Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Anyone know anybody who works in the windmill business apart from the Burradale boys (who are hoping to get a 10% share of VE in return for a used black shadow and a roosty red tin)

yep I know folk who have been in the windmill business for the last 20years or so. After voe they got a nasty taste in their mouths when it came to shetland. Strangely enough the story they tell is different to the popular tales told in shetland.

 

The situation in Denmark worries me slightly, where there is no financial incentives for maintaining the windmills now the tax breaks have gone. Beginning to think maybe a large windfarm isn't a good idea. When wind energy stops being a popular alternative, when the money stops flowing, will we have windmills tearing themselves apart like in the you tube video?

 

I can see everyone's side to this argument, it's just a pity that those most vocal against the proposal in the public eye, to be honest come across as nutters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mentioned this before folks, but let's keep things in perspective here!

 

Read Crofter's piece on Danish windfarm output. Reads like a fairly accurate report on the state of windfarms in Germany and Denmark in 2004. However, rather than putting doubts in my mind re. VE windfarm it actually strengthened my belief that the VE windfarm would be far more productive.

 

http://www.aweo.org/White-DenmarkTooGood.pdf

 

Why? It's simple! If you look at Table 1 on page 2, and the par that precedes it, it highlights quite clearly the non-linear relationship between wind speed and power output.

 

If, as the report suggests, Denmark and Germany are performing at a fairly poor 19-18% average output per year then, yes, I would be very worried if we were to achieve similar results.

 

The fact that Burradale has achieved an average of 52% output (world record 57.9% in 2005) over the first six years since installation gives me great confidence that any windfarm in Da Kames would achieve at least similar results, if not better. The results at Burradale have been achieved on what can only be described as a fairly average hill in Shetland with an average wind speed of just under 10m/s.

 

The sites of the proposed windfarm have an average wind speed of somewhere nearer 11m/s.

 

http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/explained/wind/windspeed-database/page27708.html

Select option 1 and then enter the OS grid reference to receive average wind speed data for sites from proposed windfarm.

 

If the average wind speed in Da Kames is even only 1m/s faster than Burradale then we can expect even better results from VE's windfarm.

 

So basically, if you've got turbines whirling around at 8 or 9m/s then you're never going to get great productivity as is experienced by Denmark and Germany. However, if you've got wind speeds reaching nearer optimum levels of operation then suddenly you get a dramatic upturn in productivity. Guess what, that's exactly what we have here in Shetland!

 

And to correct Crofter's inaccurate assumption...

 

I agree that Shetland is probably twice as windy as Denmark. However, that just means that they need twice as many turbines as we do to generate the same amount of electricity. If they cannot reduce CO2 emissions in Denmark with thousands of turbines, how can we do it here with a few hundred?

 

No, we don't have nearly twice the wind speed, maybe 25% better at best. But that 25% means we can achieve anything from 150-200% more productivity. So for every turbine you have in Da Kames you would have to erect between 2.5/3 in Denmark (based on the report) to get the same productivity.

 

Is that not a stark comparison?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I'm quite shocked at the level of cynicism that has been shown in the last few posts on this thread...

All they are interested in is lining their own pockets.
They will be no real benefit for Shetland either through employment in the construction phase ( a few labourers is not an employment boom) or employment in the long term
A few land owners who have already bennefited from the oil fund will benefit some more and the rest of us will suffer and pay for it all.

Perhaps you missed Aaron Priests letter in the Time's? The projected return from the windfarm is in the order of £18 million/year plus a couple of million "disturbance" and rents to the landowners on top of that.
Anyone know anybody who works in the windmill business apart from the Burradale boys (who are hoping to get a 10% share of VE in return for a used black shadow and a roosty red tin)

Eh? No, but then I only know of one windfarm currently in Shetland.
Come judgment day the fat cats, who put personal monetary gain ahead of the natural beauty of Shetland's scenery,
Oh god, the old chestnut about the scenery. I would suggest that you go and look at the current research on climate change. Do you think that is going to pass Shetland by? Go and look at the mess those landslides caused at the South End. That's what's coming.

 

Where does this assumption come from that the people proposing the windfarm are only out to defraud the people of Shetland? Is it because of the millions paid out to failed salmon farms? Or the millions paid to the fishermen? Or is it just the green monster of jealousy?

 

Perhaps, if you could come up with some practical, honest objections to the windfarm based in reality that can't be refuted by a 5 minute trawl on the net (with Njugle's help, of course), then you might make an impression, but all I'm hearing just now is a load of unsubstantiated, hysterical ranting.

 

I've got an open mind on this subject, please, go on, convince me! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go and look at the mess those landslides caused at the South End. That's what's coming.

I don't understand how loading similar terrain with windmills is going to reduce the likelihood of that happening again. If anything I'd expect digging around on top of it all to increase the chances of landslides. Obviously I'm no expert however.

 

As for the cynicism, I can partly understand that in that we have many historical examples of such things to draw from. Not least of which, our most valuable of documentaries: The Simpsons, Marge vs The Monorail. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand how loading similar terrain with windmills is going to reduce the likelihood of that happening again. If anything I'd expect digging around on top of it all to increase the chances of landslides. Obviously I'm no expert however.

Ok, big picture time again... CLIMATE CHANGE!

 

The VE windfarm, on it's own, will not prevent this. But for us to bury our heads in the peat and do nothing is the worst possible response to the coming catastrophe. The whole western world needs to address this mess we've made. That means every community, no matter how insular or self contained.

 

As has been proven by the Burradale farm and was eloquently explained by Petrocelli in his last post, Shetland is the best place in the world to build a windfarm. We owe it to the world to do our bit.

 

To be honest, when it comes to climate change, I think (fear) that we're already screwed. I've been following the debate for about 20 years now and if we'd been having this debate 10 years ago then I believe we would have had a chance. We could have prevented it.

 

Now though, it's damage limitation time. The climate will change, the sea will rise and Shetland, as we know it, will cease to exist. What it will be like here, once the full ramifications of the process have worked their way through, I can't even begin to guess and I won't have to, because I'll be dead. But my grandchildren will have to deal with it. They will have to live with it. And I suspect they will be cursing us all for the short-sighted, selfish nimbies that we seem to be. :evil: :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrespective of the size of the lettering you use, the fact remains that adding windmills to unstable terrain is not going to improve its stability, even if it reduces climate change. I agree with you about needing to do something, but I don't find myself convinced that throwing up these windmills is not just going to hasten the landslide scenario you warn of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll put it this way, lets say we don't build the windfarm. That leaves the peat on the hills undisturbed. The predicted, extreme, rainfall happens and the hills come tumbling down.

 

Or, we do build the windfarm, the predicted, extreme, rainfall happens but it isn't quite as extreme as it would have been and the excessive run-off is directed into the ditches and drains in the hill put in when the windfarm was built..... You see where I'm going with this.

 

Of course this wouldn't protect the 90% of the landscape which won't have a windfarm on it, but the revenue from the windfarm could be invested in similar landslip prevention measures for the rest of Shetland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could always just replant the entire area with trees, roots would prevent lands slips and the leaves would soak up some of the Co2 in the atmosphere and you turn a barren hill into something really nice to go walking around in because it is sheltered, increasing the general well being of the people of Shetland because they are healthier from walking around in the shelter of the trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And to correct Crofter's inaccurate assumption...

 

I agree that Shetland is probably twice as windy as Denmark. However, that just means that they need twice as many turbines as we do to generate the same amount of electricity. If they cannot reduce CO2 emissions in Denmark with thousands of turbines, how can we do it here with a few hundred?

 

No, we don't have nearly twice the wind speed, maybe 25% better at best. But that 25% means we can achieve anything from 150-200% more productivity. So for every turbine you have in Da Kames you would have to erect between 2.5/3 in Denmark (based on the report) to get the same productivity.

 

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I should have said that the load factor we can expect in Shetland is twice what they are getting in Denmark. Yes, Shetland is a good place to build wind turbines, but I don't think you can use the argument that they will reduce CO2 emissions, because I don't believe that this is the case. I have said already that I think the scale of the proposed windfarm is too big, but I can see the potential financial benefits - and risks. I would rather discuss the assumptions used to project the return of 18 million each year, but we do not know these - yet. What are we going to spend all our new windwealth on? And who will decide how it is spent?

 

Now though, it's damage limitation time. The climate will change, the sea will rise and Shetland, as we know it, will cease to exist. What it will be like here, once the full ramifications of the process have worked their way through, I can't even begin to guess and I won't have to, because I'll be dead.

 

Like yourself ArabiaTerra, I have been following this with interest for a fair while. I studied climatology in the 1980s. Of course nobody can predict the future, but some models suggest that the North Atlantic may get off lightly - the climate in Shetland may actually improve as a result of Global Warming. Whether we will still have the best wind regime in the world or become the new doldrums is anyones guess....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could always just replant the entire area with trees, roots would prevent lands slips and the leaves would soak up some of the Co2 in the atmosphere and you turn a barren hill into something really nice to go walking around in because it is sheltered, increasing the general well being of the people of Shetland because they are healthier from walking around in the shelter of the trees.

 

This would have more of an environmental benefit in terms of capturing CO2 but I don't think it would earn much cash?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could always just replant the entire area with trees, roots would prevent lands slips and the leaves would soak up some of the Co2 in the atmosphere and you turn a barren hill into something really nice to go walking around in because it is sheltered, increasing the general well being of the people of Shetland because they are healthier from walking around in the shelter of the trees.

That would also work

 

But wait, wouldn't that change the very "barren hill" that everyone seems to be so anxious about leaving unchanged in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like yourself ArabiaTerra, I have been following this with interest for a fair while. I studied climatology in the 1980s. Of course nobody can predict the future, but some models suggest that the North Atlantic may get off lightly - the climate in Shetland may actually improve as a result of Global Warming. Whether we will still have the best wind regime in the world or become the new doldrums is anyones guess....

Please post a link or reference to this, I need some good news because there is one thing that I have found consistent in the climate change debate. Every single new report, every single new forecast, prediction, etc consistently states that the effects will be worse than the previous one. I have never once come across a single report that has said "It won't be as bad as we thought". If such a report was written, I'm sure it would be shouted from the rooftops by the sceptics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, I should have said that the load factor we can expect in Shetland is twice what they are getting in Denmark.

 

No! Load factor in Denmark 20%, Shetland 52%... you do the math?

 

Yes, Shetland is a good place to build wind turbines, but I don't think you can use the argument that they will reduce CO2 emissions, because I don't believe that this is the case.

 

If you agree that Shetland is a good place to build wind turbines, then why do you oppose such an idea?

 

Re. Co2 emission, if you're referring to the Danish example then again this is clearly wrong. There are no reduction in emissions in Denmark because all their energy is coming from hydro or nuclear, which is Co2 free already. That is not the case here in Shetland and Scotland!

 

What are we going to spend all our new windwealth on? And who will decide how it is spent?

 

Are you actually using that as an argument Crofter?:roll: There will be plenty to spend it on believe you me, I for one have plenty of ideas but that can wait for another day and another forum.

 

Re. Twerto, any more daft suggestions like that an I'll replant one of those trees in your virtual backside. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Those likely to warm least - three degrees C or less - are the UK and Ireland in the Northern Hemisphere, and Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and New Zealand in the south."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/sci/tech/1013601.stm

 

The first one from my search. I agree there are difficult times ahead, but If the climate is going to change, some places will be affected worse than others. It is possible (I am not suggesting this will definately happen) that the climate in Shetland will improve as a result of GW.

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...