Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Ghostrider]

^ Are we talking production close to final user here, or across the board?

 

Turbine(s) situated next to a house or houses primarily feeding only them is a whole other business model than a remotely sited farm. A quick "back of fag packet" calculation of conservative ball park numbers for VE comes back telling you it'll probably take 20 years for the project to pay off its liabilities just to get power on to the same land mass as its customers, and that's assuming there's neither drop in subsidies or electricity price, or significant over budget expenditure.

 

Whether its a "cheaper" production method is besides the point, a good investment opportunity it certainly isn't in my book.

[Urabug]

But Ghostrider folk said the same about the district heating scheme when they were digging up the streets of Lerwick.

 

Where do we stand on that one now !

[Wheelsup]

But don't we have to factor in the ongoing cost of a running back up generator if the wind doesn't blow or when the interconnecting cable gets broken.

[paulb]

obviously. a gas turbine meets that need. i wonder if we could use the flare off from sullom.  or find a nice valley to flood. back up could also be a tidal barrage across yell sound or even to bressay . increased use of solar would reduce some demand. and we do now see a storage system developing.

Edited November 5, 2015 by paulb

[Ghostrider]

But Ghostrider folk said the same about the district heating scheme when they were digging up the streets of Lerwick.

 

Where do we stand on that one now !

 

Indifferent, nobody is getting rich off investing in it, last I heard it was turning a "small profit". From a "green" perspective it might be considered "worthwhile" and it has provided a little employment, but from any other angle I don't see it as worth the bother. Plus, I still think they're taking the pith expecting folk who gain nothing from the scheme to pay to have their "fuel" delivered to them - if its turning any profit at all, it should be going towards meeting those costs.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

no reason why it wont. wind is one of the cheaper methods to produce power. 

 

You will never be able to rely on wind alone.  Cheaper methods?  Look at how many wind turbines there are throughout the UK and the ridiculous small amount they produce, and then compare that with the likes of a gas turbine or nuke station.  How many wind turbines do you need to be able to match the output of one average nuclear power station?

 

As for subsidies, wasn't it the EU who ordered that governments had to offer subsidies for certain types of power?  Plus, it's the EU who are ordering that a percentage of power has to be produced by 'green' methods by 2020.  So what happens if we vote to leave the EU then?  No VE?

[ArabiaTerra]

 

 

 

Yes  Arabia Terra I am aware of the subsidy on our power,but it was already there (sure it was?)before "service providers "were introduced into the system requireing even more money to fund them so they could compete for buisness,and n my judgement pushing the cost of electricity up even further.  

 

Someone has to pay for all the "bumph" and phone calls trying to get us to change or so called provider who should we do so will use exactly the same cables and source of supply.

 

I would think the body and blades of these turbines will last a long time,so except for the high cost of installation,after that every now and then some expenditure  to replace a few bearings, bushes ect I cannot see how they can not be effecient and be productive .

 

Many of use were critical of the Lerwick district heating scheme .Well it's still there and working and got many customers and as far as I know plenty still waiting patiently to connect up to it. Bit more expensive now but still there.

 

Do'es it make a profit ?

 

Will the wind farms be the same  ? 

 

Apart from maintenance costs, every turn of the Burradale blades has been profit for several years now. IIRC Burradale paid off the loan that built it 5 years early. I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

 

 

[Ghostrider]

I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

 

Let me help you out with that then. Here's just a few....

 

1) Interconnector - Every aspect of it,

 

2) Considerably more challenging site and terrain.

 

3) Considerably larger and complex engineering challenge.

 

4) 45% of the developer's shareholding is in the hands of muppets.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Apart from maintenance costs, every turn of the Burradale blades has been profit for several years now. IIRC Burradale paid off the loan that built it 5 years early. I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

 

Let's take away the extra dosh we pay them via our lekky bills then, shall we?  Perhaps this is something the recent SIC Fuel Poverty Survey should be asking us, how many of us would like to see that money returned to our pockets to address the inequality between many ordinary folk living here and those who own it.

[paulb]

nuclear subsidy is way more than any renewables. https://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/artsandhumanities/documents/Tony%20Roulstone.pdf

carbon fuels  http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/06/10/drax-the-uks-dirtiest-power-station-gets-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-green-subsidies/bet you did not know a dirty power station earned 365 million in subsidies by burning straw/wood.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/24/growth-climate-change-fossil-fuel-subsidies-treasury-uk-oil-gas-renewable-energy.

but no matter what we say you will waffle on. simply put ALL POWER is being fed loads of public money. and thats not even mentioning tax breaks oil/gas receive

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

nuclear subsidy is way more than any renewables. https://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/artsandhumanities/documents/Tony%20Roulstone.pdf

carbon fuels  http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/06/10/drax-the-uks-dirtiest-power-station-gets-hundreds-of-millions-of-pounds-in-green-subsidies/bet you did not know a dirty power station earned 365 million in subsidies by burning straw/wood.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/24/growth-climate-change-fossil-fuel-subsidies-treasury-uk-oil-gas-renewable-energy.

but no matter what we say you will waffle on. simply put ALL POWER is being fed loads of public money. and thats not even mentioning tax breaks oil/gas receive

 

Yawns.  Viking Energy is bleeding Shetland dry.  Howzabout you try something novel like actually answering the question I posed to you re how many wind turbines would it take to equate to the power produced by an average nuclear power station?  Or does Google not give you that answer?

[paulb]

maybe you need to stop using Google for your anti everything crap. . re your question its all dependent on 

1. size of nuclear power plant.

2. on size of wind turbines.

3. wind load.

Hinkley C will produce at maximum 3,200mw  at £92.50mw/H. at a cost of £18 billion to build and £201,000/m3 to remove it after its life span. this is not counting the cost of the spent fuel. plus security.

Whitelee Wind Farm produces at maximum 539 mw   plus an extension of another 217mw so 765mw at £82mw/h at a cost of 300 million to build 

​so in answer to your question on maximum power out put it would take 4.2 at a more realistic 33% your needing 12 at a total cost of £3.6 billion. 

​wind construction prices are decreasing nuclear power is increasing.  dont forget your radioactive power will cost an extra £10.50 per mw/h.

Shetlands new power station will cost £150 million to build and an extra 50 - 60 million to pipe gas in.  

[orkneypaul]

Read all that so

 could you tell me  know it all Paul B  how much will the interconnecter will cost.

[ArabiaTerra]

 

 

 

I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

 
Let me help you out with that then. Here's just a few....
 
1) Interconnector - Every aspect of it,
 
2) Considerably more challenging site and terrain.
 
3) Considerably larger and complex engineering challenge.
 
4) 45% of the developer's shareholding is in the hands of muppets.

 

 
1. The Interconnector will be paid for as a part of the grid through the service charge everyone in the UK pays. It might add 20p or so to your annual bill.
 
2. How? The Burradale site is on top of a hill. The Viking turbines will be on top of hills. How is it any different?
 
3. Rubbish, a wind turbine is a wind turbine. In fact erecting 100 rather than 5 will give you more practice so it will be less challenging. /snark
 
4. Ad hominin attack. Sure sign of a losing argument.
 
So, you've got nothing but insults and tired old repetition of long debunked arguments. Give it up Ghosty, you're just trolling at this point.
 

Read all that so
 could you tell me  know it all Paul B  how much will the interconnecter will cost.

 
For you personally? Practically nothing as the cost will be shared throughout the UK as part of the service charge you already pay.

Edited November 6, 2015 by ArabiaTerra

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

maybe you need to stop using Google for your anti everything crap. . re your question its all dependent on 

1. size of nuclear power plant.

2. on size of wind turbines.

3. wind load.

Hinkley C will produce at maximum 3,200mw  at £92.50mw/H. at a cost of £18 billion to build and £201,000/m3 to remove it after its life span. this is not counting the cost of the spent fuel. plus security.

Whitelee Wind Farm produces at maximum 539 mw   plus an extension of another 217mw so 765mw at £82mw/h at a cost of 300 million to build 

​so in answer to your question on maximum power out put it would take 4.2 at a more realistic 33% your needing 12 at a total cost of £3.6 billion. 

​wind construction prices are decreasing nuclear power is increasing.  dont forget your radioactive power will cost an extra £10.50 per mw/h.

Shetlands new power station will cost £150 million to build and an extra 50 - 60 million to pipe gas in.  

 

What, you mean to tell us, paulb, that with all your googled links you can't work out averages?  Do you need me to provide a link if you can't remember from school how to do the maths?