petrocelli_

Some more interesting info on fossil fuel subsidies here http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewables?INTCMP=SRCH. This report does focus on global subsidies, tax break etc., but it is quite a stark difference. There are some interesting comments at the foot of the article which give a good breakdown of the situation here in the UK. You might think the figures sound about right, but when you consider that renewables now deliver (2009 figures) 18% of the global energy supply, would renewables subsidies continue to increase as fossil fuels reduce? Less fossil fuels, less tax revenue. All gets a bit complicated, doesn't it? P.S. Mods, does Ghostrider receive a Lifetime Achievement Award when he makes his 5000th post?!

In their last set of reports published on 31 March 2009, SSE have net liabilities of 14.7 billion and total assets of 17.7 million, giving them net assets of 3 billion. Was that your concern unlinked? It was obviously of concern to the Financial Analysts present at their press meeting when the figures were announced who, judging by the manner in which it was reported in the financial press (can't remember if it was the FT or Daily Telegraph) were concerned, especially when taking into account additional losses they expect to incur in the coming financial quarters. Whilst you may be of the opinion that they have net assets of 3 billion, I do believe I read that many of these assets are already "mortgaged up to the hilt" hence bankrupt on paper. Sounds different from all the stuff am reading unlinked. Pre-tax profits are forecast to be 600 million up until end of Sept 2009, double for the same period last year. A quick scan of share dealers recommendations has the vast majority of brokers recommending a buy or strong buy. Christ, the amount I've paid the rogues this last year it's hard to believe they canna be makin a profit!!

In their last set of reports published on 31 March 2009, SSE have net liabilities of 14.7 billion and total assets of 17.7 million, giving them net assets of 3 billion. Was that your concern unlinked?

From the Windfarm Supporters Group: "Two managers who built Europe's largest on-shore windfarm are speaking next week at a public meeting in Shetland to explain their work. The meeting is organised by the Windfarm Supporters Group and is intended to help answer questions local people have about environmental, engineering and other aspects of how large windfarms are built. The Whitelee Windfarm near Glasgow is Europe's largest on-shore development. It was built for ScottishPower by Morrison Construction and two of its managers will be speaking at the meeting in the Sound Hall on Tuesday 3rd November, starting at 7pm. Alan Chesney was the environment manager for the project and Tony Windle was the project manager. A spokesman for the Windfarm Supporters said they will talk about the problems they faced and answer questions about how the windfarm was built and the measures taken to protect wildlife and the environment - such as tackling the problem of deep peat, building roads, protecting birds, wildlife or water sources, or other engineering issues. The spokesman said the meeting was open to everyone, whether they supported, opposed or were undecided about the Viking Energy project. Since the Windfarm Supporters Group started they have been pressing Viking Energy to improve its public relations and information to the local community. In particular the group asked Viking Energy to provide professional expert speakers who could answer islanders' questions - rather than always using company representatives. The lead environmental consultant for Viking Energy, Dr Peter Cosgrove, has already held a very productive meeting with group supporters, but unfortunately it was not possible to organise a public meeting. "We hope next week's meeting will be the first of several public meetings where people can question independent professional experts about windfarms or the Viking Energy proposals. We have asked Viking Energy to provide a speaker on peat and hope Dr Cosgrove will also speak on the environmental and habitat work he and his colleagues have undertaken in Shetland. The meetings will allow people to find out the facts from people with direct professional experience."

You and I, and AT for that matter, know fine well that fossil fuel dependency will exist for a good while to come. What we should be striving for is to ensure dependency lessens sooner rather than later. In turn this will reduce emissions and stabilise energy markets. Liar, liar bums on fire PJ! If the hills planned for VE's windfarm where made up of anything but peat you'd still be against it, or would you? Do you mean a windfarm built on peat would contribute to "global warming/climate change", or, do you believe that wind turbines on the whole contribute to global warming? In the words of Barack Obama... "Yes we can!" We could have an island group completely fossil fuel free (apart from an oil/gas terminal feeding the world with the stuff:lol:) within the next 15-20 years if, we embrace renewable energy projects such as VE's windfarm. With a sub-sea inter connector we would be able to embrace other renewable technologies. None of this is going to happen if we maintain the status quo. A status quo which you, and others like you, seem happy to accept. If you refer back to your previous statement: "I am opposed to industrial windfarms on peatland, regardless of there size. They contribute to Global warming / climate change. Peat and blanket bog is a natural carbon sink and should be left alone." then, logically, if you replace "industrial windfarms" with "gas plants" then the same would apply. Get objecting, PJ, or are the rules different for gas plants. It is of no surprise that we haven't heard a single peep out of Sustainable Shetland on the Total gas plant as they are fully aware how this untimely situation weakens their whole argument. If we were making that argument then you'd be right. However, as I've stated already we aren't making that argument. We appreciate that fossil fuels still have a huge part to play but we have to start reversing that trend with schemes such as these.

As you may be aware I'm not in the staunch environmentalist camp so the answer would be a NO from me. Why? For me the Shetland community, especially the communities in close proximity to the windfarm need to receive considerable financial benefits for any inconvenience suffered either during erection stage and also during the lifespan of said windfarm. I don't think this would be the case if it were done by an external source alone. Oh heck! Am going to have to watch it now! I did have a quick skite at wikipedia to see if there was anything obvious but none that I could see. Where should I start... at the beginning? Surely that's to do with SSE's renewable obligations isn't it, rather than the amount of diesel they're saving? They have a legal obligation to support an ever-increasing number of renewable projects. And those projects can be third party if SSE is financially supporting them. I presume that is what the payments are for. That's true, Malachy, but without any insider information I wouldn't have a clue what those figures where. Do you think it actually increases SSE running costs to buy Burradale's renewable power though? Be a bit of a bumper if it was!

I'm a huge fan of "Lost" but would you believe that I haven't watched one single episode of "Fringe" yet! Why, is there something I've touched on in that series? I'd be interested to know if there was. As mentioned on here before, Pooks, it would make no sense to build a nuclear power station on Shetland. A windfarm with the potential to achieve world record output levels (50-60% of capacity) would be a different story though!

^^^^ The projects which are been looked into in the sahara (as I've said before on here) are quite brilliant but they are not the solution for the UK, are they? Hands up, Droilker, I have no idea! That said, why would SSE pay Burradale tens of thousands of pounds each year if it didn't pay for them? The only way it would make sense would be if they were burning less fuel, yes/no? If we take these two possible scenarios for energy generation, ask yourselves which world would you rather live in. Admittedly, there would be sacrifices in both but you can give me your own views on that. Scenario 1 These guys has a vision that there going to dig coal, pump oil and gas and then burn the stuff to supply energy to the masses. They develop the relevant techniques to do such work and, hey presto, they meet their target and produce energy. Scenario 2 They have a vision where they harness natural forces such as wind, tide, solar and wave power to supply mass power to the masses. Both worlds achieve their goals but after a period of time not all is well in World 1 as they are starting to run short of resources and there is a suspicion that all this smokey stuff is having an effect on the health of mother earth and also the health of the population. They dig the coal, pump the oil and gas then export it all over the world in large ships which are powered by oil, gas and coal. They have wars which revolve around the very supply of such fuels and also have many incidents where spillages and accidents have grave ecological consequences. Meanwhile, in World 2 they have issues re. intermittency but resolve these with storage etc. and eventually everything is tickety boo as they're happily whirling along within their sustainable world. Power is sourced and fed down the lines of supply to wherever the demand is. No pollution, no oil slicks, no cancerous substances. Admittedly, there might have to be sacrifices made in World 2 but how great would they be in comparison to the sacrifices of World 1? Granted, this is a very simplistic example but I think it sums up where we are today but, I would hope that most would agree that World 2 would be the preferred option. As butt-cheese says we're not going to "save the world" with this windfarm but it'd be one step along a very long path to doing so.

Been trying to catch up quickly with all that's been posted here, you guys have been busy! Arguments for and against the Viking Energy have been continuing along the same lines for several months now, my feelings on a few are listed below: Global Warming caused by carbon emissions This is such a technical topic that I cannot even begin to research it to the depths that some have (AT and others for starters) but from what I have read or viewed the burning of fossil fuels cannot in any way, shape or form be good for the environment. It cannot be denied that the climate is changing, and it appears to be changing quickly, but this whole debate is highly contentious and I admit freely to not having done the appropriate research to back up my beliefs fully. We could quote figures and estimates till the cows come home but there comes a point when, as an individual, you have to go with what your gut tells you. For me, carbon emissions are having an impact on our environment - even if the issue was just pollution alone - and we need to tackle this the sooner the better. As a community, building the Viking Energy Windfarm would be a worthwhile step in tackling this crisis at the same time generating community funds! Wind as an energy source Cheryl proudly states that she does every bit she can to help the environment by recycling, etc. She does such practices in the belief that every little helps, very admirable! It strikes me as odd though that she wouldn't want to extend those believes into the generation of power. As an individual that's exactly how I feel about the windfarm, we'll be doing our bit to put things right and the fact that we could be producing 20% of Scotland's domestic needs is something that, if it became a reality, we should be extremely proud of. The UK as a whole will not be "relying on wind" but it will play a big part, possibly as much as 20-30% on a national grid system which will become more and more flexible to accommodate different types of power generation. There are possibly issues to be addressed on the national grid re. intermittent power sources but, IMO, there will come the day (possibly sooner rather than later ) when new storage technologies/grid systems will arrive, making wind an even better option! By building the Viking Energy windfarm we'll be getting involved in a tried and tested technology which can, and does, provide a perfectly good source of energy and in return giving us good value on our investment. Remember, "Burradale is one of the most productive windfarms (if not the most productive) in the world with a recorded capacity factor* of 52%". There is every reason to be confident that the Viking Energy windfarm would perform as good, if not better! * Calculated from the original three turbines over a three year period. (From Burradle website) Interconnector Quite a lot of opponents to Viking Energy regularly refer to alternative renewable sources but the majority of these are still not totally proven although they will clearly be good sources of energy one day. We need to build something asap to secure such a cable and only then will we be able to open up research projects into other renewables such as wave and tidal. With little or no capacity on our current grid this would mean that it would be highly unlikely that any research ventures would come this far north. Once we have a connection then Shetland, with its high winds, strong tides and large waves:) could be an excellent test bed for such renewables and possibly even see the windfarm replaced by a 500MW tidal farm or wave farm when it comes to the end of its lifespan. Of course no such cable will happen unless we create a demand, that's why I believe the Viking Energy windfarm is the best way forward. Community Funds We have a substantial infrastructure of services provided by the Charitable Trust from leisure centres, care centres, voluntary bodies, etc. etc. Someone in this forum referred to a comment about care centres on the mainland which were run by local councils being equally as good. I beg to differ! If you compare like with like you'll see that Shetland's provision of care centres is vastly superior to anything you'll find on the mainland. The same applies to leisure centres. At the 2005 Island Games I spoke to several visiting islanders who were green with envy at our facilities. Competitors from much larger island groups could not believe the condition and provision of leisure facilities within our islands. The provision of such centres has seen the Shetland community embrace sport and leisure pursuits at all different levels and from toddlers to senior cititzens. This, however, all comes at a price and at the current rate that price will some day be to costly and cuts will be need to be made. Such cuts will obviously then have a drastic affect on our economy and for me it could be a case of ever decreasing circles. Still with me? Finally, for me building the windfarm could give us a steady return on our investment, and a more stable and ethical investment at that, rather than sitting on the volatile stock markets. Anybody got any other ideas how we could invest our money more wisely? P.S. Anybody seeen those pesky injuns?

(To the sound of bugles) Am gettin me a posse, AT. Should be with you sometime this evening... if you can hold out that long!

^^ As Wiiman mentioned the main factor was heavy rainfall, which, timed with the extremely dry period of weather we had just experienced caused the peat slide, period! The peat was so dry that huge cracks had appeared and when the flash flood hit the peat basically slid down of the bedrock which it was sitting on. Are you suggesting that the road was the main cause of the problem, SS?

Found it, Mods! David Thomson did state that such schemes would be viable without subsidies on page 25 of this forum. Doesn't specifically mention the VE project but I would imagine it would apply even more to VE's windfarm as it would have world record levels of output, HALLELUJAH!! The UK does have an incentive system but these machines are being built worldwide in places without the incentive mechanism. They would be viable without. Even if they find ‘cheaper’ forms of energy (I would argue whether nuclear was ‘cheap’ even economically) then, as above, the project is protected because it would only happen if there are watertight legal contracts to give a guaranteed income for every unit of electricity produced.

As mentioned by Malachy, virtually all types of power generation are subsidised. Re. ROCs, last year the UK Government extended their guarantee until 2037. You may arhue that any future government could withdraw such a guarantee - even if legally possible - but I don't think it would be wise for any future government to jeopardise the stability of renewables power generation by removing subsidies. LECs (£4.56/MWh) on the other hand can be removed at any time but shouldn't make a great impact on the viability of VE's project. In fact, I'm sure even in this very forum, David Thomson, has argued that even without ROCs the VE project would still be viable. [mod]^^ The above quote until someone finds the actual quote within these 75 pages should not be taken as gospel ... if someone finds it please email admin at shetlink.com and we will add a reference point to it.[/mod] Don't know if that claim is still valid!?

Malachy, while I am full of admiration for the Fair Isle model and, in particular the Fair Isle Electricity Company, schemes such as yours simply cannot be rolled out across mainland Shetland as a viable option. I don’t think that’s what you're suggesting for one minute (maybe he is!) but if you are, as Sustainable Shetland are, then I would suggest you go back to the drawing board. Yes, micro renewables have their place but as a means to powering substantially sized communities then the figures simply do not add up. Let’s take the recent Foula electricity scheme as an example (Malachy, feel free to do a comparison for the Fair Isle one as I don’t have any figures?). The scheme has been designed to produce 120kW of power at a cost of £1 million pounds. It features three different types of renewables in hydro, photo voltaic and wind power. Never mind the costs, I am led to believe that it has been a complete nightmare to get all the different factions (30 residents remember!) to agree on how the scheme should be best fitted. I’m sure the scheme will work fantastically for Foula but considering the alternative option was connecting to the Shetland grid (£4.5 million) then it’s obvious that this was the most economically viable option, not necessarily the best option for producing power! Now, if we were to scale up Foula's micro renewable model then the cost of providing 1MW of power would be £8.333 million. Let’s say we take Shetland’s energy needs at 60MW then we would need £500 million to power Shetland by micro renewables! Given the fact that VE are looking to produce roughly 550MW at an initial outlay of £600 million, roughly £1.1 million per 1MW, then that is a vast difference, yes/no? I appreciate this a very crude example but even if production costs for micros were 50-75% less then they still don’t match up against VE’s project, do they? Never mind the huge difference in production costs, with VE you also get the potential to export up to 490MW of surplus power which can be charged to users thus pumping millions of funds back into Shetland’s community funds! “YIPPEE!â€, I hear you say. Also, if Sustainable Shetland get their way and lead communities down the path of disconnecting from the grid and producing their own heat/electricity schemes, how will that affect SSE’s commitment to the Shetland Islands? Not suggesting that they could walk away but I was always led to believe that the Shetland operation was more of a millstone around their neck, i.e. if they could ditch us they would, as opposed to some kind of pot of gold. Anyway, let’s say we got to a stage where SSE were producing only 50% of total power needs in the isles, wouldn’t that make their operation even more expensive than it is at the moment? Would future tariffs escalate to ungodly levels, thus creating a postcode lottery between communities who were on the grid and those who were on micro schemes, irritating consumers no end I would imagine. All these potential scenarios have to be considered if we choose to go down this route. I am quite possibly well wide of the mark here but it’s something that hasn’t been considered before and would be good if someone could clarify SSE’s relationship/agreement to supplying power to the Shetland Islands.

Are you saying that if 5,000 sign it then we can take it that the other 17,000 are either undecided or for the VE project? Very gracious of you, PJ! Anyway, all I was saying was that it would have been interesting to see the results of a joint petition, for and against, but that just might have come up with a result that Sustainable would have been horrified at! I suspect that at the moment we have a hard core on both sides with the vast majority undecided but receptive to hearing more information on whether this is or isn't a viable option. Sensible stance I would say.