Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[MuckleJoannie]

I am not a Viking supporter but reactions like that put me off Sustainable Shetland. They seem to find the worst interpretation of everything Viking say and do.

[peenk]

This global warming has fairly kicked in av switched off me heatin and am still roastin ..........Not

[jz]

^^

 

Do not confuse climate (the long term average of the atmospheric conditions) with weather. Currently the weather is very cold for Shetland in November, this does not mean that globally the climate is colder.

[crofter]

VE then clarified that they meant 67% of the actual ground that would be dug up during the construction process.

 

Do you know if that includes roads?

 

Regardless of the actual numbers, I do not believe the payback time will be less than a year. I see that the "worst case" scenario from Shetland Amenity Trust modelling was 601.5 years.

 

Probably the true figure is somewhere between these extremes, but really it is irrelevant. We should be concentrating on the financial models.

[Skunnered]

I understand that the windfarm would be built in stages over a period of 5 years, so how can the pay-back period be a year or less? Presumably they mean one year after completion, which is therefore actually about 6 years pay-back, surely? Or am I missing something?

[Seaflech]

Is it not each individual turbine that they claim will be paid back in a year? Therefore if the whole scheme was built simultaneously it would all be 'paid back' in a year, but if the construction is staggered the pay back time will be extended. Personally I think it will take an awful lot longer, and it is more than a little bit suspicious that VE's initial estimate changed from a worst case of 14 years if memory serves me, down to just one year. They've either used totally unreliable figures first, second or both times round, or they have come up with a nice low, easy to swallow figure now to appease people.

 

I'm not a massive fan of the windfarm, I think the scale is just too big for Shetland and there are too many unanswered, variable, covered over elements, but I'm almost at the stage now that I wish they would just go ahead and build the b****y thing, then at least one side of the argument will be proved correct......

[Skunnered]

The carbon pay-back is academic anyway, because as far as the SIC/CT/VE is concerned this project isn't about being green or saving the planet, it's about improving the Shetland economy i.e. money and jobs.

[ArabiaTerra]

VE then clarified that they meant 67% of the actual ground that would be dug up during the construction process.

 

Do you know if that includes roads?

Yes.

 

Edit: I mean, yes, it includes the roads. (Not: yes I do know, but I'm not going to tell you. )

[ArabiaTerra]

Is it not each individual turbine that they claim will be paid back in a year? Therefore if the whole scheme was built simultaneously it would all be 'paid back' in a year, but if the construction is staggered the pay back time will be extended. Personally I think it will take an awful lot longer, and it is more than a little bit suspicious that VE's initial estimate changed from a worst case of 14 years if memory serves me, down to just one year. They've either used totally unreliable figures first, second or both times round, or they have come up with a nice low, easy to swallow figure now to appease people.

When VE were working on the original proposal, they really didn't think the carbon payback side of things would turn out to be such a big deal (Naive, I know, but this is what one of the directors told me at a meeting we both attended.) Therefore, the model they used to initially calculate the carbon payback was a basic one which assumed that the whole site was pristine, healthy blanket bog. They knew it wasn't, but decided that this way they would know the carbon payback was overestimated, rather than underestimating it, which might come back to bite them.

 

For the second, modified application, they did full survey of the site to quantify the amount of degraded peat, which resulted in a dramatic reduction in the payback time. Also, the group of turbines which was completely removed, in the Collafirth area, was an area which was 100% pristine, healthy blanket bog, so even though the amount of turbines removed was relatively small, this also had a dramatic effect on the payback time. The result of these changes is the figures we now have.

[euripides]

1. The original carbon payback model VE used in their 2009 planning application is NOT based on pristine bog. It's the standard model, so all windfarms can be compared on their carbon payback time. It didn't bring VE the expected results, so they devised their own.

 

2. In order to achieve their 1 year carbon payback in their addendum, VE assume full restoration of the site. When I read through the addendum I lost count of the times "assumed" is used. Far too much is based pure speculation. Their carbon payback calculations do not stand up to robust scrutiny.

 

3. Regarding financial and other calculations, there's a column of figures in the addedum, a "fully vetted" document according to A. Wishart, with the following calculation: 9+9+6 = 23. That says it all.

[ArabiaTerra]

Some video's of the windfarm:

 

http://vikingenergy.co.uk/wind-farm-videos.asp

[ArabiaTerra]

3. Regarding financial and other calculations, there's a column of figures in the addedum, a "fully vetted" document according to A. Wishart, with the following calculation: 9+9+6 = 23. That says it all.

Woo-hoo, euripides, you found a misprint! That must mean the whole project is flawed.

 

[MuckleJoannie]

Probably a rounding error.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^ Blimey, I was right - my maths skills are better than VE's!

[Skunnered]

Some video's of the windfarm:

 

http://vikingenergy.co.uk/wind-farm-videos.asp

Yep, they look tiny from 30,000 feet up!