Jump to content

WindyMiller

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WindyMiller

  1. In a democratic country there is indeed a freedom of speech to express opinions. However this right has limitations and does not include a right to force opinions upon others. The constraints of the debate within this forum are entirely controlled by the domain holders and not some rule of law. It has been made clear that this website is unashamedly behind the campaign for Sakchai. If your concerns are not getting the respect you feel they deserve, then it IS your right to use or create another website. If your concerns are valid, the population will follow you. Or you may just be on your own.
  2. Debate is best (most worthwhile?) when guesswork has been removed and opinions can be formed using reliable factual information.
  3. An overall fair point here but some not so fair. Avoiding the topic shift... Fair = the clear demand for more information. No argument that there needs to be more information available asap. Not so fair = The lack of public visualisations is nothing to do with bravery and entirely down to a desire to avoid unnecessary scaremongering. The design and layout of the windfarm will be dictated mainly by the environmental constraints. The constraints are informed by the multitude of studies ongoing now and which have been ongoing over the last three years. To put up designs that will certainly be changed later when someone finds a rare moss would inevitably lead to complaints when what is built does not match what the complainant saw in the early visualisation. Protection of Shetland’s pristine environment is one of the key aims of the project and is the reason things are taking so long. If you know a way to speed up bird breeding seasons then please let us know. The existing Burradale turbines can already be seen from Unst to Sumburgh. That fact in itself does not make them bad nor will it do so for the bigger windfarm. What will be important is the magnitude of impact. A few dots on the horizon or dominant eyesores. From close up there is no doubt they will draw the eye but can you say for sure that this will be true from Unst? There is a professional landscape and visual impact assessment being undertaken. Would it not be a reasonable idea to get the initial results/feedback back from that study so the discussion about this can be held with the facts about how visual the windfarm will be, there on the table in front of everyone, rather than us all arguing about unknowns?
  4. This is slightly misquoted (He actually said 70%) and is a misrepresentation by him or, more likely, a mistake by the reporter. The quote attributed is: "we have a monumentally inefficient national grid energy supply system. Some 70 per cent of the energy input is lost in energy production or transmission. In Denmark and the Netherlands, decentralised energy systems, using co-generation techniques of combined heat and power, are 90 to 95 per cent efficient". The problem here is that the percentages refer to different scales. It is conceivable that from basic principles you could lose 70% of energy input into the national system because most of the energy from fossil fuel fired power stations goes up the chimney as heat. But it is unfair to compare that to small-scale individual projects where they may be able to use that heat and gain efficiencies. Such projects exist in the UK as well. Lerwick's district heating is a good example. Denmark's national grid does not get anything like those percentages and the wider figures will be a lot closer to the losses experienced on the UK system. Microgenertion is fine for many but the UK overall has an urban population. Micro-renewables cannot power London and other population centres because there is simply not enough room or roof surface. Presuming we all favour renewables, you are left with the discussion on whether it is better to build an inefficent generation facility near the population or a much more efficent generation facility somewhere where the resource is better and then transmit the power to the population. Transmission incurrs costs and losses but if the value of the increased output is greater than those costs and losses then it would seem logical to favour siting renewables where the resource is best.
  5. Figures are estimates and cannot be proved yet because the Shetland interconnector has not been fully designed yet so the losses can only be forecast. Every interconnector is bespoke and has different characteristics. The figures given are based on comparisons with similar existing and proposed subsea interconnectors like the NorNed link beteen Norway and the Netherlands. http://www.statnett.no/default.aspx?ChannelID=1408 "Transmission losses are calculated at five per cent for full utilisation at 700 MW (megawatt), a rate which is particularly low for a cabling distance of 580 km" This is very close both in distance from Shetland to the Central Belt and the discussed capactity (600MW). There are lots of these projects and the companies building them learn from every project so I would be comfortable that the Shetland interconnector would have equal or better loss performance. Other projects worth watching include the East-West Ireland to UK interconnector ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_West_Interconnector ) and Basslink Tasmania to Victoria ( http://www.nationalgrid.com.au/ )
  6. If your source really works for Scottish Power then he/she should be very worried about competence assessments. The 3 steps are a fair description but you went somewhat astray 2 paragraphs later. The south of England is the major demand centre in the UK but it is not disproportionate. At peak time the energy use across the UK does increase but while a percentage increase across 2 different volumes gives different measured rises, the rises are exactly proportionate. Then the most obvious mistake. Electricity is not stored on the National Grid. It is transmitted across the National Grid. Power for the UK electricity system is generated on demand. Normally the system operator knows roughly what they will need and so can have enough generators running to meet demand. Short-term fluctuations in demand are handled by increasing or decreasing the output of particular individual generators. Think of a car throttle with the increasing/decreasing demand acting as a foot controlling the engines to different outputs. While most demand is in the south east of England it is not like there is only a couple of 40 watt lightbulbs in Scotland. Scotland is currently a net exporter of power, which means it exports power more often than it imports power. This is changing rapidly and with the imminent closure of only 1 or 2 of several ageing power station, Scotland will soon be a net importer (estimate 2010). Further, the electricity market is deregulated and there is no connection between who you buy your electricity from (be you consumer or supplier) and who generates it. The system operator makes sure that everyone gets what they need and that someone pays for everything that is consumed. So suppliers have no reason or incentive to buy power locally. It would probably harm their profits to do so as they would be reducing their options. Generators in north Scotland are not automatically competing with generators in England. Suppliers might be but since the two are unrelated then this is not relevant. Power cables do have losses but these are not massive. Losses over a cable between Shetland and mainland Scotland would be no more than around 3%. Even allowing for taking the power to the Central Belt (Scotland’s demand centre) these might get as high as 5-6%. Profitability depends on so much more than location. A windfarm, such as the proposed Viking Energy project, will be more profitable than one in Aviemore. This is because a windfarm in Shetland will be about 25% more productive for the same capital outlay (conservative 50% capacity factor per MW in Shetland vs optimistic 40% CF in Aviemore). Even allowing for a full 6% transmission loss, the Shetland windfarm will still be about 17.5% more productive (50%reducedby6%=47%. 7is17.5%of40). So long as the costs of transmission are less than this 17.5% advantage then it is worthwhile. Without wanting to shift topics, Shetland would not be chosen as a site for a new nuclear power station because in that case the transmission costs would over and above otherwise identical economics for building on the mainland. With wind we get more “fuel†at no extra cost. 2MW in Shetland produces the same power over time as 3MW anywhere outside the north highlands and islands.
×
×
  • Create New...