Winds of change: Shell ditches renewable stake amid fears of a retreat to carbons
· £2bn UK windfarm project now at risk, says partner
· Move comes as company invests in Canadian oil
* Terry Macalister
* The Guardian,
* Thursday May 1 2008
The future of the world's largest offshore wind farm and a symbol of Britain's renewable energy future was thrown into doubt last night after it emerged that Shell was backing out of the project and indicated it would prefer to invest in more lucrative oil schemes.
Full article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008 ... tworkfront
Why does that not surprise me...
The cost of their stake in that project would only be a fraction of their recent first quarter profits!
Winds of change: Shell ditches renewable stake...
-
ina
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 8241
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 9:16 pm
- Location: Kincardineshire, Scotland
Winds of change: Shell ditches renewable stake...
Ina
I'm a size 10, really; I wear a 20 for comfort. (Gina Yashere)
I'm a size 10, really; I wear a 20 for comfort. (Gina Yashere)
-
Martin
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 8:50 am
- Location: Nr Heathfield, East Sussex
- Contact:
Being a bit of a cynic, I would guess that they've kept their promise to Gordon (Stalin) Brown...........a few months ago, he was busily announcing hundreds of wind turbines - I muttered publicly about it only being a smokescreen while they signed the contracts for nuclear, and they'd soon drop/severely curtail the announced plans......... 
http://solarwind.org.uk - a small company in Sussex sourcing, supplying, and fitting alternative energy products.
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Amateurs encouraged - very keen prices and friendly helpful service!
Nothing that creepy I'm afraid, just economics.
At current electricity prices the thing has a payback period of about 50 years.
Shell could fun it, that is true, but shell could also fund inumerable other projects from its profits.
They chose to fund the projects that generate the most money for their shareholders, since that includes most pension funds, I find it hard to complain.
The London Array isnt profitable unless electricity prices increase 400%, even then its not fit for purpose.
I can go through the numbers if anyone wants.
At current electricity prices the thing has a payback period of about 50 years.
Shell could fun it, that is true, but shell could also fund inumerable other projects from its profits.
They chose to fund the projects that generate the most money for their shareholders, since that includes most pension funds, I find it hard to complain.
The London Array isnt profitable unless electricity prices increase 400%, even then its not fit for purpose.
I can go through the numbers if anyone wants.
I'm not a hippie, I'm a realist.
I think everyones English
I think everyones English
-
Clara
- A selfsufficientish Regular
- Posts: 1253
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:29 pm
- Location: Las Alpujarras, Spain
I´m sure your figures are right......but the idea of Shell just being in it to look after the old folks 
" I never wanted to commit cultural genocide in Nigeria, but me nan gets through a lot of tea bags...."
Not a pop at you my love, just a random musing.....
" I never wanted to commit cultural genocide in Nigeria, but me nan gets through a lot of tea bags...."
Not a pop at you my love, just a random musing.....
baby-loving, earth-digging, bread-baking, jam-making, off-grid, off-road 21st century domestic goddess....
...and eco campsite owner
...and eco campsite owner
Oh I'm not trying to say shell is in some way good, simply that they aren't evil given corporate form.
The Wind array hasn't even begun construction yet and the budgeted cost has already more than doubled.
Its already a guaranteed loss maker, Shell isnt trying to end the world or scupper green projects, its just not willing to throw away money on a white elephant.
The other companies involved would be doing the same, except they need Renewable energy credits, shell doesnt
The Wind array hasn't even begun construction yet and the budgeted cost has already more than doubled.
Its already a guaranteed loss maker, Shell isnt trying to end the world or scupper green projects, its just not willing to throw away money on a white elephant.
The other companies involved would be doing the same, except they need Renewable energy credits, shell doesnt
I'm not a hippie, I'm a realist.
I think everyones English
I think everyones English