Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

In The Gutters Hut at Lerwick’s North Ness, Viking Energy’s project team were this week unable to say exactly how many houses and turbines in Kergord, Catfirth, South and North Nesting, Laxo, Voe, East Burrafirth and Aith would be within two kilometres of each other. This is a very good question and needs to be answered. The fact that Viking Energy are unable to answer this question, and answer it immediately, demonstrates what little consideration they have given to the human impact of their project.

[paulb]

for pity sake. its not a 2km from a house. its a guide line that they dont build them within 2kms of a town/city.

 

ok as your so keen on this project not happening please tell me how you will be winging when they have cut everything back to the bare essenrials.

 

if you can come up with a safe investment that will generate the same income. please tell us and the trust. if not then the state of the services in 10-20 years is down to you. then you will be crying over that.

funny that the antis use there title when there future is clearly not.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

"us and the trust" paulb, sounds like a cosy relationship.

just who is us then?

[Ghostrider]

@ paulb: A safe investment is where you invest because you can clearly see where, when and how your earnings arise, and you do it because you have funds available to invest regardless of your "need" for the resultant income, or not.

 

Any investment that is made because "we need the money" is inherently doomed from the start as the investors focus and judgement is clouded by £££ signs. Its every bit as bad as a gambler putting their shirt on an all or nothing bet.

 

The biggest mistake VE have made so far is to have quantified and publicised the estimated eventual profits in monetary terms, its the oldest trick in the book and brings out a reaction from the masses akin to waving a bottle of whisky under an alcoholic's nose who hasn't tasted any in a week.

 

Take a tip from successful investors and the market where the only thing that matters is percentage return and term, those are your real comparables,

 

As I read the very vague and sketchy numbers those who are propagandizing and selling this scheme to the hilt are offering is an estimated maximum average 10% return over 20 years, after a 5 years construction period. Yeah, not bad, but not exactly awe inspiring, especially given the very obvious potential variables in play during the term, and the massive sum of investment capital necessary.

 

IOW, would you bother giving someone £100 and be happy that it paid you back £10/annum yearly from 2017 - 2037, as its exactly the same thing.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

for pity sake. its not a 2km from a house. its a guide line that they dont build them within 2kms of a town/city.

 

ok as your so keen on this project not happening please tell me how you will be winging when they have cut everything back to the bare essenrials.

 

if you can come up with a safe investment that will generate the same income. please tell us and the trust. if not then the state of the services in 10-20 years is down to you. then you will be crying over that.

funny that the antis use there title when there future is clearly not.

 

It's a simple question, "how many houses and turbines in Kergord, Catfirth, South and North Nesting, Laxo, Voe, East Burrafirth and Aith would be within two kilometres of each other." It's an indication of the number of households that might be affected, many seriously.

 

I am not winging. I am not even whinging. I am making a serious point about the human impact, something that you obviously do not give a damn about and/or lack the intelligence to appreciate.

 

I see, If they don't build the windfarm and you don't get what you want and services in Shetland are cut... it's my fault. If you think hard enough you will might be able to find a reason to blame me for the next recession or the third world war if it happens.

[stilldellin]

Gettin brawly concerned as to whit dis quote " bare essenrials " are !

[unlinkedstudent]

Gettin brawly concerned as to whit dis quote " bare essenrials " are !

 

Contrary to popular belief, whilst I may be against the windfarm, I will NOT be tied naked to a test turbine.

 

I may, however, be tempted to knee a few folk in a certain area for the right price ... na, come to think of it, I'd probably do that for free!

[unlinkedstudent]

for pity sake. its not a 2km from a house. its a guide line that they dont build them within 2kms of a town/city.

 

ok as your so keen on this project not happening please tell me how you will be winging when they have cut everything back to the bare essenrials.

 

if you can come up with a safe investment that will generate the same income. please tell us and the trust. if not then the state of the services in 10-20 years is down to you. then you will be crying over that.

funny that the antis use there title when there future is clearly not.

 

The Scottish Planning Policy actually says this:-

 

"1.2

Scotland

The Scottish Planning Policy states:

A separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. Development plans should recognise that the existence of these constraints on wind farm development does not impose a blanket restriction on development, and should be clear on the extent of constraints and the factors that should be satisfactorily addressed to enable development to take place. Planning authorities should not impose additional zones of protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value.6"

 

(PDF from House of Commons Library via http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Separation%20Distances%202012.pdf

 

You refer to safe investment; this most certainly is not one. At present, it would appear that the SCT invest, via Schroders, in a low risk strategy plan. Viking Energy, given the amounts at stake and the margin of returns, as outlined in the Valuation Report, would appear to fall into the high risk category. Therefore, if the SCT decided to take the same risk via their existing Fund Managers, Schroders, you might get the same return. VE cannot set the price of electricity nor IF the interconnector is approved (which to date, it is not), the price for its transmission onto the National Grid. The SCT could, however, change to Fund Managers with more proven success than Schroeders who are currently rated 8/10 and that stands a far more riskier strategy in order to increase the approximate £10 million currently yielded from the portfolio.

 

There are not guarantees with VE, nor are there any guarantees with dabbling in the stock market. Yes, some of the current SCT portfolio is tied up in managed funds but some of it is held in shares. Hopefully, the SCT is investing via Schroeders into schemes that do guarantee a certain percentaged return.

 

Now who was it who said "Money is the root of all evil" and "The Devil moves in mysterious ways" eh?

[paulb]

Consultants Quayle Munro, hired by Viking, have estimated that the project is already worth around £58.5 million to the trust if it has to sell now. If it invests another £6.3 million and continues to the stage where the windfarm is ready to go it could sell out then for over £141 million

sounds like a good investment to me. even if they sell out prior to it being built. or are they lying to.

[unlinkedstudent]

^ You appear to be quoting from a press report and not the actual full valuation report. Besides, you need a buyer. I wonder what the Valuers would say if the same thing happened to the wind turbines as elsewhere in the world; just look at Australia where you've got windfarms rusting away and aren't in use. Wasn't it the case that they too were promised a huge pot of gold?

 

What do the Valuers state the value of VE would be IF the interconnector doesn't get the go ahead? I'm sure that as professionals they would have included that somewhere within their Report. Shame, we can't see the cons though, can we?

 

Not all windfarms actually get built just because they have got the go ahead re Planning. Sometimes once they have a Geologist on-site, they realise that it just isn't going to be feasible.

 

As for carbon payback figures, even the Government's own watchdog doesn't believe Viking's figures!

[Ghostrider]

or are they lying to.

 

Depends who's paying them.

 

A valuation is only a guide, actual worth is what teh market will pay, and with the noises the Government are making now over subsidy support, there's strarting to look like being a few players getting mildly jittery.

[Ghostrider]

Gettin brawly concerned as to whit dis quote " bare essenrials " are !

 

Contrary to popular belief, whilst I may be against the windfarm, I will NOT be tied naked to a test turbine.

 

I may, however, be tempted to knee a few folk in a certain area for the right price ... na, come to think of it, I'd probably do that for free!

 

Dammit, another fantasy nuked.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

if you can come up with a safe investment that will generate the same income. please tell us and the trust. if not then the state of the services in 10-20 years is down to you. then you will be crying over that.

funny that the antis use there title when there future is clearly not.

 

Can you imagine a council that gets it's budget under control and spends within it's means, it's income does not exceeds it's expenditure. It promotes business and investment that are sensitive to the environment and socially acceptable and can demonstrate real majority support from local people and we have councillors that we can trust to genuinely to work in the best interest the electorate with roles that do not conflict with their public duties. Wouldn't that be nice.

 

It doesn't take a windfarm to fix this, it takes a dutiful, trustworthy council. If you are worried about the future, don't pursue a blame game for something that hasn't happened yet and indeed might not happen. That's quite irrational. I will continue to object to the windfarm because I do not believe it is an appropriate project for Shetland. As for future services, that actually depends more on whom you vote for on 3rd May rather than a windfarm. The current chief executive seems to be working hard to rein it in... long, at least, may that continue.

[paulb]

ched i share a lot of you distrust in the council and how they mess up a simple task.

 

however there is no majority either way. your view is louder thats all.

 

being on the west side i was look at a couple of leflets that we have recieved in the post. no one canvased us yet.

 

well two are old council. so i really dont fancy either of them. another wants all the schools kept open, care services kept the same, music reinstated to schools. yet they dont say were all this money will come from.

 

i think once the new lot get in they will go the same way as the last new members were ment to do 4 years ago. the only way that we can have a clean council is they were all new and there were new officers,

 

an idea would be to return to the older system of town and county council.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

I've not been canvassed by any candidates on the doorstep, but I have found enough to go on online.

 

Under the current system the next council will have no choice other than to continue with spending cuts until the council budget is maintainable. Perhaps we'll have to accept that a slimmer service is a reality for the next 4 years and beyond into future councils. The positive aspect of this is that local services will not shrink to nothing, far from it I would suggest. Scaremongers will try and have us believe otherwise. We will remain a prosperous community if reserves are not squandered and we have a council that can control spending properly.