23rd October 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Charitable Trust’s reserves soar £25 million in three months

A bumper three month period saw Shetland Charitable Trust’s reserves surge to £309 million though chairman Bobby Hunter warned of “volatile” markets.

On Tuesday evening trustees were presented with a report which detailed the trust’s performance in the last financial year. This showed total trust funds rose by £20 million to £284.4 million.

In the first three months of the current financial year the trust’s reserves grew to £309.3 million after recording a surplus of nearly £25 million in the period up to the end of June.

Externally managed investments grew by 11 per cent during that three-month period, increasing the trust’s holdings on global stock markets by £29.5 million. This was said to have followed the improved performance of equities, particularly in Britain and the US.

However, a warning was sounded over the volatility of markets with Mr Hunter saying that the trust is concerned with long-term returns which could “inflation proof” the reserves.

As part of this long-term strategy trust disbursements are to be reduced to £8.5 million by 2020, far below the £20 million funds grew by in the previous financial year or the £24.9 million added to reserves in the first three months of the 2018/19 financial year.

Total spending for the previous financial year, including depreciation, was just shy of £8.8 million. This included around £8 million of charitable grants.

Mr Hunter said: “This represents another strong performance of the trust’s funds, but as we all know markets go down as well as up, and the situation is very volatile at the moment.

“That is why the trust always looks at market returns over the long term. This way, we can inflation proof our reserves for the benefit of future generations.

“We are midway through the implementation of a new financial strategy designed to achieve this, and it is important to underline that our budgeting also remains on target with over £8 million disbursed in 2017-18.”

50 comments

  1. paula goddard

    Perhaps the trust could help with the scanner ??

    Reply
    • Anne Gair

      That is an excellent idea, I hope someone at the trust sees your comment. Maybe they could also re-introduce to us pensioner’s a gift for Christmas? If they’re doing so well, I can’t see a problem.

      Reply
  2. peter hamilton

    Perhaps the trust could work with the community to agree how to spend their (not the trust’s) money…

    Reply
    • Christopher Johnston

      That might happen if the Trust were legally more obligated to the public. At present, the public has no means to influence the Trust since its board is self-perpetuating. The Trust is now more focused on strengthening its reserves than on public needs, witness their statement that their future contributions will not exceed £8.5 million a tear.

      Reply
    • Wayne Conroy

      Wouldn’t be on stupid windmills thats for sure!

      Reply
  3. Haydn Gear

    In a windy world with an ever growing need for clean energy, windmills make a whole lot of sense. Untapped sources of wave produced energy will also be of benefit. No dangerous emissions in either case.

    Reply
    • Christopher Johnston

      Then install enough wind turbines, tidal generation, and energy storage to meet Shetland’s needs, but no more.

      Reply
    • Wayne Conroy

      The carbon dioxide released from the peat bogs they would dig and the environmental cost of the batteries and getting the windmills to Shetland would outweigh any carbon cost saved. The whole viking energy fiasco is a disgusting waste of money at the publics expense. I am all for clean energy when done correctly… Shame the viking energy plan is not one of those cases.

      The charitable trust are forgetting (or rather choosing to ignore) who they should be serving… The public. The majority voted against their plans for viking energy and were ignored. The trust is now working like a investment company more than a charity – Stopping funds going to worthwhile causes while hoarding the money for more “investments” that no doubt the public will continue to have no say in. So sad!

      Reply
      • Wayne Conroy

        We already pay extra on our bills for environmental projects, then pay more from public funds for projects, then subsidise the cost of the energy once produced. We then pay the environmental cost as the carbon cost is more.

        Who wins here? People running the companies like SSE and the windmill companies. That it. Sure a few people will get money along the way but is it worth the environmental cost? Is it worth seeing Shetland turned into a factory?

    • Johan Adamson

      As part of Tingwall, Whiteness and Weisdale Community Council we discussed plans submitted to build roads etc in Weisdale and Kergord as part of the VE project. The disturbance next to someone’s property is very scary and no one would want to be living next to this. So sad, so unnecessary.

      Reply
  4. John Irvine

    Haydn…. windmills only make sense if you are one of the very few who will benefit financially from them.

    They produce inconsistent and extremely expensive electricity, then add the fact that they will soon be outdated and obsolete by more efficient means of producing power.

    All that then you have the total destruction of our beautiful islands not to mention the poor souls who have to live near them.

    Its very sad that so many have had the wool pulled over their eyes by Viking Energy etc, I say that as they continue to drain the charitable trust.

    Reply
  5. ian tinkler

    It makes no sense on Shetland, so far from where the energy is needed, Haydn. How about above Abergavenny on the Welsh Black Mountains and on the Brecon Beacons. In your own backyard Haydn!!!. A few Hydro plants on the river Usk would serve well!!!. Much closer and cheaper than Shetland, no interconnector under the sea and just a few power liner and straight online to Birmingham and the West Mids.

    Reply
  6. peter hamilton

    Viking’s proposed wind turbines are not carbon neutral. Peat releases carbon once disturbed. The foundations will also release CO2 for years. The Viking raid on Shetland’s Charitable Trust is not about the environment.

    Many of Viking’s proposed subsidy-farming turbines would be located on The Busta Estate which is S.I.C. land, to which ground rent would flow. Because this would swell council reserves Viking is quietly supported and a blind eye is turned to the distrusted trust.

    Peat disruption and proximity to people’s homes aside, there wouldn’t be such a problem with this had the people of Shetland ever been given a say over that proposed use of their money and landscape, but there is no consent. Meanwhile the queues at the food bank lengthen and Disability Shetland struggle on.

    Reply
  7. Haydn Gear

    You’re a bit late in the day Ian. We already have wind farms in Wales the nearest to here being near Ebbw Vale. Further to that, a huge complex is to be established in Swansea bay and further west towards Pembroke. I’m not at all convinced that hydro plants would function effectively since , for the most part the river Usk is a gently flowing river. You must know that from your salmon / trout fishing expeditions. It’s for that reason it’s one of Britain’s best rivers. Probably, the best bet for tidal power generation would be the river Severn where inflow can be as fast as a galloping horse. So, plenty of scope for sea power generation around Shetland. Let’s not ignore the fact that Shetland hasn’t always drawn benefit from oil and gas. Thinking ahead, even greater and longer lasting advantages than oil provides could be a huge asset for Shetland to exploit. Wind and water. Forward march !!!!!

    Reply
    • Johan Adamson

      Yes, there may be a future for Tidal

      Reply
  8. Ian Tinkler

    Tidal pool on the Severn for electrical generation !!! Forget the Salmon and Sea Troat runs on the River Vyrnwy River, Tern Cound Brook, River Stour, River Teme, Warwickshire Avon, River Wye, Bristol Avon, River Usk, Haydn. Green lunacy again. I despair just now ignorant the advocates of Green energy are!!!! How to destroy a landscape and all its Biology out of pure ignorance!!!

    Reply
  9. Peter Hamilton

    If wet power is part of Shetland’s way forwards I wonder how folk would feel about smaller scale tidal capture projects around Shetland. La Rance in France has been on the go longer than I have. What might something smaller look like at the mouth of Tresta Voe?

    Could tidal flow energy maybe be captured with little harm through a couple of broad tunnels put in under Mavis Grind?

    There are other sections of water, not too deep, where flow never ebbs.

    Viking’s lining up of self-interested stakeholders behind their multiple dominant white erections may have stifled the emergence of other possibly greener and less intrusive projects.

    Reply
  10. Haydn Gear

    Thank you yet again Ian for your well considered words of wisdom. I’m sure that all your “ fans” in Shetland will be impressed!! I’m now assuming that you are familiar with the proposed construction of the Severn Barrage. The river has a tidal range of 14 metres making it the second highest in the world. The renewable energy project would be the biggest in the world and have an operational life of 200 years. With so much attention being paid to electrification ( transport in particular) it should be obvious that such a move would be a major asset. Of course, one would need to be mindful of the heads in the sand opposition but, as is so often the case, they’d end up eating their own words.

    Reply
    • Ian Tinkler

      Haydn, a Severn tidal barrage would be an environmental disaster. Quite apart from destroying the tidal ecology of the River Vyrnwy River, Tern Cound Brook, River Stour, River Teme, Warwickshire Avon, River Wye, Bristol Avon, River Usk one of the most important area of tidal flats for waterfowl in Europe would be destroyed for all time. In 200 hundred years such a barrage, in all probability would have been obsolete for about 190 years. Rather like the VE project, although that technology is already obsolete. Sadly too many scientifically ignorant idiots fail to realise that for all the usual reasons, the primary one being money.

      Reply
  11. Ian Tinkler

    Tidal has to be considered, although intermittent, it is at least predictable and reliable, unlike wind. The energy of tidal is enormous and there is plenty of evidence submerged man-made structure can massively increase biodiversity if sensibly positioned. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2011/04/artificial-reefs-around-the-world/100042/

    Reply
  12. John Tulloch

    The gas coming ashore at Sullom Voe from the £2.5 billion Laggan-Tormore gas field is transported south, without a single molecule finding its way into a Shetland home or business.

    It is, of course, subsequently shipped back to Shetland for sale at exorbitant prices.

    The gas could instead be used locally to generate electricity and provide heat for homes and businesses at a far cheaper rate than is currently possible by any other means.

    All other sources of electricity for Shetland require massive subsidy from UK consumers’ bills, including those in fuel poverty.

    It’s all very well for the virtue-signalling elites to indulge themselves in “saving the Planet” but SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY – no, so-called ‘renewable energy’ isn’t “free”, it’s eyewateringly expensive! – and it’s the poor, in this and other countries, notably, in the Third World, who will continue to suffer as a result of this lunacy.

    Reply
  13. David Spence

    Arthur C. Clarke once said

    “I would like to see us kick our current addiction to oil, and adopt clean energy sources..Climate change has now added a new sense of urgency. Our civilisation depends on energy, but we can’t allow oil and coal to slowly bake our planet.”

    He has also reputed to have said

    ” The only way humanity is going to meet the growing demand of energy use is to go nuclear. No alternative energy source comes even close to meeting this growing demand. “

    Reply
  14. ian tinkler

    David, I do not know who is reputed to have said nuclear is the only way, it is just one way, fission is problematic but is one-way forward. Thorium ( Dangerous atomic wast, not a problem with Thorium) or mini reactors (Uranium) serving well. Much safer than wind power the statistics so prove. Our NATO RN SSNs showing just how safe mini-reactors are, 50 years plus continuous operation, with crews within feet of reactors, not a single case of radiation poisoning to date. Sadly that is way beyond the intellect of the Greens to understand. Fusion is a further probable souse of infinite energy but that is for the future. Solar could work but humanity is too politically inept to do the obvious. Muck around with windmills while most of the Sub Saharan peoples starve. How about Solar panels there or in the Sahara itself, actually where the sun shines brightest!!! Apparent answers but too many utterly stupid people around to see what is most obvious!!!

    Reply
    • Graham Fleming

      Fukishima was a nuclear station, as was a Chernobyl look at the ruddy environmental mess both have caused.To say there has been no casualties,is plain ridiculous, genetic damage for future generations is completely unknown . Germany has opted for a much safer means of electric production and thankfully the Scottish parliament is looking to phase out nuclear nonsense as well. There are arguments on all sides for renewable energy which type for various sites across Scotland ,are debatable, but nuclear should always be a non starter for OUR health and safety and how to dispose of its waste.

      Reply
      • Ian Tinkler

        O dear me Graham. “all energy on Earth is nuclear in origin. The Sun is a vast fusion reactor, permanently bombarding us with radiation, the Earths core is super hot molten rock heated by isotopic decay.” Are you claiming the Earths very core is nuclear waste? Actually, every atom, perhaps excluding hydrogen, in the universe is a product of a nuclear reaction. Actually, Graham, excuse the cliche, we are all stardust. No doubt the Scotish Parliament will phase us all out as dangerous products once they find a way of safe disposal!!!

  15. peter hamilton

    Ian, environmentally, as a keen trout angler, what would be the impact of tapping into the almost constant tidal flow in and out of the Lochs of Strom and Hellister, or indeed blocking Sandsound Voe at the narrowest point? There will be ups and downs to every proposal but it would be interesting to know what the potential generating capacity would be.

    Reply
    • Mr ian Tinkler

      I think you need to check who is paying your experts, Haydn. The science is simple enough sadly most of out “greenies” are not remotely competent in the sciences. I am glad to say this idiotic scheme was scrapped some time back. The experts (Business interests) were overruled by the scientists!!!

      Reply
    • Mr ian Tinkler

      Peter Hamilton , selected Voes, ideally with no migratory fish runs could be blocked by causeways with tidal sluices (blockable) driving turbines. Most active at slack water when the tide is turning. Turbines positioned to utilise the energy of rip currents (Yell Sound, Sound of Papa) would provide power during tidal flows (non-slack water). As the natural tidal variation around Shetland is about one-hour selective Voes and Tidal rips could be utilised to provide near constant power. A full causeway across Yell sound if practicable with sluices and turbines would give massive power generation, however, I have no idea whether that is feasible from an environmental and engineering perspective. Just a few thoughts and ideas, preferable to a forest of bird mashing turbines covering all Shetland with their only intermittent generating capacity.

      Reply
  16. Haydn Gear

    In regard to a Severn barrage and the wisdom of following such a course of action, it becomes ever more apparent that the experts need to pick your brains Ian. Why don’t you simply offer your insights ( freely of course ! ) rather than wait for them to come looking for you cap in hand ?

    Reply
  17. peter hamilton

    Thanks Ian. If Gruting Voe, to the west of Sandsound Voe, and Brindister Voe to the north of Gruting Voe were harnessed through La Rance type generation scheme, with entry and release flows staggered either side of low and high tide, there would be quite a power of water reliably on tap to meet some quantity of Shetland’s power needs. I suspect someone could take stab at just how much.

    Wouldn’t it be amazing if voluntary effort could identify a network of relatively low cost, low impact local schemes using proven technology to provide Shetland with low cost energy in a sustainable way? That would be community planning and development worth having.

    If only these last few bitterly divisive years had been spent on investigating range of low impact, sustainable means of power generation which could genuinely command community support.

    There used to be a Shetland Development Trust, but that was captured by salmon farmers. Now Shetland Charitable Trust has been captured by modern-day Viking raiders. It is almost as if different ways of doing things could result in different things worth doing.

    Reply
  18. Haydn Gear

    Ian, I was under the impression that the idea of solar panels ( a very obvious possible solution) was long ago mooted for use in the Sahara. Lots of sun so, bingo. Lots of wind and sea power in other places so use them. Horses for courses. Not so sure about your belief in nuclear power— no particular risks??? Maybe certain people in Japan would wish to pick a bone with you. A sizeable mishap could adversely affect all life on Earth. Is such a risk really worth taking when we have naturally occurring power sources on Earth — sun,sea and wind . No risks from them.

    Reply
    • ian tinkler

      People in Japan? One possible death, a single one, unfortunate but loads more have fallen of Wind Turbines every year in the UK. Hundreds of thousands of premature deaths yearly from atmospheric pollution (EG diesel engines and wood chip burners so praised by the green lunatics). Incidentally, Haydn, perhaps you should understand all energy on Earth is nuclear in origin. The Sun is a vast fussion reactor, permanently bombarding us with radiation, the Earths core is super hot molten rock heated by isotopic decay. Our very lives, all life on Earth, depends on nuclear energy, not so scary for those who understand simple physics. “naturally occurring power sources on Earth — sun, sea and wind. No risks from them.” What ignorant nonsense, just how many melanoma deaths, Haydn? Good old safe sun!!! Typical green nonsense learn a little simply science Haydn a standard grade physics class would help you balance your views

      Reply
      • Graham Fleming

        Chernobyl,U.N report, 4,000 early deaths – Greenpeace up t
        o 90,000 deaths.
        10,000 attributed birth defects and 50,000 extra cancers in Europe alone.
        180 years before affected areas are fit for human habitation, 24,000 years before plutonium degrades (where this came from?).
        Animal and bird deformities where affected species can no longer reproduce.
        3 billion euros for new sarcophagus, cost of affected areas, incalculable on economic grounds.
        The nuclear nonsense in Britain very often has been intertwined with military interests so the real cost of electricity generation production is often hidden .To go ahead with any new nuclear plants here on health safety and economic grounds is very much absolute lunacy

  19. David Spence

    Not so sure, Ian. Haydn does have a point in regards to using solar power in area’s of the planet which have lots of sun and heat. The Sahara Desert certainly would be an area which could be tapped as a source of energy and the production of electricity.

    However, in my previous statement in regards to nuclear power, I was quoting Arthur C. Clarke’s view on how humanity’s only way of meeting the ever increasing demand for energy is, at the time, to go nuclear. No alternative source of energy, so far, would come close to meeting today’s and future demand.

    However, again, education is the key to reducing the demand for energy, technology playing its part by producing low energy products (light bulbs being an example) and for us as people to be aware of the greater impact this is having on the planet.

    All of this boils down to economics, and as long as this is the key factor (profit making) very little progress will be made in answering the greater question of energy supply and sustainability.

    Reply
  20. Haydn Gear

    Well Ian, I was under the impression that the point at issue was how best to extend our methods to generate energy for the ever increasing hunger of the world’s people. The 🌞 sun, the wind and the seas are the obvious and safest sources to do that. How your wandering free roving mind can drag melanoma, accidental deaths on wind turbines and wood chip burners into all this escapes me. At least you didn’t include fish and chip fryers. I know you have a deserved reputation for blowing fuses but you could save yourself time by refraining from the inclusion of so much information overload. It simply muddies the water . Or is that why you do it ? As for nuclear fission ( you wrote fussion) it may be worth recalling the words of that physicist Robert Oppenheimer on witnessing the first man made nuclear explosion in 1945. “ I am become Death the destroyer of worlds”. How do regard this Ian?

    Reply
    • Mr ian Tinkler

      Haydn, I meant Fusion as in the sun or hydrogen bomb (Thermonuclear), not fission (Uranium or Plutonium, atomic bomb) or uranium atomic reactor. A thorium reactor is slightly different, ask a standard grade physics pupil to explain the previous to you!. Ignorance is such bliss but no excuse. I follow Oppenheimer philosophy to a degree (post-Trinity) but prefer Professor Rotblatt’s teachings (Bartholemew,s Hospital. U Lond (medical physics) when I was a student.) He saved lives with atomic physics after leaving the hydrogen bomb research. Believe it or not countless millions of people are alive today as a result of atomic, nuclear and radiation technology whom otherwise would have died prematurely. Stick to the dark ages Haydn build yourself a windmill. If you wish to criticise nuclear energy at least try and understand the difference between Fission and fusion, that understanding is as basic as it gets.

      Reply
  21. paul barlow

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ Chernobyl will result in 4000 deaths with many thousands of cancers.
    A May 2012 United Nations committee report stated that none of the six Fukushima workers who had died since the tsunami had died from radiation exposure. According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as “disaster-related” by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Fukushima equals 573
    Kyshtym disaster Death count unknown, estimates range from 50 to more than 8,000
    Windscale fire 250 thyroid cancers
    Panama 17 deaths
    Costa Rica 13
    Spain 11
    Soviet submarine K-431 reactor accident 10
    Columbus 10
    Soviet submarine K-27 and k19 17 deaths
    Morocco 8
    Houston 7
    baku 5
    another 16 incidents with 28 deaths
    total deaths over 12000 in 60 years or on average 211 deaths caused by nuclear power each year. now ian list the deaths linked to wind turbines not including construction or maintenance workers.

    Reply
    • Mr ian Tinkler

      Your statistics are unreferenced Pual and are fiction, certainly, the Fukushima figures are fake! and the rest nonsensical and unreferenced. You seem to have forgotten Chernobyl entirely!!!! But let us look at air pollution to get a perspective. Heart deaths alone, air pollution causes 2.4 million deaths due to heart disease every year, (World Health Organization) (http://www.who.int/airpollution/en/) That is on comparable statistics to yours over 60 years well over 120 million dead. Incidentally wind turdine accidents UK alone 1500 over 5 years (Telegraph newspapers). World wide no statistics available (industrial secret)!!!

      Reply
  22. paul barlow

    oddly more deaths from radioactive sources ie dental xrays than from none workplace accidents. falls entrapments ect at work are not the same as deaths caused by the turbines function. very different.

    Reply
    • Mr ian Tinkler

      How about lives saved from medical radioactive sources Paul? My dental x-rays hay found plenty of treatable malignant tumours. Ant atomic medicine with reactor-produced isotopes save thousand every month!!!

      Reply
  23. Haydn Gear

    Yet another typical attempt to wriggle and sqirm your way out of properly addressing uncomfortable questions Ian. The most I can bring myself to say about that unfortunate character trait is that you’ve had an extremely lengthy period of practice. In some ways, it becomes most evident that getting a straight and fair response from you is virtually impossible because, come what may, your views are unassailable.— you think. Your defensive posturing which leads you to drag up training delivered many moons ago appears to be your primary safety net. 😢 Sad. Just one question—- Do you think the present and future times of life on Earth are safer now ( than in the Dark Ages as you stated somewhat foolishly about me) or do you support and approve of the nuclear weaponry which, in the shaky hands of world leaders such as ‘the Donald’ poses threats of immense proportions to all life on the planet? Since your typing finger must be getting weary from your recent series of letters, a one word answer— yes or no — would suffice. I wonder if brevity is in any way at all capable of being introduced to your lexicon. What a relief that would be !! I shall not hold my breath since that would probably be fatal.

    Reply
  24. David Spence

    I believe the Pentland Firth has one of the strongest tides in the world, and has not, as yet, been tapped into.

    I am pretty sure Shetland could do well in tapping into the sea and the tides around the islands, as well as wind power……..which Viking Energy has increased the height of these monster which will scar the islands.

    Whether these sources of energy can meet the demand locally or further afield remains questionable.

    The urgency to find new sources of energy and the production of electricity maybe mute at the present time, but one can presume this may take off in greater need sooner or later as our dependence on fossil fuels becomes even greater due to population increases, as well as further scientific and technological advances are made.

    The consequences and the impact of fossil fuels is very evident, and we will have to at some point look for alternative and cleaner sources of energy.

    Economics will determine this progress, for as long as the major player’s in the research, development, production and use of oil and gas takes priority, very little progress will be made. Despite all the warning signs nature has shown us.

    Reply
  25. ian tinkler

    What a load of pretentious twaddle you write Haydn! Regarding weaponry, I follow Rotblatt’s doctrines (Pugwash society follower). Concerning carbon-free energy and environmental destruction, I utterly oppose ignorance (Green lunatics) and look to intelligent science led advances. You ask about life in the Dark Ages, before modern science. We are safer now, live much, much, much longer, and human populations are set to are double in every generation. All this due to scientific advances we prosper rather too well. The greatest threat to all life on Earth is without doubt human overpopulation. Not many dare to say that, not PC enough!!!. If you want a genuinely Green policy advocate worldwide mass contraception, not idiotic windmills, biomass and associated nonsense. The greatest reduction in our CO2 footprint would be having one less child per family, show me a single Greeny politician who would advocate that.

    Reply
  26. Haydn Gear

    Since Ian Tinkler, that progressive , forward thinking fan of all things nuclear ( they’d love him in Iran and North Korea! ) is stuck on the idea that natural and safe sources of energy production should be set aside in favour of potentially lethal nuclear alternatives, I wonder if he would welcome a nuclear power station on Shetland —- preferably in his own backyard. If he should display any doubts and fears, I feel sure that the former residents of Chernobyl and Fukushima would quickly allay any such concerns. Come on Ian, be honest, much as it might pain you, would you really welcome such a move or would languidly rotating turbine blades put your mind at rest? You could be assured of restful, unthreatened sleep without any risk of waking up glowing in the dark.!!!

    Reply
  27. Ian Tinkler

    Firstly Haydn, atomic/nuclear weapons are not the same as nuclear power stations. The residents of Chernobyl and Fukushima did not suffer radiation mass casualties that remotely compare with deaths from particulate releases from diesel engines and wood burning generators (Renewable) across the UK (Shetland so loves burning wood chip). About reactors in Shetland, I have no problem whatsoever. We have had nuclear reactors of our coast (SSN’s NATO and Russian ) for over 50 years. Worldwide there are litterally tens of hundreds of atomic/nuclear plants, all working quite safely with no CO2 emissions whatsoever. Every Hospital in the UK has equipment quite capable of emitting lethal radiation doses, so does every Dental Surgery!! It is called science, Haydn, not scar mongering idiocy from ignorant souls. Nobody has ever waken up glowing in the dark, only in the minds of the ignorant and most foolish. Incidentally, Haydn have you worked out the differences between Fission, Fusion, Uranium and Thorium yet. When you have a competently informed opinion, you may change your view.

    Reply
  28. David Spence

    An interesting documentary on Wind Energy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55-jBCjtJ88

    Reply
  29. Haydn Gear

    David, an interesting and sad account of people whose lives have ( apparently) been damaged by wind turbines. I just wonder why this report has not been more widely made known . It isn’t exactly recent news. Further to that, since there is a proliferation of wind farms, if the information being disseminated is wholly true, why have no comparable reports surfaced? Conversely , I don’t understand how large,up to date electricity generation taking place in sea areas could be detrimental to land based communities. No doubt a certain “ expert “ in the field ( and that means any field!!) will be ready to pounce and give everybody who can bear to read/ listen to the benefit of his unending encyclopaedic knowledge and experiences.! Never a dull unamusing moment when he’s under full sail. But, if it keeps him 😃 happy …………..!

    Reply
  30. peter hamilton

    Not many fans of SCT’s local investment above. Any thoughts, praise or concerns regarding how they distribute the cash earned? How well can they do it without engaging with the community?

    Reply
  31. Mr ian Tinkler

    Haydn have you worked out the differences between ” Fission, Fusion, Uranium and Thorium yet.” When you have a competently informed opinion, you may change your view.” No encyclopaedic knowledge and experiences required here. Any standard grade physics (passed) school pupil could relieve you of your ignorance. Your blind prejudices and closed mind may take a little more. It is not rocket science; all are available online. (WHO. IAEA, UNDP, UNEP, UN-OCHA, UNSCEAR)

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.