Jump to content

Shetland windfarm - Viking Energy


trout
 Share

Recommended Posts

Erm. Windmills!

 

I have been reading a lot of stuff on the net about the contribution wind generation can make towards CO2 reduction. Thought I would try to calculate a value for the VE project, but this method is too complicated at this time of night - http://www.etsap.org/worksh_6_2003/2003P_liik.pdf Yikes! But there is a simpler way to do it, without taking into account the type of generation being replaced, etc etc. Simply use the government value:

"For electricity, the real emissions vary year on year due to the different mix of fuels used in the power stations and are average grid figures. However, the figure quoted for electricity in the top table is 0.43kg CO2/kWh which has been held constant since 2000. This value is used by DEFRA to ensure a consistent base on which to measure savings and was calculated on the projected fuel mix for the grid 1998-2000. Actual figures may differ from the projections, but DEFRA plan to use a constant value for environmental reporting until the year 2010."

 

OK, without considering steel, concrete, construction, cable, peat disturbance etc etc I calculate a 600MW windfarm, load factor 50% = 300MW power generated. x24x7x52 = 2,620,800 MWh per annum. 0.43kgCO2/kWh =0.43tonnesCO2/MWh so an annual reduction in CO2 of 1,126,944 tonnes.

 

But VE are claiming 2 million tonnes. http://www.vikingenergy.co.uk/downloads/SIC%209-5-06b.pdf

Hmm. Did I make a mistake?

 

I read that the other end of the Weisdale cable will make landfall at Blackhillock - is this a spur from the Dounreay-Beauly line? Will the windfarm be balanced by Dounreay? If so, it doesn't matter if it can theoretically displace 100 million tonnes of CO2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only dipped in and out of this long thread, and would just like to say from my perspective (I bide in Aberdeenshire, the world) it looks good to me.

 

I particularly value crofter's last contribution. Doing the calculations on what saves carbon emissions strikes me as the overriding concern, and it is a difficult task. But whether crofter or VE are right, saving over a million tonnes of CO2 entering our atmosphere seems an overwhelming argument of support for this proposal.

 

Here in Aberdeenshire aesthetic concerns motivate a lot of objections to windfarms but in my opinion things will look a lot worse when the world heats up if we don't allow a lot more applications for windfarms to go through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i197/Twerto/windmills/windmill.jpg

 

was bored this morning and based upon that fact new windmills will be twice the height as the bressay mas this is what i came up with,, still slightly on the small side

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saving over a million tonnes of CO2 entering our atmosphere seems an overwhelming argument of support for this proposal.

 

I suspect that a million tonnes is very optimistic, due to the backup which will be required to be kept on standby if the windfarm goes ahead. There are better, cheaper ways to reduce CO2 emissions. I might support a windfarm if I was convinced of the financial benefits to Shetland, but the environmental "benefit" is looking more and more like greenwash. See, for example, http://www.windcows.com/files/Less_for_More.pdf

 

"The massive increase in construction of new wind power plants in recent years has greatly increased the need for wind-related reserve capacity (conventional generation). This new generation would be apart from firm generation necessary to meet expectations of increased demand, and installed at 90 percent of the nameplate capacity of aggregate wind plant, using more conventional fuels in the process, producing copious carbon emissions —as much or more than if wind facilities had never existed. (79)

 

 

In February, 2005, a German governmentÂ’s energy agency released a report that concluded the countryÂ’s wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy. Instead of spending billions on installing new wind-related infrastructure, the emphasis should be on increased efficiency. (80)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In February, 2005, a German government’s energy agency released a report that concluded the country’s wind plants were an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy. Instead of spending billions on installing new wind-related infrastructure, the emphasis should be on increased efficiency. (80)"

 

Oh, b*llocks! That didna last long!! :wink:

 

Again this highlights how inefficient Germany's windfarm policy is. If I was advising them I would tell them to pack it in as well! I gave the example before how Denmark would need to erect 2.5-3 turbines for every one built here. In Germany that figure would be nearer 3-3.5! All this information is out there if you really wan to read it.

 

That's it am done!!

 

Byyyeeeee! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly my feeling on this site EM. Don't think I'll be posting anything in the future (no crying now folks Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad ) but thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts on the windfarm in the time that I've been on here, cheers.

I will be sad to see you go Petro, you made me feel a little less like the one voice of sanity screaming in the dark. Thanks for your input and your support.

I wish you Health, Wealth and Happiness for the future.

 

Cheers, AT :cry: :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see you back Petrocelli. Did you check my maths on the CO2 calculation? Surely VE won't be out by a factor of 2 for the predicted profits as well?

*THAT* would worry me.

so persuade me that the risk can justify the potential returns - (let's just deal with the "known unknowns"!)

 

Good to see you are still kicking around as well Arabia Terra, have you found any evidence that there will be any environmental benefit at all, yet?

 

The VE windfarm is the option that is being offered. The only other option on the table right now is doing nothing.

 

So where is the evidence that building this windfarm will result in a net reduction in CO2 emissions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polls on web forums are pretty useless in most cases. People tend to vote before they have even begun to read through the thread. They then change their minds and don't have the ability to change their vote.

 

This thread has proven that there is an ever increasing number of factors that could swing peoples favour in either direction. To create a poll fairly would require a variety of answers. Even then, there would be people that can't find the poll option that suits them.

 

Yes/No/Undecided can only work well in a very limited number of cases.

 

It has been proven that 33% of forum polls are inadequate due to fewer than 54% of suitable poll options being available when 33% of users were tested in a recent poll via an internet forum poll. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to an earlier point, I think the ability to post anonimously for some people is an important consideration. There are a lot people in Shetland who for various reasons are very reluctant to say in public what they really think.

After all, it is not so very long ago that we were being threatened with legal action for discussing the 'activities' of our chief executive....

 

:shock:

Did I mention that?

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...