Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[ArabiaTerra]

stilldellin, any idea what the cost of one of those is likely to be, as opposed to the cost of a 1MW onshore wind turbine?

 

(I know it's just a prototype, but have the manufacturers given any indication of the likely cost once it does go into production?)

[Snaz]

According to the poll it seems most folk are not against the windfarm..but maybe not the majority of the cynical Shetlinkers it seems!

[Fjool]

According to the poll, it seems most folk are not for the wind farm either.

[Ghostrider]

I just don't see this monster you're all apparently terrified of.

 

Bluntly, it means that the idle threats that VE have been putting around willy-nilly that "if we don't do this, some outsider over whom we have no control over will, and do as they please", are lies and hot air. If SSE were to acquire Burradale's 5% that outsider will be there anyway, doing exactly as they please, CT or no CT. They won't even have a blocking vote, they will be powerless to influence how VE was run, or what it did, they'd just have to sit down, shut up, and put up with whatever SSE decided to do. Bit of deja vu anyone? It sounds not terribly unlike the Smiryl "investment.

 

SSE will run VE purely to serve themselves and their own ends, if it suits them to mothball it at anytime for their own reasons, they will. So much for the Millions we'll make if that happens.

 

What happens if SSE decide to use VE as a vehicle to develop other projects, high risk projects, the CT cannot block them from doing so, and unless they buy in to those too the CT shareholding will become an even smaller percentage of the whole company. If any such high risk investment were to fail, and bankruptcy was the only sane solution, what then?

 

The point is, if VE became 55% SSE/45% CT, SSE can, and may well use it for purposes considered too "high risk" for the SSE brand to itself be directly associated with, and there's nothing Shetland could do to stop them in those circumstances. I'm sure BP wished many a time that Deepwater Horizon had been operating for some majority BP owned "Joe Bloggs Oilwells Inc" company, and not the brand itself. You see where I'm coming from.

 

The 50% SSE/45% CT/5% Burradale is extremely precarious and highly unwise as is. It relies on Burradale always siding with the CT in votes. In practice how likely is that, if it comes down to a hard nosed money making business decision I suspect SSE and Burradale will already sing from the same hymn sheet, leaving the CT already having to do what it is told.

 

Until and unless the CT own a minimum of 51% of the shareholding, all the rhetoric that VE has put out about "what Shetland wants", "for the good of Shetland", and "Shetland's future" is nothing but a smokescreen and hot air, as it is simply untrue. The 45% CT shareholding cannot steer VE where they want it to go, the 45% CT shareholding + Burradale 5% cannot steer VE where they want it to go, but the 50% SSE + Burradale 5% can do what they like. So, you tell me, in who's best interests is it to be permanently wooing Burradale?!?!

 

The monster lurking in the basement of VE, is that "everything is fair in business" aka. the most rutless will win. Who can say what changes will occur in the renewables market in even 5 or 10 years, never mind 20 or so. The only way the CT can retain any semblance of control over VE, and hope to pay any kind of lip service to the fact that its "for Shetland" requires that they hold 51% of VE right from the start. Anything less, and Shetland is just being pulled downstream by a current guided by SSE and Burradale, wherever and in to whatever they decide to take it.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Tens of thousands spent on PR company's, (paid for by us ) by the way, to promote the project, yet only 900 supporters wrote, emailed, to the ECU.

 

Compared to 2300 people who sent in objections.

 

Another prime example of how to flush Shetland PUBLIC money down the drain

[Frankie]

^^

In my experience folk seem more inclined to write letters when they don't like something rather than when they do like something.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ghostrider, I don't buy this at all.

 

If SSE are making a tidy profit from VE and everything is running smoothly, why would they risk that by involving VE in some high risk scheme? Why not just set up a wholly new company for their high risk venture? Then, if it goes tits-up, the new company goes bankrupt, gets wound up and this doesn't affect VE at all.

 

How would it be in anyone's interest to involve VE in some high risk venture?

 

VE is a drop in the ocean compared to SSE's total revenue stream. I'm sure all they want is it to run smoothly and quietly, earning them their 50%. How could it possibly be in their interest to screw around with that?

[ArabiaTerra]

Tens of thousands spent on PR company's, (paid for by us ) by the way, to promote the project, yet only 900 supporters wrote, emailed, to the ECU.

 

Compared to 2300 people who sent in objections.

 

Another prime example of how to flush Shetland PUBLIC money down the drain

*sniff, sniff*

 

Do I smell a hint of sour grapes?

 

36% For

31% Don't know

33% Against

[daveh]

Without wading through all 160+ pages of this thread, can someone explain to this layman why we haven't gone for offshore energy instead of this onland windfarm? I realise it is a very basic question to ask at this, possibly, late stage but I would appreciate a response as to why. If it is a case of being more costly to organise it out at sea, then the response would be that there wouldn't need to be payments to the SIC and, as we won't directly be getting the energy to create electricity (why not?) the offshore site could be much closer to the Scottish mainland.

 

By building it onshore, apart from all the objections, the operators are only looking to capture the wind energy and that doesn't happen every day. At sea, the operators can capture both the wind energy and the energy produced by the waves. The turbines out at sea are accepted elsewhere so why not in this case?

[ArabiaTerra]

Full report on the meeting now on the Shetland News site.

 

Without wading through all 160+ pages of this thread, can someone explain to this layman why we haven't gone for offshore energy instead of this onland windfarm? I realise it is a very basic question to ask at this, possibly, late stage but I would appreciate a response as to why. If it is a case of being more costly to organise it out at sea, then the response would be that there wouldn't need to be payments to the SIC and, as we won't directly be getting the energy to create electricity (why not?) the offshore site could be much closer to the Scottish mainland.

Cost.

 

At the moment, offshore wind is at least twice as expensive as onshore, both to initially build the things and for lifetime maintenance costs. We (the UK) could have gone exclusively for offshore wind, but this would have meant even larger increases in energy costs than those we already face.

 

Also, the shallow water areas around the UK are mostly in the Southern North Sea, and the wind regime is not as good there as it is up here, so that means more turbines would be needed to get the required output increasing costs even further. To get a wind regime offshore that is as good as Shetland's, you would need to go much further offshore, which means you will need an interconnector with accompanying converter station which would need some kind of platform to house it, increasing the cost still further.

 

Having said that, we are building offshore turbines at pace because there simply isn't enough room onshore for enough to meet our needs. (And there have been certain , shall we say... objections to onshore wind, as you may have noticed. )

 

By building it onshore, apart from all the objections, the operators are only looking to capture the wind energy and that doesn't happen every day. At sea, the operators can capture both the wind energy and the energy produced by the waves. The turbines out at sea are accepted elsewhere so why not in this case?

As far as I know, no offshore turbine is currently equipped with a device to harness wave power as well, though it certainly makes sense to do this. Something like a collar on the supporting column which moved up and down with the waves would probably work.

 

Anyway, that's me for tonight. Time to crack open a tin and watch some Dexter.

[Colin]

Bluntly, it means that the idle threats that VE have been putting around willy-nilly that "if we don't do this, some outsider over whom we have no control over will, and do as they please", are lies and hot air. If SSE were to acquire Burradale's 5% that outsider will be there anyway, doing exactly as they please, CT or no CT. They won't even have a blocking vote, they will be powerless to influence how VE was run, or what it did, they'd just have to sit down, shut up, and put up with whatever SSE decided to do. Bit of deja vu anyone? It sounds not terribly unlike the Smiryl "investment.

<-- Huge Snip-->

 

The monster lurking in the basement of VE, is that "everything is fair in business" aka. the most rutless will win. Who can say what changes will occur in the renewables market in even 5 or 10 years, never mind 20 or so. The only way the CT can retain any semblance of control over VE, and hope to pay any kind of lip service to the fact that its "for Shetland" requires that they hold 51% of VE right from the start. Anything less, and Shetland is just being pulled downstream by a current guided by SSE and Burradale, wherever and in to whatever they decide to take it.

 

At last.

Someone (and not a councillor) who has a very complete and realistic grasp of what could possibly (I hope not probably) happen.

 

I am opposed to the windfarm mainly because of the CT's minority shareholding.

 

I care very much that so many councillors had to declare an interest and nothing will convince me that the absentees, although they had no vote, had no influence on the decision.

 

The only solution that I can find acceptable is a full and open discussion followed by a referendum.

 

Let's get some proper facts instead of being drip fed snippets and rubbish by the proponents.

[Ghostrider]

Ghostrider, I don't buy this at all.

 

If SSE are making a tidy profit from VE and everything is running smoothly, why would they risk that by involving VE in some high risk scheme? Why not just set up a wholly new company for their high risk venture? Then, if it goes tits-up, the new company goes bankrupt, gets wound up and this doesn't affect VE at all.

 

How would it be in anyone's interest to involve VE in some high risk venture?

 

VE is a drop in the ocean compared to SSE's total revenue stream. I'm sure all they want is it to run smoothly and quietly, earning them their 50%. How could it possibly be in their interest to screw around with that?

 

You've answered your own question, to a certain degree. VE will be a "drop in the ocean" to their revenue stream, and such is "expendable".

 

The advantage of using it for something they do not wish the brand to be associated with, is that its already there, set up and running, an "add on" venture is much simpler (and cheaper) than starting out from a blank sheet of paper. Most importantly, they have a 45% or 50% partner, with whom they might succeed in "convincing" to put up 45% or 50% of the investment, thus saving themselves a proportionate percentage of the losses, shoudl it come to that.

 

SSE are driven by their bottom line, and their business decisions likewise. I have little doubt that if, and for as long as their per £ investment return exceeds or at least equals their similar investments in the same sector, that they will be reasonable happy just to sit back and count the swelling numbers in their corportate coffers.

 

Certain facts are inescapable though, VE will be carrying the largest overheads of any of SSE's investments, overheads which cannot be mitigated, (a very long subsea cable to lay/maintain/repair/replace, greatest loss in transit due to length of said cable, probably the highest maintenance, repair and early replacement costs of the actual turbines themselves, due to our harsh climate/their extremely exposed location, etc).

 

Yes, we have more wind to offset, or at least help offset this. But the current profitability of wind farm's relies significantly on Government subsidies, which, as more and more renewable production comes online (or most efficent/reliable etc methods hit the market), will almost certain be reduced, if not eliminated altogether.

 

I forsee a point in the future, if things continue as they are, when wind produced electricty is approaching the max the grid can handle (or advancing technology has rendered windfarms obsolete), by which time subsidies will almost certain have vanished. That due to the higher running costs of VE, it goes from a very profitable venture, to one of, if not the poorest paying windfarm in the country. That is when SSE will care little about VE, and decide to use it for whatever they see fit, or simply run it in to the ground and vanish.

 

If proof can be provided that without any subsidy whatsoever, that VE is still a good paying investment, I'll buy that its possibly a good idea to build it. Without that proof all I see is something that possibly will be profitable, for as long as subsidies continue at their current level, then its a dead duck.

 

VE's figures of multi-millions have been very seductive, but they all include the subsidy element, what needs to be seen is those same figures worked up without "artificial profits" like subsidies included, as subsides by their nature are simply far too fickle to build a business plan on.

 

Show what the profitability of VE is purely on the basis of earned income vs. expenditure, and it'll be far clearer how a partner of the stature of SSE can be expected to behave. I'll put a tenner on the fact that SSE have already been over the figures less the subsidy element with a fine tooth comb, and have a plan drawn up of where they go with VE should the subsidy change at any time. Does the CT have any such plan, and if not, why not?

 

What's being proposed is possibly "okay" given the current state of play in the industry, but the art of creating a successful and profitable business plan is to factor in contingencies for future variants in market conditions, of that VE seem woefully lacking. Things will not stay exactly as they are, renewables are a fast moving sector at the moment, and their profitablity and the attitudes and stratagies of the main players in it will almost change immensely even within the next 5-10 years. The CE involvement in VE, IMHO is starting out from a position, from which they can only go downhill as time passes. That to me is wrong, they should be starting out from a position from which they can only grow and become more dominant. There is a total lack of future planning for VE on the part of the CT, a fact which does not surprise in the slightest, as future planning has been an alien concept to the SIC for at least a decade, so why would the same people, but with different hats on operate elsewise as a group elsewhere.

[daveh]

At the moment, offshore wind is at least twice as expensive as onshore, both to initially build the things and for lifetime maintenance costs. We (the UK) could have gone exclusively for offshore wind, but this would have meant even larger increases in energy costs than those we already face.

 

Also, the shallow water areas around the UK are mostly in the Southern North Sea, and the wind regime is not as good there as it is up here, so that means more turbines would be needed to get the required output increasing costs even further. To get a wind regime offshore that is as good as Shetland's, you would need to go much further offshore, which means you will need an interconnector with accompanying converter station which would need some kind of platform to house it, increasing the cost still further.

 

Having said that, we are building offshore turbines at pace because there simply isn't enough room onshore for enough to meet our needs. (And there have been certain , shall we say... objections to onshore wind, as you may have noticed. )

 

By building it onshore, apart from all the objections, the operators are only looking to capture the wind energy and that doesn't happen every day. At sea, the operators can capture both the wind energy and the energy produced by the waves. The turbines out at sea are accepted elsewhere so why not in this case?

As far as I know, no offshore turbine is currently equipped with a device to harness wave power as well, though it certainly makes sense to do this. Something like a collar on the supporting column which moved up and down with the waves would probably work.

 

 

The ones offshore at great yarmouth don't look that bad:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scroby_Sands_Wind_Farm

 

It seems to me that this is an opportunity wasted by not going offshore.

[Ghostrider]

The only solution that I can find acceptable is a full and open discussion followed by a referendum.

 

Let's get some proper facts instead of being drip fed snippets and rubbish by the proponents.

 

Exactly. If Shetland is being expected to risk multi-millions of her nest egg, and tolerate a forest of man-made "palm trees" over most of the central mainland, all Shetland residents need to know just how "good" a business venture it is, and a majority of them vote to have it.

 

At the very least, the business plan needs to be seen by every Shetland resident that wants to see it, and the partnership agreement needs to be seen by every Shetland resident who wants to see it.

 

The whole thing, from the investment involved to the enviornmental changes proposed, is just far, far too big a decision for only 22 from 22,000 to make.

[Muppet]

And where do you get the idea the Monopolies Commission would be involved? I used EDF as an example but SSE aren't the biggest electrical supplier in the UK (And if they are, then I apologise).

 

I supspect they may be the second biggest.

 

But if the above scenario did take place, would one of the Monopolies Commisions possible reactions not be to order SSE to sell off parts of it's business?

 

Now which parts could they possibly think of?