Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[paulb]

ha but both of you are missing the idea that it does not need to be either or; we can have both. that way we can have upset whales and minced birds.

[JGHR]

 

 

The flow of the tides follows a sine wave. The only time the flow is at maximum is at the top of the wave. The average output from the tide and from any tidal generator is 50%. That is the maximum possible output for any tidal generator over a 24 hour period.

 

 

Do you mean the average output is 50% of the peak value? Why would that be if the current flow really is sinusoidal as you say?

[unlinkedstudent]

Ah ha, this looks interesting:-

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/clark-cross-wind-farm-programme-does-not-have-proper-authority-1-2413965

[ArabiaTerra]

Ah ha, this looks interesting:-

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/clark-cross-wind-farm-programme-does-not-have-proper-authority-1-2413965

 

Hmmm, I've read The Aarhus Convention, and it seems to be just talking about following proper planning procedures and releasing information when requested, with the following exception:

 

4). A request for environmental information may be refused if the disclosure would adversely affect:

 

(d) The confidentiality of commercial and industrial information, where such confidentiality is protected by law in order to protect a legitimate economic interest. Within this framework, information on emissions which is relevant for the protection of the environment shall be disclosed;

 

It then goes on about ensuring people have redress to appropriate legal procedures to challenge decisions about the release of information.

 

Given the commercial confidentiality clause quoted above, I don't think VE have breached any of the provisions in the Convention.

 

As to how this applies to windfarm applications and the Scottish Government in a more general sense, I couldn't say. IANAL.

[stilldellin]

Posted by Shetland_Boys on another thread, quote :-

 

[ Nobody has bitched about the windmills for a while so how about for every windmill they build, they plant 100 trees? Surley that is good for the enviroment ]

 

Shoot all the sheep and plant say 10,000 trees per windmill then you may be on to something. Of course now due to the sheer quantity of windmills envisaged some trees may have to be planted into concrete.

[Grafter]

Good article from the Independent.

 

The Independent, Tuesday 24 July, page 22 “The Way We Liveâ€

 

There are few trickier conversational no-go areas in civilised, metropolitan circles than the subject of onshore wind energy. Express the view that giant turbines, while playing a part in the energy mix for the future, should not be located where they affect human lives or industrialise much-loved landscape, and invariably a glazed, defensive look will settle on the face of the listener. To liberal opinion, opposing wind farm development is the moral equivalent of denying global warming or voting Ukip.

 

What is most noticeable about these reactions is how often convenient fallacies which have been peddled for years by those with a vested interest in development are accepted as the truth. Even those normally sceptical about what they are told by big business or government have been content to swallow this propaganda with one easy gulp.

 

Yet one by one the great truths deployed by lobbyists in favour of onshore wind farms are being revealed to be no such thing. For example, we have been told for some time by government, energy companies, chartered surveyors and estate agents that a house may be a few hundred yards away from a moving, noisy structure the height of the London Eye but there will be no discernible effect on its value. That idea has just been blown out of the water by the Valuation Office, which has lowered the council tax band of affected houses because their market value has plummeted.

 

Then there is the downright weird argument that, for many people, giant turbines actually enhance the rural landscape. The bone-headed cliché, invariably deployed by lobbyists mounting this argument, is that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Evidence for the beauty of turbines always comes from those who happened to drive past some on a motorway, or saw them across a valley while on holiday, never from those who live near them.

 

A marginally more subtle claim is that opposition to accelerating the development of onshore wind farms comes from "a vocal minority". The argument is only true in that it is a minority of the population who have first-hand experience of them. Who could be surprised that a survey of those who never see a turbine reveals that they are in favour of their use? There is no more attractive solution to the energy crisis than one which has no personal impact.

 

Probably the most obvious of the fallacies concerns efficiency. No one argues that turbines produce power. The question is whether their relative inefficiency is worth the impact on the countryside, the quality of life of its residents, and the billions in subsidies and the planning process. In years to come, these and other officially endorsed distortions and fallacies will be exposed.

 

One day, people will marvel that so much self-serving propaganda was accepted without question by quite so many people.

 

Terence Blacker

 

terblacker@aol.com

[ArabiaTerra]

Any chance of a link to the actual article?

 

Edit: Never mind, found it:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-the-wind-farm-myths-are-finally-nailed-7966174.html

 

There's a simple question you have to answer:

 

How much am I willing to pay for electricity?

 

If the answer is: No more than I absolutely have to.

 

Then you have to accept onshore windfarms, or you have to personally take responsibility for the billions of deaths and the utter destruction of the natural world from the deepest oceans to the tops of the highest mountains. Because that is what has already started and what will continue to happen until we de-carbonise our economy.

 

Solar is more expensive than onshore wind (but rapidly catching up), offshore wind is more expensive, tidal is more expensive, nuclear is more expensive, wave power is horrendously expensive. Geo-thermal is geographically limited, so is new hydro.

 

There really aren't any other options.

 

Of course, there are drawbacks to onshore wind, there are drawbacks with all sources of power, but onshore wind is the cheapest, best developed option we have available at the moment, and we don't have another 10 years to waste waiting for something better to come along.

 

Climate Change is at a critical point. If we aren't globally reducing emissions by 2020, then it's game over. The only way we're going to achieve that is to deploy the technology we've got, on a massive scale.

 

What do you think the economic impact of a 2 metre sea level rise would be (Hint: This would flood the majority of the worlds ports, including London and New York)? That's what we're looking at for the end of the century if things go on as they are. How does that compare to a few rural residents having their house prices impacted?

 

I think you need to adjust your sense of proportion here, and so does the author of that article.

[Grafter]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/terence-blacker/terence-blacker-the-wind-farm-myths-are-finally-nailed-7966174.html

[ArabiaTerra]

Thanks, Grafter. I found it and answered above.

[Grafter]

Wind power is an expensive folly!

 

http://www.utilityproducts.com/news/2012/08/08/wind-power-we-pay-price-for-folly-of-green-politics.html

[ArabiaTerra]

Wind power is an expensive folly!

 

http://www.utilityproducts.com/news/2012/08/08/wind-power-we-pay-price-for-folly-of-green-politics.html

 

More climate-change denying garbage.

 

...they usually operate at just 21 per cent of their generating capacity because the wind blows intermittently.

 

And this is just a flat out lie. The average output across the whole country is around 30%, Burradale consistently achieves over 50%, and so will VE.

[unlinkedstudent]

The average output across the whole country is around 30%, Burradale consistently achieves over 50%, and so will VE.

 

Isn't average capacity factor different to average output?

 

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Burradale-Wind-Farm-Shetland-Islands.htm

 

Where's the latest figures from them? They keep carping on quoting old figures, where's the figures for the last 12 months?

[ArabiaTerra]

The average output across the whole country is around 30%, Burradale consistently achieves over 50%, and so will VE.

 

Isn't average capacity factor different to average output?

 

No.

 

At least not in the way I was meaning it. There are a number of different phrases that are used to mean roughly the same thing. If you work out the amount of power the generator would produce if it was running 24/7 at 100% output (the nameplate capacity), then look at the actual output and work out the percentage thereof, that's the number I was quoting.

 

The thing is, no generator works at nameplate capacity. The best, I believe, are hydro stations which average around 80-90%. Coal fired stations are in the 70-80% range, Nuclear is around 60-70% and Gas is around 60% (jet engines require a lot of maintenance).

 

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Burradale-Wind-Farm-Shetland-Islands.htm

 

Where's the latest figures from them? They keep carping on quoting old figures, where's the figures for the last 12 months?

 

The last time I asked (you could just e-mail them, you know, they're happy to answer questions), I was told that the overall capacity factor for Burradale over it's entire lifetime was about 52%, the best year was around 56% and the best turbine on the best year achieved 57%. (Edit: Having now looked at your link, I realise the figures I quoted (from memory) were a bit on the low side.)

 

Due to the way the accounting is done (or somesuch excuse I didn't really pay attention to), they don't get the figures for a full year until well into the next year, so at the mo', the latest figures they probably have will be for 2010. The 2011 figures will come in near the end of this year.

 

Hope that helps.

[stilldellin]

Until I can interrogate the output of a wind farm on the internet in real time I will remain skeptical of all these perceived figures ! Far too many if's and but's. The " real " figures are not divulged for a reason.

[ArabiaTerra]

Until I can interrogate the output of a wind farm on the internet in real time I will remain skeptical of all these perceived figures ! Far too many if's and but's.

 

No if's and but's required. A meter records the output to the grid, the grid then pays for the power. Simple, really.

 

(Though I expect it's the paying for the power bit where the accounting gets complicated, what with feed-in tariffs, ROC's etc)

 

The " real " figures are not divulged for a reason.

 

And up pops the same tired old conspiracy theory. For Dog sake, guys, change the feckin' record, this ones worn out.