Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[islandhopper]

Radio Shetland tonight had it to be that the SIC have had to sell their share of VE to the charitable trust (if i heard correctly) because, surprise surprise, it is not permitted for a local authority to sell/produce energy.

 

*rofl* and even that deal will once been seriously questioned by the EU-commission ... when I follow up "continental standards" or "EU standards" ...

 

It's simply an arrangement of 'money-washing' ... or of further 'money spoiling' ...

 

Again, I'll ask David T. or other folks who published their glorious ideas in favour of that devlopment: Have you really never risked a look at the continent??? ... and what going on there with regard to allowed capital shares, transmitting costs &c ...???

 

Note: There are a lot of idiots within the Brussel's beaucracy ... but a few clever chaps ...

[Ghostrider]

It is BT. Well, it is a BT site?

 

That depends on where exactly they're going with it, some bits are BT owned and occupied, some BT owned, but not occupied, some the MOD occupied, but I don't know whether they ever owned it or not, so who owns it now that they've effectively been gone off the site for near 10 years I don't know.

 

If the MOD only had occupancy of their bit, ownership will be with either the Symbister Estate or the Sumburgh Company, just like the rest of that hill that's not BT owned. In which case, either the man in Sandlodge or Tait & Peterson's office are in charge.

[DavidThomson]

Radio Shetland tonight had it to be that the SIC have had to sell their share of VE to the charitable trust (if i heard correctly) because, surprise surprise, it is not permitted for a local authority to sell/produce energy.

Somebody didn't do their homework very well.

As has been said before it never appeared a workable arrangement whereby the local authority would be providing their own planning guidance to the Scottish Executive. Etc.

 

John Johnson spoke to Aaron about this. I understand Aaron did explain.

The circumstance where local authorities are barred from generating electricity has been known about for years. The advice (then and now) is that since Viking Energy is not local authority, or a wholy owned subsiduary, then it does not have the same restriction. There is a concern that the relationship might be challenged and for that it is a positive move for the ownership on behalf of the community to transfer in the same way that Shetland's oil reserves are held at arms length.

However, to be very clear, the principle reason for the transfer is that the Charitable Trust is the appropriate investment vehicle. Remaining within the SIC has tax and finance availablity issues whereas these do not apply to the Charitable Trust.

The homework was done years ago however the radio report chose to focus on one comparatively small aspect of the report.

The aspect brought out by Njugle about the SIC considering or commenting on a planning application from an entity with SIC ownership is far more relevant.

[DavidThomson]

Also of note tonight, there are plans afoot to place an anemometer of sort atop Mossy Hill, to measure wind activity; an article very well presented by our goodly local Beeb radio staff, as they also subtly pointed out that removal of the former dishes up there has left several large redundant concrete pads, which could be useful for, erm, something. I think it was Scottish and Southern who are running the study, but i didn't hear it very well, can anyone confirm this?

 

A quick check of the planning application shows it is BT and I couldn't speculate why BT want wind data. It's not SSE or Viking Energy related.

However, I can say any existing concrete pads will almost certainly be useless for any type of wind energy equipment and that site is virtually ruled out for wind energy develoment due to its proximity to Sumburgh Airport.

[Ghostrider]

....that site is virtually ruled out for wind energy develoment due to its proximity to Sumburgh Airport.

 

Why? It's not like there hasn't been an endless stream of hellery up there for the last 60+ years, the current "Eiffel Tower" is the highest structure of the lot and it's on the highest and nearest to Sumburgh peak. It's not on any particular flightpath, and it's a minimum of 5+ miles distant.

[DavidThomson]

Again, I'll ask David T. or other folks who published their glorious ideas in favour of that devlopment: Have you really never risked a look at the continent??? ... and what going on there with regard to allowed capital shares, transmitting costs &c ...???

Note: There are a lot of idiots within the Brussel's beaucracy ... but a few clever chaps ...

 

We monitor what is happening on the Continent regulary. However since we are not proposing to build a windfarm on mainland Europe such research has limited value. We have to be much more interested in the current UK regulatory regime.

[DavidThomson]

....that site is virtually ruled out for wind energy develoment due to its proximity to Sumburgh Airport.

 

Why? It's not like there hasn't been an endless stream of hellery up there for the last 60+ years, the current "Eiffel Tower" is the highest structure of the lot and it's on the highest and nearest to Sumburgh peak. It's not on any particular flightpath, and it's a minimum of 5+ miles distant.

 

The age of the existing stuff excuses its existence.

Rules to protect things get introduced but have to accept what is already there. Try putting something new anywhere and then the difficulties start.

If allowed, static masts are one thing but moving wind turbines are another. There are radar interference issue etc to consider. The hill also bounds the National Scenic Area. I'm not even saying it couldn't be done but it's not where any developer would start.

[Flaming Mo]

The advice (then and now) is that since Viking Energy is not local authority, or a wholy owned subsiduary, then it does not have the same restriction.

 

Who are you employed by and who pays your wages then David?

[DavidThomson]

Who are you employed by and who pays your wages then David?

 

You can't expect me to discuss my personal circumstances on an internet forum.

I feel I'm being fairly reasonable about answering questions.

[Stirrer]

Who are you employed by and who pays your wages then David?

 

You can't expect me to discuss my personal circumstances on an internet forum.

I feel I'm being fairly reasonable about answering questions.

 

What is so unreasonable about this request ?

 

You state on your profile that your location is Viking Energy, you represent Viking Energy in debates, so it is safe to assume you work for Viking Energy.

 

As Viking Energy is 90% public owned (SIC - soon to be SCT), it is reasonable to ask who pays the wages of those working for Viking Energy.

 

I would assume that it would be easy to get this information through 'Request for Information' access, but if Viking Energy will not issue such information willingly, it will do nothing to help their image at a time them they need all the help they can get !

[Ghostrider]

....that site is virtually ruled out for wind energy develoment due to its proximity to Sumburgh Airport.

 

Why? It's not like there hasn't been an endless stream of hellery up there for the last 60+ years, the current "Eiffel Tower" is the highest structure of the lot and it's on the highest and nearest to Sumburgh peak. It's not on any particular flightpath, and it's a minimum of 5+ miles distant.

 

The age of the existing stuff excuses its existence.

Rules to protect things get introduced but have to accept what is already there. Try putting something new anywhere and then the difficulties start.

If allowed, static masts are one thing but moving wind turbines are another. There are radar interference issue etc to consider. The hill also bounds the National Scenic Area. I'm not even saying it couldn't be done but it's not where any developer would start.

 

That's fair enough, but it's only half the story is it not? It could be argued that a landscape/enviornment which has been "spoiled" by numerous sundry "industrial" developments for two generations is a far more suitable place to consider as a site for further installations than pristine virgin countryside. Likewise, could it not be said that that very fact a National Scenic Area has been designated with all the existing installations in place, that they were of only minimal detriment to said designation, therefor making any additional structures in the same area of only negible consequence.

 

There is of course also the supplementary argument that in times when a development was required on the site in the interests of "national security" and/or for the benefit of the "wealth of the entire nation" that they went ahead with minimal opposition from any statutory body, and regardless of the wishes and or opinions of locals, either those with legal rights to the site(s), those local to the immediate area, or of Shetland as a whole. Yet, when local enterprise wishes to do something in a similar vein, which could bring a benefit to the entire nation, but retain at least a significant portion of the wealth locally, every possible regulatory mechanism is likely to be placed in it's way to their full extent.

 

An "If we want it, we'll do it despite you, but of you want it, we'll be as stubborn and unhelpful as possibly" attitude is hardly the PR our "enviornmentally aware, user friendly" portrayed government would appreciate plastered across the front of a national red top, but it's exactly what could, and should happen, if there were no smoothing of the way and giving a leg up from higher office, if a proposal were to be made for an already "spoiled" site, like Mossy Hill, and the government took the stance you suggest.

[Njugle]

Thank you, as always, for your prompt and comprehensive respeonses David. With regard to the "homework" it seems puzzling then that the SIC were shareholders from the inception of the scheme, rather than the Charitable Trust, if it was known that this may have caused difficulties. However, what's done is done, i'm sure it was not without good reason, political or otherwise.

[DavidThomson]

That's fair enough, but it's only half the story is it not? It could be argued...There is of course also the supplementary argument...but it's exactly what could, and should happen...etc

 

I tend to agree. Tell you what - If the Viking Windfarm ever gets concluded we'll discuss Phase 2.

[DavidThomson]

With regard to the "homework" it seems puzzling then that the SIC were shareholders from the inception of the scheme, rather than the Charitable Trust, if it was known that this may have caused difficulties. However, what's done is done, i'm sure it was not without good reason, political or otherwise.

 

The further explanation would be that while it has long been thought that it would be best for the ownership to migrate eventually, it was not always known whether the Charitable Trust would necessarily be the correct vehicle.

This project may have justified a new Trust. The emerging Community Development Trust might have been a better vehicle. It is only more recently that the conclusion towards the Charitable Trust has been decided.

The SIC could easily have taken the project up to the day when the machines started producing so was a reasonable owner to start with while the eventual ownership was debated, investigated and decided.

[islandhopper]

We monitor what is happening on the Continent regulary. However since we are not proposing to build a windfarm on mainland Europe such research has limited value. We have to be much more interested in the current UK regulatory regime.

Sorry, David, don't fool your own folks. Do you really want to make them believe that the British renewal energy market as an integrated part of the European renewal energy market is playing along the rules of the actual "UK regulatory regime" . Costs for line-entry ... feed-in ... using existing networks for distribution ???

The options for market access, cost for market access &c will be discussed somewhere else when it comes to terms but probably not according to the UK regulatory regime ...

 

If that would be a problem "subject to national solutions" we definately wouldn't have the problems over here: Average household costs for energy supply increasing the more renewable energy is supplied (from tail-feeding windfarms) to the net ... whether you buy "green energy" or not ...