Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[shetlandpeat]

Ten huge tide dams around Shetland, give or take plus the wee propeller things. I wonder how much they would generate? Enough to build the submarine cable and all the relevant components?

 

Not really ten. A dam could have a potential of 1 GW, but at 30% efficiency, 333 MW. Two, carefully placed could give a constant power level.

 

However, these dams do not need very high movements to do this, thus there are far more suitable places for them.

[Piddly]

Just seen on the news that some towns in England tomorrow are holding referendums along with their election on whether they want a mayor appointed or not, we can't even get a referendum on spending over £200million of our money

[stilldellin]

^ Why all this concrete Peat, with two hours difference between tides on each side of Shetland, as Symbister posted there is never slack water all at the same time. Just dump your turbines overboard in the best locations and hey presto !

[mate64]

No need for dams or the wee propeller things. Simply use the fact that sea level goes up and down and that heavy things can float.

 

A floating structure can be made arbitrarily large. At high tide the potential energy contained within it is directly proportional to its mass. The engineering challenge is how to tap this energy as it lowers as the tide goes out. More energy (but not nearly as much) can be realised as the structure rises again on the next tide.

The energy thus achieved can be unlimited and never ending. No worries about barnacles messing up underwater blades.

 

Our young ambitious scientific oriented minds should get on to this and bring Shetland to the forefront of the tidal energy sector. This will take money. Therefore, unfortunately, we need the windfarm first to get things up and running. Later these “monstrosities†can be dismantled, perhaps before their 25 year’s lifespan. No problem in getting the money from SCT. Just tell them it is a creative art. The art of creating energy.

[mate64]

Before the above idea is rejected as another environmental eyesore, these “structures†could be big & flat, like a tennis court or even a football pitch. Stick on a peerie hoose an twartree sheep. Or mak a muckle thing disguised as a ship. Everybody laeks boats.

I envisage the best way of tapping the energy would be via hydraulics, but there are numerous options. We need engineers, preferably home grown.

[shetlandpeat]

^ Why all this concrete Peat, with two hours difference between tides on each side of Shetland, as Symbister posted there is never slack water all at the same time. Just dump your turbines overboard in the best locations and hey presto !

 

It may work, but it is still being tested. The point I was really making was that other areas with a low tidal difference could produce power and would be easier to build from. There are many tidal estuaries. The west coast of Scotland has some impressive tidal flows, I have been through a few of them, no need for the expense of an interconnection as power can be produced closer to where it is needed. Especially as the test sites are not around Shetland, well, none I have seen running. Again, Orkney have taken the lead. Perhaps the VE project will kick start the tidal and wave. They do seem to be quite a way behind. To just wait for them may jeopardise the viability of ANY renewable energy production.

[stilldellin]

Whatever happened to the one in Bluemull Sound, was supposed to be up and running by now ?

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2011/10/13/bluemull-tidal-power-array-moves-step-closer-with-crown-lease

http://www.scotsrenewables.com/blog/tidalpower/worlds-first-community-tidal-turbine-for-shetland/

[ArabiaTerra]

Oh please. No argument both ST Poll and ECU submissions were unrepresentative for reasons already well aired...

 

No, Ghostrider, many people have claimed that the ST poll was unrepresentative. Nobody has actually laid out why this should be, anywhere.

[ArabiaTerra]

even if you are illiterate and innumerate and can't understand that the overwhelming scientific evidence is that burning fossil fuels is going to result in the end of a stable climate - the price of fossil fuels is headed in one direction only. UP.

 

I agree with the very last part of that statement, but I have to question the phrase 'overwhelming scientific evidence is that burning fossil fuels is going to result in the end of a stable climate.' I think almost all scientists would concur that the climate has never been anywhere near stable at any time. It is constantly changing. There have been various heating and cooling periods to greater or lesser degrees for eons, long before any mass industrial activity by man.

 

And here we go again.

 

Someone else who doesn't understand the science behind man-made climate change and yet seems to think their ignorance entitles them to draw conclusions.

 

There is only one point we know of in the entire geological history of the Earth when the climate has changed as fast as it is changing now. That is the K-T asteroid impact which wiped out the dinosaurs. The fifth great mass extinction.

 

The change we are expecting under a business as usual scenario, just for this century, is six degrees centigrade.

 

This is approximately the same size as the change from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), to the interglacial we are in today.

 

This change took FIVE THOUSAND YEARS.

 

We are causing such a change in TWO HUNDRED YEARS. And it won't stop at 6 degrees.

 

If you don't understand the difference between 5000 and 200 then I respectfully suggest you start listening to the scientists who do, all of whom say, this will be catastrophic for the Earth's biosphere and human civilisation.

 

the cost of the fuel source for renewable energy will remain at current rates - free!

 

Hmm, I'm never very comfortable with the word 'free' when it comes to anything. In the case of large corporations and governments it is a word which is used to hoodwink somebody, a nice word to paper over the cracks of having to get money out of pockets by some other round about way. There always seems to be a catch. Oh yes, here it is - £685million (estimate from VE website) to harness this 'free' energy. It's a bit like people who say that they have a phone contract for £40 a month, but they get 600 free texts and 400 free minutes. No you don't, you pay £40 for it.

 

£685 million, to build the windfarm. How much nuclear station do you think you'll get for £685 million? Or hydro plant? Or tidal generation?

 

A damn sight less than we'll get building windmills.

 

You say that renewable energy is free. So is spring water, so why does it cost £1.60 for a half litre bottle of it in WH Smith? I'd be cheaper buying petrol, even in Shetland.

Technically oil is free too, it's just lying under the ground minding its own business. It has a price on it because we demand it. The higher the demand, the higher the cost. Fast forward to a 100% 'green' (another misnomer used on a vast scale), 'free energy' Scotland. The demand for electricity is in the hands of power companies, who like every other company exist with the sole purpose of making money. Just like for oil, if the demand goes up then so too does the price. Just like fuel, there won't be a thing we can do about it.

 

This is just complete bollox.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for renewable energy, but on a scale that is appropriate for the purpose. I think that the Viking project is hugely invasive to Shetland with some seriously questionable decisions being made by people who are desperately wanting in competency and ability. Their slap happy approach to handling the people of Shetland's precious, ever dwindling wealth has sent head shakes of incredulity to many over the years. To call them 'trustees' is a tragic irony, for how many of them would you trust with a piggy bank let alone the oil fund.

There are far too many ifs and buts with the project, but thankfully most of the 'butts' have less than 24 hours left in their posts. Sadly though, the snowball (no pun on global warming) has grown bigger and bigger, and even though it is disintegrating rapidly it will take a hell of a lot to break its momentum.

 

The windfarm will be built. It's got planning permission. What remains is whether we own part of it or not.

 

If we don't, then we can expect to see a return of around £100,000,000 (generous estimate) over the 25 year lifespan from community payouts and disturbance costs/rents etc.

 

If we own half of it the returns jump by a factor of nearly ten, to £900,000,000. The math is simple.

[derick]

.' I think almost all scientists would concur that the climate has never been anywhere near stable at any time. It is constantly changing. There have been various heating and cooling periods to greater or lesser degrees for eons, long before any mass industrial activity by man.

 

Focus on the timescale. 10,000 years to develop civilisation; 200 to develop industrial civilisation. The heating and cooling periods you refer to are on a much longer timescale, in response to natural forcings (Milankovich, volcano storms). The PETM was a natural event, with methane clathadrates as best guess for proximate cause. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

 

Mass extinction? significant (by which I mean beyond our capacity to keep building more piers further up the hill) sea level rise?

 

Do we feel lucky? well, Punk, do we?

 

and don't slag WIKI. it's not influenced by academic greasy pole climbing brown nosers.

[Seaflech]

And here we go again.

 

Someone else who doesn't understand the science behind man-made climate change and yet seems to think their ignorance entitles them to draw conclusions.

 

At the risk of quoting quotes beyond the point of tedium, if you read my post properly you will see that it was in response to a specific term - 'stable climate.' At no point did I deny man-made climate change.

 

You call me ignorant for the comments I made. In that case I would have to say that I have as much right to be 'ignorant' as you do to display your arrogance. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, however it is perceived by others. I'm very sorry that my lowly intelligence is no match for yours, I'll be sure to keep my thoughts to myself if they don't meet your strict criteria.

 

As a wise man once said, 'A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.'

[PJ of Hildisvik]

OFGEM has refused to lower grid connection charges for islands.

Boo Hoo

[MuckleJoannie]

East Lothian wind farm would ‘match output of coal-fired power station'

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/east-lothian-wind-farm-would-match-output-of-coal-fired-power-station-1-2276705

 

NEW wind turbines proposed for East Lothian would create Scotland’s most productive large-scale wind farm, its developers have claimed.

 

Community Windpower said the 22 turbines would produce electricity more than 40 per cent of the time, powering the equivalent of nearly 60,000 homes.

[lochend]

OFGEM has refused to lower grid connection charges for islands.

Boo Hoo

 

my reading of the press release indicates a possible 50% cut in charges for wind energy in the northern and western isles

[paulb]

Well i wonder which is right the right statement. please ost the link. pj i was at the burn yesterday. lots of disturbed peat. viewed the hills around the halfway house they are not in a good state. they all need restoring. who is going to pay for it.