" on me, I'm using the above as a hypothetical example - I'm not saying that every single household would need a wind turbine. There are other alternative green energies also.

That still means 500 windturbines, assuming 5000 households plus another 500 to power everything else for a total of 1000 rather than 127!

 

I have dismissed everything SS put forward because I have yet to hear any sensible, workable, proposal from "sustainable" Shetland. They paint VE as being the "big bad" out to destroy Shetland's environment for profit, yet every suggestion they have made will either cost more for less benefit or tie us to fossil fuels for the next 30 years. Like I said, they have nothing.

 

And as for the "other alternative green energies" sure, they exist, but they are all considerably more expensive than onshore wind energy.

[unlinkedstudent]

I have dismissed everything SS put forward because I have yet to hear any sensible, workable, proposal from "sustainable" Shetland. They paint VE as being the "big bad" out to destroy Shetland's environment for profit, yet every suggestion they have made will either cost more for less benefit or tie us to fossil fuels for the next 30 years. Like I said, they have nothing.

 

And as for the "other alternative green energies" sure, they exist, but they are all considerably more expensive than onshore wind energy.

 

Err AT, where does VE state that we will not be tied to fossil fuels for the next 30 years?

[ArabiaTerra]

^^+ to go back a few comments, to Arabia Terra's comment:

 

"The plan is to leave the foundations. The removal of the foundations would require breaking up huge pieces of reinforced concrete which would be a complete nightmare. I believe the plan is to cover them with topsoil and reseed. As I understand it there will be nothing visible left after the turbines are gone".

 

That is not actually true.

 

Although I have just trolled through the first Windylight's prospectus again and found no promises on what VE plan to do with the land afterwards, I have heard VE's representatives state at meetings on more than one occasion that they "would reinstate the land".

 

Reinstating the land does not, to me anyway, mean chucking a few clods of peat back on top of the very deep concrete - which, by the way, will cover many acres, but digging all the concrete up, disposing of it, then cover the site with topsoil and reseed.

 

However, since then I have noted that the VE reps now add the tag-line 'if thought necessary'.

 

Perhaps we should have clarification on this? Mr Arabia Terra?

You are absolutely right. I was under the impression that the turbine bases would be covered over and left in place. I have now been to the VE website to check this and found that in the FAQ's they state:

 

The turbines would be removed and the bases could also be removed. Alternatively, if it was felt to be better for the environment, the access tracks and foundations could be left in the ground and covered over, returning the site as close as possible to its original state. (my emphasis)

 

So it seems the decision whether or not to remove the bases will be put off until the 25 year lifetime is up and then be made on the basis of what is considered to be the least damaging option.

 

My apologies for the confusion.

[Muppet]

I'm not sure that re-instatement of the site is anything we should worry about.

 

If the windfarm was to go ahead and was profitable, it would be commercial madness to flatten it after a fixed period.

 

I would fully expect after 15 years or so a rolloing programme of replacing the turbines would be announced and that it would be there for as long as it was profitable to have it.

[ArabiaTerra]

Err AT, where does VE state that we will not be tied to fossil fuels for the next 30 years?

Err, by generating more than enough power from the windfarm to cover Shetland's needs and by having an interconnector to import power when the wind drops? From the FAQ's

 

The power generated by the Viking wind farm would feed the Shetland grid first before exporting power to the Scottish Mainland. Shetland's peak electricity demand is just over 50 megawatts (MW) so there would be a large amount of surplus renewable electricity which would be exported elsewhere via a sub-sea interconnector cable. This clean surplus energy may be able to counterbalance Shetland's considerable remaining dependency on fossil fuels.

The replacement for the Gremista power station will only be used if there is a break in the cable.