Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[DavidThomson]

the answer is simply 'self-sufficiency'

 

One of the main feedbacks from the consultation has been “can we not just be self sufficientâ€. While perfectly logical I do not automatically agree this is enough. Energy wise or otherwise. From an energy perspective this is impractical. We cannot simply build just enough windmills to power Shetland. The local grid is already unable to take new small windfarm connections. Without a cable there will be little or no new renewable energy in Shetland for a long time. We remain dependent on shipped fuel until some reliable future technology helps. Given Shetland’s unmatched natural resources this is unfortunate. The Viking project would give Shetland self-sufficiency and also contribute to the national need. The cable would encourage that future technology to be developed locally. Further, Shetland is not self-sufficient in any other regard. If the other areas of Scotland took that attitude we would not have massively subsidised electricity, massively subsidised transport links or massively subsidised public services. We are part of Scotland and we have something to offer. To take one of the best natural resources in the world and use to merely power Shetland would in my opinion be a little selfish. Plus we can turn that resource into a locally owned business that will significantly benefit the standard of living of every single Shetlander.

[DavidThomson]

I'm no energy engineer, but surely tidal power is something that could and should be investigated here?

 

It will be – but it isn’t the first step. Viking Energy is not anti-wave/tidal. Anyone who knows me knows I firmly want those technologies to become a big part of the UK energy mix. There have been a few links to various projects but the reason we do not just do a tidal project is due to the stage of commercialisation. There are a few examples of prototype tidal machines but I can buy a wind turbine from a range of suppliers and, crucially, I can get a warranty and I can get insurance. These are not available for tidal machines and it will be years before there are. They have been putting machines in the water for 50 years and so far no-one has made one work so well that it can be marketed. It is a well-stated intention of the Viking Project to use some of the revenue created to support the development of these technologies so we can be ready to capitalise when the breakthroughs come.

[DavidThomson]

Company stuff x 2

 

There is no harm in anyone checking out the registered details of the companies involved in this project. I might question why it was necessary to print the full details including my home address on this forum when that wasn’t really relevant to the questions and why one of the names was changed but I presume this was discussed among the moderators. We have always taken the stance that if anyone wants to know about the structure of the businesses then all they have to do is ask. For the record, the current shareholdings and directorships are practically irrelevant. As a few posters seem to realise, the only thing that matters is the overall capital investment. Because we were involved in the project conception, the people behind Burradale currently hold 10% of the Shetland side of the partnership. If I want a 2.5% share of the profits that remain in Shetland, I’m going to have to provide 2.5% of the Shetland half of the overall capital cost.

Nomatter what happens, Shetland will always have 50% of the overall partnership.

[Malachy]

There seems to be three distinct conversations going on in this thread. Would it be possible for the site people to consider separating these into ‘windfarm’, ‘climate change’ and ‘greenheatman’? Part of this seems to have started itself but perhaps some conversation could be extracted?

 

Agreed, this thread has become a bit of a mess, and would benefit from getting back 'on subject'.

 

There are though, I'm sure, some of us who'd like you to dispel some of the more incredible claims that greenheatman has been making regarding the 'myths' of wind power.

[DavidThomson]

I would put my last fiver that these people are not personally investing over 500k each.

 

Let’s wait until we have got at least a couple more milestones out the road and determine exactly whether the project will actually proceed before we worry too much about who is paying how much. If we get that far it is fair to say that the project instigators would indeed be ‘exceptionally confident’ about the financial viability of this project and would be willing to invest considerable sums.

 

Malachy - I'm working my way through and I'm sure I'll get to the bits you mention.

[DavidThomson]

How much has already been spent on the windfarm project? I've no idea but, judging by the nicely painted van, glossy pamphlets and such... too much.

 

The exact budgets and delegated authorities are available on the Viking Energy website. Since 2003 a total of just over £700,000 has been expended from an overall budget of £990,000. Said amount deemed Shetland’s half of taking the project to a planning stage.

So averaged out we have been spending around £175,000 a year – mostly on bird studies.

I’m not aware of any van – nicely painted or not. Can you elaborate?

[DavidThomson]

One thing that niggles me ( perhaps jealousy ) and is a bit like the John Prescott embaresment in London.. is you have the main people involved with VE driving around in the big 4x4 and saloons, if they claim to go off road then :cough:bulls**t:cough: comes to mind but,

 

To be fair the main people involved in VE are either crofters or own a windfarm. Sheep live in fields and windfarms are built at the tops of hills so vehicles that can only go on tarmac ain’t much use.

[DavidThomson]

why cant these be built offshore like they are in denmark and off the coast of liverpool to name a couple.

 

Shetland’s landmass effectively is offshore. As far as the manufacturer is concerned Burradale Windfarm operates in a marine environment.

Cost is an issue but it’s also mainly due to depth of water. Despite being miles offshore, those projects elsewhere will be in 12-15m of water. We can almost get that off the end of the pier here so the advantages (if any) of being offshore are wasted.

[Fjool]

I’m not aware of any van – nicely painted or not. Can you elaborate?

 

I'd thought I'd seen a blue and white transit van with (what I assumed to be) the VE logo on it outside the Whiteness hall on the day a public consultation was held there. Maybe the van belonged to some other company as, I will admit, the logo on the side didn't look like the one I see on the VE website.

[DavidThomson]

People are now beginning to touch on the question as to whether the "offset" of carbon emmissions are really going to be all that significant once these roads / windmills are constructed? i.e. when will the windfarm actually start making a positive reduction in "greenhouse gasses"?

 

To put it simply, we estimate that the Viking Windfarm will start to make a positive reduction in greenhouse gases within 2 years of operation and that includes all construction and manufacturing and the cable and the peat issues etc.

We are doing a carbon audit but it’s impossible to complete that before we have a finished proposal. The reason I feel we can make the above statement is because it is based on the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology POSTnote

about repayment of energy used in turbine manufacture and the Scottish Natural Heritage report on Windfarms and carbon savings.

If you want more explanation, just ask. Something I'm also keen to emphasise is that no-one suggests windfarms can magically suck greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere. But since we have to produce electricity somehow then, of the options, this one is a lot more environmentally friendly than the alternatives.

[DavidThomson]

I still feel this niggle that a bandwagon is being mounted and that even if things don't tie in and the "people of Shetland" really don't want it - that the so called MORI poll of 502 people; 375 responding yes, will be bandied as "the majority", that the partnership of SSE is considered binding, that the SIC - learning from past mistakes that they should stick with projects and see them to the bitter end - making them forge on ahead for the yet undecided "benefit to the people", that the unknown if any green benefits will be used as smokescreen as it's the flavour of the month politically ... etc. etc. will see this project pushed through regardless.... I am a pessimist as is obvious ^^

 

Nothing wrong with scepticism. The MORI poll is a useful guide at a moment in time. Nothing more. We’ll probably repeat it once the consultation process is complete and we’ve got a redesigned proposal out in public. The big decisions on this project will be done through the planning process and the financial process. If the public of Shetland are against whatever concrete proposals we submit or if the finances do not stack up, then this project will not go ahead. The partnership is not a big deal other than to give us a vehicle to take the project forward to each milestone. If we don’t get past a milestone, the partnership ceases.

From a personal viewpoint I do try to emphasise that the ‘green benefits’ of this project are vastly secondary to the ‘producing much needed electricity for sale making money for Shetland’ benefits.

[trout]

Company stuff x 2

 

There is no harm in anyone checking out the registered details of the companies involved in this project. I might question why it was necessary to print the full details including my home address on this forum when that wasn’t really relevant to the questions and why one of the names was changed but I presume this was discussed among the moderators. We have always taken the stance that if anyone wants to know about the structure of the businesses then all they have to do is ask. For the record, the current shareholdings and directorships are practically irrelevant. As a few posters seem to realise, the only thing that matters is the overall capital investment. Because we were involved in the project conception, the people behind Burradale currently hold 10% of the Shetland side of the partnership. If I want a 2.5% share of the profits that remain in Shetland, I’m going to have to provide 2.5% of the Shetland half of the overall capital cost.

Nomatter what happens, Shetland will always have 50% of the overall partnership.

 

The addresses have now been edited out as per above note - agreed - they should never have been there in the first place and was purely an oversight - rather as anything more serious.

 

The posting of the information was merely a cut and paste job of publically accessible information provided to us. The name - I believe - I have corrected? and was a mixture of yours and Dennis' - again purely an oversight.

[DavidThomson]

To add to that, when do the projections for "making a profit" for the Shetland community really tie in when you consider the full cost of these road networks and the Interconnector cable pricing that is still not known

Those estimated figures include very accommodating allowances for the roads and the interconnector. There is a meeting in Aith Hall 7.00pm on 19th April to discuss the project finances in detail. There will also be a presentation on the infrastructure issues.

I would add that this project is not even at a planning stage so it is unreasonable to expect penny accurate figures for absolutely everything. We are investigating the opportunity and we may yet find that it is uneconomic. I think that unlikely but it is possible. As time goes on the finances will become more accurate. The important thing is that the costs and income streams will be no-risk fixed price arrangements so it won’t matter a jot if the worldwide cost of steel goes up or someone builds a windfarm outside Glasgow. Once the contracts are signed the price is assured.

[DavidThomson]

The addresses have now been edited out as per above note - agreed - they should never have been there in the first place and was purely an oversight - rather as anything more serious.

The posting of the information was merely a cut and paste job of publically accessible information provided to us. The name - I believe - I have corrected? and was a mixture of yours and Dennis' - again purely an oversight.

Thanks for that. The Dennis/David mix up was indeed the inaccurate bit.

[DavidThomson]

So the hoo-haa about this windfarm being the green power house for Scotland creating 25% of it's green energy to me seems rather ficticious at present ....

when will it actually be green and when will it really become a producer of 25% of Scotlands green power - 5 years - 10 years ?

Also when these other disputed windfarms in Scotland are created - what will that 25% figure (which seems large and great) become? 10% - 5% -- less ... that's an angle that's not being written about for our consumption. Will a comparitively measly figure such as 5% of total then not seem like such a great green investment to the people ... probably?! Hmm .... that bandwagon seems ever so less favourable now ...

 

The comment made by SSE Chairman Sir Robert Smith was that the project could meet 25% of Scotland’s domestic electricity demand. And do it in a greener way than the alternatives. That amount excludes commercial and industrial electricity and other energy uses (transport fuel) but is still a big lump. Even if it was only 5% (or became 5%) would it be a bad thing if the project remains a viable, profitable generator producing much needed electricity and providing economic returns to Shetland that would otherwise blow away over the hills?