Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[crofter]

Now we have the prospect of companies being paid for NOT producing energy...

 

Firms paid to shut down wind farms when the wind is blowing

 

Professor Michael Laughton, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of London, said: "People will find it very hard to understand that an electricity company is getting paid the market rate plus a subsidy for doing nothing. It is essentially a waste of consumers' money."

[Njugle]

Stone me it's the common market all over again.

 

Scottish Power received £13,000 for closing down two farms for a little over an hour on 30 May at about five in the morning.

 

I'll shut down my windfarm no problem for £7,500/hr. In fact I'll not build it at all for £10,000/hr if it's on the table. £15,000/hr and I'll stick to burning peats forever.

[Medziotojas]

Shetland peats?

[shetlandpeat]

Oi!

[Stirrer]

One simple question to KTL,

 

1. If the Viking Energy windfarm is not built, how do you propose to pay for the continued service provision at the care centres, arts trust, amenity trust and recreation trust for the next 25-50 years ?

 

One month on, and still no response from the Unsustainable Shetland Vice-Chairman on how to fund Shetland's future.

 

Surely there will have been a Politburu meeting in that time ?

[ArabiaTerra]

Now we have the prospect of companies being paid for NOT producing energy...

 

Firms paid to shut down wind farms when the wind is blowing

 

Professor Michael Laughton, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of London, said: "People will find it very hard to understand that an electricity company is getting paid the market rate plus a subsidy for doing nothing. It is essentially a waste of consumers' money."

I guess they should shut down the coal fired stations instead... except you can't. The boilers must be kept up at operating temperature through the night so they are ready to go in the morning which means burning coal 24/7. This article isn't highlighting a flaw in the wind turbines, it's highlighting a flaw in our antiquated grid system, which is so dependant on coal.

 

One simple question to KTL,

 

1. If the Viking Energy windfarm is not built, how do you propose to pay for the continued service provision at the care centres, arts trust, amenity trust and recreation trust for the next 25-50 years ?

 

One month on, and still no response from the Unsustainable Shetland Vice-Chairman on how to fund Shetland's future.

 

Surely there will have been a Politburu meeting in that time ?

 

I wouldn't hold your breath, Stirrer. I've been trying to get the NIMBY's to answer this one for the last five years. Nothing but silence so far.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

So AT, since there isn't a world wide super grid, that would cost hundreds of billions to construct, there is little point in anymore windfactorys being built then.

 

At least there's been a step forward today in the future of the charitable trust.

I bet Bill Manson has a list of pro VE independants lined up to run the CT.

The "gravy train" has to stop.

Power to the people !

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

One simple question to KTL,

 

1. If the Viking Energy windfarm is not built, how do you propose to pay for the continued service provision at the care centres, arts trust, amenity trust and recreation trust for the next 25-50 years ?

 

One month on, and still no response from the Unsustainable Shetland Vice-Chairman on how to fund Shetland's future.

 

Surely there will have been a Politburu meeting in that time ?

 

I know the feeling... it' very frustrating! I posted something 29 days ago (I thought I had offered a fair perspective on the question) and not a single NIMBY or NAMBI bothered to reply. I do feel for you and AT.

 

I demand answers! I will jolly well be sitting here and counting the days until I get some...

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

Here's another perspective on the profitability of the proposed windfarm... "All figures are based upon variable factors which could be subject to change" (Viking Energy FAQ).

[MuckleJoannie]

One simple question to KTL,

 

1. If the Viking Energy windfarm is not built, how do you propose to pay for the continued service provision at the care centres, arts trust, amenity trust and recreation trust for the next 25-50 years ?

 

One month on, and still no response from the Unsustainable Shetland Vice-Chairman on how to fund Shetland's future.

 

Surely there will have been a Politburu meeting in that time ?

 

I am not a member of Sustainable Shetland so I can only offer my own opinion. These services have been provided up till now by the returns on the stock market. As long as the capital is not eroded there will always be a return on it.

 

One way this capital base could be eroded is by withdrawing funds for the windfarm. Investing in the stock market is a risk but investing in the windfarm is an even greater one. It would far better that the SIC invests in local industry to give Shetland a sustainable future rather than jumping on a bandwagon.

[Stirrer]

 

I am not a member of Sustainable Shetland so I can only offer my own opinion. These services have been provided up till now by the returns on the stock market. As long as the capital is not eroded there will always be a return on it.

 

One way this capital base could be eroded is by withdrawing funds for the windfarm. Investing in the stock market is a risk but investing in the windfarm is an even greater one. It would far better that the SIC invests in local industry to give Shetland a sustainable future rather than jumping on a bandwagon.

 

It is funny how two people can look at exactly the same thing and have completely the opposite opinion !

 

I have very little trust in the staock market system, with it being controlled by the self-named 'Masters of the Universe' investment bankers, where companies are not valued for their true worth but rather what can be extracted as quickly as possible.

 

For this reason, the Charitable Trust is not in any real control of the situation, but still have fixed outlays every year with the various trusts etc.

 

Had it not been for Burradale, i would be more sceptical, but the turbines have been producing power for about 10 years at outputs far higher than the owners expected.

 

The Viking Energy scheme is using proven turbines, with a long track record. I made enquires to directors of Burradale regarding the use of newer, bigger turbines which would reduce the number required for the same output. The answer was that the newer ones have not been in service long enough to get a true long term picture of how reliable they are. By using the more proven technology, it is easier to attract banks to fund the project.

 

As long as there are people on the planet, we will need power, and we have the wind here to harness the resource. There will be many, many good long term jobs for our young population to embrace, which at least is putting money into the ecomony in Shetland, rather than investing in shares in Japenese car companies and the like.

 

On balance, there maybe too many turbines for my liking, but all the little schemes mentioned, which are good schemes in their own right, will not get Shetland an Inter-connector cable.

 

Like it or not, that inter-connector is the future of Shetland, because we will be thinking petrol here is cheap if the Tories let SSE charge us the true cost of power produced at Gremista.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

 

It is funny how two people can look at exactly the same thing and have completely the opposite opinion !

 

I have very little trust in the staock market system, with it being controlled by the self-named 'Masters of the Universe' investment bankers, where companies are not valued for their true worth but rather what can be extracted as quickly as possible.

 

For this reason, the Charitable Trust is not in any real control of the situation, but still have fixed outlays every year with the various trusts etc.

 

Had it not been for Burradale, i would be more sceptical, but the turbines have been producing power for about 10 years at outputs far higher than the owners expected.

 

The Viking Energy scheme is using proven turbines, with a long track record. I made enquires to directors of Burradale regarding the use of newer, bigger turbines which would reduce the number required for the same output. The answer was that the newer ones have not been in service long enough to get a true long term picture of how reliable they are. By using the more proven technology, it is easier to attract banks to fund the project.

 

As long as there are people on the planet, we will need power, and we have the wind here to harness the resource. There will be many, many good long term jobs for our young population to embrace, which at least is putting money into the ecomony in Shetland, rather than investing in shares in Japenese car companies and the like.

 

On balance, there maybe too many turbines for my liking, but all the little schemes mentioned, which are good schemes in their own right, will not get Shetland an Inter-connector cable.

 

Like it or not, that inter-connector is the future of Shetland, because we will be thinking petrol here is cheap if the Tories let SSE charge us the true cost of power produced at Gremista.

 

 

Unless trustees decide to do otherwise I imagine the charitable trust will always invest funds in the stock market, regardless of viking energy.

 

How can you compare Burradale to the viking energy proposal. It proves that Shetland has a good wind resource but how do you extrapolate the success of a small group of locally connected turbines to the potential profitability of the far more complex giant windfarm, converter station and interconnector? Its hardly like with like.

 

The question is, if built, is the viking energy windfarm going to be profitable enough to replenish and add value to charitable trusts funds and hence allow them to continue to fund those services for the next 20 years and beyond?

 

I object to viking energy for other reasons, but with regard to profitability, if it is built we need to be better informed of the facts otherwise how can you be so convinced that the interconnector/ windfarm is anything other than a gamble with charitable trust funds and inevitably be detrimental to services in Shetland.

 

Well, you can either believe everything they tell you or retain a healthy level of scepticism.

[Stirrer]

 

Unless trustees decide to do otherwise I imagine the charitable trust will always invest funds in the stock market, regardless of viking energy.

 

How can you compare Burradale to the viking energy proposal. It proves that Shetland has a good wind resource but how do you extrapolate the success of a small group of locally connected turbines to the potential profitability of the far more complex giant windfarm, converter station and interconnector? Its hardly like with like.

 

The question is, if built, is the viking energy windfarm going to be profitable enough to replenish and add value to charitable trusts funds and hence allow them to continue to fund those services for the next 20 years and beyond?

 

I object to viking energy for other reasons, but with regard to profitability, if it is built we need to be better informed of the facts otherwise how can you be so convinced that the interconnector/ windfarm is anything other than a gamble with charitable trust funds and inevitably be detrimental to services in Shetland.

 

Well, you can either believe everything they tell you or retain a healthy level of scepticism.

 

I fail to see how investing in a wind farm on Shetland with proven results to analysis from a current wind farm can be more of a gamble than unknown companies on various stock exchanges around the world.

 

Especially when the joint partner in the project is an internationally renowned power company !

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

 

Unless trustees decide to do otherwise I imagine the charitable trust will always invest funds in the stock market, regardless of viking energy.

 

How can you compare Burradale to the viking energy proposal. It proves that Shetland has a good wind resource but how do you extrapolate the success of a small group of locally connected turbines to the potential profitability of the far more complex giant windfarm, converter station and interconnector? Its hardly like with like.

 

The question is, if built, is the viking energy windfarm going to be profitable enough to replenish and add value to charitable trusts funds and hence allow them to continue to fund those services for the next 20 years and beyond?

 

I object to viking energy for other reasons, but with regard to profitability, if it is built we need to be better informed of the facts otherwise how can you be so convinced that the interconnector/ windfarm is anything other than a gamble with charitable trust funds and inevitably be detrimental to services in Shetland.

 

Well, you can either believe everything they tell you or retain a healthy level of scepticism.

 

I fail to see how investing in a wind farm on Shetland with proven results to analysis from a current wind farm can be more of a gamble than unknown companies on various stock exchanges around the world.

 

Especially when the joint partner in the project is an internationally renowned power company !

 

It might not be more of a gamble, but yes, it is a gamble (not forgetting what you are gambling with). I would prefer not to see the success of Burradale alone as proof that viking energy could be successful.

[paulb]

stockmarket falls by over 4% today. why worry if this goes on there won't be any cash for owt.