Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[unlinkedstudent]

maybe the trust are not experts but the lecky company is they run wind farms. breakdowns will be factored in.

there is no reason why more than the effected turbine would be off line. it would not make sense to take out large numbers for a single fault.

the burradale farm seems to cope well with its faulty turbines. plus they have improved th design since they were installed.

 

Perhaps it doesn't make sense Paulb but it has happened in the past with existing windfarms elsewhere, some less than 2 years old! To be fair, all technology suffers problems from time to time but many other systems have back-up systems in place - several wind farms haven't.

 

I for one do not want nuclear. Malaysia seems to be doing well economically (albeit God knows at what cost to the environment) out of biofuel.

 

I'd quite like to see Sustainable Shetland now organise demos outside the Scottish Parliament - perhaps a camp could be set up whereby there is a rota for a permanent presence or at the very least say 50 of us go and demonstrate.

[ArabiaTerra]

This link is to the Charitable Trust briefing to Trustees concerning finance:

 

http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.uk/assets/files/Funding%20Paper%20041010.pdf

[Ghostrider]

Exactly! A windfarm in Devon with the average English wind regime would be foolish. While a windfarm in Shetland, with the best wind regime in the world will have more than reasonable potential. Yet there are people willing to build windfarms in Devon!

 

http://www.devonwindpower.co.uk/

 

Ahh, but if it only were that simple. The wind regime is but one cog in the big machine, not the whole system in and of itself.

 

Devon has a considerably more benign climate. Far less weather related damage and decay on the infrastructure, which equates a longer lifetime over which the investment has to be written down. Far fewer lost generation days following breakdowns too, as their climate allows far more rapid repair.

 

They can link in to the grid a few miles out the road, we on the other hand have 200 mile of subsea cable to worry about, which, should it develop a fault in winter, could take weeks, perhaps months before a cable ship is secured and a weather window allows it to work. They can have a repair squad on site working within hours at most.

 

They may have numerous days when they have no wind, but if you add the few when we have no wind on to the many when we have too much wind, who is better off at the end of the day?

 

All this is missing my point though. We, as the "shareholders" in this venture, should have already been furnished with all the information necessary to prove to us that everything VE claims is true, or at least in the case of projections, stands up to reasonable critical scrutiny.

 

You can sometimes scam a 5 yr old with "noo billy, if du sits an nivver saes a wird afore Im dun, Ill gie dee a sweetie", but when the equivalent is tried in the adult world, as VE, the CT et al are doing with the Shetland population, it gets folks backs up.

[Skunnered]

This link is to the Charitable Trust briefing to Trustees concerning finance:

 

http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.uk/assets/files/Funding%20Paper%20041010.pdf

 

Thanks AT. A useful link.

[Ghostrider]

There is summary of the expected financial benefit to Shetland in this document

 

http://vikingenergyfiles.opendebate.co.uk/files/Chapter-17-Socio-economic-Assessment.pdf

 

Table 17.12 gives these figures

 

..............................Lifetime of 23 years........Per year

Land rental....................£59.4M........................£2.6M

Community Levy............£22.9M...........................£1M

Profit............................£591.8M.........................£26M

Income to

Shetland suppliers.......£178.7M.........................£8M

 

Like everything else about VE, its not the best laid out, or exactly comprehensive, is it.

 

The land rental, I presume goes direct to the owners and occupiers, so while possibly benefitting Shetland in a round about way, it does not find its way back to the CT, so we can forget that number.

 

What is the community levy? I've tried looking for an explanation in the document, by have still to find one.

 

Profit, okay, but if that's the amount Shetland will benefit, you can start by deducting the 10% that goes straight in the pockets of Messrs Thomson & Co., leaving £23+ Million for the rest of us. Which is fine, if it exists, but we're nowhere nearer knowing if it does though, as I presume, as there's nothing to say otherwise, that the given figures are subsidy income inclusive.

 

Income to local suppliers. I presume is the cost paid by VE to locals for goods and services purchased, in which case the actual benefit to Shetland, and then only via relatively small number of individuals will be much less than the figure stated. Another one to largely forget about.

[ArabiaTerra]

What is the community levy? I've tried looking for an explanation in the document, by have still to find one.

Try here, 3rd paragraph down.

 

http://www.windfarmsupporters.org/money.html

 

Also there's this:

 

A study by the highly-respected Fraser of Allander Institute at the University of Strathclyde, published in 2008, shows the financial advantages to Shetland of community ownership of a windfarm in the islands.

 

http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/economics/researchdiscussionpapers/2008/08-11strathecon.pdf

 

Edit: The University of Strathclyde report is based on the original VE plan.

[Guest Anonymous]

AT wrote

I think what Erik was referring to was

 

(** Mod edit - comment removed - It's not for you to be revealing folks names bobdahog - perhaps if you were to post under your real name **)

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

[Guest Anonymous]

I couldn't possibly comment

 

Ah if only that were true but you and the truth seem to be poles apart

 

 

(** Mod edit - comment removed - It's not for you to be revealing folks names bobdahog - perhaps if you were to post under your real name... **)

[unlinkedstudent]

AT, so basically re 3rd paragraph down from that twaddle is that if the windfarm will be the security itself for the loans from financial institutions, the banks will have the right to re-possess/call in the loans? What happens if the banks don't finance it? What happens if profits are (Edit: MAJOR OOPS - should read AREN'T) as great as anticipated?

 

Come on now AT, my scrying is a tad rusty these days but as yours is so marvellous, I'm sure you can get your crystal ball out and look into the future and tell us all.

[Guest Anonymous]

OK mods no names

but why not just remove the name and not the whole comment

[ArabiaTerra]

AT, so basically re 3rd paragraph down from that twaddle is that if the windfarm will be the security itself for the loans from financial institutions, the banks will have the right to re-possess/call in the loans? What happens if the banks don't finance it? What happens if profits are (Edit: MAJOR OOPS - should read AREN'T) as great as anticipated?

 

Come on now AT, my scrying is a tad rusty these days but as yours is so marvellous, I'm sure you can get your crystal ball out and look into the future and tell us all.

If the banks don't finance it, it won't be built.

 

If profits aren't as great as anticipated then the CT won't make as much money. But you have to bear in mind the fact that all the financial predictions are based on a deliberately pessimistic 45% efficiency insisted on by the banks.

 

The actual efficiency, as demonstrated by Burradale, is likely to be much higher.

[Skunnered]

... the banks will have the right to re-possess/call in the loans? What happens if the banks don't finance it?

 

There is unlikely to be a problem with the banks so long as the loan repayments and interest get paid on time, and so long as VE maintains any conditions the banks put upon them, such as balance sheet ratios etc. But if the banks are to lend 80% of the capital cost (which I would find very surprising) then I wonder what sort of eye-watering interest rates they are likely to charge.

And I wonder what sort of interest rates VE have built into their financial forecasts.

[Guest Anonymous]

financial predictions are based on a deliberately pessimistic 45% efficiency insisted on by the banks.

 

more misinformation AT the predictions are based on a subsidy that is in no way guaranteed remove the subsidy and the profit disappears as well.

What with it being only 50% more efficient but costing 100% more than a comparable wind farm on the UK mainland the figures don't add up at the best of times.

Yes AT misinformation is much better than downright lies when you want to sprootle folks

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Nobody knows the cost of this WF and interconnector.

 

I believe around 11.000 tons of copper needed for the cable,

At current copper prices that's about 523.000 quid, just for the copper.

 

Given that the cable will be built and layed off a ship, taking about 12months to lay, i wonder what the final cost of the cable will be ???