Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[unlinkedstudent]

Found it. Granted, nothing about wind farms but there is mention of VAT on electricity:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/report_activities_2003.pdf

 

 

From:

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION

Brussels, 27 January 2004

Doc (2004) 1402

 

2.7 Council adoption of VAT rules for gas and electricity supplies

The Council on 7 October 2003 adopted a Directive25 that modifies the rules for applying

VAT to the supplies of gas and electricity so as to facilitate the Internal Market for energy.

The new rules, based on a Commission proposal of 5 December 200226, eliminate current

problems of double taxation and non-taxation and distortions of competition between traders.

They will do so by changing the place of taxation of natural gas in pipelines and of electricity

from the place of supply to the place of consumption. The current rules worked adequately in

a national context but are not appropriate now with market liberalisation and increasing crossborder

supplies of gas and electricity. Member States must implement the new measures by 1

January 2005.

 

3.2 Energy tax

The Council of Ministers, following a political agreement on 20 March, adopted on 27

October a Directive35 which widens the scope of the EU's minimum rate system, previously

limited to mineral oils, to all energy products including coal, natural gas and electricity. In

particular, the Directive will reduce distortions of competition that currently exist between

Member States as a result of divergent rates of tax; reduce distortions of competition between

mineral oils and the other energy products that have not been subject to Community tax

legislation up to now; increase the incentive to use energy more efficiently (so as to reduce

dependency on imported energy and cut carbon dioxide emissions); and allow Member States

to offer companies tax incentives in return for specific undertakings to reduce emissions. The

Commission undertook to propose appropriate transitional arrangements for acceding

Member States shortly afterwards. The Directive entered into force on 1st January 2004."

 

<

[crofter]

[ The price of the electricity generated is guaranteed for the 25 year lifespan of the project.

 

Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

[ArabiaTerra]

Ok, unlinkedstudent, you got me there, the EU does set VAT levels on fuel. But I think my point still stands.

 

The stated aim of the tax (according to the info you posted) is:

[to] increase the incentive to use energy more efficiently (so as to reduce dependency on imported energy and cut carbon dioxide emissions)

The EU may increase fuel VAT, but that will be on all fuel, not wind power alone, which will not change the competitiveness of the VE farm in relation to other generators.

 

(And I apologise for the heated language of my last post. No excuses, it was uncalled for. )

 

You say that micro generation can have no community benefits. Consider for a moment, fuel prices are going to go up, electricity prices (from all sources) are going to go up (as stated by SSE), food costs are going to go up, community charges - up, in fact everything you can think of that creates your standard of living is going to become more expensive, some of it hugely so, and the cost of ROC's and fixed electricity supply charges will, in fact add to this, because a wind farm does not harvest money from the air, all the additional costs to pay for the green technology will be paid by you, and I. As has been said, it will provide minimal jobs, as you say, cynically, we are going to lose the marine based industries. So in your green utopia the cost of living will be increasingly unsustainable by the remaining industry in Shetland, the taxation and charges to support this level of local government will dry up as people are forced into poverty, unemployment and away from Shetland and so on.This is using your form of melodramatic green idealistic dogma. Something you described yourself as a "no-brainer".

 

So, by comparison, in this climatic and economic destruction of our homeland, consider infrastructure supported micro-generation, without harping on about one inefficient scheme you can list, and consider the economic and climatic benefits of individual rural properties and conurbations being able to reduce their heating and electrical costs through micro generation. This reduced cost could then allow people to remain here in less poverty and manage the higher cost of living that is 'destined' to befall us all. Work the land, travel less, get back to basics. Maybe even scrap the internet as we know it, as the computers using/creating it have a carbon footprint to rival air travel, I believe. (But that's for another thread.)

And your point is....

 

Seriously though, where is the money going to come from to pay for this micro generation? Micro generation is expensive, way out of reach of Joe average. How do you know that the Eigg scheme I mentioned is inefficient? Can you come up with a cheaper example? I would love to hear about one.

 

Everything is going to get much more expensive. The way we all live is going to have to change. The point I'm trying to make is that we have to do it in the most efficient way possible and the VE windfarm is vastly more efficient than doing it with micro-renewables. If we are going to spend our oil money on renewable energy then micro-renewables is about the least efficient way of doing it.

 

I estimated £450,000,000 to make Shetland self-sufficient in power using micro-renewables. For the same money* we can build the VE windfarm and provide power for Shetland, Orkney and a big chunk of rural mainland Scotland.

 

It's not "my green utopia", it's the future we all face, and it's the best we can hope for. The worst doesn't bear thinking about.

 

*The Eigg scheme was built several years ago when the proposed cost of the VE windfarm was also around £450,000,000. As costs for VE have risen due to the state of the economy, I am assuming the costs of micro-generation have risen as well. If anyone can contradict this, please do.

 

Edit:

....because a wind farm does not harvest money from the air

Err, actually, once built, that's precisely what it does.

[ArabiaTerra]

[ The price of the electricity generated is guaranteed for the 25 year lifespan of the project.

Do you still believe in the tooth fairy?

Didn't you know, I am the tooth fairy.

[euripides]

......."some people know the price of everything and the value of nothing"...

[Njugle]

And your point is....

My point, or one of them, is that VE will aid in the escalation of the cost of living to all.

 

Seriously though, where is the money going to come from to pay for this micro generation? Micro generation is expensive, way out of reach of Joe average. How do you know that the Eigg scheme I mentioned is inefficient? Can you come up with a cheaper example? I would love to hear about one.

Haven't you heard - micro generation is free. Now that, Mr Terra, is, in keeping with your chosen Americanism, an example of a "no-brainer".

 

Edit:

....because a wind farm does not harvest money from the air

Err, actually, once built, that's precisely what it does.

Nope, misconception alert, the VE windfarm harvests it's money through government driven taxation in various forms and energy supplier driven costs to the customer. What the windfarm does is generate electricity, in a form relatively expensive to the community. Its build cost is another matter entirely.

To use a whimsical analogy to the band wagon you have nailed your feet to: The first prototypes of television were clockwork, but an objective decision was made and the CRT technology was given precedence over it. One would hope that the clockwork TV does not reign in this domain.

And before you bring out the Armageddon flag and start waving it at me, please note, I have not said anything against the interconnector or wind farms in general, as I am not necessarily against either, nor am I saying that the location chosen for the VE site is unsuitable for wind turbines.

[OriginalUsername]

It's difficult for me to take unlikely "what ifs" as a reason not to go ahead with this wind farm.

 

The way I see it is: the what ifs for not going ahead with it are far more probable and just as, or even more, destructive as the what ifs for going ahead.

 

If we sat worrying about every unlikely scenario (and I stress unlikely) of what could go wrong, instead of taking them into consideration but keeping it in mind that these situations are unlikely, we would never do anything at all. Ever.

 

For me, decisions should be made based on all available evidence and appropriating said evidence with a corresponding "weight" based on how likely is it an outcome will occur. Then these "weights" can be set on either side of the see-saw and we can see which way it swings.

 

Every time I do this, the "pro" Viking Energy arguments just seem more weighty.

 

But then again, I'm not likely to give a lot of weight to arguments about the view for example. I will give it weight, but comparitively speaking it will not be as important as something like financial security.

 

I'm also likely to give a lot of weight to arguments about climate change and energy security which I'm sure deniers do not.

 

It's interesting to ponder where everyone else distributes their weight

[Claudias]

^ ^ ^

I distribute mine over my feet or,if I seated,over my a...cushion

[Para Handy]

It's difficult for me to take unlikely "what ifs" as a reason not to go ahead with this wind farm.

 

 

 

 

The whole bit about projected profit is just one big what if

 

It might be a big what if-nt

[markj]

My opinion on this has gone from agree to disagree. shelve this windfarm pipe dream now, its a load of nonesense and from afar it seems like a few folk looking for a quick way to pay off their mortgage and secure their financial futures at the expense of Shetlands countryside and the opinion of the majority of the people - Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus

 

Disadvantages of wind power:

 

 

The strength of the wind is not constant and it varies from zero to storm force. This means that wind turbines do not produce the same amount of electricity all the time. Winds have to be at least 17 mph strong to make the blades spin and thus produce energy. There will be times when they produce no electricity at all, have VE compiled a survey of wind data for the range when these things are likely to be working? Large wind machines have to be shutdown if the wind is too strong, to avoid damage. The only practical way to produce large amounts of power is to use hundreds of them in an array in a place where the wind is most constant, such as floating on platforms out to sea, as is being done in Sweden. They can not, as some people think, just be spread out and 'tapped' into the power grid.

 

Many people see large wind turbines as unsightly structures and not pleasant or interesting to look at. They disfigure the countryside and are generally ugly. Many people feel that the countryside should be left untouched, without these large structures being built. The landscape should left in its natural form for everyone to enjoy.

Wind turbines are noisy. Each one can generate the same level of noise as a family car traveling at 70 mph.

Large wind farms are needed to provide entire communities with enough electricity. For example, the largest single turbine available today can only provide enough electricity for 475 homes, when running at full capacity.

[OriginalUsername]

have VE compiled a survey of wind data for the range when these things are likely to be working?

 

Of course they have. It would be impossible to make any predictions without this. And then of course, they've also had access to Burradale's wind surveys and production data.

 

Large wind machines have to be shutdown if the wind is too strong, to avoid damage. The only practical way to produce large amounts of power is to use hundreds of them in an array in a place where the wind is most constant, such as floating on platforms out to sea, as is being done in Sweden. They can not, as some people think, just be spread out and 'tapped' into the power grid.

 

So I take it you haven't seen this? - http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2244492/national-grid-takes-wind-energy

 

Many people see large wind turbines as unsightly structures and not pleasant or interesting to look at. They disfigure the countryside and are generally ugly. Many people feel that the countryside should be left untouched, without these large structures being built. The landscape should left in its natural form for everyone to enjoy.

 

Many people see them as elegant and magnificent structures, heralding the arrival of a green future. Some people even find them sexy it seems... - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article6682305.ece

 

If you really believe the landscape should be left in it's natural form, perhaps you ought to get off that computer and go live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle stat.

 

Everything it takes to live our modern Western lifestyles involves changing the natural landscape. Where does your food come from? Your clothes? The power you currently use? The materials in your house? The shopping bags you use?

 

What does it matter if forests are being torn down in foreign countries to provide land for various crops grown to fulfil our Western needs, so long as the countryside we see out our window still brings us enjoyment?

 

Even if I found turbines very unsightly (which I don't), I would be quite happy to sacrifice my view in order to harvest some "home-grown" electricity. It's about time we in the West actually saw the sources of our lifestyle on our own soil and stopped trying to keep it in other countries "out of sight, out of mind" as they say.

 

Large wind farms are needed to provide entire communities with enough electricity. For example, the largest single turbine available today can only provide enough electricity for 475 homes, when running at full capacity.

 

Indeed they are! The scale of the wind farms needed only serves to demonstrate the scale of our consumption. If we need large wind farms to address large levels of consumption... well, it makes sense to build a large wind farms whilst trying to reduce consumption in my head!

[OriginalUsername]

It's difficult for me to take unlikely "what ifs" as a reason not to go ahead with this wind farm.

 

 

 

 

The whole bit about projected profit is just one big what if

 

It might be a big what if-nt

 

Power Purchase Agreement? No?

 

Despite public perception, the biggest risk in the project is now - planning. After that, money's pretty much in the bag.

 

But of course, how dare I talk about money! Everyone knows that this project is "all about money!!!"

 

We just tend to forget that it is money that funds our care homes, schools, leisure centres, groups, support for the vulnerable in society, ferries and all the other amazing services and amenities (including the Amenity Trust, lest they forget!) here in Shetland.

 

How greedy of VE to try to put more money into these kind of things in the future. Tut tut!

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Whats with the cheap jibe at the Amenity Trust

What a load of VE Bull.

[Rasmie]

I estimated £450,000,000 to make Shetland self-sufficient in power using micro-renewables. For the same money* we can build the VE windfarm and provide power for Shetland, Orkney and a big chunk of rural mainland Scotland.

I was told by someone who claims to be one shetlands "illuminati" that Orkney is already self-sufficient and a net exporter from their tidal/wave power?????? anyone know if that's true?

 

As for a safe or guaranteed investment, what is safe? -Who'd a thought the banks weren't safe a couple of years ago.

 

thought I had a good pension scheme guaranteed by law then came Blair and broon.

 

If this is so safe, so guaranteed why don't the government put up the money, instead of using finance companies (banks) to cream off Millions in loan repayments.

 

and if it goes t!ts up and we ,aka SIC, can't repay the loan what happens then, who will pay up then?

[markj]

Hi OriginalUsername, response to your questions below.

 

Of course they have. It would be impossible to make any predictions without this. And then of course, they've also had access to Burradale's wind surveys and production data.

 

Please state what percentage of the year these contraptions will be turning? 25%?, 15%?

 

So I take it you haven't seen this?

you are right I had not seen it, very interesting

 

If you really believe the landscape should be left in it's natural form, perhaps you ought to get off that computer and go live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle stat.

um OK.

 

Everything it takes to live our modern Western lifestyles involves changing the natural landscape. Where does your food come from? Your clothes? The power you currently use? The materials in your house? The shopping bags you use?

My answers i'm sure as the same as you, Food comes from Supermarket, Clothes from a clothes shop, Power from the socket, materials from Lerwick building centre, shopping bags again from Tescos, ok, I dont mean to be sarcastic with the answers but the point is what of this will change if we have 500 whirlygigs spinning or not spinning? - Nothing