Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[crofter]

I appreciate this a very crude example but even if production costs for micros were 50-75% less then they still don’t match up against VE’s project, do they?

 

Never mind the huge difference in production costs, with VE you also get the potential to export up to 490MW of surplus power which can be charged to users thus pumping millions of funds back into Shetland’s community funds! “YIPPEE!â€, I hear you say.

 

I am sure petrocelli is correct - production costs are likely to be less from a network of larger machines. Possibly there is also the chance of some financial return, not guaranteed as AT suggests, but dependant on continued political support for wind generation as Ghostrider says. Can the government afford to subsidise it forever? (serious question)

 

Microgeneration may look a bit more viable from April onwards, though.

 

The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) has decided to award double renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) to all microgeneration (micro and small wind) from April 2009. Double ROCs are going to be made available for wind turbines and other renewables with a declared net capacity of 50kW or less.

[Skunnered]

We ought to be very wary of any major project that is dependent upon any form of subsidy, as subsidies can be removed at any time in the future leaving the project to stand on it's own feet probably at a loss.

[Malachy]

I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, since I oppose the windfarm, but I think I'm right in pointing out that virtually all energy production is subsidised by the government, so wind is not specifically vulnerable.

[crofter]

I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, since I oppose the windfarm, but I think I'm right in pointing out that virtually all energy production is subsidised by the government, so wind is not specifically vulnerable.

 

Indeed. But if you look at the costs for all types WITHOUT subsidies, nobody would be building wind turbines.

[Njugle]

The direct point in this case at the current time is the distinction between onshore wind and offshore wind, which now has a substantially bigger subsidy to encourage development. It is no great stretch of the imagination to see how subsequent developments may draw higher subsidies and out-dated onshore turbines less.

[Malachy]

I'm shooting myself in the foot by saying this, since I oppose the windfarm, but I think I'm right in pointing out that virtually all energy production is subsidised by the government, so wind is not specifically vulnerable.

 

Indeed. But if you look at the costs for all types WITHOUT subsidies, nobody would be building wind turbines.

 

The same is obviously true for nuclear.

[Skunnered]

It seems to me that the latest several postings simply indicate how high-risk the VE project is, and that it is by no means risk free or guaranteed income. There is no doubt that the Shetland public need much more information about the financial set-up before reaching a final conclusion, but at this point it would seem that the VE project would be putting too much of Shetland's nest egg into a single basket.

[petrocelli_]

As mentioned by Malachy, virtually all types of power generation are subsidised.

 

Re. ROCs, last year the UK Government extended their guarantee until 2037. You may arhue that any future government could withdraw such a guarantee - even if legally possible - but I don't think it would be wise for any future government to jeopardise the stability of renewables power generation by removing subsidies.

 

LECs (£4.56/MWh) on the other hand can be removed at any time but shouldn't make a great impact on the viability of VE's project.

 

In fact, I'm sure even in this very forum, David Thomson, has argued that even without ROCs the VE project would still be viable.

 

[mod]^^ The above quote until someone finds the actual quote within these 75 pages should not be taken as gospel ... if someone finds it please email admin at shetlink.com and we will add a reference point to it.[/mod]

 

Don't know if that claim is still valid!?

[Ghostrider]

VE, like everything else, will have to operate with the millstone of numerous disadvantages hanging round its neck, that its competitors doesn't have to bear.

 

Unfortunately in VE's case its a damn long list. Leaving aside those things which are in the laps of the gods, such as uncapped transmission charges, the price they sell power at dropping, interest rates on their borrowings spiralling etc etc, as their competitors will be affected in some way by them too, it still leaves a lot of weight on that millstone.

 

Initial construction costs have to be higher than on a mainland site, everything that ends up on those hills will have to be shipped in by boat or plane, and so will much of the construction crews. VE cannot send a truck on a trip down the motorway and back to get the next load of parts, or run the crew home by bus/train of a Friday evening and back to site Monday morning. We're talking Northlink/Flybe/charter charges here, and to get the amount of material shifted, and the time it will take to be erected, that's a lot of trips to pay for. 200 miles of cabling incurs a % output loss that a site nearer to the grid doesn't have to bear. The same piece of cable is infinitely more likely to become damaged/develop a fault that it's land counterpart of say 10% of the length or so, leaving VE with zero income for how long? Until they get a cable ship on site to locate and repair the fault, which, given some of our winters, could be delayed for weeks on end in winter awaiting conditions in which the ship can work. Then there's the cost of that cable ship, for however long she took to cover.... None of that on a mainland site. Down time due to damage repairs have to be higher here, as does maintenance costs, simply due to the excesses of our weather. How long is a turbine going to be down awaiting repair in winter anyway, maybe there are folk out there who can and are happy to work away in near freezing temps, suspended in mid air approx 1000+ feet above sea level in a steady gale force 8, 9 or 10, but I would think it largely impractical, impossible, and almost certainly downright dangerous if components much larger than your average tea tray are involved. Having Force 8 wind or higher for virtually all of two weeks isn't uncommon here, remember the Braer wreck period?!?. How many turbines will lie idle for weeks on end during winters simply due to it being impossible in the prevailing weather conditions to adequately and safely access the damage, never mind effect repairs.

 

To counter all this, VE have the advantage or more wind than their competitors more of the time, that's great, but is it really enough to compensate for all the weight on that millstone they're carrying, especially when much of the "more wind more of the time" I would expect to occur in conditions which exceed the operational safety limits of the turbines, and they have automatically shut down to protect themselves from damage.

[sheepshagger]

especially when much of the "more wind more of the time" I would expect to occur in conditions which exceed the operational safety limits of the turbines, and they have automatically shut down to protect themselves from damage.

 

And as AT keeps telling us stronger and more frequent winds are one of the many disasters that are happening now due to global warming.

 

This will make the turbines down south more efficient and any up here less so one more reason backed up by the 1000s of scientists AT keeps refering to not to build the bloody thing

[ArabiaTerra]

Well, I got my reply from "sustainable" Shetland (Thanks guys for the prompt response). Still digesting it so I'll get back to you on that.

 

One other point. Several people have posted here on the economics of the VE proposal. The only way I can think of that the project will become uneconomical is if the price of energy falls far enough to make it so. Does anyone have a convincing argument as to how this might happen? I can't think of one.

 

Fossil fuel are finished, the government might still have a few new coal stations in the pipeline, but these will require carbon capture and sequestration to allow them to meet the targets set for CO2 reduction and anyone who has looked into the economic and energy requirements of these systems (which have not yet been built, anywhere) will know that the power requirements for these systems will swallow up to 50% of the output of the stations to which it is fitted, which means the station needs to be double the size and use double the fuel to produce the same output as a station without the carbon capture tech fitted. Where's your cheap coal power now?

 

The same problem with carbon capture apply to oil and gas fired stations too though to a lesser extent.

[ArabiaTerra]

The morality of windmills.

 

Some people in this debate (including "sustainable" Shetland) have said that it would be immoral to "squander" Shetlands oil money on this project, that it is an unacceptable risk with the oil money which should, instead, be saved for future generations.

 

Oil money. That says it all really.

 

Oil is the problem. It (along with coal and gas) is the cause of man made global warming. It is blood money. The blood of the men, women and children in Africa whose farmlands are being swallowed up by the Sahara Desert. The blood of the communities living on pacific islands which are being washed away by rising sea levels, the blood of the Inuit who are seeing the ice they hunt on and the land they live on disappearing under their feet.

 

We have grown rich on the very cause of the problem and on the misery the problem is now causing to communities around the world. We have a moral duty to address this. If we don't build this windfarm, if we don't spend at least some of our oil money addressing the problems oil has caused around the world, then what right do we have to this money, what right do we have to the leisure centres and swimming pools and all the rest of the benefits we have gained from oil.

 

None. We will be no better than the oil sheikhs who live in luxury while their countries population starves. We will be no better than the bankers who have just crashed our economy then walked away with their millions intact with out even a "sorry about that".

 

If we will not use our oil money to build this windfarm then we should give the whole lot away to someone who will put it to good use.

 

Shetland has done very well out of the oil industry, we've had a free ride through the last few decades but now the cost of that "free" ride is due. The bill is pending all over the world. We've had more than our fair share of the benefits, is it not right that we, in turn, shoulder more than our share of the bill?

[PJ of Hildisvik]

And what do the poor people of say,India and China crave most?

A wealthy Western lifestyle, with all the "Goodies" that brings with it

 

Hence thats why they burn coal on a massive scale to play catch up with our economys, you gonna tell them to stop and make sacrifices to save the Planet???

[PJ of Hildisvik]

It's not the Planet we have to worry about, that will still be here, but the Human race on the other hand

[ArabiaTerra]

And what do the poor people of say,India and China crave most?

A wealthy Western lifestyle, with all the "Goodies" that brings with it

 

Hence thats why they burn coal on a massive scale to play catch up with our economys, you gonna tell them to stop and make sacrifices to save the Planet???

No I'm not, at least not while my community, my government and my country continue to pay no more than lip service to the problem here. When we have mended our ways (or at least made a credible attempt to start mending our ways), then, and only then, can we start preaching to others. We caused the problem. Despite their recent rises in output of green house gases, the vast majority of fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere was emitted by us in the industrialised west. How we can even begin to preach to others without first dealing with our own emissions is beyond me, yet the hypocrites in our government continue to do just that.

It's not the Planet we have to worry about, that will still be here, but the Human race on the other hand

And that's an excuse for doing nothing?

 

The planet will survive, but the biosphere on which all life depends will be altered beyond all recognition, millions of species will go extinct. Man will probably survive, but civilisation might not. Are you happy with the future you're children and grandchildren will inherit from us? Especially when you could have prevented the disaster but deemed the view out your window more important.