Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[PJ of Hildisvik]

So your'e saying that we need the VE wind factory to keep us here in Shetland in our "comfortable " lifestyle for the next 25 years, cos Sullom Voe will run dry by then, What happens after the 25 years are up?, obviously you will say that by then we will either be under water or or destroyed by more violent storms.

 

Contradictory?

[ArabiaTerra]

So your'e saying that we need the VE wind factory to keep us here in Shetland in our "comfortable " lifestyle for the next 25 years, cos Sullom Voe will run dry by then, What happens after the 25 years are up?, obviously you will say that by then we will either be under water or or destroyed by more violent storms.

 

Contradictory?

Not necessarily. We have about ten years for the governments of the world to start taking climate change seriously and start making cuts in CO2 emissions instead of just (unsuccessfully) restricting growth, which is all they've managed up to now. If this doesn't happen then we're in real trouble. However, there is hope. Obama has largely reversed the insanity of the Bush regime, the worldwide recession has, ironically, bought us a little more breathing space and we have the successor to Kyoto (sabotaged by Clinton and abandoned by Bush) happening in Copenhagen at the end of this year.

 

Now, I'm not completely convinced that this will happen (too many broken promises and betrayals by politicians in the past), but I have to remain optimistic (the alternative is despair which helps no-one). As far as Shetland is concerned, the windfarm will give us the resources to invest in other renewables and if the worst come to the worst, the resources to help us to adapt to the changed world we'll find ourselves in.

 

Not building the windfarm simply means Shetlands future is that of an insignificant, impoverished, depopulated backwater at the periphery of the UK and fully exposed to the worst the climate throws at us (whatever that turns out to be).

 

The windfarm brings a chance of security, not security itself. The alternative is terrifying.

[ArabiaTerra]

I see the debate in Shetland about the windfarm as a reflection, in microcosm, of the debate that is taking place all over the world. "Everyone" needs to do their bit and if we're not doing our bit, then , by definition, "everyone" is not doing their bit. It is a global problem which can only be solved by local solutions. We can't change the whole world, only our little corner. But every little corner needs to change. We all need to make small sacrifices to avoid the huge sacrifice which will result from inaction.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

So on one hand you have Europes largest onshore wind farm, an interconnector cable to send electricity south, and on the other hand we will have to have a brand new fossil fueled power station in or around Lerwick as back up

 

Defeats the object no??

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Also AT, i assume then that you would also be in favour of a huge windfarm even if there was no income to Shetland from it.

 

You have to agree to that scenario if you believe it will help prevent Global catastrophe.

 

Would the public mind if the project was sold off for a lump sum to the highest bidder (SSE?) if the project was deemed too expensive a risk of Trust funds etc.?

After they got planning permission of cause.

[ArabiaTerra]

So on one hand you have Europes largest onshore wind farm, an interconnector cable to send electricity south, and on the other hand we will have to have a brand new fossil fueled power station in or around Lerwick as back up

 

Defeats the object no??

Which won't be used unless some careless ship captain breaks the cable with his anchor.

Also AT, i assume then that you would also be in favour of a huge windfarm even if there was no income to Shetland from it.

 

You have to agree to that scenario if you believe it will help prevent Global catastrophe.

 

Would the public mind if the project was sold off for a lump sum to the highest bidder (SSE?) if the project was deemed too expensive a risk of Trust funds etc.?

After they got planning permission of cause.

Err, yes I would, though I would much prefer us to get the money.

 

And I wish you would give up this rubbish about the council selling off their share. It's an unsubstantiated rumour started by "sustainable " Shetland for which no evidence exists. It's just a scare tactic designed to cover up the fact that you have no practical backing for your argument other than "windmills are ugly".

 

Unless of course, you have evidence, in which case I think we'd all like to see it. Put up or shut up.

[ArabiaTerra]

What I think is much more likely, if "sustainable" Shetland gets it's way and the windfarm is knocked back, is that a few years down the line the Government finally wakes up about climate change, soils it's pants and dusts off all those refused planning applications, arrives up here with a fistful of compulsory purchase orders, screaming about "the national interest" and builds the windfarm anyway, with no benefit to Shetland at all.

 

How's that for a conspiracy theory!

[PJ of Hildisvik]

AH, now your'e sounding like the board of VEL

 

As regards compulsory purchase orders, that will probably happen in the Weisdale area anyway due to people not wanting the bloody cable ripping through there.

[Malachy]

The wind farm brings two things. An annual income equivalent to if not greater than the oil industry at it's height, which will last as long as the wind blows, and the interconnector which will allow the development of other renewables such as wave and tidal power, neither of which will happen on any large scale without the interconnector. And remember, the lifetime of the wind farm will only be 25 years or so. Surely a small price to pay for economic security.

 

I'm interested to know more about the economic of this, since I think that is what most of VE's support rests upon (certainly from councillors, most of whom have no interest in the environment whatsoever).

In 2007 we were told that the charitable trust would receive £18M a year from their investment. That's a pretty good deal. Since then, in case anyone missed it, the world economic situation has changed somewhat. And crucially, the pound has collapsed against the euro (this is crucial because the windmills will be bought in euros). We can safely assume from this that initial costs are going to be massively increased and profits are going to be reduced, since Shetland does not exist in a financial vacuum. So what does VE now say the charitable trust will receive? £18M a year.

So what I'd like to know is how exactly this magic number is so stable and secure? How is it that VE is immune from all external economic pressures and changes? My suspicion is that, in fact, £18M is just an arbitrary figure that sounds good. And yet no one has bothered to ask where this number came from and why councillors/trustees are taking it at face value. The number needs to stay stable because VE need to create the impression that the investment is safe and secure, but it is not. How can it be? Perhaps the trust would reap £18M a year, perhaps more. But equally they may not. And if it turned out to be, say £5M a year, or £1M, would it still seem like such a good investment?

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ While the £ has dropped compared to the Euro (by about 30%, I think), international commodity prices have also tumbled which will make the cost of manufacturing the windmills and the interconnector cheaper so the final cost won't have changed by as much as the currency change would suggest. I'm sure the original quoted cost of the interconnector was double what is now quoted precisely because of the change in commodity prices.

 

As far as the £18 million/year goes, you'll notice I didn't quote any figures as I believe the final figure won't be known until the windfarm is operational. However, given that the cost of energy to the consumer is very unlikely to decrease any time soon and will probably rise as we phase out cheap fossil fuels, I think the £18 million figure will turn out to be a conservative estimate.

[Malachy]

But the point remains that the figure is being used to give the impression that this is a certain investment rather than a gamble. You have given good reasons why it should pay off, but no investment is ever certain, particularly one of this scale. There are many reasons why it might not pay off (for instance if oil prices rose again during the construction phase, or if construction was delayed or prolonged for any of a multitude of reasons). Also, you've said again that the cost of energy to the consumer is unlikely to fall. Last time you said that I provided links showing that in fact companies were dropping prices. You ignored me at the time, rather unsurprisingly, but it doesn't make your statement true just because you've repeated it.

[ArabiaTerra]

I've always taken the £18 million figure to be a ballpark estimate of the expected return, not a guaranteed figure. As you say, no investment is ever certain. As for the cost of construction rising with the oil price, the cost of energy will also rise with the oil price so it will probably balance out. Rises due to delays, on the other hand, could well impact the return which is why delays need to be avoided, but that is down to the planners and construction companies building the thing.

 

As for energy prices, it's a fair cop, prices have dropped recently, but the overall trend remains upward. For instance, during the recent oil spike my leccy bill went up by about 30% and it has subsequently fallen by only 10% since the oil price crashed again. My point is, while we may see short term rises and falls due to oil price volatility, the overall trend will remain upwards as we switch from cheap fossil fuels to (relatively) more expensive renewables and nuclear. It's the price of saving the planet.

 

With the windfarm we stand to benefit from rising prices, without it we remain victims.

[crofter]

....bollox....rubbish....rubbish....

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions"

 

I agree with Flemming Nissen. Building a windfarm in Shetland will do nothing to reduce co2 emissions. (A good letter in the Shetland Times last week from Andrew Halcrow explains why.) That said, I would support the windfarm if it proves to be financially viable.

[crofter]

This doesn't take into account that Denmark exports alot of the wind energy that it cannot use and therefore doesn't reduce it's carbon dioxide emissions. Energy is exported to Norway or Sweden who have large Hydro schemes which can be turned off when they're receiving from Denmark to save water.

 

The useful fact here is that Denmark doesn't have a suitable way of storing and using it's windpower. Something which all renewables need to contend with, not just wind.

 

Denmark can also import power from Norway when there is no wind. If the VE windfarm goes ahead, it might be better to have an interconnector to Norway so that we could do the same...

[ArabiaTerra]

Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark's largest energy utilities) tells us that "wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions"

 

I agree with Flemming Nissen. Building a windfarm in Shetland will do nothing to reduce co2 emissions. (A good letter in the Shetland Times last week from Andrew Halcrow explains why.) That said, I would support the windfarm if it proves to be financially viable.

As I've been repeatedly saying, the windfarm on it's own will not stop climate change, but the windfarm as part of a global effort to eliminate fossil fuels from the world economy, will.

 

Where exactly do you expect all this zero carbon generating power infrastructure to be built if not here (and in all the other "here's" that the nimby's are trying block)? The windmills have to go somewhere, and our particular "somewhere" happens to be one of the best places on the planet to build the things.

 

Every single watt generated by a windmill is a watt that is not generated by burning coal. Show me the evidence that that statement is untrue.

 

Fair enough, windfarms require backup as the wind doesn't always blow, but there is no law of nature that states that this backup has to be fossil fuels, and with proper grid design and energy storage this backup can be kept to a minimum, if not eliminated entirely.

 

Check this and this.

 

And I know I've posted these links before, but did anyone bother to look at them?