Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Of course the reserves in the stock will go down, but in the long term they will grow and continue to do so so

This is just wishful thinking. The long term growth of the reserves depends on the long term growth of the international stock markets and this is hardly guaranteed. Given the dangers of Global Warming and the inevitable crash which will be caused by the whole "Peak Oil" phenomenon, depending on the markets is a sure fire way of watching our oil wealth disappear.

 

We need the windfarm as a source of primary wealth generation. Not to be wholly dependent on the markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand it there in no spare capacity in the cable for developing new renewable ideas, so that too is 'poppy cock'!

 

My point was that when we decommission the windfarm we may have other technologies to replace the supply of power. We may rebuild it but with 20 years development in technology there may be other alternatives such as the ones suggested.

 

Are we sure that the cable has a lifespan in excess of the windmills. Can't see why? That being the case then in 20 years time we are back to square one, except this time we have a dodgy cable and 160 huge scrap windmills.

Or do we start over again and spend all the historic profits from the windmills on a new cable?

 

Oh-no that can't work, - we spent all the profits on the North crofters rent, and keeping Sandness and Skerries schools open

 

Or maybe next time we will just plug into Sahara solar energy Ltd's main power cable into Europe and sit back and wonder who is going to pay for the removal the 160 rusting windyspells from the kames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about just 1 mega turbine?

The manufacturers claim to be building these in china. The estimated cost of building this colossal structure is $53 million

Anyone know any more details?

 

http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/Maglev-Wind-Turbine-Technologies.jpg

 

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/maglev2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....such as producing hydrogen, tidal power, wave power in teh following years. If we have a sub-sea connector then all these technologies could be the windfarms of the future.

 

Don't forget that big ass Nuke Reactor which would also feed through such a cable quite nicely, and would fit just fine on a decommissioned and cleared Sullom site or the likes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we sure that the cable has a lifespan in excess of the windmills. Can't see why? That being the case then in 20 years time we are back to square one, except this time we have a dodgy cable and 160 huge scrap windmills.

 

Not sure exactly but there are other sub-sea cables out there with an expected lifespan which should exceed 40 years.

 

Or maybe next time we will just plug into Sahara solar energy Ltd's main power cable into Europe and sit back and wonder who is going to pay for the removal the 160 rusting windyspells from the kames.

 

Again, it's not a plug-and-play option here. There is no likelihood of a European Super Grid due to the costs of establishing such a scheme. And even if it were we would just be hopping from dependency of oil to dependency of power. Let's make Shetland and the UK self-sufficient first and foremost, supplied by as much renewable energy as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget that big ass Nuke Reactor which would also feed through such a cable quite nicely, and would fit just fine on a decommissioned and cleared Sullom site or the likes....

 

As mentioned before in this forum it would make no sense to build a nuclear reactor in Shetland as it would result in poorer performance compared to one on the mainland. Reason being that a similar reactor on the mainland would not be subjected to the 6% loss during transmission by sub-sea connector.

 

It's only due to the fact that our fuel supply, wind, is so much better here that we can nullify such losses thus making VE very much a viable project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ 6% is a small price to pay for the political capital gained. I could subscribe to your reasoning had Dounreay never have existed, but why else park such a thing in the middle of nowhere and so far away from civilisation, if not for the facts that it was out of sight and out of mind of those who put it there and those who'd be anserable if it went belly up. There were few people there to pleeps about it, and the devil may care whether it leaks, explodes or kills off the natives was the attitude further south as far as I can recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ 6% is a small price to pay for the political capital gained. I could subscribe to your reasoning had Dounreay never have existed, but why else park such a thing in the middle of nowhere and so far away from civilisation, if not for the facts that it was out of sight and out of mind of those who put it there and those who'd be anserable if it went belly up. There were few people there to pleeps about it, and the devil may care whether it leaks, explodes or kills off the natives was the attitude further south as far as I can recall.

 

Re. Dounreay my suspicions were exactly the same as yours but when you look at where all the others nuclear reactors are sited, active or closed, you'll find that they are all fairly close to the main areas of demand. For instance in Scotland, Torness and Hunterston are situated on the edge of the central belt.

 

In England you've got Heysham, Hartlepool, Sizewell, Dungness, Oldbury which are all reasonably close to the main areas of supply.

 

Don't get me wrong am in no way in favour of nuclear in any shape or form but it appears that Dounreay is the exception even if your theory was the reason they sited it there 60 years ago.

 

As was proved with Chernobyl it doesn't matter whether it's on your doorstep or not, if one of those things goes POP we'll all know about it one way or another!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Back in the day when most of those were being built, Nuke was the best thing since sliced bread, it's public perception was largely riding the crest of a "this will solve the world's energy problems forever" wave. The fact Dounreay ever came to be would strongly suggest that someone somewhere, who mattered in the Nuke industry had gotten wind the tide of public opinion was turning, otherwise why go to the bother of siting it there.

 

Given how much the tide has turned against Nuke since then, *if* it comes to pass that conservation/recycling/alternative energy and whatever other ploys are tried simply don't work, and Nuke is the only way to sustain output, any new build reactor in the current anti-Nuke climate will only ever happen on the most remote spot possible. Now in the UK that would firstly be Rockall....with somewhere in Shetland filling the #2 slot....an already laid cable to Shetland can only help influence it as the preferred choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Back in the day when most of those were being built, Nuke was the best thing since sliced bread, it's public perception was largely riding the crest of a "this will solve the world's energy problems forever" wave. The fact Dounreay ever came to be would strongly suggest that someone somewhere, who mattered in the Nuke industry had gotten wind the tide of public opinion was turning, otherwise why go to the bother of siting it there.

 

I dunna have the time or inclination to look into this one Ghostrider but I would suspect that there are geological reasons as to where a nuclear reactor can be situated. I believe there were several sites which were deemed "potential" and Dounreay was one.

 

Now in the UK that would firstly be Rockall....with somewhere in Shetland filling the #2 slot....an already laid cable to Shetland can only help influence it as the preferred choice.

 

You're just purely scaremongering here am afraid Ghostie me lad! As I've said if one of those reactors goes tits up it doesna matter if it's Rockall or Shetland, the whole of the UK will know about it. Are you forgetting the nuclear cloud which hung around Europe for weeks after Chernobyl?

 

In 2005 the estimated cost of decommissioning these things was £56 billion, billion not million! Makes windfarms look positively cheap and a helluva lot safer, don't yah think?

 

Go on, vote windfarm, you know you want to!! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8) Can we get on with the windfarm topic, I find it revolting that some people want to destroy a beautiful landscape unique in all its ways just for soem cash in their back pocket.

I find that disgusting and sickening to hear. People for the devestation of Shetland should be ashamed of themselves and I hope they think twice, to save this beautiful lanscape. :cry: [/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8) Can we get on with the windfarm topic, I find it revolting that some people want to destroy a beautiful landscape unique in all its ways just for soem cash in their back pocket.

 

I find that disgusting and sickening to hear. People for the devestation of Shetland should be ashamed of themselves and I hope they think twice, to save this beautiful lanscape. :cry: [/b]

 

Vexed to hear the idea of such a project revolts you Phantom but I can assure you I am in no way ashamed of my belief that the VE windfarm should happen. No cash going in my back pocket tho!

 

One of the things that kind of annoys me about this whole situation is that folk against the project feel that they hold the higher moral ground, so to speak. If anybody actually says they support such a project then they are immediately accused of having a vested interest.

 

I hold absolutely no ill feelings against anybody who opposes the windfarm for that is their right. If they manage to stop the project from happening then they'll have done their jobs and, I would like to think, done them well. Although, if it should be stopped I won't be leaving on the next ferry!

 

When I started contributing to this forum I had not heard any credible evidence that the windfarm should not be built. I'm sorry, but I haven't heard anything since that has convinced me otherwise.

 

I think VE have a lot of hoops to jump through yet as it does seem like a lot of things have to come together but I for one have been impressed with the way this whole thing has been planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i'll be contrary then Petrocelli, i'll take the moral low ground and say that i'd actually prefer a nuclear station to come here. Less environmental impact, less aesthetic impact, more jobs, equally good revenue potential, less harm to wildlife (birds). Perhaps more. Endless potential!

 

You say you've seen nothing valid against it, i take it you've read the whole of this thread before coming to that conclusion, no?

 

I have the utmost respect for those planning the windfarm and utmost admiration for their efforts and methods. But that doesn't mean i accept the plan as it stands. It's not an all or nothing scenario and the political aspects of the proposal are still questionable, which makes me wary of the potential of the project from several angles.

 

Also: It was good to see a comment from our local RSPB representative on shetland-news about the SSE/RSPB issue.

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...