Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ah those subsidies payed out by countries where the fuel price is kept artificially low. Not something we in the UK need worry about then.

 

In the UK there are tax breaks but these tax breaks are there for any company not just the evil oil giants. If you spend x amount on infrastructure then that is x amount you won't pay tax on, the main break for the oil companies is they can set aside monies against tax for decommissioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“ArabiaTerraâ€

“New postPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^^ In the 1970's and early 80's in the US, oil prices were high and the US was actively trying to reduce it's dependence on foreign oil. The Saudi's didn't like this as they saw it as a direct threat to their biggest market. So they opened up the taps and flooded the world with cheap oil. This wiped out the wind industry in the US.â€

 

And for the same reason the it would happen here as well only a lot faster

 

Only a daft windmill worshiper would believe that windmills is going to save the planet like the SNP party.

Just as the nut jobs who think if the UK gave up its nuclear capability?

The mad mullahs in iran would say to them seleves !

“Oh the Brits have given up there nuclear bomb so we will do the sameâ€

If you think that your power bill will come down because of windmills then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land

 

Hell we pay enough for water and it fall free out of the sky.

If that does not prove the human race are stupid

Just wait untill you pay £500 a year on top of the trust investment just for wind that is also free

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah those subsidies payed out by countries where the fuel price is kept artificially low. Not something we in the UK need worry about then.

 

No, those subsidies are paid to oil producers and they keep the global oil price down. It affects us as much as anyone as oil is traded on a global market.

 

Think about it this way. A big chunk of the tax you pay on your fuel doesn't go to the government, it goes straight to the oil companies in the form of tax breaks and allowances

 

If you think that your power bill will come down because of windmills then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land

 

I have never said that power bills will come down due to wind power. What I have said is that fossil fuel power will continue to increase in price until it is more expensive than wind. There is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you think that your power bill will come down because of windmills then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land

 

I have never said that power bills will come down due to wind power. What I have said is that fossil fuel power will continue to increase in price until it is more expensive than wind. There is a difference.

 

Once renewables are built, then the energy they produce is free*.

 

 

*Apart from maintenance and running costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

GT, that report was written by Bjorn Lomberg, a notorious denier nutcase who has been completely debunked many, many times. Whole books have been written about how wrong he is. Nothing he says is worth listening to.

 

As far as the article itself goes, he's just setting up a field of strawmen then attacking it with a flamethrower.

 

First he says windpower is not competitive, without mentioning fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that competitiveness with fossil fuels is irrelevant because we can't keep using fossil fuels anyway due to climate change.

 

Then he completely ignores the fact that Britain's existing fossil fuel and nuclear infrastructure is nearing the end of it's useful life and needs replaced anyway, so billions will need to be spent on our power infrastructure in the next few decades anyway, instead, presenting renewables investment as money which we otherwise wouldn't have to spend. This is an outright lie.

 

Then he looks at the CO2 savings from 31% wind in Britain over 20 years and compares it to total global CO2 emissions over the next century as if no other country was going to do anything, and grandly declares that it's insignificant. Of course it is, globally, but it's not insignificant on a UK scale. You see how he's spinning this?

 

Lomberg has been preaching this same message for decades now: "It's not so bad", " No need to panic", "Nothing you can do can stop it anyway".

 

It was rubbish when he first came up with it, it's still rubbish now.

 

He then repeats the old fallacy about how sometimes the wind doesn't blow. That's why we don't just depend on wind, Bjorn. That's why we need solar, wave, tidal, nuclear and hydro with gas as a backup, you moron.

 

Every piece of this article is deliberately spun to present wind in the worst light possible. It's a hit piece, written by an idiot. Ignore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that your power bill will come down because of windmills then you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land

I have never said that power bills will come down due to wind power. What I have said is that fossil fuel power will continue to increase in price until it is more expensive than wind. There is a difference.

 

Once renewables are built, then the energy they produce is free*.

 

*Apart from maintenance and running costs.

And which part of that is wrong, Crofter? Is God going to start billing us for using his wind?

 

Maintenance and running costs mean just that, the cost of keeping the plant running and the cost of financing it's capital cost. Fossil fuel plants have the same costs. In addition they have to pay for fuel. Windfarms don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The energy they produce is not free.

 

 

This might be the wrong thread for this and probably already debated elsewhere, but some people are trying hard to justify VE here so isn't it misleading to consider CO2 savings or emissions on just a UK basis.

 

Globally, "The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2007) estimates that by 2030, electricity production will account for over 17,000 MtCO2"

 

"...global wind energy capacity could stand at more than 1,000 GW by the end of 2020, producing 2,500,000 TWh annually. As a result, as much as 1,500 MtCO2 could be saved every year."

 

These dates are a decade apart, but on these figures wind would contribute an 8.8% reduction in CO2. Maybe there are better estimates elsewhere.

 

[edit] What % reduction is needed?

 

http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/environment/chapter-3-policy-measures-to-combat-climate-change/contribution-to-emissions-reductions.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, it needs to be reduced to zero. But that's not the whole story. In order to avoid dangerous climate change, we have to avoid triggering the feedbacks which will cause major releases of carbon from the natural carbon sinks like the ocean, tundra, forests, etc. Scientists have calculated that we can do this be restricting temperature rise to 2 degrees C by 2100.

 

To meet that 2 degree target we need to stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 ppm. This means there is a hard limit on the total amount of CO2 we can dig up and chuck into the atmosphere. This limit is estimated to be around 570 Gt of carbon*. We have already emitted 300 Gt, so that leaves roughly 270 left to play with.

 

Emissions in 2010 were 30 Gt and annual emissions are still rising year on year. So, as you can see, we don't have much room for manoeuvre.

 

The longer we wait to start reducing emissions, the faster, more disruptive and more expensive that reduction will be. Or, if we don't start reducing, the faster, more disruptive and more expensive climate change will be.

 

This is why I get annoyed with those who say we should go nuclear, or tidal because they will ultimately be cheaper/more efficient/less disruptive than wind. Both of them are at least 10 years from being able to make a significant difference. We don't have 10 years. We have to act now, with the technology we have now. Waiting for something better to come along is not an option.

 

 

* figures from here. Note, this is quite an old article (2006), if anyone knows of something more recent, then please post a link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ Natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Granted it's not as bad as coal (1/3 as much carbon) or oil (1/2 as much), but it's still not sustainable in the long term.

 

I think the best way to use gas would be to convert current coal stations to burn it. I don't know if building new stations to burn gas which would have to be replaced with something else* 10-20 years down the line would be viable compared to simply building something else* in the first place. At best, it could buy us some time.

 

 

* renewables or nuclear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust asked to triple Viking investment

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/3640-trust-asked-to-triple-viking-investment.html

 

Well surprise, surprise! Viking Energy back to suck the teat of the cash cow yet again!

There is no stopping money grabbing scammers.

The trust will send the money to Nigeria yet again.

The Muppets in our town hall will never learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...