Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[nederlander]

I would imagine that the lower figure would be the height of the turbine, without taking into acount the blades, although I am not sure.

 

[edit- this is in relation to the Burradale turbines]

[PJ of Hildisvik]

I will find out why they have suddenly gone from 145m high(476ft), to 135m in height, as soon as possible. It does not make sense, as a smaller turbine would not be as powerful, and therefore you would need more turbines to make a 554MW farm.

 

If they have found a smaller turbine to do the same job , i hope they are on Radio Shetland tonight so we ALL know what is going on

[trowie246]

1. How big are the tubines proposed for the Viking Windfarm?

The development proposal has been based upon a machine with a tower height no higher, and potentially lower, than 90m (295 feet) and a blade diameter of no greater than 110m (360 feet). The means a maximum height to tip of 135m (443 feet). This envelope is actually slightly larger than required in order to allow for the possibility of using fewer more powerful machines than currently available. As a comparison, the existing tubines at Burradale Windfarm have a 45m tower and 50m diameter blades.

 

 

 

My previous post was innacurate in that I have just figured out (sorry, it takes me a while) that the total height is not the tower height and diameter blades added together, (yes I know I'm a total neep) Therefore I've come to the conclusion that sustainable shetland is most likely right and give the overall base to tip of blade height of 71 m for the Burradale turbines. Viking energy is also right - but they just don't give you the overall height.

 

Surely based on their above figures the overall height should be 145m for the VE turbines - 90m base plus half total diameter stated , 55m? or there and there abouts? How can they lose 10m?

[Skunnered]

It would be useful if VE could clarify this in simple terms with a direct comparison with the Burradale windmills, then people would be able to get a better perspective of the whole thing. The important measurement is the maximum height from the tip of the blade (when at its highest point) to the base of the tower, because that's what we will all see when they are up and running. I suspect we will find that Sustainable Shetland's figures are right after all.

[nederlander]

Trowie, where did you get that from? I've just checked the VE website and it says they will be 145m. http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/faqs.asp

 

Dunno why people have this wonderful notion that VE are the bad guys and SS are some sort of Robin Hood act. SS are perfectly capable of twisting facts and figures to support their own agenda.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Actually VE have just altered it back to 145m in height, earlier on it was 135m, perhaps they had to look on Sustainable Shetlands web site to get their own facts correct

[PJ of Hildisvik]

And Sustainable Shetland do not Twist the facts to suit their own agenda, thats for companys like Weber Shandwick lobbying the Scottish Ministers on our so called behalf.

Strange how the majority of ministers Sooth believe everybody in Shetland can't wait to have this monstrosity dumped on their doorstep

[ArabiaTerra]

And Sustainable Shetland do not Twist the facts to suit their own agenda....

Bollox, of course they do. Just look at the area they claim for the windfarm.

 

And then there's this:

Shetland may have a good wind resource, but is very long way from point of consumption, and this means the project is only viable with massive public subsidy

It is not a subsidy, it's an investment, with a guaranteed financial return.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

^^^^^^All of the above IYHO, not mine, or anybody else with a grain of common sense

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^^^All of the above IYHO, not mine, or anybody else with a grain of common sense

Well then, explain how it's a subsidy rather than an investment. A subsidy is a grant paid with no expectation of any financial return. That is absolutely not what the Charitable Trust is proposing.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Don't those farcical "Renewable Certificates" have a monetary value, and aren't they what makes VE's numbers look so pretty!?! A tax by any other name.

 

I read elsewhere that their value is such that the Chinese cannot get enough of them, and are building dams (with the associated displacement of populations for minimal compensation, loss of land to produce food, provide habitats, yadda yadda) to power hydro electric plants that export all their output to other nations, principally mainland Europe.

[llamas]

And Sustainable Shetland do not Twist the facts to suit their own agenda, thats for companys like Weber Shandwick lobbying the Scottish Ministers on our so called behalf.

Strange how the majority of ministers Sooth believe everybody in Shetland can't wait to have this monstrosity dumped on their doorstep

 

 

i agree with PJ, sustainable shetland do not twist the facts, Weber Shandwick do.

[Skunnered]

And Sustainable Shetland do not Twist the facts to suit their own agenda....

Bollox, of course they do. Just look at the area they claim for the windfarm.

 

And then there's this:

Shetland may have a good wind resource, but is very long way from point of consumption, and this means the project is only viable with massive public subsidy

It is not a subsidy, it's an investment, with a guaranteed financial return.

I don't think SS are referring to the SIC investment as subsidy, I think it's the fact that all windmill projects are basically subsidised by the Government or through the system of certificates. If windmill farms in general had to stand on their own merit commercially they probably wouldn't be viable. Anyway, that's my reading of it.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Quite right Skunnered.

Good job Shetland has so much "Disposable Income" ie £60.000.000, to throw at this most Bountiful of Projects ,

not forgetting the £1.5 million already squandered.

[ArabiaTerra]

I don't think SS are referring to the SIC investment as subsidy, I think it's the fact that all windmill projects are basically subsidised by the Government or through the system of certificates. If windmill farms in general had to stand on their own merit commercially they probably wouldn't be viable. Anyway, that's my reading of it.

From the SS website:

Shetland may have a good wind resource, but is very long way from point of consumption, and this means the project is only viable with massive public subsidy

I beg to differ. SS say the reason for the "subsidy" is the distance from the grid not the subsidy available to windfarms in general.