Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[peenk]

A T wrote.

Why on earth would they want to generate the power in Shetland then send it south over an interconnector.

 

 

Indeed why would they.

Perhaps because of the rubbish capacity factor of wind compared to the superior factor of gas and the extra pennies for the shareholders.

[JGHR]

I doot da cheeks wid be tight clenched by the time they were loosening aaf the hidmost nut in the face oh a force 9!

 

*IF* it was sabotaged, the spanner work was probably done previously, on a fine night, nuts probably just slackened, not removed, and physics did the rest when the strong wind arrived.

 

Oh really, just found this..

 

There are no recorded instances, anywhere, in the world, ever, of nuts being loosened on a fine day. This activity nearly always happens in a flying gale

[crofter]

There are no recorded instances, anywhere, in the world, ever, of nuts being loosened on a fine day. This activity nearly always happens in a flying gale

 

Damn. I hate being proved wrong. If it does turn out to be sabotage, I wonder if the insurance will pay anything?

[ArabiaTerra]

A T wrote.

Why on earth would they want to generate the power in Shetland then send it south over an interconnector.

 

 

Indeed why would they.

Perhaps because of the rubbish capacity factor of wind compared to the superior factor of gas and the extra pennies for the shareholders.

 

Bollox. The capacity factor of gas is around 60%. The capacity factor of Burradale is 53%. (The most efficient windfarm on the planet)

 

Gas costs money.

 

Wind doesn't.

[unlinkedstudent]

I doot da cheeks wid be tight clenched by the time they were loosening aaf the hidmost nut in the face oh a force 9!

 

*IF* it was sabotaged, the spanner work was probably done previously, on a fine night, nuts probably just slackened, not removed, and physics did the rest when the strong wind arrived.

 

Or someone cut corners during the construction!

[unlinkedstudent]

A T wrote.

Why on earth would they want to generate the power in Shetland then send it south over an interconnector.

 

 

Indeed why would they.

Perhaps because of the rubbish capacity factor of wind compared to the superior factor of gas and the extra pennies for the shareholders.

 

Bollox. The capacity factor of gas is around 60%. The capacity factor of Burradale is 53%. (The most efficient windfarm on the planet)

 

Gas costs money.

 

Wind doesn't.

 

Err so why if wind costs nothing do they want dosh then?

 

Ah yes, the most efficient windfarm on the planet - depends how you measure efficiency. Just when did they last measure efficiency and, for that matter, efficiency at 53% - given that on their website it states 52% capacity over a 3 year period from the original three wind turbines. So what's their latest figures? Anyone know?

 

And given your stance on another thread, AT, how can we trust statistics from such nasty rich profiteers?

[ArabiaTerra]

From the VE website:

 

Currently, the Burradale wind farm is thought to be the most efficient wind farm in the world and has achieved an average annual load factor of up to 57% - higher than some conventional power stations. On average the Burradale wind farm has a load factor of 53%.

[JGHR]

 

Bollox. The capacity factor of gas is around 60%. The capacity factor of Burradale is 53%. (The most efficient windfarm on the planet)

 

Gas costs money.

 

Wind doesn't.

 

This is not really a fair comparison though AT. If gas was used as base load generation you would see it provide much higher capacity factors. Gas fired power stations are much easier to take on and off line than coal or nuclear so gas plants are the first ones shut down in times of low demand, resulting in lower capacity numbers. Windfarms on the other hand are not capable of reaching capacity figures much beyond those published for Burradale, and remember the Viking energy windfarm, being a much more complex machine than Burradale, is unlikley to achieve anything like the same capacity factor.

[ArabiaTerra]

 

Bollox. The capacity factor of gas is around 60%. The capacity factor of Burradale is 53%. (The most efficient windfarm on the planet)

 

Gas costs money.

 

Wind doesn't.

 

This is not really a fair comparison though AT. If gas was used as base load generation you would see it provide much higher capacity factors. Gas fired power stations are much easier to take on and off line than coal or nuclear so gas plants are the first ones shut down in times of low demand, resulting in lower capacity numbers. Windfarms on the other hand are not capable of reaching capacity figures much beyond those published for Burradale, and remember the Viking energy windfarm, being a much more complex machine than Burradale, is unlikley to achieve anything like the same capacity factor.

 

I beg to differ. Gas turbines are jet engines. They need a lot of maintenance (I used to work on the ones at Sullom). And they are used as base load. And as far as the VE turbines being more complex than Burradale? What on earth gives you that idea? Sure, they're bigger, but that's all. In fact the trend in windmill design recently has been to reduce the complexity of the machines by removing the gearboxes so the VE turbines will likely be more reliable than the Burradale ones.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

The gas is free the same as the wind, its the engineering and resources that is required to extract / harness and then transform into electricity that costs money.

A gas powered power station can be engineered to supply constant power 24/7 at less cost than doing the same with wind.

 

It could be done with wind if the geography of the land could support another equal number of windmills working exclusively on pumping water up to hydro resevoirs ready to kick in during the many occasions when there is to little or too much wind.

You would need major excavations on every viable high point in the isles.

 

Or people could just make do with electric when the wind blows ?

[Infiltrator]

 

I beg to differ. Gas turbines are jet engines. They need a lot of maintenance (I used to work on the ones at Sullom).

.

 

Industrial gas turbines like the GE frame 5's at Sullom do not require a lot of maintenance, in relative terms they're very reliable as they have so few moving parts. There ate many places in the world where turbines like these are on remote locations and run for months without seeing any maintenance.

 

Maybe if you'd turned up on more of the days you were supposed to be working on them you'd have learnt a bit more about them

[Infiltrator]

 

I beg to differ. Gas turbines are jet engines. They need a lot of maintenance (I used to work on the ones at Sullom).

.

 

Industrial gas turbines like the GE frame 5's at Sullom do not require a lot of maintenance, in relative terms they're very reliable as they have so few moving parts. There ate many places in the world where turbines like these are on remote locations and run for months without seeing any maintenance.

 

Maybe if you'd turned up on more of the days you were supposed to be working on them you'd have learnt a bit more about them

[tabby]

Base load by definition means that a station can run continuously at a efficient load for that station normally 90-95% capacity continiously with other stations being employed to take up the additional load requirements at peak times. These are always CCGT plants (combined cycle Gas turbine) which are normally two GT's with a steamer running off the TEG (turbine exhaust gas) Normally these are 660 Mw stations and again they will only come on line if the Grid will offer to take a decent load normally this would need to be more than 550Mw to make it wortwhile for the power generator (remember they have to make money)

 

By its very definition this system requires a large grid with a lot of generators available to bid for the base load contracts and the peak load requirements and most importantly huge load. Normally a MwH costs about £50-£60 approx but during times of shortage say for example if Drax and Sizewell B fell over, then the grid needs to pick up 8000Mw quickly, for a short period a Mwh could peak at over £1000 approx so you can see why some company's bid for base load and some for peak demands.

 

The most modern CCGT plants can achieve 55% efficiency depending on the type of condenser employed (A condeser is the part of plant that converts the steam from the back end of the turbine back into water for the boiler feed) this is where most losses occur followed by the compressor in the turbine. These are the most modern and efficient plants currently in service.

 

Therfore base load is never really going to be an issue in Shetland.

[owre-weel]

Surely the answer is both! Windmills producing as much as they can, backed up with the gas power station when needed, therefore extending the time gas be available.

 

Gas will eventually run out, but I doot da wind is here to stay

[JGHR]

 

I beg to differ. Gas turbines are jet engines. They need a lot of maintenance (I used to work on the ones at Sullom). And they are used as base load. And as far as the VE turbines being more complex than Burradale? What on earth gives you that idea? Sure, they're bigger, but that's all. In fact the trend in windmill design recently has been to reduce the complexity of the machines by removing the gearboxes so the VE turbines will likely be more reliable than the Burradale ones.

 

The modern gas turbine is one of the most reliable machines around, that's why they are used as jet engines. I too have worked on the ones at Sullom, and have worked on a good few more modern machines since so I am aware of the maintenance requirements. As far as I know gas and coal each account for about 40% of the UK generating capacity with nuclear making another 15% and renewable and imports making up the remainder. It is the gas fired capacity that is wound back when demand is low, because that is relatively easy to do, therefore the capacity factor figures for gas generation are skewed downwards. The individual turbines proposed for the viking windfarm may well be no more complex than the Burradale ones, but the simple fact that there is a much greater number of them, along with the convertor station and submarine cable on which they rely means that the viking windfarm as a whole is a much more complex machine. The more complex any machine becomes the less reliable it will be, its simple probability which is well understood and accepted by reliability engineers.

 

Also

Currently, the Burradale wind farm is thought to be the most efficient wind farm in the world and has achieved an average annual load factor of up to 57% - higher than some conventional power stations. On average the Burradale wind farm has a load factor of 53%.

.

 

Are you talking about load factor or capacity factor? the two are different. Do you happen to know what the capacity factor for Burradale is over the period that they have had 5 turbines running?