Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[hairyian]

With respect, paulb, there is also the matter that VE do not have a licence to generate electricity and the Judge noted that too.

 

No respect to the judge here !  There was no requirement to have such a license at that stage of the process.

Either she truly is incompetant, or not as unbiased as she is pad to be ?

[shetlandpeat]

Noted

[crofter]

[113] It should also be noted that if one adopts an interpretation which permits section 36 consent for development and operation to be granted to a non-licence holder who has not applied for and been given an exemption, this means that the respondents have in effect granted permission to a person to carry out the operation of generation which is a criminal offence under and in terms of section 36(6) of the Act. In the context of a case such as this I consider that operation means generation in terms of the statutory definition. All parties accepted that this development could not be "operated" without a generation licence. I merely pause to comment that in itself may suggest that Parliament never intended the legislation to be construed and applied as submitted by the respondents.

 

        [114] In conclusion, let me say that I agree with senior counsel for the respondents that it is important to understand the statutory context in which the decision making of the respondents was made in this case. This is a multimillion pound project which is controversial and which has many and varied implications which are of concern to the parties and to the wider public. In my opinion the legislative structure is very important and provides the framework for the decision making as well as the starting point for consideration of this judicial review. I consider that a final decision is necessary about this aspect of the case because it also may affect the way in which the case for judicial review should be considered in relation to the merits of the case. For that reason I encouraged parties to consider and agree to the determination of this issue before the other issues in the case were determined by me. Unfortunately there was no agreement about this. Had there been such agreement, I would have considered it preferable to deal with this issue as a separate issue and thereafter allow any party, if they so wished, to appeal.

 

        [115] For the reasons I have given I will sustain plea-in-law 8 of the petitioners.

 

[MuckleJoannie]

According to the Scotsman Alec Salmond’s green energy programme has suffered a setback from the Viking court ruling.

 

 

Anti-wind farm campaigners have seized on a Court of Session opinion by Lady Clark of Calton that almost all turbines require an electricity-generating licence from the regulator Ofgem before planning consent is given.

 

 

Gary McGovern, a lawyer specialising in planning and environmental law with Pinsent Masons, said the ruling was “a departure from industry practice†when it came to “section 36†planning consent, which all power plants above 50 MW must secure.

He said the legal development had cast doubt on the power of Scottish ministers to grant consent to “non-licence holders†under the 1989 Electricity Act.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/snp-wind-farms-plan-suffers-legal-setback-1-3122700

[Egbert-Mcwhirter]

A well written letter by Mr Andrews well done , don't know who he is but Sustainable Shetland needs him onboard to fight this flawed proposal. 

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/letters/7524-time-warp

[ArabiaTerra]

A well written letter by Mr Andrews well done , don't know who he is but Sustainable Shetland needs him onboard to fight this flawed proposal. 

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/letters/7524-time-warp

 

Except that his numbers are wrong, which completely demolishes his whole arguement. The Burradale windfarm has achieved around 52% efficiency over more than 10 years of operation. Which makes it the most efficient windfarm on the planet.

 

Using small private turbines such as those sited at the halls and near private properties is not a valid comparison, as these are rarely sited in the optimum position for power generation, but rather, on the best site the owner could get.

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

I'm trying to get my head around what efficiency means.

VE talk about load factor when Myth Busting about 53% efficiency for Burradale, however in the same breath they talk about a Capacity Factor in the comparison of other types of generation.

They are two quite different calculations as I understand it.

So, if Burradale is 53% efficient when meeting demand, what is the percentage in terms of Capacity... just wanting to compare like with like because surely it is efficiency in terms of installed capacity that really matters (...when trying to predict the potential profits of a windfarm).

Edited November 4, 2013 by Ched

[Philip_A]

Regarding the last three posts:

 

1) - Egbert-Mcwhirter, on 23 Oct 2013 - 6:38 PM

 

Thank-you kindly for your approval - but I 'do' engineering, not politics. To expand: What I do is not 'what is it called?', but 'what does it do, and how does it work in practical terms?'

 

2) - ArabiaTerra:

 

I see that you are quoting what SA have released as 'data' - '52% efficiency over more than 10 years of operation' - without questioning (or probably even understanding) its meaning. 

 

Worse than that, you didn't read my SN post properly, and didn't see fit either to reply to or rebut it  outside of this 125-page 'forum'

where it might have done some good in terms of advancing the debate.

 

The very fact that this forum has run to 125 pages, all of it leading nowhere but here - and that the various arguments for and against the Lang Kames Project have run

to six years or more on various newspapers - suggests to me that Shetland is either clutching at straws while praying for a

stress-free 'alternative-miracle' fantasy future, or simply doesn't care what happens to it in the coming years  

 

3) - Ched

 

You can't win it - the standard definitions regarding wind turbines is all about ' keeping things hid' as some members of my generation might have put it. The only reliable practical approach is to locate and examine the various wind turbine manufacturers' power curves online, and then see what they actually tell you regarding how much energy those turbines are capable of developing at a 6 m/s annual-average wind speed. That was the entire thrust of my recent post on the SN - 'don't take my word for it, this is how to find out for yourself'. But you knew that already from reading it, right?

 

I won't be posting here again - or on the online newspapers either. If you people (as indigenous residents) can't be bothered to fight for this place as a sane outpost of the UK, why should I? 

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

Yes, I read it and broadly understood it.

I was highlighting an inconsistency here with the way numbers are being used by windfarm supporters. I get your point about the right way to do this... you are preaching to the converted.

Plenty of people are bothered and have been fighting for years.

I'd just be interested to know what you think is wrong with the "fight for this place". You know there is a bit more than shetlink and SN to this fight.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Ched

[Philip_A]

" es, I read it and broadly understood it. "

 

Apologies. We may be seeing things in the same light.

 

> I was highlighting an inconsistency here with the way numbers are being used by windfarm supporters. I get your point about the right way to do this... you are preaching to the converted.

 

That's a plus, and a surprise.

 

> Plenty of people are bothered and have been fighting for years.

 

 

I'd just be interested to know what you think is wrong with the "fight for this place". You know there is a bit more than shetlink and SN to this fight.

[Philip_A]

" Yes, I read it and broadly understood it. "

 

Apologies. We may be seeing things in the same light.

 

> I was highlighting an inconsistency here with the way numbers are being used by windfarm supporters. I get your point about the right way to do this... you are preaching to the converted.

 

That's a plus, and a surprise.

 

> Plenty of people are bothered and have been fighting for years.

 

I know - but the collective history that I mentioned suggests that they haven't been fightiing effectively.

 

> I'd just be interested to know what you think is wrong with the "fight for this place". You know there is a bit more than shetlink and SN to this fight.

 

Is there? Where is the evidence, based on how long this futile argument about the LKP has gone on? I'm not being confrontational - those who know me well know exactly why that is - I would really like to know.

[ArabiaTerra]

I'm trying to get my head around what efficiency means.

VE talk about load factor when Myth Busting about 53% efficiency for Burradale, however in the same breath they talk about a Capacity Factor in the comparison of other types of generation.

They are two quite different calculations as I understand it.

So, if Burradale is 53% efficient when meeting demand, what is the percentage in terms of Capacity... just wanting to compare like with like because surely it is efficiency in terms of installed capacity that really matters (...when trying to predict the potential profits of a windfarm).

 

Ok, this is my understanding of efficiency or capacity factor.

 

Each machine has a nameplate capacity, that is it is rated at a certain output when it is running flat out. I don't know the capacity of the Burradale turbines offhand but the nameplate capacity of the VE turbines will be 3.5 MW. Now, if one of the VE turbines was to run at full 3.5 MW output for an entire year, it would have a capacity factor of 100%. How the 53% for Burradale is calculated is by taking the actual output over a year and comparing it to the maximum possible output.

[Philip_A]

"Y es, I read it and broadly understood it. "

 

Apologies. We may be seeing things in the same light.

 

> I was highlighting an inconsistency here with the way numbers are being used by windfarm supporters. I get your point about the right way to do this... you are preaching to the converted.

 

That's a plus, and a surprise.

 

> Plenty of people are bothered and have been fighting for years.

 

 

 

I'd just be interested to know what you think is wrong with the "fight for this place". You know there is a bit more than shetlink and SN to this fight.

 

Is there? Show me.

[ArabiaTerra]

2) - ArabiaTerra:

 

I see that you are quoting what SA have released as 'data' - '52% efficiency over more than 10 years of operation' - without questioning (or probably even understanding) its meaning. 

 

Worse than that, you didn't read my SN post properly, and didn't see fit either to reply to or rebut it  outside of this 125-page 'forum'

where it might have done some good in terms of advancing the debate.

 

I understand it fine. What I'm questioning is your understanding of weather.  Here is the money quote from your letter:

 

A little more research led me to discover that, here in the northern hemisphere at least, the average annual wind speed is actually considered to be around 13 mph, which in metric terms is six metres/second, and in Beaufort Scale terms Force 3-4.

 

You have assumed that the average windspeed for the whole northern hemisphere has any relevence to a windfarm in Shetland.

 

It doesn't

 

The only relevent windspeed is the windspeed at the hub of the turbine.

 

Because the basic assumption underlying your case is utter garbage, your case is, therefore, utter garbage.

 

 

[Philip_A]

" Yes, I read it and broadly understood it. "

 

Apologies. We may be seeing things in the same light.

 

> I was highlighting an inconsistency here with the way numbers are being used by windfarm supporters. I get your point about the right way to do this... you are preaching to the converted.

 

That's a plus, and a surprise too from what I've seen.

 

> Plenty of people are bothered and have been fighting for years.

 

Have they, though? If that's so, why is it still in play?

 

 

> I'd just be interested to know what you think is wrong with the "fight for this place". You know there is a bit more than shetlink and SN to this fight.

 

Not from what I've seen so far. 125 pages of Shetlink 'dissent', and about six years of unproductive comment about it on the SN and elsewhere, and the LKP is still being argued; and what else to show for it? Look at the date and time-stamp on this reply for a clue.