Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

@islandhopper: The mechanics of climate change are, of course, important. It's the 'excuse to be wasteful' part that I'm commenting on specifically. Irrespective of the causes, there are still things we can do, on a personal level, to improve matters. For example, to consume less power. It would be very easy for most people who gave it a little thought but many believe that, since other factors are involved, we have no responsibility at all. This is clearly nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final question regarding the access roads is not "how they might be built". They might be built with the highest quota of recycled "green material" which was ever used to build a road but they themselves and not the turbines will, nevertheless, be the the reason for a situation which might end up in a disaster. The key instead might be burried in the fact that you have to cut down the peat down to the bare rock first before you can start to build a suitable road and a hardstand from *recycled material for a truck carrying and a crane lifting some 60 to 80 or more tonnes. ;-)

Does anyone know:

 

a) If it's possible to relocate peat ground? (If not, there's plenty o folk I keen dat widna mind a bit o labour-free heatin! hahaha)

 

B) How much peat ground is actually going to be disturbed with access roads?

 

With regards to (B); there are roads all over Yell that snake through peaty land, but the peat on either side of the road seems to be perfectly intact and undisturbed. There is the occassional peerie brig that allows water tae run under the road, which pressumably helps preserve the surrounding areas. Just take a look at the Basta parks. Peat as far as you can see in every direction with the only disruption being the road you're driving on. Will it be the case that the only disruption to the peat land in the areas of the windmills is the physical space the road occupies, or are people worried that vast areas of peat land might 'dry-up'?

 

[Edit] :

 

* Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting they try to make an entire road from recycled material - I was simply suggesting they should consider measures to increase the lifetime of the road and re-use something that may otherwise be un-re-usable for good measure. It would only be a small percentage of the road that would contain any "green material".

 

If we're going to 'go green', why not go the whole hog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will it be the case that the only disruption to the peat land in the areas of the windmills is the physical space the road occupies, or are people worried that vast areas of peat land might 'dry-up'?

 

For those of us living in Shetland it's really hard to imagine anything ever drying up rght now. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at an extremely rough estimate your looking at about 40km or track at a minimum of 3m wide ( probably wider to support the truck moving the plant about ) and a rough depth of 2m ( depending on what conditions are found )

 

so that works out at about 240,000m3 of peat, which is about the equivalent of a cut 5 times bigger than that at the top of Wormadale, to give you a visual point to relate to.

 

I emphasise this is an extremely crude estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else heard the rumours of the cable plans to bring other power from Shetland? It was on the fishing news, there were plans uncovered that Westminster wants to also use the techonology from the cable inorder to build a nuclear power plant on shetland.

 

In general I'm for the windfarms, there are bits of it I don't like. Such as the ammount of cement needed to anchor the windmills or all the new roads needing to be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another question to throw a spanner into the workings of this wind farm:

 

If tidal generators become the best way of producing renewable electricity (which im pretty sure they will) in the next 20 years. If this proposed wind farm becomes economically un-viable due to more advanced technology or other problems, How on earth do we think its going to be possible to remove these monstrous lumps of reinforced concrete, weighing I can imagine hundreds of tonnes each? Reinforced concrete is a nightmare to demolish, and even worse if its cast into huge solid blocks! And how much will it cost to restore the landscape if this project goes tits up? and has anyone made a calculation how the provision for this cost could affect the projected profits?

 

I think we should not be so abrasive towards the Greenheat man, what if his idea is the best answer to producing renewable energy. I say cut him a bit of slack, listen to what he has to say, and try and learn as much as possible about his project. Its in our own best interest. I think that if tidal energy can be harvested and stored, this would no doubt be the future way to go. There are just too many drawbacks to a wind farm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) If it's possible to relocate peat ground?

...

B) How much peat ground is actually going to be disturbed with access roads?

 

as to a) No - at least not under environmental conditions down south here.

By the way - When I talk about "drying out of peatland" it is to be seen against the following background: It is absolutely not neccessary to drain a peatland completly; a loss of water of about some 15% is normally enough to start a peatland dying.

 

as to be) Last figures from the develloper said, they will need 3.1skm for access roads only, but they failed to specify how much of it will be peatland against grassy or rocky patches etc.

To give an impression how much it is: The published map shows the blue lined OS 1:50,000 grid. Take 3.1 squares of that grid in an area you know and paint them black to get a visual impression of how much area will be used.:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight.

 

The windmills create 2406MWh of useable electricity.

 

They 'sell' 2843MWh more than this, which they buy from the electricity company first, and them resell - presumably at a loss, as the wholesale purchase price is going to be higher then the retail price it costs them to buy it.

 

So why would they then sell the additional 2843 when it costs them money to do this? Why not just sell the 2406, and make more money buy selling less?

 

Is it me thats being daft here?

 

Not wishing to go back here - I'd like to hear greenheatman's answers too, but just to clarify this point ^^^

 

Power produced by windmills is worth more than power from elsewhere because you get ROCS payments for renewable energy. So if greenheatman is correct it is conceivable that they could take energy from the grid then sell it back and claim ROCS payments for it.

 

The purpose of these payments is obviously to make renewable energy more attractive as a business, because without them it is not very cost effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight.

 

The windmills create 2406MWh of useable electricity.

 

They 'sell' 2843MWh more than this, which they buy from the electricity company first, and them resell - presumably at a loss, as the wholesale purchase price is going to be higher then the retail price it costs them to buy it.

 

So why would they then sell the additional 2843 when it costs them money to do this? Why not just sell the 2406, and make more money buy selling less?

 

Is it me thats being daft here?

 

Not wishing to go back here - I'd like to hear greenheatman's answers too, but just to clarify this point ^^^

 

Power produced by windmills is worth more than power from elsewhere because you get ROCS payments for renewable energy. So if greenheatman is correct it is conceivable that they could take energy from the grid then sell it back and claim ROCS payments for it.

 

The purpose of these payments is obviously to make renewable energy more attractive as a business, because without them it is not very cost effective.

 

So, does that mean the VE scheme is not viable without the subsidy?

 

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I presume their financial projections must be taking them into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I presume their financial projections must be taking them into account.

 

That is what is worrying. If it can't run and make money without being subsidised by the government what happens if they 9the government) withdraw the subsidy it and it becomes cheaper to import, for instance, cheap nuclear energy from France. Then perhaps the windmills might be redundant before they could offset the environmental damage caused in their construction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that, but I presume their financial projections must be taking them into account.

 

That is what is worrying. If it can't run and make money without being subsidised by the government what happens if they 9the government) withdraw the subsidy it and it becomes cheaper to import, for instance, cheap nuclear energy from France. Then perhaps the windmills might be redundant before they could offset the environmental damage caused in their construction?

 

I too want to know more about the finances of this whole thing - every penny!

 

To throw into the mix - what if the then nth Government decide that they're not going to waste all that money on a perfectly good cable and build nuclear power stations here and in the Western Isles as far away from London and the central belt as they can get! Handy that!

 

Big deep super quarry to be possibly built up in Sullum !?!? to dump all the waste into too...

 

.. Yeah, Yeah .. rumour mill going ten to the dozen ... but it's a perfectly good couple of questions / potential outcomes!

 

Governments work on scales of lifetimes for ideas. They know they're going to have to build nuclear - can't get away from the fact! Nice way to get it in the backdoor - what with the handy "green bandwagon" they're jumping onto with "the people" behind it all the way !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what if the then nth Government decide that they're not going to waste all that money on a perfectly good cable and build nuclear power stations here and in the Western Isles as far away from London and the central belt as they can get! Handy that!

...

Governments work on scales of lifetimes for ideas. They know they're going to have to build nuclear - can't get away from the fact! Nice way to get it in the backdoor - what with the handy "green bandwagon" they're jumping onto with "the people" behind it all the way !!

 

It wouldn't happen. I'm sure. For two reasons. One is expense - putting a nuclear power station in Shetland would cost far more than doing it south, simply in terms of getting materials, labour here, and putting in the neccessary cable.

 

The other reason is that Shetland still wields a very important bargaining tool, which it has forgotten about in recent years, namely independence. Although the public support for Shetland independence or autonomy has never really been there before, if people were faced with the question: independence or a nuclear power station on your back door? I think minds would quickly change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ That still leaves the scenario of having to put a nuclear station somewhere, and if the goverment of the day ajudged putting it anywhere else in the UK was more damaging to themselves than putting it here, I fear cost/logistics would no longer be seen as a particularly important factor in the decision making process.

 

Concerning potential independence, so what if the entire Shetland electorate voted unanimously to be independent, where do we take it from there without UK cooperation, declare UDI? Raise our own military forces and prepare to repel boarders from the rest of the UK? I am very probably wrong, but I cannot think of any realistic options to enforce our wishes should Westminster decide to ignore us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning potential independence, so what if the entire Shetland electorate voted unanimously to be independent, where do we take it from there without UK cooperation, declare UDI? Raise our own military forces and prepare to repel boarders from the rest of the UK? I am very probably wrong, but I cannot think of any realistic options to enforce our wishes should Westminster decide to ignore us.

 

I suspect Westminster would have serious trouble trying to hold on to Shetland if the islands demanded independence. I really cannot see them sending in the tanks over it. These days they would be hard pressed to find an excuse for saying no.

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...