Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had expected a simple answer to my query about Erik's statement that VE will bring in much more money to Shetland than Sullom Voe has.

 

I thought someone would supply the data or a weblink.

 

I didn't realise it was clouded by so many issues - somewhat ironic then that Erik's letter was titled 'Misinformation'

I think what Erik was referring to was that the projected income from the windfarm to the Charitable Trust over it's 25 year projected lifespan will be more than the Trust received from Sullom Voe over a similar timespan. The thing about Sullom is that it was only ever running at full capacity for a few years during the early to mid eighties.

 

The windfarm will be running consistently for the full 25 years. Oil runs out, wind doesn't.

 

Edit: There's also another question: Why are windfarms being built and planned all over the country and offshore (which is much more expensive), if they are such a huge financial risk? Why is anybody building windfarms?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had expected a simple answer to my query about Erik's statement that VE will bring in much more money to Shetland than Sullom Voe has.

 

I thought someone would supply the data or a weblink.

 

I didn't realise it was clouded by so many issues - somewhat ironic then that Erik's letter was titled 'Misinformation'

 

Personally I find it hard to believe that the wind farm will bring in more money than Sullom Voe ever did. SVT paid a disturbance allowance to the community for two or three decades, and the SIC or CT also benefit from rent for the site, plus the money they make from the harbour tugs and services. Between the CT and the SIC there are funds of over £400M and that's what remains after having spent loads. So altogether they have probably taken in more than £600M over the oil period. I'm sure someone (other than the SIC) has access to the true figures.

 

In addition to that, the Total project is going to bring in a whole lot more, although I don't have the figures for that. Perhaps someone is aware of the estimates.

 

If the wind farm can bring in £37M clear profit pre annum for 25 years, then at a total of £925M it would probably come close to the overall income from the SVT projects. Maybe.

 

But what is missing in this argument is the huge economic benefits that have been brought to Shetland in addition to the funds into the SIC/CT coffers. Think of all of the employment that has been created, both directly and indirectly. Think of the oil-related shipping and cargo movements in Lerwick, Scalloway and elsewhere. The activity and employment at the Greenhead over the years. The opportunities for local businesses and contractors. The increase in the population in Shetland and the general increase in the amount of money flowing through the local economy, more trade in the shops etc.

 

The wind farm project won't create anything near this level of local economic activity, nor will it create the level of local employment that has been created by SVT and the oil industry in general. If SVT shut down tomorrow and the wind farm started, Shetland would be in a serious economical situation with high unemployment and a huge reduction in shipping, cargo movements, and general trade. Even if this project goes ahead, Shetland still needs to find some other industry to take the place of SVT and the oil industry whenever it comes to an end, because the wind farm project will not be the Great Saviour that some people are hoping for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: There's also another question: Why are windfarms being built and planned all over the country and offshore (which is much more expensive), if they are such a huge financial risk? Why is anybody building windfarms?

 

I don't have time to address this fully right now, but in a nutshell, the logic afoot here is the same one that ensures the whole flock of Lemmings go over the cliff, and not just a few.

 

Just because a few others consider their chosen method of financing the enterprise on their chosen site is worth pursuing, doesn't prove that VE's proposed method of financing a similar enterprise on their chosen site is also a sound idea.

 

If someone with dairy experience set about establishing a 50 head milking herd of cattle in Devon, as an investment it would have reasonable potential, if someone who'd never seen a cow in reality set about establishing the same on Ronas Hill, nobody would touch them with a barge pole. Exaggerated I know, but it illustrates the point.

 

Its our money, we have a right, morally at least, whether legally or not, to be furnished with adequate information to convince us that the probable returns claimed are realistically achievable. "Is should pay £25 - £37 Million" simply isn't good enough whoever it comes from, and certainly not coming from who it does come from.

 

Trust in the SIC, regardless whether they're wearing their SIC hats, their SCT hats, or their owners of the Busta Estate hats, or their Christmas piss up hats, is at zero! That is the bottom line, what they say is not believed, what they do is not trusted until and unless it is demonstrated to do what it says on the tin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is summary of the expected financial benefit to Shetland in this document

 

http://vikingenergyfiles.opendebate.co.uk/files/Chapter-17-Socio-economic-Assessment.pdf

 

Table 17.12 gives these figures

 

..............................Lifetime of 23 years........Per year

Land rental....................£59.4M........................£2.6M

Community Levy............£22.9M...........................£1M

Profit............................£591.8M.........................£26M

Income to

Shetland suppliers.......£178.7M.........................£8M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Skunnered, I would take some issue with the figures you are quoting above. Namely, how much of the money came from direct payments from SVT and associated works, and how much came from investing that initial seed money in the stock markets where, I believe, Shetland has done rather well.

 

The windfarm would bring in £925 million in seed money, any good investment would substantially increase this.

 

Also, why won't the windfarm money generate as much economic activity as the SVT money did? If some of it is invested in tidal and wave power, then the economic benefits could be huge.

 

Looking for something else to replace the oil industry is pie in the sky thinking. There isn't anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: There's also another question: Why are windfarms being built and planned all over the country and offshore (which is much more expensive), if they are such a huge financial risk? Why is anybody building windfarms?

 

I don't have time to address this fully right now, but in a nutshell, the logic afoot here is the same one that ensures the whole flock of Lemmings go over the cliff, and not just a few.

 

Just because a few others consider their chosen method of financing the enterprise on their chosen site is worth pursuing, doesn't prove that VE's proposed method of financing a similar enterprise on their chosen site is also a sound idea.

 

If someone with dairy experience set about establishing a 50 head milking herd of cattle in Devon, as an investment it would have reasonable potential, if someone who'd never seen a cow in reality set about establishing the same on Ronas Hill, nobody would touch them with a barge pole. Exaggerated I know, but it illustrates the point.

Exactly! A windfarm in Devon with the average English wind regime would be foolish. While a windfarm in Shetland, with the best wind regime in the world will have more than reasonable potential. Yet there are people willing to build windfarms in Devon!

 

http://www.devonwindpower.co.uk/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of the 127 turbines will be out of action at any given time ?

 

Gearboxes on the Burradale ones are always conking out.

Yet they still manage 52% efficiency.

 

And if there's a problem with a Burradale turbine, 1/5 of output is lost. A problem with a VE turbine, 1/127 of output is lost.

 

Nice to see you contributing something useful to the conversation for a change, PJ. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of the 127 turbines will be out of action at any given time ?

 

Gearboxes on the Burradale ones are always conking out.

Yet they still manage 52% efficiency.

 

And if there's a problem with a Burradale turbine, 1/5 of output is lost. A problem with a VE turbine, 1/127 of output is lost.

 

Nice to see you contributing something useful to the conversation for a change, PJ. :twisted:

 

Not necessarily AT. It could well be a higher percentage. Many windfarms are designed that if one turbine goes down, 10 become inoperable dependent upon where the relay switches/transformers and other technical dubree I'm not fully au fait with are situated. On some wind farms, they have clusters of say 20, on others it is 5, on others it is 8. As I mentioned way back, when one small part conked out on one wind turbine, it knocked out the lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT: Now that I've looked at the figures kindly provided by MuckleJoannie, IT'S WORSE THAN I THOUGHT!

 

Over 23 years at a profit of £26M per annum the total profit to the CT coffers is only (only?) £592M which I am sure is much less than will be produced from SVT over its lifetime especially if we take the Total project into account. The balance of about £11M per annum goes into the community for rent and to suppliers etc. This is certainly much less than the economic activity in Shetland from SVT and the oil industry.

 

Regarding employment: I've seen somewhere that VE estimate that their project will employ about 50 people when it's up and running. Now that is most definitely a drop in the ocean compared to SVT and the oil industry in Shetland.

 

You say that there isn't any other industry that can take the place of SVT and the oil industry. I entirely agree, and it's going to be a big problem some time in the future, maybe not for 20 or 30 years, but it will happen. What I think is dangerous is for anyone to claim that the wind farm project is going to be the Great Saviour regarding the future financial stability and employment for Shetland. It isn't. It may fill the CT's coffers (about which I am still sceptical and will remain so until I see some hard and fast figures) but it will not create anywhere near the level of economical activity that has been generated by SVT and the oil industry. And I think it is dangerous and misleading for anyone to claim that it will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe the trust are not experts but the lecky company is they run wind farms. breakdowns will be factored in.

there is no reason why more than the effected turbine would be off line. it would not make sense to take out large numbers for a single fault.

the burradale farm seems to cope well with its faulty turbines. plus they have improved th design since they were installed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...