Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Urabug]

ArabiaTerra:--If I had my way I would go for another Nuclear power Station. Technolgy has come a long way ahead & many lessons have been learned from the problems with the old installations.

 

There would not be a plane in the air if it were not for the hard work of the accident investigators & now look how safe it is to fly.

 

Wave & tidal energy is the way forward but it needs a bit more time & a lot of finance.

 

The cost of electricty will always increase as long as it is depending on oil & gas.

 

In the not to distant future oil & gas will be a distant memory ,as it get scarce the price will rocket & only the very rich will be able to afford it .

 

This is why we must get a new reliable alternative source now & I do not want to be without power be it ,nuclear,wind or tidal.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

How many more have collapsed but haven't been reported?

 

Do you honestly think that the Independent, Daily Mail, Spectator & co wouldn't have seized on turbines collapsing left, right & centre with glee? Because that's exactly what would happen. What about when houses get demolished because of winds? Or trees blown over? Why aren't they picked over in the Independent as if it was an inevitability waiting to happen? Because those papers have an anti-wind farm agenda. Do wake up.

 

Oh dear. You're obviously not very familiar with the tactics QCs use. It isn't uncommon for there to be deliberate mistakes in the pleadings so that a case gets to Court rather than not proceeding at all. It is quite common for further parties to join the proceedings.

 

Riiiight. So, you're saying that

 

• SS QC submitting one thing in the briefing and another thing in the pleadings (which are actually two separate points in law)

• Letting the defence QC point out that mistake

• Letting the defence QC point out that the UK Govt may wish to be represented in court

• Therefore delaying the whole process until late April at the earliest

• And presumably meaning SS will seek a further cap on their legal costs should the UK Govt seek representation, as that won't be covered by the original cap

• Having to pay a hefty retaining fee to an expensive QC for up to 12 weeks for a judicial review they originally thought would take 4 or 5 days

 

is a tactic?

 

Trying to describe that as a tactic has to be some of the most imbecilic logic I've ever heard.

 

Bet you don't play chess either.

 

Yes, I do. Do you? Because your grasp of strategy appears to be absolute bollox.

[unlinkedstudent]

How many more have collapsed but haven't been reported?

 

Do you honestly think that the Independent, Daily Mail, Spectator & co wouldn't have seized on turbines collapsing left, right & centre with glee? Because that's exactly what would happen. What about when houses get demolished because of winds? Or trees blown over? Why aren't they picked over in the Independent as if it was an inevitability waiting to happen? Because those papers have an anti-wind farm agenda. Do wake up.

 

Oh dear. You're obviously not very familiar with the tactics QCs use. It isn't uncommon for there to be deliberate mistakes in the pleadings so that a case gets to Court rather than not proceeding at all. It is quite common for further parties to join the proceedings.

 

Riiiight. So, you're saying that

 

• SS QC submitting one thing in the briefing and another thing in the pleadings (which are actually two separate points in law)

• Letting the defence QC point out that mistake

• Letting the defence QC point out that the UK Govt may wish to be represented in court

• Therefore delaying the whole process until late April at the earliest

• And presumably meaning SS will seek a further cap on their legal costs should the UK Govt seek representation, as that won't be covered by the original cap

• Having to pay a hefty retaining fee to an expensive QC for up to 12 weeks for a judicial review they originally thought would take 4 or 5 days

 

is a tactic?

 

Trying to describe that as a tactic has to be some of the most imbecilic logic I've ever heard.

 

Bet you don't play chess either.

 

Yes, I do. Do you? Because your grasp of strategy appears to be absolute bollox.

 

Wow, answering like a politician, a question with a question.

 

Err, in all the Judicial Reviews and lengthy Royal Courts of Justice cases I've dealt with, I've never seen a QC/Barrister charge a retainer - are you saying that the Scottish system is different to that of the English?

 

You get initial advice, Counsel's Opinion. Counsel may well draft the Particulars. Counsel drafts a Skeleton Argument. You have one, perhaps two, Conferences with Counsel. You send the same Bundle of Documents to your QC as you send to the Court and also the other side, plus their QC and Solicitor. In most cases, the Barrister looks at the papers the day or the day before; granted, in more complicated cases when using a QC, they might request them earlier but most don't (I remember Cherie Blair telephoning with queries the day before a case when I worked in Education law). Barristers charge less per hour than Solicitors, even well known QCs quite often charge less than Solicitors. A QC will charge for preparing paperwork, telephone attendance, conferences and time in Court - but not a retainer. Many a time, Counsel do not charge for reading Instructions if they decide not to take a case on.

 

Given that the Court has already agreed on a cap, it would usually follow they did the same again.

 

The SS QC has an impressive track record - is that what you're afraid of?

 

Won competitions for chess.

 

Edit: The other side could have raised the point earlier by approaching the bench, asked for a recess and/or discussion in the Judge's Chambers but didn't. They would have been aware of what was in the paperwork and the difference mentioned in Court as soon as the words were spoken but didn't - ask yourself why they didn't.

[JGHR]

 

I am a bit confused confused about reliability theory - although I agree that the probability of breakdowns will increase with an increasing number of components, is there not a trade-off with redundancy? For example, if one turbine at burradale shuts down, they have lost 20%, but if it is only one turbine out of 100, that is just 1%?

 

Yes that is true if only one turbine were to fail in each windfarm. But because the probability of failure increases with the number of components it is likely that for every failure at Burradale there will be a great deal more in the larger windfarm, if everything else is equal. The problem is exacerbated when you introduce critical components like the interconnector or convertor station, a complex machine by itself, any failure of one of those items will very quickly reduce the capacity factor of the Viking windfarm towards 0%. It is fallacy to claim that because Burradale achieves a capacity factor of around 50% Viking will do the same. It won’t.

[paulb]

 

I am a bit confused confused about reliability theory - although I agree that the probability of breakdowns will increase with an increasing number of components, is there not a trade-off with redundancy? For example, if one turbine at burradale shuts down, they have lost 20%, but if it is only one turbine out of 100, that is just 1%?

 

Yes that is true if only one turbine were to fail in each windfarm. But because the probability of failure increases with the number of components it is likely that for every failure at Burradale there will be a great deal more in the larger windfarm, if everything else is equal. The problem is exacerbated when you introduce critical components like the interconnector or convertor station, a complex machine by itself, any failure of one of those items will very quickly reduce the capacity factor of the Viking windfarm towards 0%. It is fallacy to claim that because Burradale achieves a capacity factor of around 50% Viking will do the same. It won’t.

 

please supply evidence that viking will be less efficent than burradale. if the new turbine dont have gears as they do in the older once. will that not mean that they can run at higher winds.

 

i thought our little one would cut out in the strong gales but it just keeps spinning away. with the blades being able to adjust there pitch .should viking not be able to run at higher winds than burradales.

 

obviously if something was to happen to the connector it would stop the generation but im sure there will be insurance to cover that kind of thing.

 

the item on the news that onshore wind generated 80% of scotlands power a few weeks ago is a sign that its possible to produce large amouts of green power. yes im sure it had a lot to do with the strong winds. but should that not reduce the unit cost of production.

[crofter]

There is some data for Danish capacity factors here:

 

http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms

 

Numbers range from 23.7% at a 20 year old 4.95MW farm to 47% for a 2.5 year old 209MW farm, so we can perhaps assume Viking will be comparable with some of the better Danish sites?

 

Denmark also claims to have "The most productive wind turbines in the world"

 

Danish windfarms also include the most productive wind turbines in the world, at Rønland I: the turbines have been operating for over 9 years now, with a lifetime capacity factor of 44.5%; of its eight turbines, four are rated at 2.3MW peak power, and each had by the end of February 2012 generated over 79 GWh — a world record for individual wind turbines.

 

The capacity figures are calculated by calculating, for each turbine in a given wind farm, the number of hours since it was first connected to the grid. This is then multiplied by its capacity, to give the number of peak-MW-hours. These figures are summed across all turbines in a wind farm, and divided into the total energy generated by that wind farm, to give its capacity factor.

[crofter]

 

I am a bit confused confused about reliability theory - although I agree that the probability of breakdowns will increase with an increasing number of components, is there not a trade-off with redundancy? For example, if one turbine at burradale shuts down, they have lost 20%, but if it is only one turbine out of 100, that is just 1%?

 

Yes that is true if only one turbine were to fail in each windfarm. But because the probability of failure increases with the number of components it is likely that for every failure at Burradale there will be a great deal more in the larger windfarm, if everything else is equal. The problem is exacerbated when you introduce critical components like the interconnector or convertor station, a complex machine by itself, any failure of one of those items will very quickly reduce the capacity factor of the Viking windfarm towards 0%. It is fallacy to claim that because Burradale achieves a capacity factor of around 50% Viking will do the same. It won’t.

 

please supply evidence that viking will be less efficent than burradale.

 

I am still a bit confused, but say I had 1 turbine in my garden and there were 100 turbines in Shetland, my turbine would produce 1% of the total electricity, and the chance of failure would be 1%. But, if my neighbour had a farm with 10 turbines does reliability theory suggest that they will produce less than 10% of the total and have a failure rate higher than 10% simply because they are part of a more complex system?

 

But, if that is so, does it mean my simple system will produce better than 1% and fail less often?

[JGHR]

so we can perhaps assume Viking will be comparable with some of the better Danish sites?

 

Yes perhaps, although 2.5 years is not that long so it will be interesting to see what the capacity factor is after say 25 years.

 

I am still a bit confused, but say I had 1 turbine in my garden and there were 100 turbines in Shetland, my turbine would produce 1% of the total electricity, and the chance of failure would be 1%. But, if my neighbour had a farm with 10 turbines does reliability theory suggest that they will produce less than 10% of the total and have a failure rate higher than 10% simply because they are part of a more complex system?

 

The chances of your turbine failing would not necessarily be 1%, it might never fail. If all the 100 turbines were the same, then the expected failure rate for that type of turbine could be determined. This might be expressed as something like for example 0.01 failures per year under the conditions that they are operating in. So if the failure rate is constant at 0.01 per year that means we can expect 1 turbine out of the 100 total to fail each year during their useful life period. In any given year it might be your single turbine, but it is ten times more likely to be one of your neighbours. It is also therefore 10 times more likely that in any given year your neighbours turbines will be running at 90% of their capacity and your single turbine will still be running at 100% capacity. It is also more likely that your neighbour will say, to hell with it I'll hold of fixing that broken turbine because I still have 9 running, where as you with your single turbine might be more inclined to quickly fix it because you would have lost all your capacity.

[paulb]

would it still remain at 1% im rubbish at maths so im bound to be wrong.

 

if you have a farm of 5 and 1 conks out its a 20% fail rate.

if you have a 100 it would be 1%

 

but they must have a redundancy (probably the wrong word) so they would factor in a few broken and some being maintained.

 

so if they were say planning to generate 50mw they would factor that into it.

 

i think we need to be careful that we dont react to the odd toppled or burnt out turbine. some engines fail some are badly made. like any mechanical thing it will wear out.

 

what i do find odd is the toppled ones either they were very badly engineered or some one messed up in there construction.

 

i suspect and im probably wrong that some one opted for a lower spec system that was never designed for the strong winds that it would face.

 

we can only hope that they won't make that mistake up here.

 

off subject was in yell on the weekend and i have to ask again why can't it be spread out over yell and unst.

[crofter]

off subject was in yell on the weekend and i have to ask again why can't it be spread out over yell and unst.

 

There is a plan for 17 turbines in South Yell -

 

http://www.beawfieldwindfarm.com/Home.aspx

 

It will produce approximately 400 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity per year, enough to power approximately 85,000 homes

[unlinkedstudent]

You also need to factor in that windfarms using work in 'clusters'.

 

So if there are say 100 wind turbines in a windfarm made up of clusters with each cluster having five turbines and one in the five goes wrong in one cluster, the remaining four are usually out of action at the same time. That would alter the percentage because the 1% would become 5%.

[paulb]

You also need to factor in that windfarms using work in 'clusters'.

 

So if there are say 100 wind turbines in a windfarm made up of clusters with each cluster having five turbines and one in the five goes wrong in one cluster, the remaining four are usually out of action at the same time. That would alter the percentage because the 1% would become 5%.

 

that would be factored in.

[crofter]

that would be factored in.

 

Does anybody know what capacity factor VE have used in their assumptions?

 

I found this on the VE website

 

The capacity factor is likely to be much higher than average and comparable with fossil fuel power stations. Currently, the Burradale wind farm is thought to be the most efficient wind farm in the world and has achieved an average annual load factor of up to 57% - higher than some conventional power stations. On average the Burradale wind farm has a load factor of 53%.

 

But what figure have they factored in?

[unlinkedstudent]

I found this on the VE website

 

Except it isn't their website:

 

Domain name:

vikingenergy.co.uk

 

Registrant:

Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd

 

Registrant type:

Unknown

 

Registrant's address:

10 Charlotte Street

Lerwick

A1 1AA

United Kingdom

 

Registrar:

Fasthosts Internet Ltd [Tag = LIVEDOMAINS]

URL: http://www.fasthosts.co.uk

 

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 16-Oct-2003

Expiry date: 16-Oct-2013

Last updated: 25-Jan-2012

 

Registration status:

Registered until expiry date.

 

Name servers:

ns.rackspace.com

ns2.rackspace.com

 

WHOIS lookup made at 13:08:23 04-Feb-2013

 

All parties involved are still breaking company law. Under company law, all company numbers must be clearly shown on the website, together with other company details.

[crofter]

OK, disregard that illegal bogas website I just quoted from.

 

I found this on the sic website

 

http://www.shetland.gov.uk/planningcontrol/documents/AppendixA16.6CarbonPaybackCalculations.pdf

 

The capacity factor, or percentage efficiency, of the wind farm has been calculated to be

46.3%, i.e. on average the wind farm will generate 46.3% of its theoretical production

capacity.