Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[paulb]

The development of renewable generation on the islands could also have significant benefits to the local

economies, through direct, indirect and induced jobs. Our analysis suggests that by 2020 up to 392 full

time equivalent jobs could be created on the Western Isles, 463 in Shetland, 416 in Orkney, and an

additional 3,000 FTEs could be generated in the rest of Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. By 2030, the

number of jobs created could increase to over 3,500 on the Western Isles, almost 2,900 in Shetland, and

over 4,500 on Orkney, demonstrating the potential significance of the marine industry in the UK. The

large numbers of jobs created on Orkney are associated with wave and tidal generation which would be

labour intensive in the early years, providing the opportunity to develop local supply chains with the

capability to export expertise if the industry takes off. Under our Central Scenario of an additional 6 GW1

of Scottish Island renewables by 2030, which represents a credible deployment case assuming the

necessary policy support and transmission capacity is in place, our analysis suggests that a further 29,000

FTEs could be created by 2030 elsewhere in the UK.

[shetlandpeat]

Good play by Orkney, wanting to be the world leaders.

 

Perhaps when they do, Shetland will benefit.

 

Mind, if folk want the fishing to help improve Shetland, could still go back to fish oil lamps.

 

The report does highlight that there is a strong case to reduce the transmission charges.

 

Can you put fish oil in an Aladdin?

 

http://www.aladdinknights.org/images/BFH-sign-copy.jpg

[paulb]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

[unlinkedstudent]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

 

Was the title of the report by any chance "How to get sucked in by theory and spin with no substance"?

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

 

Was the title of the report by any chance "How to get sucked in by theory and spin with no substance"?

 

Or even "How to stick two finger up at Ofgem then persuade the government to make the taxpayer and the consumer foot the bill".

[paulb]

sorry i made a mistake that was 7000 million kettles.

 

so you're opposed tp cheaper transmittion charges.

 

so are you also opposed to the jobs. the boost to economy. a future for our kids.

[George.]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

 

Was the title of the report by any chance "How to get sucked in by theory and spin with no substance"?

 

Or even "How to stick two finger up at Ofgem then persuade the government to make the taxpayer and the consumer foot the bill".

 

At the end of the day, surely it's always the taxpayer/ consumer that pays the bill. Who else would pay it

[unlinkedstudent]

sorry i made a mistake that was 7000 million kettles.

 

so you're opposed tp cheaper transmittion charges.

 

so are you also opposed to the jobs. the boost to economy. a future for our kids.

 

You seem to be overlooking a key factor here - who the {'f' it was funny in Father Ted 'eck'} would want to live here in what would basically be a large INDUSTRIAL windfarm? What about the loss to all the other employment sectors?

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

 

Was the title of the report by any chance "How to get sucked in by theory and spin with no substance"?

 

Or even "How to stick two finger up at Ofgem then persuade the government to make the taxpayer and the consumer foot the bill".

 

At the end of the day, surely it's always the taxpayer/ consumer that pays the bill. Who else would pay it

 

The developer/ producer ...might, for example, pay for the transmission infrastructure.

[paulb]

as the report says the producer pays. interestingly we are well over 1/3 cheaper than the western isles. but a 1/3 dearer than Orkney. and a heck of a lot cheaper than nuclear.

[George.]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

 

Was the title of the report by any chance "How to get sucked in by theory and spin with no substance"?

 

Or even "How to stick two finger up at Ofgem then persuade the government to make the taxpayer and the consumer foot the bill".

 

At the end of the day, surely it's always the taxpayer/ consumer that pays the bill. Who else would pay it

 

The developer/ producer ...might, for example, pay for the transmission infrastructure.

 

What, they will pay for it themselves? I don't think so, they will need to get their money, plus profit, back. Without that they are doing it for nothing and will soon be out of business. At the end of the day it's the consumer that has to pay for what he gets.

[paulb]

but thats the same with any energy supply. the customer pays.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

at the moment we need Viking and then the other generators pigback onto the inter connector. the good new for anti Viking folks is that if this report is actioned then the other generators could go ahead with out Viking. they re looking at us producing 7 tera watts a year by 2030. thats a 1000 million kettles of energy.

 

by 2030 they anticipate us having 1900 mega watts of onshore turbines. so over 3 times that of viking.

 

Was the title of the report by any chance "How to get sucked in by theory and spin with no substance"?

 

Or even "How to stick two finger up at Ofgem then persuade the government to make the taxpayer and the consumer foot the bill".

 

At the end of the day, surely it's always the taxpayer/ consumer that pays the bill. Who else would pay it

 

The developer/ producer ...might, for example, pay for the transmission infrastructure.

 

What, they will pay for it themselves? I don't think so, they will need to get their money, plus profit, back. Without that they are doing it for nothing and will soon be out of business. At the end of the day it's the consumer that has to pay for what he gets.

 

Yes, through cost reflective transmission charges. It's what all their whinging to the government is about.

[shetlandpeat]

Folk will of course come to Shetland and stay, after all, with the amount that folk have stated is continually wrong with Shetland, they are still there. Why do so many stay? Because it is a good place with great folks. Folk did not leave when the R.A.F. and the Royal Signals made the islands a prominent target for Russian missiles, if anything, they enhanced many parts of the social/economic structures on the islands. I feel that if the turbines are approved, yes, there will be turbines plus the infrastructure that is put in place to ensure the best again is in place to again enhance social/economic structures on the islands, the protesters will ensure this. If not the islands.

 

You are quite correct to ask, who would want to stay with these turbines, well, many, of course, everywhere a turbine has been put up, there has been mass exodus, I think not. Your argument is immature in its integrity and cannot be quantified, in other words flannel.

[unlinkedstudent]

... Folk did not leave when the R.A.F. and the Royal Signals made the islands a prominent target for Russian missiles, if anything, they enhanced many parts of the social/economic structures on the islands. ... Your argument is immature in its integrity and cannot be quantified, in other words flannel.

 

Where you get that flannel of info from then eh, SP, comrades in the Kremlin? Name/quote your source!