Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[KTL]

Thanks SJ

 

To quote from the link:

"challenges from moving to a low-carbon electricity system with increased variable wind generation and larger nuclear power stations are manageable"

 

Are they saying if we want more wind power we have to have bigger nukes? Oh great. Address CO2 problem, but ignore radiation and waste disposal problem for next couple of thousand years... So it's not wind instead of nuclear, its wind AND nuclear, because thats makes for CO2 efficient load balancing "managable".

 

On the other hand industry, and each of us as individuals, could simply consume less, take less flights, produce less waste? That's manageable as well.

Not necessarily what we want to do, but perfectly possible.

 

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2244492/national-grid-takes-wind-energy

[Skunnered]

The people who seem to be against the windfarm mostly seem to be middle-aged people who are very comfortably off, and conveniently choose to forget that Shetland once experienced very hard times and could well do so again. I think you should grab it with both hands, even if it ends up slightly smaller than proposed at the moment. It's good that the pro-windfarm group has emerged, there seems to be some sensible folk involved.

The middle-aged people in Shetland remember only too well what it was like in Shetland before the arrival of the oil industry, and they are very much aware of the benefits that were brought to Shetland by that industry, not just Sullom Voe, but overall. And it's very misleading for pro-windfarm people to suggest that the windfarm project would bring benefits to Shetland to equal those produced by the oil industry.

As AT said, if we can have an inter-connector and establish other forms of power generation such as tidal power, then the new industry may produce a decent level of employment for some, but otherwise the employment level and general economic activity in Shetland from having a large windfarm will be fairly small. So if the oil industry fades in the future, young Shetlanders will still have a problem finding employment here.

 

I just don't see this project as being anywhere near the god-sent replacement for the fading oil industry that a lot of people seem to think it will be.

[ArabiaTerra]

Yeh, AT, like that was a real scientific letter

'way to dodge the question! Come on, try again...

[shetlandpeat]

^^As an afterthought - does anyone know if the cable is to be for one-way traffic only (i.e. export of power) or will it be able to bring power up from the mainland as well?

 

The UK Holland one is for that purpose, the rectifiers and inverters will have to be duplicated at both ends.

 

And I think with the advent of digital TeeVee, not too many folk will all be watching the same commercial channel as to turn all the kettles on during said adds, but, who knows..

 

I bet if every one had to turn on their kettles, we would know when the water pressure drops to nothing, oh, that won't happen nor will a cut in power...

 

There will still be a need for a generating system, when stuff has to get maintained and the like, tis no big deal..

[shetlandpeat]

I am sure all you folk will be here

 

http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2009/September/news/Call%20for%20folk%20to%20attend%20windfarm%20meetings.htm

 

Cos if your not, then how could your posts here be taken seriously??

 

I know AT will try to make it, as he believes in what he sez.....

 

All these questions can be asked....

 

Sadly I will not be able to attend...I am sure we will be updated..

[Skunnered]

According to this article in The Shetland Times 12 June, it appears that the cable will be able to import electricity from the grid to Shetland, if required, as well as exporting power from the windfarm to the mainland. So I don't really understand why SSE say they have to replace the Lerwick power station whether or not there is a windfarm in Shetland, because if the wind isn't blowing, we would surely get our backup from the main grid.

http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/06/12/electricity-firm-lays-out-latest-cable-plan

[Muppet]

^^

 

Presumably in case of damage to the cable or inverter stations. We'd be in a bit of a fix if a ship dragged it's anchor over it.

[Njugle]

I am sure all you folk will be here

link

Cos if your not, then how could your posts here be taken seriously??

{snip}

Sadly I will not be able to attend...

 

...and so will rely on the grace of fellow users to take your posts seriously thereafter?

[JimIvens]

Thanks SJ

 

To quote from the link:

"challenges from moving to a low-carbon electricity system with increased variable wind generation and larger nuclear power stations are manageable"

 

Are they saying if we want more wind power we have to have bigger nukes? Oh great. Address CO2 problem, but ignore radiation and waste disposal problem for next couple of thousand years... So it's not wind instead of nuclear, its wind AND nuclear, because thats makes for CO2 efficient load balancing "managable".

 

On the other hand industry, and each of us as individuals, could simply consume less, take less flights, produce less waste? That's manageable as well.

Not necessarily what we want to do, but perfectly possible.

 

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2244492/national-grid-takes-wind-energy

 

But as nuclear material decays at the same rate whatever we do with it, why just use it as a backup for windpower? Why not forget the big whirligigs and just build nukes? I think the whole windpower scheme is just a smokescreen to cover the building of more nuclear powerstations. Lets let the 'n'th generation down the line worry about how to clear up the mess.

[Carlos]

Difficult to see how we'll manage in the long term without either coal or nuclear in the mix, so you take your pick as to which is worse.

 

If you choose you can build wind/wave/tidal/hydro schemes to reduce the amount of "power station" capacity you need, but it never goes away.

 

If you're going nuclear anyhow you could do worse than try and get some thorium cycle reactors on the go - there's a much better supply of thorium about, and in comparison to uranium it's a "cleaner" cycle. Cleaner than coal anyhow

 

Otherwise, until you put a lot of solar panels in orbit or something like that, power generation is going to keep on having a big negative effect on earth one way or another, it's just picking the least worst option.

[unlinkedstudent]

^^

Surely nuclear is to be avoided at all costs!

 

Peeps can argue all they want about how safe nuclear is and then WHOOSH! - one disaster and their brains finally engages. I still say, where the wind is "suitable" for wind farms, whack wind turbines where the nuke stations have gone beyond their "sell by" dates.

 

Granted, I wouldn't want a nuclear power station on my doorstep but as those areas have already been blighted, surely they would be a more suitable location for a wind farm than Shetland?

 

Right, anyone know if placards allowed at these consultation meetings? Big fat black marker pen at the ready and I knew those cardboard boxes would come in handy.

[TeeAyBee]

And so we return to the original argument. Nuclear/Coal/Diesel/Gas are viewed as too 'dirty' or unsafe so green solutions are needed but no-one can agree what green solution to use and spend their time slagging each other off while the natural resources are expended.

 

We need to do something, but what to do? I've long been an advocate of a small scale combined approach at the community level, combining wind, solar and tidal with additional energy from heat pumps. It won't make Shetland any money but it will reduce our individual load on the available resources. Naive maybe, but I believe we need to take personal responsibility for our own energy demands.

[JimIvens]

^^

Surely nuclear is to be avoided at all costs!

 

Peeps can argue all they want about how safe nuclear is and then WHOOSH! - one disaster and their brains finally engages. I still say, where the wind is "suitable" for wind farms, whack wind turbines where the nuke stations have gone beyond their "sell by" dates.

 

Granted, I wouldn't want a nuclear power station on my doorstep but as those areas have already been blighted, surely they would be a more suitable location for a wind farm than Shetland?

 

Right, anyone know if placards allowed at these consultation meetings? Big fat black marker pen at the ready and I knew those cardboard boxes would come in handy.

But the green choice is wind AND nukes, or just nukes. A nuke station would take up a lot less space than the wind farm and is much less unsightly. A nuke station would also employ more people in Shetland than a windfarm. I dont like any of the choices, but if we wish to cut carbon emissions, then it seems to me that, barring the reliable energy sourses such as tidal, then nukes are the best option. Maybe sometime in the future, tidal energy will replace the nukes and we can start to clean up the planet.

[insouciant]

I'd much rather have a nuclear power station than this wind farm!

[justsomeguy]

I'd much rather have a nuclear power station than this wind farm!

 

each to their own I guess.