Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[crofter]

 

OK, so simple logic dictates that this windfarm will have an effect,

 

It depends on the carbon costs of building it, including the interconnector.

 

Agree with your observation about hypocrisy, which is also why CO2 emissions will keep rising and rising. However, population growth is ultimately constrained by resource limits, and I think these will be reached a long time before the worst effects of global warming arrive. Probably in my own lifetime.

 

If the windfarm was intended to ensure a supply of affordable energy for the people of Shetland into an uncertain future, I would support it 100%.

 

Whether it can reduce CO2 emissions or not doesn't really matter. We have to ask whether it can supply an income stream, because without energy security we are going to need all the money we can get.

[OriginalUsername]

 

It depends on the carbon costs of building it, including the interconnector.

 

At best, the project would take around 2.3 years to "pay back" the carbon costs of building, at worst, around 14.9 years (and this is only if the peat bog becomes dried out during construction and operation). Considering that the project would last 25 years before being decommissioned or rebuilt, I think it's fair to say it will be carbon negative. Not even just neutral. Negative.

 

This means that overall it would reduce carbon emissions associated with electricity generation in Scotland by between 2.8% and 6.3%.

 

In the UK that figure would be between 0.29% and 0.65% - hence, if you take it to a global scale, the figure seems minute. But it's not. Once again - every teaspoon is a freaking teaspoon!

 

Agree with your observation about hypocrisy, which is also why CO2 emissions will keep rising and rising. However, population growth is ultimately constrained by resource limits, and I think these will be reached a long time before the worst effects of global warming arrive. Probably in my own lifetime.

 

I'd rather not sit and wait around to see what happens.

 

If the windfarm was intended to ensure a supply of affordable energy for the people of Shetland into an uncertain future, I would support it 100%.

 

How do you mean? There wouldn't be any point in building a windfarm of this scale for Shetland's future (as in Shetland, and Shetland alone) because it will produce way more than our energy needs. So let's say we went down the Sustainable Shetland route and built a windfarm just suited to our own needs - this energy wouldn't be any cheaper for Shetlanders. In the UK we all pay the same amount for electricity, that's the law - it's the law that stops us from having to pay more because we live in Shetland and it's the law that would stop us planting a bunch of windmills here, sticking our tongues out to the mainland and charging discounted rates to those living here. Unless we're planning on getting independence very soon (sign me up Captain Calamity!) this just isn't workable.

 

What this windfarm WILL do is ensure a supply of community affluence and a level of public service unparrallelled in the rest of the UK to future Shetlanders - basically what we have now and what we stand to lose in the future.

 

I'd far rather a buzzing and affluent Shetland with a large windfarm than a rapidly disinhabiting island with a few local windmills - which, by the way, would most likely fall into disrepair without the experts needed to maintain and operate them. The experts aren't gonna come work in a poor and oil-less Shetland - what would we pay them with? Scabby yows n licey salmon? They'll be off working with the big boys and girls.

 

Whether it can reduce CO2 emissions or not doesn't really matter. We have to ask whether it can supply an income stream, because without energy security we are going to need all the money we can get.

 

It doesn't matter? Oh dear. I believe you and aren't just on different pages, we're reading completely different books! Though I do agree that the income question is the biggie - you've hit the nail on the head there - whether or not this project will ensure an income for Shetland is a very important question. However, I don't think the global warming question should be in the back seat because of this. Sure, put it there if it means nothing to you, however, it is my opinion at least, that the green element of this project is THE most important part.

 

Still, money money moneys would be nice too. The ol' physicality of the world is what keeps her quite literally spinning around, but money sure keeps her metaphorically buzzing...

[Guest Anonymous]

Thankyou muckle joanie for those figures taken from the v.e website.

So would it be possible to get approximate figures on the amount of actual diesel the power station doesn't burn on a yearly basis .

To say 6200 tonnes of co2 is all very well but to the ordinary man / woman on the street it is hard to imagine this quantity .

I presume to produce 6200 tonnes of co2 you would have to burn a significantly larger wieght of diesel ??

If you can show this in wieghts that the ordinary punter can comprehend for example how many tanker loads of diesel we are not burning thanks to these windmills , then you may get more support for the project .

[ArabiaTerra]

You get 2.68kg CO2/l diesel burned.

 

So 6200 tonnes CO2 = 2313 tonnes of fuel saved.

 

Edit: Which would be about half a tanker load?

 

Edit 2: Corrected mistake in units

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Well then, maybe some common sense at last, seems Tavish and Carmichael have big concerns over this wind factory .

[ArabiaTerra]

Err, where did you read that? All I read was they'd got a lot of letters/e-mails so had asked for an extension to the consultation period.

 

You just can't help twisting and spinning everything to do with this subject, PJ, can you?

Mr Carmichael said he and Mr Scott were not coming out against Viking Energy

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Didn't you listen to the news tonight then?, it is very obvious they are very concerned, though i suppose it is something you'd rather not hear

[Guest Anonymous]

I note you have made an error ,6200 kg of co2 is produced from 2313 tonnes of diesel - 6.2 tonnes ok sounds realistic but ..... .

Muckle johnnie reckons and this is according to ve website they save 6200 tons a year of co2 production , so would that mean the 5 windmills at burradale actually save the burning of 2,313,000 tonnes of diesel or so as to imagine it better 15 V.L.C.C Fills of diesel. Thats the largest size of tanker that occassionally call at sullom voe .

 

I look forward to hearing any other figures , perhaps a power station employee would be able to verify if the figures expressed so far are even remotely close to the figure of diesel they are not burning thanks to the burradale wind generators .

[ArabiaTerra]

Oops, got my units mixed up there

 

It should have been: 6200 tonnes CO2 = 2313 tonnes of fuel saved.

[Guest Anonymous]

Now you are confusing me a bit .....

So if i burn 2313 tonnes of diesel i will release 6200 tons of co2 into the atmosphere about 2 and a half times more weight than before i set fire to it ..

 

If this is really the case the planets atmosphere must be expanding at a hoor o a rate , thats a hell o a lot o extra gas .

 

Which bring me onto another thing that puzzles me ...

 

The oxygen content of our atmosphere is about 21% or 20.9 with most of the anylizers i have measured it we . Now we all this extra co2 going into the atmosphere when can i expect the percentage total of oxygen to start falling .

 

But still more intrigued about the actual amount of diesel the power station isn't burning , just to the nearest 100 tons would be fine .

[Carlos]

Remember that the oxygen in the CO2 comes from the air, and not from the fuel.

 

Any hydrocarbon burning is a variation on is a variation on something like this reaction for methane;

CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O

(fuel + oxygen > carbon dioxide + water vapour)

 

If I can drag enough memories of chemistry back, the weights for that is

(6+4) + 2x(2x8) > (6+2x8) + 2x(2+8 )

10+32 > 22+20

 

Each 10 tonnes of fuel burnt in 32 tonnes of oxygen gives 22 tonnes of CO2 and 20 tonnes of water vapour.

Which doesn't match exactly with the figures above, but they might be real world examples with non-complete burning of fuel, efficiency losses etc.

Anyhow, shows how you get more tonnes of CO2 than tonnes of fuel burnt.

[Michael]

Remember that the oxygen in the CO2 comes from the air, and not from the fuel.

 

Any hydrocarbon burning is a variation on is a variation on something like this reaction for methane;

CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O

(fuel + oxygen > carbon dioxide + water vapour)

 

If I can drag enough memories of chemistry back, the weights for that is

(6+4) + 2x(2x8) > (6+2x8) + 2x(2+8 )

10+32 > 22+20

 

Each 10 tonnes of fuel burnt in 32 tonnes of oxygen gives 22 tonnes of CO2 and 20 tonnes of water vapour.

Which doesn't match exactly with the figures above, but they might be real world examples with non-complete burning of fuel, efficiency losses etc.

Anyhow, shows how you get more tonnes of CO2 than tonnes of fuel burnt.

 

Nope, oxygen weighs 16, carbon 12 and hydrogen you got right at 1.

 

So for methane, which your equation is fine for,

 

CH4 + 2 O2 → CO2 + 2 H2O

 

(12+4) + 2( 2x16) → (12+2x16) + 2(2+16)

 

So 16g of methane fuel reacts to create 42g of carbon dioxide

 

So for every tonne of methane combusted 2.625 tonnes of carbon dioxide is produced.

 

Of course methane is not used in cars or power stations, but it is a simpler example of the longer chain hydrocarbons used.

 

I hope that's right, because I have a chemistry exam tomorrow

[Infiltrator]

I went for a hike up Bennachie at the weekend, from the top you can clearly see the wind turbines at the Glens of Foundland near Huntly. There they have 20 wind turbines, 80 metres in height from base to tip and they're very noticable given the landscape around Aberdeenshire.

 

I tried to imagine what 150+ wind turbines approx twice this height would look like, and all I can think is that Shetland can kiss goodbye to tourism if you end up with a wind farm of the size planned.

Shetlands attraction for many tourists is it's unspoiled landscape.

 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Glens_of_Foudland_Wind_farm.jpg

[crofter]

^^^

 

From the Viking Energy site

 

Based on industry averages, the five turbines at Burradale displace electricity that would be otherwise be produced at a power station and so save over 6,200 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions, 76 tonnes of Sulphur Dioxide emissions and 26 tonnes of Nitrous Oxide emissions every year.

 

 

From the same page:

 

"The 5 Burradale turbines produce a maximum output of 3.68 Megawatts (MW). Shetland's summer power demand is in the region of 20-25MW and winter demand in the region of 45-50MW. Burradale has the ability to power nearly 2,000 homes - 8-18% of Shetland's power requirements."

 

OK, 3.68 MW, x the magic 50% that Burradale is famous for = 1.84 MW actually produced on the average day there.

 

Now, 1.84 divided by the peak demand of 50MW is 3.7%

 

1.84 divided by minimal summer demand 20MW is 9.2%

 

Half the percentages which VE claim on the website.

 

My guess is that VE are using the 3.68MW figure to boast about how much CO2 they "save", so however much diesel you work out from the 6,200 tonnes of CO2, it is really only half that amount.

[Carlos]

Nope, oxygen weighs 16, carbon 12 and hydrogen you got right at 1.

Ooops, back to detention for me to learn to read that periodic table right

 

Of course methane is not used in cars or power stations, but it is a simpler example of the longer chain hydrocarbons used.

That one I knew, but I thought I'd mess up anything more complicated...... Looks like I was right there!