Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Carlos]

It's potentially more complicated.

 

Coal gets 40 odd % of the energy from the fuel into electricity. But that doesn't count things like the energy cost of fuel production.

 

On the other hand, the wind turbine may output an average of 50% of its theoretical maximum over the course of the year, but will still only transform a much smaller % of its potential "fuel" into electricity - the energy in all the wind that passes through the area its blades sweep in that time.

 

Efficiency figures are very dependent on which question you have decided to try and answer, and that might not be the most useful question.

[sjeunson]

It's potentially more complicated.

 

Exactly. I was just trying to highlight that not even a normal power station produces flat out all the time.

[dead mans hand]

I liked the letter that was in last weeks Shetland Times, written by a lady from England.

 

Very good indeed.

[shetlandpeat]

I guess though the turbines will be more efficient than your car US, unless of course you drive it for more than 12 hours a day. Weird logic and gross misuse of the word efficient.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

I liked the letter that was in last weeks Shetland Times, written by a lady from England.

 

Very good indeed.

 

I thought her personal prejudice was pretty obvious for all to see. She could have just left her argument on the figures she was giving, but had to make it an emotive issue by dragging words like 'carbuncle' & 'blighted' into it, or claiming it'll completely kill off tourism. That sort of language has been used to try & topple developments since time immemorial - the canals, the railways, motorways, HS2... it's always the same. The emotive argument doesn't work, because in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't stack up.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ah yes, that reminds me - Burradale whacked up their latest figures, didn't they?

 

The Shetland Times, Friday, 8th March, 2013, P27:

 

"According to the owners, Shetland Aerogenerators Ltd, Burradale is the most productive windfarm in the world, producing 50.9 per cent of its maximum theoretical output. This is more than double the European industry average.

 

While last year's figures were somewhat down on previous years, due to a maintenance programme on the three oldest turbines turbines, and a control unit failure, the production level was still 45.7 per cent overall. ..."

 

If 50.9% is the best any windfarm in the world can manage, that's pretty piss poor.

 

All power generators have such a capacity factor. For example, hydro is 35%, coal 49.8%, gas 62.4% and nuclear 65.4% (UK Digest of Energy Statistics 2010).

 

From here.

[ArabiaTerra]

I liked the letter that was in last weeks Shetland Times, written by a lady from England.

 

Very good indeed.

 

Except that it was factually wrong. I don't have the paper to hand, but I believe she said the return on the investment would look a lot worse when the costs of servicing the loans needed to build the windfarm were taken into account.

 

In fact, the quoted return figures are for after all such associated expenses have already been covered. Pure profit in other words.

 

So it was prejudiced and wrong.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

So are you confirming that the C.T. bank account will be fully restored with the amount spent on wind farm at the point of wind farm completion and then enjoy a 20 million per year dividend?

[JGHR]

Exactly. I was just trying to highlight that not even a normal power station produces flat out all the time.

 

That's true, but a crucial difference is that a conventional power plant could, theoretically at least, be cranked up to run at its nameplate capacity, whereas a windfarm cannot.

 

Weird logic and gross misuse of the word efficient

 

Where has the word efficient been misused?, I can't see it other than in your own post.

 

All power generators have such a capacity factor. For example, hydro is 35%, coal 49.8%, gas 62.4% and nuclear 65.4% (UK Digest of Energy Statistics 2010).

 

I am not sure what you are trying to demonstrate? There is no point whatsoever comparing capacity factors of different generating types, it is meaningless.

[merkin]

Pure profit in other words.

 

 

 

Surely it is only profit once the initial investment has been returned, plus any loss of earnings on the investment amount in the meantime

[ArabiaTerra]

So are you confirming that the C.T. bank account will be fully restored with the amount spent on wind farm at the point of wind farm completion and then enjoy a 20 million per year dividend?

 

Good grief, it's not as if we haven't been over this a dozen times already in this thread.

 

1. The Charitable Trust invests £65-70 million.*

 

2. It borrows the rest.

 

3. The windfarm gets built.

 

4. The windfarm then turns wind into money. Some of which goes to repay the loan and interest and the remainder (estimated to be £20 million/year based on an assumed load factor of 40%*) goes to the CT as profit on it's initial £65-70 million* investment.

 

Clear?

 

Surely it is only profit once the initial investment has been returned, plus any loss of earnings on the investment amount in the meantime

 

"Any loss of earnings on the investment amount" ??!

 

What?

 

What exactly do you think the Charitable Trust did with the initial £60 million or so* it got from the oil industry?

 

It bought stuff.

 

Stuff which generated a return.

 

This is what is known as an "Investment"

 

This is how it turned the quite small initial amount into the hundreds of millions we have been able to enjoy over the last 30 years or so.

 

It is doing exactly the same with the windfarm.

 

Investing.

 

Clear?

 

 

*Numbers plucked from my imperfect memory as I can't be arsed to look them up again in order to answer the same questions, again.

[stilldellin]

Meanwhile back at the " coal " face this is tonight's stonking output from the wind turbines. Anyone know how many turbines and at what cost to produce 2GW ?

http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb479/beenister/gridstatus_zps7ed0e6e9.jpg

[orkneypaul]

At where are these figures that you use to shout everybody down.

Can you please point me in the right direction or is it just you that is privy to them.

[MuckleJoannie]

They are here

 

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

[paulb]

looking at that chart its producing 10x that of hydro. and depending on the weather 1/4 of nuclear. how much did the nuclear stations cost to build/run and decommission it is estimated that it will cost 70 odd billion to clean up the power stations. it is estimated that it will cost 48 billion to build the next generation of nuclear stations.

 

 

according to this reference wind is one of the cheapest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

have a look at the chart half way down.