Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy

[Ghostrider]

 

 

 

 

I see no reason why VE won't be the same.

 

Let me help you out with that then. Here's just a few....

 

1) Interconnector - Every aspect of it,

 

2) Considerably more challenging site and terrain.

 

3) Considerably larger and complex engineering challenge.

 

4) 45% of the developer's shareholding is in the hands of muppets.

 

 

1. The Interconnector will be paid for as a part of the grid through the service charge everyone in the UK pays. It might add 20p or so to your annual bill.

 

2. How? The Burradale site is on top of a hill. The Viking turbines will be on top of hills. How is it any different?

 

3. Rubbish, a wind turbine is a wind turbine. In fact erecting 100 rather than 5 will give you more practice so it will be less challenging. /snark

 

4. Ad hominin attack. Sure sign of a losing argument.

 

So, you've got nothing but insults and tired old repetition of long debunked arguments. Give it up Ghosty, you're just trolling at this point.

 

1. Says who? Nothing has been signed yet as far as I'm aware, or do you have information not yet in the public domain?

 

2. The Sands of Sound and Bondi Beach are both sandy beaches. Foula is an island and so is Tenerife. No two hills are identical any more than any two sandy beaches or islands are identical.

 

3. Ha, Ha! Three, then an additional two in to one straight in to a very limited sized grid, on a relatively compact site of relatively dry and shallow moor, with moderate inclines and relatively close to existing infrastructure, is a whole other ball game than a hundred larger beasts of considerable higher output in to one massive converter station, in to close on a couple of hundred of miles of subsea cable, out through another converter station and in to a huge grid. Planting the hundred poles is the walk in the park bit, the likes has been done many times before, its the access roads and connecting cabling on a relatively spread and in places fragmented site, which involves crossing just about every kind of hill terrain Shetland can throw at you, deep moor, swamps, steep inclines etc, on a site largely situated as near to nothing as its possible to get in Shetland, plus everything from there until any spark reaches John O'Groats that's the engineering challenge Burradale was spared experience of. Not impossible by any means, probably, but far and away beyond what anyone has undertaken in the UK previously.

 

4. Ad hominin? Don't think so. As an organisation the SCT IMHO have been an abject failure in their self-appointed tasks since inception, and the more they try to "improve" themselves the worse they get. As an organisation they are a complete failure, and I wouldn't trust them to tie their own shoe laces, let alone be in charge of 1p. Sooner or later they f**k up everything they touch, that is the track record they have, and until they actually manage to do a good job with something its reasonable to presume their failures will continue apace wherever they go. Personally I don't believe they have the ability to do a good job with anything, regardless of who the trustees may be, or how much they tweak it around the edges, as the basic structure of the organisation is fundamentally flawed and starting again is the only solution. Until such time as that happens its best they are kept away from and out of as much as possible, so that they do least harm, if not to try and preserve what little of our funds still remain, then to stop them f**cking up stuff that might otherwise have a chance of survival. Its is a black widow organisation.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Ghostrider

[paulb]

ive seen a little turbine run and produce power for over 2 years i may just know a little more about it  than a typist from london. but wait i see i missed your degree in electrical generation. lets see Whitelee Wind Farm cost 300 mil to factor in its most likely production its at about 33% stated max capacity. so 765/3=255mw/h = 12.55  Whitelee Wind Farms to produce the same power out put as Hinkley C now im clearly dumb as 12.55x 300million does not equal 18 billion. it is 3.75 billion. in fact you could build 62 Whitelee turbine farms. now wind does not always blow. but nuclear plants dont always produce power. if my maths are out i bow to your genius after all your an expert in buildings and sound engineering in fact your construction skills could be offered to VE as your an expert in wildlife and peat to. 

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

ive seen a little turbine run and produce power for over 2 years i may just know a little more about it  than a typist from london. but wait i see i missed your degree in electrical generation. lets see Whitelee Wind Farm cost 300 mil to factor in its most likely production its at about 33% stated max capacity. so 765/3=255mw/h = 12.55  Whitelee Wind Farms to produce the same power out put as Hinkley C now im clearly dumb as 12.55x 300million does not equal 18 billion. it is 3.75 billion. in fact you could build 62 Whitelee turbine farms. now wind does not always blow. but nuclear plants dont always produce power. if my maths are out i bow to your genius after all your an expert in buildings and sound engineering in fact your construction skills could be offered to VE as your an expert in wildlife and peat to. 

 

Rumour has it that you've also seen your wind turbine break down and that it interferes with your broadband.  PMSL @ "typist from london".  You missed out the PG Dip.  You missed out the five years working in petrochemical, including work (pardon me for reading what I typed and discussing the same with the engineers) for the UKAEA, including working on a project concerning the lifespan of nuclear power stations in the UK - granted, that was knocking around 20 years ago but still ...

 

Nuclear power stations don't go offline anything like the amount of time wind turbines do; wind turbines don't produce when the wind don't blow.  Wind turbines don't tick over when the wind doesn't blow.  Nuclear power stations tend to be used with the reactor/heating water system in simple terms; you don't have to have them on 'full whack' all the time.  There's downtime for maintenance just like there is for other power stations compared to maintenance on wind terms in addition to ZERO when the wind doesn't blow.

 

Whitelees already exists, as does other windfarms in the UK, as do several other nuclear power stations throughout the UK, some of which have been in existence since the 1960s.  So comparing an existing windfarm to a nuclear power station not yet in operation isn't a like-for-like comparison, is it?

 

Do you reckon you can manage to debate in an adult manner and stop the constant personal digs?  I honestly don't know why you are so bitter and personal, paulb.  We have a difference of opinion but your constant snipes and digs are somewhat tiring, I'd rather not be so reactive and admit I've risen to your bait but seriously, I don't comment about your previous occupations and fail to understand why you feel there is the necessity to do so about mine.

[Ghostrider]

ive seen a little turbine run and produce power for over 2 years.....

 

I daresay the Foula folk would probably love to be able to say the same thing. Instead by all accounts they're sitting looking at empty poles, as everytime they put their's up and it comes a peerie puff 'o wind, they all faa asindry.

 

Then I believe the Sandwick Club had one to look at for a while, but they were so delighted with it that when it failed, they decided not to bother replacing it.

 

Maybe you've found a brand of windmill and location that makes the whole enterprise worthwhile, and good luck to you if you have, but quite a few who've tried the same have found it far from being a bed of roses.

[paulb]

im bitter really. your little bird was incorrect. our little turbine is not messing up our broadband. its old wire between us and the junction is in a poor state and the speed s affected by the distance. indeed it was offline for a few months due to the supply company messing up on shipping the incorrect turbine. even so its produced 5k in power. no not in subsidies in power. it would have been a lot more if they had not messed up. your just lucky your near a decent internet connection. in fact calm sunny days seem to cause the worst problems.

[Ghostrider]

.....even so its produced 5k in power.

 

IOW £2500 per annum? Based on what tariff, SSE top dollar, or what? And how much has the total investment in it been to date?

[paulb]

investment. nowt. we receve the power for free. it would have cost about 10k to buy and install. so a payback of 4 years. cost well its 2 prices power we use is at 14.45 export at 4.85 per kw 

[orkneypaul]

What kind of Englandshire language is this, i do not understand.

[Ghostrider]

investment. nowt. we receve the power for free. it would have cost about 10k to buy and install. so a payback of 4 years. cost well its 2 prices power we use is at 14.45 export at 4.85 per kw 

 

Okay, so £10k initial investment. Hasn't there been any repair or maintenance costs for the two years its been plugging away, and aren't there any expected over the next two years it has to last to hope to break even?

 

What's the expected lifetime of the turbine before replacement, bearing in mind that the figure(s) bandied about by the maker/agent/installer is more than likely based on at least "average case scenario", and the period will be appreciably shorter here due to our climate.

 

SSE pay you £0.0485 per unit you supply them, yet charge me £0.185 per unit to buy it off them. Seems to me you're being ripped off and only winner here is SSE, as although they're paying you £0.0485 its only costing them £0.0385, as the other £0.01 you get is paid by me in "Green Tax" on top of the £0.185. So they're making considerbly more than double of what you are at £0.136 for nothing more than letting your electric flow through their wires that are there anyway regardless of power source, yet you're the one with all the expenses to set things up and keep them running and producing.

 

If these same numbers are then applied to VE, I think it goes quite some way to prove what I've long suspected, that SSE doing give a flying **** whether VE itself ever manges to turn 1p profit, they're only interested in distributing and reselling any power it may produce, as that's where they make their money. Standard "middle-man" tactics, buy absurdly cheap, resell absurdly dear, and laugh all the way to the Bank.

Edited November 7, 2015 by Ghostrider

[brian.smith]

This is not good news for VE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12004458/Wind-and-solar-farms-must-pay-their-true-costs-energy-secretary-vows.html

[Urabug]

Simple answer then --Nuclear Power.

[MuckleJoannie]

Coal fired power stations are being phased out so it looks like nuclear is trying to muscle in.

 

http://www.edfenergy.com/energyfuture/edf-energys-approach/why-we-choose-new-nuclear

 

 

Nuclear power is the most affordable large-scale low-carbon energy source currently available to the UK. A new generation of nuclear power stations could help the UK fulfil its commitments to tackling climate change and realise its vision of a secure, affordable electricity supply.

 Viking seem to be in a world of their own

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/11771-viking-undeterred-by-uk-energy-policy-fears

 

 

SHETLAND wind farm developer Viking Energy insists “good progress” continues to be made on their controversial 103 turbine project, despite fears raised following UK energy secretary Amber Rudd’s keynote speech on long term national energy policy on Wednesday.

[hjasga]

Nuclear might be the cheapest "large scale" low carbon energy source on average. Even that is very debatable, and the caveat of "large scale" is of course very telling. What is without question is that the UK's planned nuclear plant at Hinckley Point is exorbitantly expensive. 

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b07291aa-56ef-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html#axzz3s1ZmIyvo

 

 

 

There is a case for including nuclear in the UK’s energy mix. However, stability in this instance comes at a heavy cost. To ensure that Hinkley Point is actually built, ministers have undertaken to guarantee for 35 years an index-linked price of £92.50 per megawatt hour, more than twice the current market rate. It is also higher than for every renewable source, except for offshore wind.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/25/george-osborne-presses-on-with-hinkley-power-station-despite-criticism

 

 

At £24.5bn, Hinkley will cost more than the London Olympics, the Crossrail project and a new terminal at Heathrow airport combined. It will produce 7% of Britain’s electricity needs, or 3,200 MW of nuclear power, which comes in at around £7.6bn per gigawatt. Some argue that the government could create 20,000 MW of onshore wind-powered electricity or 50,000 MW of gas for the same price.

 

The current government should be getting far more stick than they are about their deranged energy policy, but they seem to be getting away with it as things stand. 

Edited November 20, 2015 by hjasga

[paulb]

nuclear is when you factor in all costs is the most expensive source of power. being a job comforter a accident like we've seen else were will depopulate a massive bit of the uk. build gas if you want cheap power or frack for fuel. onshore wind power is one of the cheaper sources just a little more expensive than gas and coal. what no system can cope with is a government that completely alters its thinking every few years. this latest wobble is costing 1000s of jobs  if you want a planned power supply you need to be thinking at least 50 years ahead. why buy from china and pay over the odds for power borrow at near 0% and build it ourselves. 

[whalsa]

In my opinion Nuclear gets a very bad name because of high profile incidents and disasters as well as the fact that old stations have created a lot of waste and been exceedingly difficult to decommission. 

The reason for the Hinkley Point station costing so much is nothing to do with the technology of the plant or the cost of the fuel it is simply a result of an extremely poor deal being made with EDF energy, the UK Gov promising to pay over the odds for every watt. 

Disasters like Fukushima and Chernoybl are avoidable, especially with the most recent and future generations of plants. In the long term fossil fuels and renewables just simply are not going to be enough. Unless a breakthrough is made in fusion technology then fission (supplemented by renewables where possible) should be the fuel of choice for the planet.

There are even types of reactor not in common usage which are safer, cleaner, use a more available type of fuel than the standard uranium and can be used to consume other nuclear waste as fuel. The reason these were never developed on a large scale is because they cannot be used to create material for nuclear weapons (which is what the nuclear powers wanted in the heyday of nuclear technology development). 

http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/

Edited November 20, 2015 by whalsa