Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a question.

Disregarding the CO2 issue entirely (to me, it's not important) and focusing on the economic one, how does anyone here suppose shetland would be able to maintain present living standards unless we invest in something like this to bring in new jobs as the oil and gas being brought ashore at sullom voe slowly dwindles?

At a local level, two of the biggest employers are the oil industry and the council (a part-owned subsiduary of the oil industry). What would you propose, rather than investing in clean energy, to bring jobs to shetland in the future?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Where did you get the idea that the windfarm would provide a meaingful number of jobs?

 

The construction stage will....and all the good ones of them will go to imports, folk with experience in constructing windmills brought in by the specialist contractors that will inevitably have to be contracted for such work.

 

Once up and running, it'll only need a handful of folk to keep it going.

 

In any case, VE only has an expected life of 20 years or so, chances are it'll be defunct before Sullom is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And lets not forget that for every MW produced by a wind farm has to be backed up by a MW of conventionally produced electric so we will have to build coal fired power stations anyway.

But this has all be said before, some folks are so blinded by faith that they refuse to see what is plain to even the most myopic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^ We pay exactly the same price as South, despite the fact that our power costs considerably more to produce than down South. Our electricity has been subsidised by South since the fifties.

 

You really are just making it up, skaterboy, aren't you? :roll:

 

AT - Speaking as someone who has been in Shetland for a year (well, in 2 days time LOL) having moved from London, might I assure you that my electricity costs here in Shetland are a LOT higher than they were in London. Granted, in London I had gas and electric but still lived in the same size of accommodation. Our combined outgoings for gas and electricity (and I hasten to add all but the last year was not with a modern gas boiler) were £50 per month during the winter. The cost in Shetland is £107.

 

Now mathematics has never been my strong point but even I can manage the calculation on that one.

 

In addition, if you take into account the amount per unit, not even mentioning the horrendous daily standing charge tariff on Total Heat, Total Control; I think you will find that too is a lot higher than other standing charge tariffs.

There's your answer right there. You had gas. Your heating and cooking costs may well have been much cheaper due to gas. As far as the rest goes, there may well be slight differences between different Electric companies, but, if you take the same house fuelled the same way, on the same tariff setup, down South, you will pay the same (apart from differences in usage due to different weather, etc).

 

And lets not forget that for every MW produced by a wind farm has to be backed up by a MW of conventionally produced electric so we will have to build coal fired power stations anyway.

But this has all be said before, some folks are so blinded by faith that they refuse to see what is plain to even the most myopic.

That's complete rubbish, skaterboy. You do not need backup if you have a suitably integrated, European, grid running on renewables. Which is being designed as we speak. The reason we need backup right now is because we don't have the integrated "smart" grid, because we haven't built it yet.

 

At the moment we are trying to run renewables by plugging them into a grid designed to run on fossil fuels and nuclear. This grid needs to be replaced, and will be replaced over the next 10-20 years.

 

Try learning something about renewable energy before spouting off, skaterboy, you might be surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skunnered asked

^^^I don't understand this. Perhaps someone with the technical know-how can explain why it is that the Lerwick power station cannot reduce its output, and hence its fuel consumption, during the periods when Burradale is generating a substantial amount of power. And actually the same thing goes for the power that's generated from Sullom Voe.{quoted}

 

 

 

Well skunnered, would you not expect them to be shouting it from the rooftops by now??- WIND MILLS SAVE FOSSIL FUEL!!.

No they haven't , nobody will even publish any credible figures on actual fossil fuel saved in real terms because they cant.

And before A.T. starts up that means proven peer reviewed figures.

 

Like I said before, unless they are our only energy source available to domestic households, Street lighting abolished and key infrastructure such as hospitals etc having their own back up generating equipment, then in my opinion it is just an exercise in futility which will make a small number of people vastly richer .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

skunnered asked
^^^I don't understand this. Perhaps someone with the technical know-how can explain why it is that the Lerwick power station cannot reduce its output, and hence its fuel consumption, during the periods when Burradale is generating a substantial amount of power. And actually the same thing goes for the power that's generated from Sullom Voe.

Well skunnered, would you not expect them to be shouting it from the rooftops by now??- WIND MILLS SAVE FOSSIL FUEL!!.

No they haven't , nobody will even publish any credible figures on actual fossil fuel saved in real terms because they cant.

And before A.T. starts up that means proven peer reviewed figures.

Proven peer reviewed figures, which Gorgo has singularly failed to provide to backup his claims that windmills don't save fossil fuels.

 

It works both ways, Gorgo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking for the good of us all for this accurate information regarding the fossil not burnt thanks to windmills to be published.

Your last post was spectacularily feeble just throwing the same question back.

You are certainly going down hill fighting your lost causes!!!

 

And to another point, you also sprout on about the smart renewble grid we have to build, which will take 10 - 20 years??

On another thread ( you know the one) you have claimed we may only have 10 years left to save human civilisation.

So if you are true to your beliefs, then the game is already up.

So there it is everybody, move to higher ground, arm yourself to the teeth and bring plenty of tinned foods.

Goodbye Arabia Terra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking for the good of us all for this accurate information regarding the fossil not burnt thanks to windmills to be published.

Your last post was spectacularily feeble just throwing the same question back.

You are certainly going down hill fighting your lost causes!!!

 

And to another point, you also sprout on about the smart renewble grid we have to build, which will take 10 - 20 years??

On another thread ( you know the one) you have claimed we may only have 10 years left to save human civilisation.

So if you are true to your beliefs, then the game is already up.

So there it is everybody, move to higher ground, arm yourself to the teeth and bring plenty of tinned foods.

Goodbye Arabia Terra.

The problem is serious. Global warming is already happening all around us. Just have a look at what's going on in the Arctic at the moment. It is too late to prevent global warming.

 

However, what is still in our power is to decide the level of global warming which will happen. I believe we still have the power to prevent the total meltdown of the Greenland ice cap and the West Antarctic ice sheet. And the East Antarctic ice cap (the big one), though it is showing increased signs of melting, is still relatively stable. I believe we can keep it this way, but only by acting now to prevent further greenhouse emissions and reduce our current emissions, can we achieve this.

 

Every year we allow the nimby's and deniers to block the measures necessary, brings us a year closer to catastrophe.

 

As far as fuel saved by renewables goes, during this transition period, while we are building our new energy infrastructure, there will be inefficiencies. I don't have access to figures to show whether there has been a saving so far, but neither do the deniers have access to figure to show there hasn't. Common sense tells me that every MW generated by renewables means a MW not generated by fossil fuels, but until the new, smart, grid is up and running, Europe wide, the full savings will not be realised and fossil fuels will still be burned.

 

One thing is certain though. Not building renewables as fast as we can, not building the smart grid to distribute them, will condemn us to catastrophe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to try and bring this back on-topic, one of the major differences between fossil fuels and renewables, is the fact that with fossil fuels you can transport the fuel to where you need it. With renewables, you have to generate the power where the fuel is.

 

This means windfarms where the winds blow (Shetland), solar plants where the sun shines (the Sahara, Southern Europe), geothermal where the Earth is hot (Iceland), hydro where the mountains are (Norway, the Alps, etc) and tidal where the tidal rips run (coastal areas).

 

To achieve the aim of replacing fossil fuels with renewables in the most cost effective way possible, we have to build our renewables where the renewable energy is, and then transport the electricity to where it is needed. To do it any other way is to waste money. Something I think we can all agree would be a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT - Speaking as someone who has been in Shetland for a year (well, in 2 days time LOL) having moved from London, might I assure you that my electricity costs here in Shetland are a LOT higher than they were in London. Granted, in London I had gas and electric but still lived in the same size of accommodation. Our combined outgoings for gas and electricity (and I hasten to add all but the last year was not with a modern gas boiler) were £50 per month during the winter. The cost in Shetland is £107.

 

Now mathematics has never been my strong point but even I can manage the calculation on that one.

 

In addition, if you take into account the amount per unit, not even mentioning the horrendous daily standing charge tariff on Total Heat, Total Control; I think you will find that too is a lot higher than other standing charge tariffs.

 

AT's response: (sorry, messed up the quote)

"There's your answer right there. You had gas. Your heating and cooking costs may well have been much cheaper due to gas. As far as the rest goes, there may well be slight differences between different Electric companies, but, if you take the same house fuelled the same way, on the same tariff setup, down South, you will pay the same (apart from differences in usage due to different weather, etc). "

 

No surprises unfortunately - you MISSED the point AT. I stated I did not have a modern boiler for the last year - my gas bill nearly halved in the last year due to having a modern combination boiler. The immersion heater was also faulty and it took a few months for the Council to fix it as we had to heat it via electricity instead of the old back boiler which added to the electric bill obviously. In addition, the property I now live in is better insulated than the London property and the rooms are actually smaller than my old London flat. Yes, the gas central heating was on in all rooms during the winter whereas here, I only have a wall panel heater on for a couple of hours then turn it off - only in the room I'm actually in at the time.

 

The standing charge applied by Scottish Hydro is definitely a lot higher than EDFs, despite the fact that in London we were on a card meter which again, meant we paid a higher rate than someone on a direct debit payment scheme. Here, we are on direct debit.

 

As I'm self-employed and have to keep records as I am entitled to claim a proportion of utility bills as running costs, I can assure you AT that living in a smaller property here with smaller rooms AND less heaters on (compared to gas-fired central heating radiators which were larger in size) is more expensive.

 

Out of curiosity, I telephoned a mate in London, living in an all electric flat. They too are at home all day and live in roughly the same size property I live in now (slightly larger to be honest). Their monthly lecky bill on DD - £68.

 

As far as I'm aware, fuel poverty does exist in Shetland and yes, it would be beneficial to have alternatives to the main power station. Rather than wasting money on the windfarm, surely the SIC could ascertain if any grants were available from the EU and other bodies for at least partially funding ground heat pumps.

 

Apologies Mods if I haven't "clipped" enough of the quoted text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question.

Disregarding the CO2 issue entirely (to me, it's not important) and focusing on the economic one, how does anyone here suppose shetland would be able to maintain present living standards unless we invest in something like this to bring in new jobs as the oil and gas being brought ashore at sullom voe slowly dwindles?

 

This is an excellent question. I agree that the CO2 issue is irrelevant, what is needed is some real financial information. It is all very well to argue that "well, SSE would not invest if it wasn't viable" but what I would like to see are some numbers which prove there will be a decent financial return for Shetland. So far, there has been nothing, as far as I am aware?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The standing charge applied by Scottish Hydro is definitely a lot higher than EDFs, despite the fact that in London we were on a card meter which again, meant we paid a higher rate than someone on a direct debit payment scheme. Here, we are on direct debit.

I think you have missed my point as well. I'm not saying that all electrical companies charge the same, EDF may well be significantly cheaper than SSE.

 

What I am saying is that the cost of generating electricity at Gremista and supplementing this with electricity from Sullom and Burradale, is still significantly more expensive than generating power in the massive coal fired stations, south, simply due to the efficiency's of scale and the difference in the costs of diesel/gas versus coal.

 

Despite this, we do not pay more for our electricity here than someone south, all other things being equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question.

Disregarding the CO2 issue entirely (to me, it's not important) and focusing on the economic one, how does anyone here suppose shetland would be able to maintain present living standards unless we invest in something like this to bring in new jobs as the oil and gas being brought ashore at sullom voe slowly dwindles?

 

This is an excellent question. I agree that the CO2 issue is irrelevant, what is needed is some real financial information. It is all very well to argue that "well, SSE would not invest if it wasn't viable" but what I would like to see are some numbers which prove there will be a decent financial return for Shetland. So far, there has been nothing, as far as I am aware?

Crofter and CShetland383, you might want to have a look at this offshore wind farm which is actually going ahead:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west_wales/10235242.stm

 

It's roughly the same size as the VE proposal, will cost twice as much to build and will only deliver half the power output (assuming 25-30% power factor as opposed to 50-55% at Burradale).

 

So pound for pound it will generate only a quarter of the revenue of the VE proposal, and yet it is going ahead. The people building it seem quite convinced it is a viable, profitable, project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have missed my point as well. I'm not saying that all electrical companies charge the same, EDF may well be significantly cheaper than SSE.

 

No AT you have missed the point whether deliberately or through ignorance only you know.

 

compare like for like tariff with the same company here and south and it is much much more expensive here.

 

Is it a case of, if you write enough sharn some of it may be believed AT, cause I can see no other explanation for your witterings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming? AT, you would be the first to jump on someone else "assuming" anything.

 

Liverpool bay actually boasts average wind speeds of 30mph, according to this source:

http://www.powermag.com/renewables/wind/Burbo-Bank-Offshore-Wind-Farm-Liverpool-Bay-UK_227_p2.html

 

Which is pretty good, in the greater scheme of things, don't you think? Is Shetland's average not around Force 5 (18-24mph)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • admin changed the title to Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...