Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[JGHR]

 

Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Where on earth do you get the idea that any return on the stock exchange is guaranteed? The CT lost a couple of hundred million in the recent crash. Way more than the investment in the windfarm.

 

Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by guaranteed. In fact its a bit like global temperatures. There is no guarantee that they will continue to increase, yet you seem perfectly happy to accept that they will based on historical data and current accepted analysis. Stock market returns, have increased in the long term over the entire history of the market and accepted analysis indicates that they will continue to do so. There has always been ups and downs, the graph is not a straight line, but the trend, as they say, is upwards. Why would you deny that this is likely to continue?

 

Based on the data we have, increasing stock market returns over the long term can be guaranteed with a much greater degree of certainty than can increasing global temperatures. Why would you accept one yet deny the other?

 

The CT have only lost that couple of hundred million if they have foolishly sold their stock holdings during the most recent downward cycle, to perhaps invest it in a different more risky venture where there is no previous history whatsoever to indicate that it will generate any return at all. If they have not sold their stocks the money is not lost and we can be assured that it will, over time, return to its previous levels and benefit our children tomorrow. That is of course if we are to accept what has been shown to be true.

 

If we choose to blindly deny what has been shown to be true because we either do not understand it, or because it goes against our values, or because we simply do not want it to be so, we are not likely to make sound and sensible investment decisions with our children's inheritance.

[shetlandpeat]

I am suprised that they are still taking a bit of a chance on the Stock Exchange, many, if not all councils are having to put their reserves into short term and on call investments, these realising a small percentage. It is the Iceland Saga that prompted this.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

Quote: "The CT lost a couple of hundred million in the recent crash. Way more than the investment in the windfarm.".... wsg crap?

 

The CT lost £55 million in 2008-2009 banking crisis, but gained over £40 million when markets recovered (source ST).

 

FTSE100 grew 75% in the past 10 years. It has always shown net growth in the long term so if you have a couple of hundred million to invest its as near to a guarantee as you're going to get for a healthy return.

 

Don't blame the markets for losses, blame "Trustees" for making poor decisions and unsustainable spending.

 

As for VE's £20 million... no you can't trust what they say. It seems they are being paid to get it to a final investment decision, then built, so will be inclined to make it appear attractive at this stage regardless of how realistic this might be, will they not? That is what they are being paid for, they are not being paid to safeguard trust funds.

 

Read VE's website...

"All figures are based upon variable factors which could be subject to change such as the actual price paid for the electricity generated, the productivity of individual turbines and the assumption that the wind farm is built to the proposed scale."

 

We can add more 'uncertainties' to this statement like transmission charges, build costs and level of subsidy.

 

[Eidt] BTW AT, there is no denial of anything in the above, or crystal ball prophesy, just an observation of the facts.

[ArabiaTerra]

 

Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Where on earth do you get the idea that any return on the stock exchange is guaranteed? The CT lost a couple of hundred million in the recent crash. Way more than the investment in the windfarm.

 

Well I suppose it depends on what you mean by guaranteed. In fact its a bit like global temperatures. There is no guarantee that they will continue to increase, yet you seem perfectly happy to accept that they will based on historical data and current accepted analysis. Stock market returns, have increased in the long term over the entire history of the market and accepted analysis indicates that they will continue to do so. There has always been ups and downs, the graph is not a straight line, but the trend, as they say, is upwards. Why would you deny that this is likely to continue?

 

The rise in global temperatures are caused by the normal operation of the laws of physics. You don't argue with the laws of physics. The only way in which this rise will stop is if we find a way to substantially reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Given that we are currently pouring 30 billion tonnes of additional carbon into the atmosphere each year, I don't see a reduction happening any time soon. The best we can hope for is to slow and eventually eliminate the increase, but at the level of current efforts, even this will take decades.

 

And remember, there is a thirty to forty year lag between CO2 being emitted and it's full effects being felt, so even if we completely decarbonised by 2020, temperatures wouldn't stop rising until 2050-2060, and that's assuming that we didn't de-stabilise any of the natural carbon sinks like the rainforest, tundra, temperate forests and the oceans (all of which are showing signs of de-stabilisation already).

 

Markets, on the other hand, are human inventions and our current economy is based on the infinite growth powered by abundant cheap energy model. Unfortunately, the abundant cheap energy is running out and infinite growth is impossible.

 

Based on the data we have, increasing stock market returns over the long term can be guaranteed with a much greater degree of certainty than can increasing global temperatures. Why would you accept one yet deny the other?

 

I accept one (global warming) and deny the other (infinite market growth) because one is based on the laws of physics, while the other is impossible.

 

Please explain to me how infinite growth can continue on a finite planet without completely trashing it?

 

The CT have only lost that couple of hundred million if they have foolishly sold their stock holdings during the most recent downward cycle, to perhaps invest it in a different more risky venture where there is no previous history whatsoever to indicate that it will generate any return at all.

 

Ahem, Burradale.

 

If they have not sold their stocks the money is not lost and we can be assured that it will, over time, return to its previous levels and benefit our children tomorrow. That is of course if we are to accept what has been shown to be true.

 

Just because the markets have recovered in the past does not guarantee they will do so in the future.

 

The problem is this: Leaving aside the issue of global warming for the moment, up until around 2005 each year the amount of new oil discovered was greater than the amount lost by the exhaustion of existing fields. Thus the global oil supply grew each year and demand grew alongside it. In 2005 this stopped. We were no longer discovering enough new oil to replace the exhausted fields. This didn't immediately affect the economy as there was a lot of slack in the system, but by 2008 everything was running flat out to satisfy demand. But demand continued to rise. So the oil price shot up, the speculators moved in, drove it even higher and we had the price spike which peaked around $147/barrel.

 

This caused a spike in fuel prices, especially in the US, which led to a whole swathe of small and medium sized businesses going bankrupt or downsizing. This caused a rise in unemployment. These newly unemployed held mortgages which they could no longer afford the repayments on, and a whole lot of previously good debt became bad debt.

 

And down came the financial system built on this debt.

 

So what have we done since to decouple our economy from the oil price?

 

Practically nothing. Sure, everything is now a bit more efficient, but that's just tinkering round the edges. Our economy is just as dependent on oil as it was last time around.

 

So what will happen when the recovery gets going?

 

Demand for oil will start rising again, the oil price will spike again and bring it all crashing down again.

 

Another recession.

 

After that, maybe we'll get the message. Peak oil. It's happening now.

 

This means the markets are no longer a safe place to park the CT money

 

On the other hand, there will always be demand for electricity, and climate change is real so carbon taxes/levies/surcharges/whatever are only going to get bigger. This makes getting into carbon free power generation look like a pretty smart move.

 

If we choose to blindly deny what has been shown to be true because we either do not understand it, or because it goes against our values, or because we simply do not want it to be so, we are not likely to make sound and sensible investment decisions with our children's inheritance.

 

Agreed, so why do you blindly deny the reality that our whole economic system is based on an ultimately unsustainable model which is creaking at the seams.

 

That we need a fundamental re-balancing of our whole economic model.

 

That the fossil fuel powered good times are over.

 

Why do you deny these things?

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the way we trade shares on the stock market needs to change. Companies will come and go, including renewables, and types successful industry might change but long term growth seems reasonably assured based on historic trends.

 

Why do you angle towards a doomsday prophesy when the real question should be, is VE a viable business that will make all the money (not) promised for the CT, or is all this just signs of desperation?

[ArabiaTerra]

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the way we trade shares on the stock market needs to change. Companies will come and go, including renewables, and types successful industry might change but long term growth seems reasonably assured based on historic trends.

 

My whole point in that last rant was that historical trends are not a reliable indicator of what will happen in the future. The whole basis of our economy (cheap and easy access to energy via fossil fuels) is crumbling. Now I'm not saying that we won't be able to reconfigure things to keep civilisation as we know it running, in fact that's the very basis of my argument. But that reconfiguration will involve replacing our power sources with carbon free power, of which VE is an example.

 

Why do you angle towards a doomsday prophesy when the real question should be, is VE a viable business that will make all the money (not) promised for the CT, or is all this just signs of desperation?

 

There are two possible scenarios here.

 

1. We continue subsidising renewables until they reach grid parity and successfully transition our economy to a sustainable system.

 

In this scenario windfarm subsidies continue and VE works out as predicted.

 

2. We don't.

 

Civilisation falls and a few rusty windturbines on the hills will be the least of our problems.

 

That's pretty much what it boils down to.

 

Take your pick.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the way we trade shares on the stock market needs to change. Companies will come and go, including renewables, and types successful industry might change but long term growth seems reasonably assured based on historic trends.

 

Why do you angle towards a doomsday prophesy when the real question should be, is VE a viable business that will make all the money (not) promised for the CT, or is all this just signs of desperation?

 

Edit ... Sorry, ignore... refreshed page and it re-posted this old post.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the way we trade shares on the stock market needs to change. Companies will come and go, including renewables, and types successful industry might change but long term growth seems reasonably assured based on historic trends.

 

My whole point in that last rant was that historical trends are not a reliable indicator of what will happen in the future. The whole basis of our economy (cheap and easy access to energy via fossil fuels) is crumbling. Now I'm not saying that we won't be able to reconfigure things to keep civilisation as we know it running, in fact that's the very basis of my argument. But that reconfiguration will involve replacing our power sources with carbon free power, of which VE is an example.

 

Why do you angle towards a doomsday prophesy when the real question should be, is VE a viable business that will make all the money (not) promised for the CT, or is all this just signs of desperation?

 

There are two possible scenarios here.

 

1. We continue subsidising renewables until they reach grid parity and successfully transition our economy to a sustainable system.

 

In this scenario windfarm subsidies continue and VE works out as predicted.

 

2. We don't.

 

Civilisation falls and a few rusty windturbines on the hills will be the least of our problems.

 

That's pretty much what it boils down to.

 

Take your pick.

 

We seem to be arguing on two completely different levels here. Linked I give you, but different. You can have your gun to the head, renewable economy or end of civilisation as we know it options. I'll not stand in the way of the global community as it steers the best way forward through any forthcoming disaster. But it can and has to work on all levels...

 

Now, maybe, despite the possibility of future losses, on the basis of long term historic evidence, the best place for CT money is invested on the stock market and for Trustees to hold their nerve in any downturn. It's as good a risk as any in today's economy/ markets.

 

Also, maybe, VE is not as good an investment as currently made out by a developer who has to make it look attractive to investors, regardless of the current known risks. Currently we are being bombarded with predictions of profit, over optimistic predictions, in my view, since there are many uncertainties all of which are being downplayed (see my earlier posts) and all of which are unresolved or unknown.

[JGHR]

and that's assuming that we didn't de-stabilise any of the natural carbon sinks like the rainforest, tundra, temperate forests and the oceans (all of which are showing signs of de-stabilisation already).

 

Don't forget about peat bogs,

 

Unfortunately, the abundant cheap energy is running out and infinite growth is impossible.

 

Linc energy just found plenty of it under the South Australian desert the other day. That's whats in that part of South Australia and then they have Queensland, Western Australia the Territory and a bit in New South Wales. That's just in Australia.

 

It’s located in an area of Australia called the Arckaringa Basin and contains as much as 233 billion barrels (or more) of recoverable shale oil.

 

That’s more than all of the estimated oil in Iran, Iraq, Canada, or Venezuela. And it’s just 30 billion barrels shy of the estimated reserves in all of Saudi Arabia.

 

Infinite growth is not impossible in fact it is happening in front of your eyes. If you don't believe that you don't believe in evolution, if you don't believe in evolution you're a zealot. Oh but hang on a minute......

 

 

Please explain to me how infinite growth can continue on a finite planet without completely trashing it?

 

Evolution is close enough to infinite growth, it is happening on this planet. Or do you suppose that eventually a creature that is so well adapted and perfect will evolve that no improvement, to it is possible. Perhaps you believe that god created man, the perfect being, in his image. No I know you don't believe that. Please tell me you don't?

 

Economic growth is similar. We do not need to keep creating more physical material or stuff for economies to grow. We just need to create more worth, or more value. We can create value by improving how we do things, creating efficiencies, developing new technologies, and in the process we gain or 'grow' economic advantage. So long as the human race continues to evolve it will continue to learn, continue to gain new advantages, continue to develop, continue to 'grow'. For as long as the human race continues to evolve or 'grow' the economies and instruments of economics which they create will continue to evolve or 'grow' with them. That's close enough to infinite for my reckoning.

 

 

Ahem, Burradale.

 

Irrelevant. Burradale is not Viking for a multitude of reasons.

 

Just because the markets have recovered in the past does not guarantee they will do so in the future.

 

Well let me see, so far in the recent past and in no particular order we have had two world wars, two Gulf Wars, 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, the oil shocks of the 1970s, high inflation of the 1980s, the 1987 stock market crash, the early 1990s recession, the tech boom and bust, the crash of 2008-9.

 

The market has recovered and continued to grow following all these catastrophes. What event do you think is going to change that. Peak oil? Don't make me laugh. See above, it isn't here and it isn't happening any time soon. Fact. End of story. Accept it, it's the truth. Anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda for doing so, is clueless, or is a liar.

 

This means the markets are no longer a safe place to park the CT money

 

Warren Buffet would disagree and if the CT could do a tenth as well as he has there would be no discussion.

 

On the other hand, there will always be demand for electricity, and climate change is real so carbon taxes/levies/surcharges/whatever are only going to get bigger. This makes getting into carbon free power generation look like a pretty smart move.

 

I don't dispute that getting into carbon free technology is a good, sensible and necessary advance to make. And it will happen as the human race continues to evolve, improve, develop and 'grow'. as it happens the worlds economic system will continue to develop and grow with it. Unfortunately it's not going to happen any time soon, reality isn't all apple pie, cookies and cream and it never will be no matter how much you shout about it or how much you want it to be so. So accept reality, as unpalatable as it might be, rather than deny it and you too will be able to evolve, improve, develop and grow.

 

Agreed, so why do you blindly deny the reality that our whole economic system is based on an ultimately unsustainable model which is creaking at the seams.

 

Because that is not reality, the economic system is fine, it was invented by man, it meets his needs, and as his needs change it will change with them. The worlds economic system is not about to collapse, that is not reality it is a lie spread by deniers.

 

That we need a fundamental re-balancing of our whole economic model.

 

Because we don't. The rate of growth will slow I expect, but the basic model is fine.

 

That the fossil fuel powered good times are over.

Because they are not, another lie spread by deniers, see above.

 

Why do you deny these things?

 

Because they are fundamentally and demonstrably untrue.

[ArabiaTerra]

JGHR, what is your opinion on climate change?

[ArabiaTerra]

Now, maybe, despite the possibility of future losses, on the basis of long term historic evidence, the best place for CT money is invested on the stock market and for Trustees to hold their nerve in any downturn. It's as good a risk as any in today's economy/ markets.

 

It isn't about either/or, it's about one or both.

 

If we don't build VE then we continue with the current arrangement: No new money coming in and just skimming the profits of our investment in the stock exchange.

 

If we do build VE then most of our money stays in the stock exchange, plus we get an additional £20 million/year to spend or invest.

 

Also, maybe, VE is not as good an investment as currently made out by a developer who has to make it look attractive to investors, regardless of the current known risks. Currently we are being bombarded with predictions of profit, over optimistic predictions, in my view, since there are many uncertainties all of which are being downplayed (see my earlier posts) and all of which are unresolved or unknown.

 

What are the current known risks?

 

VE as planned will be profitable with the current subsidy regime.

 

Now you could speculate that the subsidies might end, but that would put every existing windfarm in the country out of business, wasting billions of investment and costing thousands of jobs and it would mean kissing any chance of the UK meeting it's legal obligations on carbon reduction goodbye. That's just not going to happen.

 

What other risks are there?

 

The wind resource in Shetland is proven.

 

The technology is proven.

 

Don't forget about peat bogs

 

Glad you mentioned the peat. As you can see below, the peat in "windmill country" is in an awful state.

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/421842_479482058767528_1514014671_n_zps89ba2adb.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/598657_479481562100911_1496770127_n_zps8a890c8f.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/487933_479480708767663_136393077_n_zps293673f6.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/576632_479480548767679_921421365_n_zps7c0b7565.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/556907_479480358767698_1446970836_n_zpsa447b936.jpg

[Stirrer]

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/421842_479482058767528_1514014671_n_zps89ba2adb.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/598657_479481562100911_1496770127_n_zps8a890c8f.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/487933_479480708767663_136393077_n_zps293673f6.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/576632_479480548767679_921421365_n_zps7c0b7565.jpg

 

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r60/ArabiaTerra/556907_479480358767698_1446970836_n_zpsa447b936.jpg

 

Those are some great photos, and an eye opener to the, probably 95%, membership of Unsustainable Shetland who have never been near the top of the hills on the Kames, but have a sudden deep knowledge of carbon sinks eetc

[paulb]

this is what i was saying a couple of years ago.

the turbines yes will damage some healthy moor but that will be far surpassed by the amount of bog that they will restore.

 

as can be seen the birdlife will much prefer a restored moorland than what exists there now.

 

but SS wont have that oh no the moors are very healthy and are not damaged.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

Now, maybe, despite the possibility of future losses, on the basis of long term historic evidence, the best place for CT money is invested on the stock market and for Trustees to hold their nerve in any downturn. It's as good a risk as any in today's economy/ markets.

 

It isn't about either/or, it's about one or both.

 

If we don't build VE then we continue with the current arrangement: No new money coming in and just skimming the profits of our investment in the stock exchange.

 

If we do build VE then most of our money stays in the stock exchange, plus we get an additional £20 million/year to spend or invest.

 

Also, maybe, VE is not as good an investment as currently made out by a developer who has to make it look attractive to investors, regardless of the current known risks. Currently we are being bombarded with predictions of profit, over optimistic predictions, in my view, since there are many uncertainties all of which are being downplayed (see my earlier posts) and all of which are unresolved or unknown.

 

What are the current known risks?

 

VE as planned will be profitable with the current subsidy regime.

 

Now you could speculate that the subsidies might end, but that would put every existing windfarm in the country out of business, wasting billions of investment and costing thousands of jobs and it would mean kissing any chance of the UK meeting it's legal obligations on carbon reduction goodbye. That's just not going to happen.

 

What other risks are there?

 

The wind resource in Shetland is proven.

 

The technology is proven.

 

Don't forget about peat bogs

 

Glad you mentioned the peat. As you can see below, the peat in "windmill country" is in an awful state.

 

 

Subsidies might not end, but they can be cut...

 

"The subsidy for onshore wind energy generation is to be cut by 10%, the government has announced.

The Treasury is thought to have favoured a larger cut of up to 25%."

[bBC News Jul 2012]

 

It's not too difficult to come up with a list of uncertainties and/or risks if you try. Like I said before read one of my earlier posts. I'll give you a clue about a big uncertain cost... 'transmission'. Look at recent news about Lewis subsea cable if you want to get a feel for how thing might be mirrored in Shetland. Variable factors and assumptions.

 

Perhaps the only certainty about Shetland is that the wind will keep blowing.

[JGHR]

JGHR, what is your opinion on climate change?

 

To be perfectly honest I am probably not well enough informed on the subject to have an opinion I can truly call my own. Having said that I do know some exceedingly knowledgeable people who have carried out substantial objective research on the subject and published their work. They have assured me (actually they have assured my father in law who has assured me) that it is very real, that it is very dangerous, and that it is very much exacerbated by mans burning of fossil fuels. I trust and believe what those people are saying. So, I believe that climate change is real, it is dangerous, it is going to have adverse effects for humanity, and that man is responsible to a significant degree for causing it.