Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

I can see that C. Booker and Arabia Terra sit with viewpoints at the opposite ends of the spectrum on this subject.

 

From green fingers telegraph link I would reccommend reading the comments left by the other readers.

 

How ever this question of subsidy really needs to be investigated, after all the V.E. business model is based upon subsidy, and of course there is the gigantic expense of the extension cable to the mainland to factor in to the price.

 

But in the meantime here are some interesting facts about present and future global energy production

 

Last year oil accounted for 35% of global energy use (mostly for transport), it is expected higher prices will encourage people to seek alternative but the truth of the matter is that it simply cant happen overnight, it is unlikely to happen within 50 years.

 

Even if a new source of energy were discovered today, it would take a huge amount of time & traditional energy to bring it to the global population, perhaps 50 to 100 years.

 

In the meantime oil is being sought in every corner of the planet, from deep ocean, to deep desert to arctic regions.

The fastest growing of alternative oil production is the Alberta Tar sands, present production rates are at 1.5 million barrels a day & projected to increase to 3 million barrels a day by twenty - twenty. And they reckon they have 170 billion barrels within these tar sand reserves, the second largest concentration of oil after saudi arabia ....?

 

I am not sying this is a good thing , just a fact. Which again dashes Arabia Terra's mantra of ' 10 years to save the planet'

[unlinkedstudent]

^^^^ More ignorant crap from Christopher Booker. Why does anyone even bother to read anything this idiot writes? He is a clueless climate change denier with an agenda to rubbish wind energy every chance he gets.

 

I'm getting really tired of people posting this garbage.

 

With all due respect AT, you come across as having a habit to "rubbish" most things other posters write if they don't agree with your viewpoint. Ah, the boomerang effect.

[ArabiaTerra]

How ever this question of subsidy really needs to be investigated, after all the V.E. business model is based upon subsidy, and of course there is the gigantic expense of the extension cable to the mainland to factor in to the price.

The subsidy for renewables is there to level the playing field with subsidised fossil fuel energy, and the interconnector will simply be an extension of the National Grid, subject to the same charges as any other part of the grid.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ More ignorant crap from Christopher Booker. Why does anyone even bother to read anything this idiot writes? He is a clueless climate change denier with an agenda to rubbish wind energy every chance he gets.

 

I'm getting really tired of people posting this garbage.

 

With all due respect AT, you come across as having a habit to "rubbish" most things other posters write if they don't agree with your viewpoint. Ah, the boomerang effect.

Ok, unlinked, just for you I'll Fisk Booker:

The fact is that no one would dream of building these absurdly inefficient machines unless they were guaranteed a 100 per cent subsidy through the Renewables Obligation.

The Renewables Obligation Certificate is a scheme whereby power companies have to buy a certain amount of their energy from renewable sources. It is not a straightforward subsidy, and it is not 100%. And Booker ignores the fact that fossil fuel energy is subsidised itself in two different ways:

 

First, there are the tax breaks the fossil fuel companies get for digging the stuff up in the first place, and second there is the fact that fossil fuel generators get to dump their waste products into the atmosphere for free.

When it was reported recently that a Dutch company, Eneco, is to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm, covering 76 square miles off the Dorset coast, the media mindlessly parroted a claim that its 240 turbines will be able to generate 1200MW, “enough to power 820,000 homesâ€. In fact, thanks to the intermittency of the wind, their actual output would average little more than 300MW, equivalent to the needs of only 125,000 homes.

The figures above assume a net efficiency of only 25% for an offshore windfarm. Offshore windfarms are a lot more efficient than onshore ones so this figure is almost certainly wrong. You'll also notice that Booker gives no reference for his figures (he never does). He also fails to mention that no power generator works at 100%, not even coal or nuclear, let alone his favoured gas (which is only 60%, not much better than the VE proposal).

 

In every column Booker writes, he always presents wind in the worst possible light and his favoured solutions in the best, and frequently tells outright lies in order to do it.

For the same capital cost of £3.6 billion, we could build enough gas-fired power stations to generate 15 times the amount of electricity, continuously, without a penny of subsidy

See here for instance. Gas is subsidised, along with all other fossil fuels, and if we went with gas, we would be beholden to exporting nations like Russia for our supplies, exposed to the inexorable rise in global, wholesale prices and tied in to polluting, CO2 intensive power generation for the foreseeable future.

 

With windpower, we get clean renewable power and are independent of the international fossil fuel market. Sure the initial capital cost of renewable is higher than the equivalent amount of fossil fuel generation, but nobody has ever denied this, however, once the stuff is built, the "fuel", and therefore the power produced, is free, for as long as the wind blows.

 

Now the reason I'm getting a bit pissed off with people posting Bookers rubbish, is this is the second of his columns to be posted here in the last couple of weeks, and the first was posted three times, yet none of the people doing the posting have even bothered to ask the question:

 

"Is this guy telling the truth? Is this guy spinning the story? Can I trust what this guy is saying?"

 

Instead, people just take it at face value because it suits their pre-conceived notions, fits their narrative of "wind power bad, fossil fuels good". I just wish people would treat sources of information with a little more suspicion and never accept anything at face value.

 

Everyone has an agenda, me, Viking Energy, Greenpeace (for instance), you wouldn't take anything we said as gospel truth, you would either dismiss it or at least check our facts. Why don't you subject stuff you agree with to the same level of scrutiny?

 

All I ask is a level playing field. Suspect everything, believe nothing (at first glance, anyway), check the facts.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

Here endeth the lesson

[oddtablet]

^^^^ More ignorant crap from Christopher Booker. Why does anyone even bother to read anything this idiot writes? He is a clueless climate change denier with an agenda to rubbish wind energy every chance he gets.

 

I'm getting really tired of people posting this garbage.

 

With all due respect AT, you come across as having a habit to "rubbish" most things other posters write if they don't agree with your viewpoint. Ah, the boomerang effect.

So true....unlinkedstudent

Mr AT continues to have a totally blinkered viewpoint. Mr AT is unable to grasp the concept that other people can and do disagree with him and that any member of the community is allowed, via free speech, to have a differing opinion. It must be so irritating to Mr AT that the opposing opinions are backed by strong and educated facts /reports.

[Ghostrider]

^^^^ More ignorant crap from Christopher Booker. Why does anyone even bother to read anything this idiot writes? He is a clueless climate change denier with an agenda to rubbish wind energy every chance he gets.

 

I'm getting really tired of people posting this garbage.

 

I think you've kinda missed the point. The waffle from your guy Booker's pen is irrelevant, the point is a Govt. minister said "wind power doesn't need a subsidy, it can stand on its own feet", or words to that effect. That much surely isn't in dispute, as its reported by numerous sources, including a site in the name of the guy who was doing the interview.

 

Assuming we can agree that the Govt. minister actually said what it is reported he did, it sets forth two questions.

 

Does the meaning of what was said need to be an argument in semantics, or does it need to be an argument in a shift in governmental policy?

 

Was the minister simply throwing spin around by relying on the hair splitting fact that technically what wind power producers collect from public taxation is not a "subsidy" per se, but the result of a government legislated artificial pricing structure? Or, more sinisterly, was he saying what he actually meant, that he believes that wind generation does not need financial injection from taxation, and that it can survive and assumedly thrive on the market price alone? Which would strongly hint at any income from taxation, be it either a direct subsidy, or via an inflated fixed price through legislation, is, if "not needed", at high risk of vanishing at any time on a whim.

 

If the former, its nothing more than the double speak half truths that are the bread and butter of politicians. If the latter, VE, the SCT and us need to start shredding plans yesterday.

[ArabiaTerra]

GR, I finally tracked down what was said and where, and watched the interview in question.

 

Firstly, it was the transport minister, and what he has to do with energy policy, I don't know. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say it is an argument in semantics.

 

The ROC system is, strictly going by the dictionary definition, not a subsidy. It's not a subsidy the same way the tax breaks given to the fossil fuel industry are not a subsidy. And the way the fossil fuel users are allowed to spew their waste into the atmosphere, the environment, without penalty, is not a subsidy.

 

As far as I can find, there has been no change in Government policy regarding renewables.

 

Mr AT continues to have a totally blinkered viewpoint. Mr AT is unable to grasp the concept that other people can and do disagree with him and that any member of the community is allowed, via free speech, to have a differing opinion. It must be so irritating to Mr AT that the opposing opinions are backed by strong and educated facts /reports.

I must have missed something there. All I saw was spin and lies. Perhaps you would like to present some backup for those "strong and educated facts /reports".

[sjeunson]

Right here's a rough number or two to help understand the money figures involved.

 

A 458MW wind farm with a capacity factor of 50% will provide to the national grid roughly 2billion kWhr each year.

 

This gives an estimated income of:

 

£20000000 if sold for 1 pence per kWhr

£40000000 if sold for 2 pence per kWhr

 

You can see where this is going.

[JGHR]

Right here's a rough number or two to help understand the money figures involved.

 

A 458MW wind farm with a capacity factor of 50% will provide to the national grid roughly 2billion kWhr each year.

 

This gives an estimated income of:

 

£20000000 if sold for 1 pence per kWhr

£40000000 if sold for 2 pence per kWhr

 

You can see where this is going.

 

 

Big numbers and on the face of it they look promising. Although there is a fairly large capital investment to be paid off. What is the market rate in the UK for a kWh does anyone know?

 

I am wondering about the capacity factor as well. It seems to be assumed/taken for granted by most folk that because the Burradale windfarm achieves around 50% the Viking farm will achieve the same. I am not convinced that this assumption is valid. Generally speaking, in reliability engineering the larger and more complex a system becomes the more prone to failure it becomes. This is true for any system utilising devices manufactured by human beings including windmills. The more components you have in a system the higher the chances that one of them will fail, it’s simple logic really. The more windmills you have in a windfarm the higher the chances that one or several of them will be out of service through failure. For this reason the capacity factor of a smaller windfarm is likely to be higher than that of a larger windfarm in the same location and with the same wind regime.

[exciseman]

^^^^^^^

At any one time 25-30% of turbines will need to be undergoing maintenance or awaiting repair as is probably the case with Burradale.

There will be an optimum size of turbine for efficiency so being bigger doesn’t mean more or equally efficient.

[crofter]

Right here's a rough number or two to help understand the money figures involved.

 

A 458MW wind farm with a capacity factor of 50% will provide to the national grid roughly 2billion kWhr each year.

 

This gives an estimated income of:

 

£20000000 if sold for 1 pence per kWhr

£40000000 if sold for 2 pence per kWhr

 

You can see where this is going.

 

 

Big numbers and on the face of it they look promising. Although there is a fairly large capital investment to be paid off. What is the market rate in the UK for a kWh does anyone know?

 

Possibly as much as 5 pence, but the VE price is top secret, and my guess is less than that. Remember that Shetland will only get half of those big numbers and, yes, a large debt to be repaid, the size of which is also unknown.

[Guest Anonymous]

GR, I finally tracked down what was said and where, and watched the interview in question.

 

care to post a link

[Para Handy]

If this windmill farm is a good investment why is Scottish & Southern Energy?

looking for the CT to invest a good percentage of the money.

Surely Ian Marchant would want all the lovely proposed income to come the SSE.

If I Had owned a bank. And this silly proposal was put to me. I would have throwing it out the door.

After the firs sentence had be put to me. I would not invest one pound never mind millions in it.

[MuckleJoannie]

As far as I remember the SIC set the ball rolling. Remember that if the CT is involved it means that if there is money to be made some of it will stay in Shetland.