Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[DavidThomson]

On another note, it was stated at a recent public meeting that the proposed interconnector has enough capacity for the Viking Energy project and nothing more, when and if operating at full capacity. This provides the somewhat conflicted situation that NO other wind turbines could sell wholesale energy from shetland (which i'm sure many people would be glad to hear, despite current proposals to site smaller turbines elsewhere in Shetland) but further; no other renewable energy resources can benefit from it, which is written into their justification of scale to provide an interconnector.

In summary:

168 x 3.6MW turbines -> interconnector cables deployed.

192 x 3.6MW turbines -> no capacity for other turbines or renewables.

=> 25 years of Viking Energy on their own, if successful.

Which may, indeed, mean different things to different people.

 

There are bits of this that need clarification. Because we have a regulated electricity industry and the regulator’s primary role is to protect the consumer then we would not get sanction for a cable that was bigger then necessary. If the spare capacity was not used it would be an expense picked up by the UK consumer with no benefit. So the cable has to match the windfarm. If future projects come along that want to sell large amounts of electricity to the national grid then they would need to justify more strands to the cable or a new cable altogether. Given Shetland’s marine energy potential this is not unreasonable. The cable actually encourages local development because right now the local grid can’t handle any more. The cable makes us part of the national grid and so small local projects can be connected easier.

The summary above is wrong because the planning permission has an upper limit. If we were to get permission for 600MW (168x3.6) we could not then go out and build 690MW (192x3.6). We would only be allowed to build what we proposed. Anything further would need a new planning permission.

[DavidThomson]

Another question to throw a spanner into the workings of this wind farm:

If tidal generators become the best way of producing renewable electricity (which im pretty sure they will) in the next 20 years. If this proposed wind farm becomes economically un-viable due to more advanced technology or other problems, How on earth do we think its going to be possible to remove these monstrous lumps of reinforced concrete, weighing I can imagine hundreds of tonnes each? Reinforced concrete is a nightmare to demolish, and even worse if its cast into huge solid blocks! And how much will it cost to restore the landscape if this project goes tits up? and has anyone made a calculation how the provision for this cost could affect the projected profits?

 

A good question for me because it is straightforward to answer. It won’t matter if someone finds a cheaper way to generate power. We use long-term power purchase contracts that state when we produce a unit of electricity the counter-party will pay us a set amount for it. We give up some potential market value to get long-term security. This is how most windfarms including Burradale operates. The contracts are for long enough to repay all the capital costs and so the windfarm cannot become un-viable unless the wind stops blowing.

Decommissioning has to be considered as part of the planning process anyway and there will have to be bonds in place for an amount that everyone is satisfied will be adequate to cover reinstatement to a level the planners accept. In reality this usually means leaving the foundations where they are as the environmental impact of removing them would be massively bigger than just leaving them. The towers go and the hardstandings are covered over with earth.

[DavidThomson]

So, does that mean the VE scheme is not viable without the subsidy?

 

The funding mechanisms for windfarms definitely merit discussion. Each MegaWattHour of electricity generated qualifies for a Renewable Obligation Certificate and a Climate Change Levy Exemption Certificate. These and the power can then be sold on the open market. The Government has set national targets for renewable energy and uses the certificates to control this process. So there are three funding streams. The price for the base power, the price for the ROC and the price for the LEC. All together right now because we are nowhere near the targets, this can give an income greater than that available for power being produced at a gas-fired power station. The ROC mechanism is statute until 2027. Even if a future government decided it wanted for some reason to discourage renewable energy, the power from any sensible windfarm is tied into (repeat after me) long-term power purchase agreements so there are guaranteed minimum incomes regardless of external factors. If anyone wants a more detailed explanation just get in touch.

[DavidThomson]

I too want to know more about the finances of this whole thing - every penny!

 

Aith Hall 7.00pm 19th April

[DavidThomson]

why not build [the windfarm] somewhere in the North of Scotland?

This windfarm could be built somewhere in the North of Scotland but in order to produce the same power over time it would have to be twice as big. You would save some of the cost of a cable to Shetland (not all as you would still have to connect the new windfarm) but your windfarm otherwise would cost twice as much and have twice as much environmental impact. If it was built in England it would need to be three times as big.

[DavidThomson]

I would like to see the SIC, Viking Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy invest in establishing a Training Scheme or Apprenticeship program for the young people of Shetland.

The young people of Shetland should be encouraged to stay in the Islands and this could be an opportunity for some to earn a good wage.

A good idea and one that was discussed in South Nesting when one of the public meetings was held there. Did you make a submission to Viking Energy as part of the consultation process suggesting such a thing? If not, you should.

[DavidThomson]

I went to the Burradale open day yesterday… I would love to be able to click on a link that could show the power currently being produced along with the wind at a wind turbine in Shetland. A previous 24 hour graph would be good too. Anybody at Burradale reading this that feels like installing the equipement and software, it would be most welcome.

 

When Burradale was built we did not think something like Viking would follow so we did not allow for public interest. Our system is designed just to work in-house. Such open systems are available and I suspect a project of the scale of Viking have such a feature. It’s not likely to happen at Burradale as we don’t need it and so would have to pay a lot (many thousands) to remove the existing units and install a new telemetry system

A link worth looking at meantime would be Viking Energy’s wind data updated ever 24hrs.

[DavidThomson]

The computer inside was actually telling you what the mechanical power on the main rotor shaft is any point in time whether it is being driven by the wind or electric motor. The shaft was being turned by the generator with mains power being supplied so that it acted as a motor. This is done so that when the wind does blow harder the blades are already turning so as to catch the wind. The blades are not self-starting. The power meter shown to you has nothing to do with electrical power!

 

This is factually inaccurate. It is quite simple. Our turbines only work one way. The wind makes the blades move, the turbine uses movement and magnetism to create electricity. While it can be done for maintenance purposes, the motor does not turn the main shaft as part of a generation process. We do not need to be turning to catch the wind and the blades are wind started. The power meter does show electrical power associated with the individual turbine. The 3kw seen will be all that is necessary to keep the internal lights on (when we are showing people around) and power the electronics, hydraulics and other always on bits. I do not propose to argue with anyone about it. If anyone is not sure and really wants to see more I will take them into the turbine and let them see for themselves.

 

Malachy – I’ll try to dispel myths as they are presented but it’s hard to know where to start with the Gentec Venturi correspondence. There’s too many half-truths and clear misunderstandings. I notice he still isn’t answering calls to let anyone see a prototype.

 

I am sure Mr Mackay will reply but his credibility is zero. I will be staying out of that discussion and will wait for the prototype to appear before reconsidering.

In an letters to the press debate many years ago Andrew quoted Ghandi with ‘“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.†Suggesting that he would have the last laugh. I wish him well and hope he is right as my hydro bill could do with chopping. From common experience however, when Andrew and his idea are first introduced to someone, he unfortunately travels the wrong way down the quote.

[Malachy]

Thanks for taking the time to go through some of the points above. It is easy for suspicion and cynicism to grow and fester when no response is forthcoming.

 

This particular point ^^^ was an especially worrying one - the idea that the windmills were actually consuming power when the wind was low - and I'm relieved to hear that it is not the case. It certainly didn't tally with my (admittedly limited) knowledge of windmill technology

[Fjool]

It certainly didn't tally with my (admittedly limited) knowledge of windmill technology

 

Nor does it tally with common sense.

[Malachy]

Well for a while there I wasn't sure. If the mills were, say, too large to be wind-started, then it would (just about) make sense for them to need to be turned by a motor until the wind could take over. But, like I say, I'm glad that ain't the case.

[trout]

Thanks for taking the time to go through some of the points above. It is easy for suspicion and cynicism to grow and fester when no response is forthcoming.

 

This particular point ^^^ was an especially worrying one - the idea that the windmills were actually consuming power when the wind was low - and I'm relieved to hear that it is not the case. It certainly didn't tally with my (admittedly limited) knowledge of windmill technology

 

I second that and thank you for having replied to the points made here. Dispelling the cynicism, which I for one have been involved with, is greatly received.

 

The consuming power part I didn't get fully either and have been out on a fact finding exercise to deduce exactly what greenheatman meant by it - I've not much more to say on it as I've actually got bogged down in reading again about Peak Oil .... but ... It would appear that windmills, with presumably a certain design, do infact need to consume energy so as that they then engage and "catch the wind" as David points out - and points out not to be the case with the VE proposals.

 

Note the majority of correspondance re: tidal power generation and Gentec Venturi has been moved to the now seperate and renamed "Alternative Energy Production - Tidal / Wave etc." thread. If we can keep that line of discussion to that particular thread, please, that would be great.

[islandhopper]

THX David,

for clearing some points and pinpointing your personal view to some others.

Output figures for wind turbines might not be the best but they are at least controlable and offer a chance to optimize the whole systems in a lot of cases and details.

 

Nevertheless, there are some things which have to be questioned in a critical way. In one of your previous statements you said:

The Environmental Impact Assessment in particular cannot be produced until we fix a turbine layout. The 192 red (now green) dots published are not a turbine layout.

I do hope it is a "problem of chosing the right words only" but if the existing layout is not the layout where you want to place the turbines according to your best knowledge up to now, you must not wonder if some parts of the public might claim the position "he is joking about us". To let the folks discuss it now and then telling them about six month later … buhbuh – it's all looking different … must fire any position telling the rest of Shetland "it's all a fake" to cool down emotions.

 

Despite of that, the quote is in conflict with some statements published on the VE website so far where you create an image that the reports concerned are just due for publication …

 

(I'm sure you will pick up what I mean although my English is not the best )

[Sudden Stop]

I think the VE approach to the project so far has been to be as open and transparent as possible. Too open, in some places i think. The 192 red dots published are 'potential' turbine sites and not a finished layout. The enviromental impact assessment can only be done when you decide: how many turbines (which depends on what size of MW they decide on), which sites to put them on, proper layouts for the access road (again the published roads were only proposed) and any number of other things which have to be buttoned down yet.

 

If VE had never made public all of the thoughts and info they currently have they would have been slated for doing everything behind the publics back, but by consulting the people and show plans they have left themselves open to (greenheatman's favourite thing) people only seeing what the want to see and not reading all the details.

 

The last 'layout' that was printed in the windylights magazine was at least the third version that i have seen, each one totally different to the last. If that was in fact version three (there were probably plenty more versions that I never saw), i fully except the layout to be onto something like plan no. 14 or more by the time the first one gets built.

 

This is the problem with being open at this early stage. When they aren't sure what's happening because things are still developing, how can the public make a informed opinion on the project? Having said that, I wouldn't have been happy if everything had been kept behind closed doors and we didn't know what was being planned....

[Evil Inky]

This is the problem with being open at this early stage. When they aren't sure what's happening because things are still developing, how can the public make a informed opinion on the project? Having said that, I wouldn't have been happy if everything had been kept behind closed doors and we didn't know what was being planned....

Better to have a somewhat uninformed public debate rather than no debate at all, I think.