KTL

It's great having a pet troll. Just poke it and it will perform a series of amusing acrobatics. Seriously though. The idea situation for community wind to heat schemes (or indeed other renewables) would be where you had some housing, a care centre and a leisure centre. Leaving aside all the subsidy payments, the actual provision of heat, and real (not theoretical) reduction in fossil fuel use is well worth investigating. The trouble with some Viking Energy supporters is that they fear any alternative use of renewables, especially those which don't need an interconnector. Two question to Stirrer, 1. Is the Gremista wind farm a bad idea? 2. Should the Charitable Trust reduce current spending for the next 5 years in order to afford a deposit on Viking Energy? (hint, they already reduced spending from £12m to £11m)

Thatcher. Gave order to sink General Belgrano. 1200 on board, mostly conscrips. 232 killed. How many hundred do you need to kill before you are officially evil?

I agree, Greenhead scheme looks like it has a lot going for it. Putting some power on to local grid (look, no interconnector!), using hot water in district heating scheme as a storage mechanism. Being integrated with district heating it will help to contribute to a real reduction in the amount of diesel district heating needs to use in times of incinerator plant down-time or lack of stuff to burn. Wind to heat may in the long term be a far more sensible use of the technology than trying to use it as a grid energy source.

Well done you. There's a lot of Shetland heritage and archeology been deliberately destroyed as a result of folk "getting on with the job". Its a brave digger driver who avoids destroying something when the client / boss wants a job to go ahead as fast and cheap as possible.

Looking into it for myself. But if a new-build, I'd definately put in underfloor heating - plastic pipe through concrete slab variety. That allows you to then use the slab of the house as heat store - for air / ground source, renewables or any other heat source. From what I understand air and ground source need large storage mass to work properly. Small wall mounted radiators just aren't big enough.

The decision to close schools is initiated by council officials and put in place by councillors. The responsobility for that decision rests with the councillors themselves. The call in process is an avenue parents and communities can use to challenge a council decision, but it doesn't change who made the decision in the first place.

IF the Viking windfarm makes a profit, some money would go to the Charitable Trust. There is a mistaken assumption that the Viking windfarm WILL make money. Its a business venture. Some work. Some don't. The higher the potential returns, the greater the risk.

Closing viable rural schools may seem politically expedient to some councillors. Lobbying by some Lerwick parents to "close someone else’s school, don't touch ours" may give short term satisfaction. But they forget that viewed from Edinburgh or London, Lerwick is an insignificant, and completely disposable peerie toon as well. How would these councillors / parents like it if parents or councillors in say, Glasgow lobbied in favour of education cuts to made in Shetland instead of cuts on a far greater number of children in Glasgow. That would stink. This divide and rule tactic now being played out between Lerwick and rural Shetland is very short sighted and in the long term very damaging to us all. We need councillors who want to reach the right decision, even if that means refining or adjusting previous decisions. Cramming more bairns into a old school scheduled for replacement is not good for the bairns from either AHS or Scalloway.

Will people vote tactically to put Tavish out to pasture? If so, which candidate has best chance of actually beating him? After 60 years of Shetland being treated as a one-party state when it comes to national elections, this is a chance to make a fresh start. Will people take that opportunity, or stay locked in tribal political loyalty?

The financial savings for closing Scalloway Junior were claimed - but never proven. SIC figures showed all staff costs magically disappearing as soon as the school was closed. The same stunt is being played out with other schools threatened with closure. If councillors can now vote to keep Scalloway open until a new and suitable AHS is built, the disruption to bairns at AHS and Scalloway will be kept to an absolute minimum. Scalloway bairns will finish up for the summer term, and return again to Scalloway in August. What's complicated or disruptive about that? If you want to see education disrupted, try rushing through the closure and untested transfer of an entire school in less than 3 months.

Like this? http://www.billyfox.co.uk/?page_id=228

AT not far of the mark here! To attempt to maintain an ever increasing rate of profit, the global economic system will put money and resources into enterprises which return the highest rate of profit. The long term sustainability of that profit is irrelevant to them, it's all about the short term. Anyone with half a brain knew sub-prime loans could never last. That double digit growth in house prices couldn't last. That consumers couldn't maintain retail economy growth on credit alone. Did that stop global financial institutions investing in these sectors? No. When governments supported, underwrote or encouraged these markets - this gave confidence to those involved that everything would be ok in the end. It wasn't, and we are all now paying the price for that. As real profits from real businesses become harder to achieve, high risk potential high return ventures become more attractive - that bubble itself bursts; the survivors moving on to the next growth bubble. The casualties face ruin. Victims of market forces. Small peripheral places fare worst. Iceland anyone? Now, aren't we lucky we don't have any high-risk, potentially high return projects lurking over the horizon. Woa, wait a minute...

Oops. Election leaflet from Tavish Scott. He's standing next to pen of sheep at a show, judging result says "Second"...

New council leadership. The scraping of deckchairs being moved back into the same position as before.

More pupils at Anderson High = poorer deal for all students.

There's no official timescale, but with Scottish elections in May, it might not happen within the life of this parliament. Kicking it into the long grass via a Public Local Inquiry would be a safe get-out for the current or next government. The longer a decision takes, the more money Viking Energy consumes just in fixed costs never mind consultants. Regardless of any decision by the Energy Minister - our Charitable Trust trustees have it within their power to suspend all activities of Viking Energy Limited. The money saved could go towards proper draft proofing and insulation for Shetland households in fuel poverty.

Tingwall airport. Air ambulence flights leave from here. 10 minute drive from hospital. Ambulance back to hospital and available again fairly soon. Scatsta? Long drive there. Long drive back. Winter? Ouch. Mind you, I do find it odd we have more airports than ambulences. Must be a matter of priorities.

Viking Energy claim 45% efficency. Whitelees windfarm claims 35%. Thats 10 percentage points difference, or if you bother with the maths, a 20% actual difference. No where near double. Three times the cost for 20% better performance? It makes sub-prime look clever! If you follow the arguments of the "greater good", "great wind resource" "sure fire winner", why stop at a 457MW windfarm? Why not lobby for a 1000 MW windfarm in Shetland? Some would argue that the rights of 22,000 people who actually live in a place are less important than the greater 70m who live elsewhere in the UK? It's the same logic councillors used to vote through their own project.

I think the cable cost is about £550m (but what's another £50m between friends). Viking would pay for it indirectly through transmission charges. This is roughly based on a cost recovery basis (say £550 over 25 years). Ultimately it's UK electricity customers who meet the cost of the cable - that's why it's a regulated infrastructure, and Ofgem has the final say over new infratrusture. Viking want subsidised transmission charges. Someone else has to pay for that. For £550m, instead of a cable for Viking Energy, you could build and connect another windfarm like Whitelees (already on the national grid, and largest in Europe). Or you could insulate and draft proof 1 million homes. Better insulated and draft proof homes use less energy. People save money. Less energy needs to be produced. Everyone wins. It all comes down to priorities, and what result you want to acheive for a given chunk of money.

If the SIC wants to give democracy a try for a peerie start I'd back them all the way. The biggest problem just now is a complete lack of trust. Councillors clearly do not trust the wider population - hence their paternalistic approach to running Shetland. The wider population have a deep mistrust of our councillors (witness the ongoing Anderson High saga, school closures, Viking Energy etc). With the active backing and support of the wider population our council could achieve a lot. To get that backing they must first win the public trust. Communication and honesty will help. Adding professional spin to every controversial decision made by the SIC probably only increases the mistrust and frustration between councillors and the public.

It is NOT an anti-windfarm march. It's a protest to save Shetland's environment (and community funds, and economy and ...) from Viking Energy. Sustainable Shetland has no fundamental objection to wind power or any other renewable energy source. To me, the windfarm scheme for the district heating system in Lerwick seems to have a lot of merit. Opposing one windfarm does not mean you oppose all wind farms. If people think it does, would they also describe organisations working against obesity as "anti-food" groups?

These are cuts we are talking about, not savings. Savings is where you spend less on one thing in order to spend a little more on something else. Lets call them cuts and be honest.

Thanks for invite AT 9 councillors voted for their own project. 9 councillors will now have to justify their actions to the Standards Commission. It's not very complicated. If they had voted against, or abstained, they could reasonably argue they had managed to separate their personal interests as Councillors and as Trustees and owners of 90% of Viking Energy Limited. Their recommendation to approve was based on who the applicant was, not planning law.

Suzuki SX4 has a 4wd version, petrol and diesel. Has a Fiat engine (from Fiat Sedici), may even be built in same plant in Hungary. Depreciates just as fast as a Fiat. Was thinking about one for myself but was not impressed with clunky 6-speed gearbox and really heavy steering. Leasks have a few in. I'm not "into" cars at all, so if you find something suitable please share thoughts!

I don't think there is any current deal to sell power to anybody at the moment. I would be very surprised if there were. The partnership don't know the eventual size of the proposed windfarm, don't know the cost of transmission, and have no idea as to when electricity from the project would be available. On that basis I don't think they have much of a basis to negotiate any sale of electricity at the moment. Trying to negotiate a power purchase agreement or any other mechanism at this point could leave them with a commitment to sell for less than the cost of production. In any business that is a recipe for bankruptcy.