ArabiaTerra
-
Posts
2,888 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Everything posted by ArabiaTerra
-
The fact that you don't know that more than half that £12 million didn't come from Shetland. but from outside bodies also speaks volumes.
-
Arab, could you please note that I didn't mention any "of these, otherwise mythical, developments". However, since you refer to "mythical" developments, I can refer to one. Many a time we see rainbows in Shetland. Mythical legend has it that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. Perhaps you need to be reminded that rainbows disappear and thus, alas, so does the inevitable invisible pot of gold. Very funny. But seriously, why are you holding VE up to standards which would never be asked of any other commercial development, other than the fact you don't like it, of course. Edit: It is amusing though, seeing all the NIMBY's freaking out over the possibility of other windfarms being built on Shetland, considering they've spent the last 5 years screaming about how dodgy the VE business plan is. If it was that bad, then no other company would go near Shetland, yet they seem to be falling over themselves to get a piece of the action (according to the nimby's, anyway).
-
The payment to the community fund is based on the installed output so I presume it will be paid out regardless of profit ie it is part of the operating costs. According to the Charitable Trust banks are lining up to lend Viking money. Presumably they will put the money up if construction starts. I'm surprised you make such an assumption to be honest. Assumptions are not certainties. I'd want a certainty. What if SSE went bankrupt or ceased trading? What if the SSE made a loss elsewhere in their plethora of companies and could no longer put so much money into VE? What would happen then? Ah yes, and we also have it that it is being 'put about' that if we pull out, the SSE have other partners lined up. Scoff some of you may but just how many of these utility companies have invested in windfarms AND interconnectors and what would their balance sheets look like WITHOUT the subsidies. I am highly dubious of The Charitable Trust's claims; which banks? Have they named these banks? Have they stated the repayment period? Have they stated the APR (%)? All this reminds me of flogging an old banger in the Classifieds - how many of you have gone to view a car and for the seller to say "I've got another 3 people interested and one is coming tomorrow"; the old techniques of trying to get you to rush into a purchase. Not persuaded, I'm afraid. Unlinked, before you go any further, could you please provide some examples of these, otherwise mythical, developments which have provided cast iron, rock solid, guarantees of all future income and financing before even the first spade is turned in the earth. I'm sure we would all like to hear about them.
-
Only when I'm hungry. Ok, and I must say I'm surprised at the amount. The thing is, PJ is always making wild, unsupported, statements of woe about the windfarm (He is "sustainable" Shetlands forum rep, so it goes with the territory, I suppose), and he rarely provides links or even reasoning to support his assertions, but, yeah I guess I owe him an apology this time: Sorry, PJ. No more than any other electricity generator would. And that's my point, why even bring up the transformers in relation to VE unless you're prepared to make a case against all transformers and, by extension, all mains power. Yes, it isn't as visually intrusive, but it does involve almost as much peat disturbance (especially now the windfarm has been reduced in size again), will cause vastly more environmental destruction due to it's facilitation of the burning of fossil fuels and will never pay back it's carbon cost, or generate as much revenue for Shetland. Yet "sustainable" Shetland brushed these issues off as irrelevant compared to the BIG, NASTY, EVIL, windfarm. Damn, thought I'd got away with that one.
-
You're right, I shouldn't have called Dratsy a moron, after all, he's quite capable of demonstrating the fact himself. Of course there's oil in gearboxes, but do you (or PJ) have any evidence that this will cause a problem? Because, unless you do, then mentioning it is just more needless scaremongering. Ah, now that would be an example of the "Red Herring" fallacy. The subject under discussion is windfarms. Oh come on, PJ. I know you're against this thing, but stop making up lies. It doesn't help your case. If they are to be Siemens 3.6MW turbines then 104 of them would contain over 17 thousand gallons in their transmission system gearboxes alone. http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/power-generation/renewables/wind-power/wind-turbines/swt-3-6-107.htm#content=Technical%20Specification And this is a problem, how? Seriously, if you have any evidence of gearbox oil causing problems in existing windfarms, then lets hear it. Oh, you're not seriously going to start arguing against mains electricity are you? All large transformers have oil in them. It's never caused a problem before, why should the VE ones be any different? Billy Fox ran for MSP. He didn't win. That was your democracy in action. It's greener than tearing our hills apart to build a gas plant which will never pay back it's construction carbon cost, but I don't remember you protesting against that.
-
I don't go to films at the Garrison due to the seats, which are awful, even if you're in the front row. I will be going to the Mareel. A lot of people I know feel the same way.
-
China is investing more money in wind energy than any other nation in the world. So, Dratsy logic for ignoring the advice of every major scientific institute on Earth: "It's all a conspiracy" and "AL GORE IS FAT!!!?11?" Wow, your stunning insight and logic are overwhelming, all our problems are over, All Hail the Great Drat. Moron. If the subsidies were removed from fossil fuels, then wind and solar would be profitable at today's prices. And fossil fuel prices are only going to rise in the future. There are two factors at work here. A smaller windfarm means a cheaper windfarm, and electricity prices have risen in the meantime. Also, VE are looking at installing more powerful turbines than the 3.6 Mw originally evvisioned, so this will raise the output of the windfarm without increasing the number of turbines. Oh come on, PJ. I know you're against this thing, but stop making up lies. It doesn't help your case. That's just it Kavi, it's not financially viable. And you wouldn't benefit from cheaper electric anyway even if someone (who?) did build a Shetland only renewable system.
-
Climate Change & Global Warming
ArabiaTerra replied to Atomic's topic in National & International News
Ghostrider, this post is an excellent summary of where we're headed: http://www.skepticalscience.com/eocenepark.html -
I'd rather take a chance. There is no way I intend to vote for anyone in favour of the windfarm and have them say at a later date that they have my mandate. I agree, though obviously from the opposite side of the fence, there's no way I could vote for someone opposed to the windfarm.
-
Good! I think Scatsta may well have killed off Beawfield... ( and the Whimbrel ).. Wouldn't surprise me given the proximity. Would be very disappointing though, and ironic that an airport serving a fossil fuel plant would prevent a renewable energy project. Yell had 1200 inhabitants when I was growing up - what is it now? under 800? You can't eat scenery (although you can eat whimbrels). oops. Maybe grounds to re-open the airfield in Baltasound and close Scatsta. It would get the oilies clear of the windmills and give Unst a much needed boost. Large windmills on Unst are likely a non-starter due to the proximity to Hermaness and all the archaeology.
-
Climate Change & Global Warming
ArabiaTerra replied to Atomic's topic in National & International News
Ah, but tidal will be 2-3 times as expensive as wind to install in the first place, and much more expensive to maintain. What I was trying to get across was: Tidal cannot match demand, therefore, storage is necessary. That storage will do just as well for Wind. Wind is cheaper, therefore it makes sense to build wind first and the needed storage, then you can add tidal if and when it becomes economically viable. They won't be rendered obsolete. Tidal will always be more expensive than onshore wind and probably even off-shore wind simply due to the fact that it works underwater. Tidal has it's place in addition to wind, not instead of. Yes. Right now we are getting dangerously close to breaching the 2 degree C limit by the end of the century. Whether or not we make this target will be decided this decade. If we go much above 2 degrees then we risk the natural carbon sinks such as forests, the oceans, tundra, peat bogs etc, turning from carbon absorbers to carbon emitters. If this happens in any significant way then feedbacks from these natural carbon sinks will set in motion a process of runaway global warming which we will be unable to stop by any means. We don't have time to wait for some better technology to come along and save us. We have to act now (Well acting 20 years ago would have been better, the problem would have been solved by now without all the panic, but the fossil fuel industry decided to throw millions of dollars at confusing the issue, so here we are) It's getting to the point that the economics are becoming irrelevant. The choice we have is deploy the technology we have now as quickly as possible, or switch the lights out, or hello runaway global warming and the end of civilisation. How do you put a price on the end of civilisation? If you have a tidal solution that can be developed in the next 5 years and deployed on a huge scale before 2020, for less money than on-shore wind or solar, then I'm sure there are quite a few venture capitalists who would like to talk to you. If not, then you are engaging in wishful thinking, hoping a better solution will come along. We've wasted 20 years thinking wishfully. We don't have time for that any more. -
Didn't BT float the idea of a few turbines at the South End a couple of years ago?
-
Climate Change & Global Warming
ArabiaTerra replied to Atomic's topic in National & International News
^^^^ Well, good luck to them, but I remain extremely dubious of this ever making it to commercial viability. -
Double post removed.
-
If it isn't, then the project wouldn't go ahead as it wouldn't be profitable to do it. As the interested parties seem to be keen to go ahead with it, then I would surmise that they have done their sums and found it to be worthwhile in terms of cost/profitability.
-
^^^^ Good point, the ROC would reduce the cost somewhat.
-
Not really a fair comparison though, because there was no electricity there before and the 30,000 figure you quote includes the cost of installing a grid system, including all transformers, switchgear, groundworks and cable laying. Despite the faults, we have already got a distribution network in place in Shetland. Solar installation prices have also dropped substantially since 2007. There are about 80 people living on Eigg, as well as some solar panels and a hydro scheme they have 4 x proven 6kw turbines. If there were 100 people there, there would still be enough power, but the cost per household would fall dramatically. Similarly, in Shetland where there are larger communities, it would be much more cost effective to install larger community turbines, maybe 20kw or even in the 50 - 100kw range so it is ridiculous to scale up the numbers as you have done. Your cost for Shetland is totally meaningless, but it is certainly far too high. Also, how will there be no income from small turbines? The subsidy is payable on all sizes of windmill. Oh, I agree, my cost estimate is probably too high, but I did do it in 2007, when the Eigg example was the state of the art, so to speak. Working the same thing out today would come out cheaper. Lets try it: Burradale, running at maximum output can produce 18% of Shetlands needs. To get 100%, you need 6 Burradales (with a bit of capacity to spare for breakdowns etc,). But Burradale is only 52% efficient. So you need twice as much installed capacity which gives us 12 Burradales, or 60 turbines. (Gee, we're halfway to VE levels already.) Wind is intermittent, so you need storage and/or back-up, so that's another Gremista, plus a whole rack of those exploding batteries everyone's afraid of. So, there's your system, anyone want to try and cost it? Regardless of the estimated cost, the only way to pay for it would be through the CT. The only revenue generated would be from our electricity bills which means either they would have to rise massively, or, the system would require subsidy throughout it's lifetime, which would pretty quickly drain the CT dry. So Crofter, or anyone else, have I missed anything? Any glaring howlers in the above? Any better ways of doing it?
-
I've not got the expertise in ornithology that you seem to have. This seems to be the sort of attitude that drives a species to extinction and typical of a money driven developer to dismiss a protected species as unimportant. The Whimbrel is a listed (legally protected) species and the likes of SNH and the RSPB work to ensure their protection. Their objection was well justified. I don't have any expertise in ornithology, in fact, I'd never heard of a whimbrel before the objections based on it were raised. However, when those objections were raised, I got my google on and did some research on the beastie. What I found was that the natural range of the bird extends right across Northern Europe into Siberia, they are not even close to being endangered, globally. Shetland is at the extreme Southern edge of this birds range, and, numbers in Shetland have been steadily declining over the past few decades. Now during my research into Global Warming, I found that it is well documented that many species of animals and, especially, birds are moving their natural range northwards in response to Climate Change. The changes in the Whimbrels population in Shetland fit the pattern of a species responding to climate change. Thus, it seemed ridiculous, to me, to be using a species which was clearly responding to climate change, as a reason to object to a project which had the primary purpose of combating climate change. A species which, in Shetland, was inevitably going extinct anyway. Sure, the VE project might kill a few whimbrel, but when the ultimate outcome will be extinction (in Shetland) anyway regardless of VE and the only difference is that VE might cause that extinction in 8 years, rather than 10 years, then to object to the project on behalf of the whimbrel seemed to me to be pointless.
-
The Whimbrel was a stupid objection anyway. Sure, Shetland has 90% of the UK population, but the UK population is insignificant compared to the world population which stretches from Shetland, through Scandinavia and on into Siberia. Furthermore, the Shetland population, of only a couple of hundred birds, has dropped by 50% over the last 10 years. The birds are dying out here anyway, without any turbines being built. On present trends, they will be extinct here in 10 years, VE or no VE.
-
Correct, I am dead set against this proposal. Objector tend to be against a proposal. And don't be so utterly stupid, if sustainable shetland were building this windfarm then perhaps you could blame them for proliferation, but they are not. Sustainable Shetland should be thanked for making a huge effort to stop it all together. Viking Energy are planning to build this windfarm so they and their supports will be totally to blame for its impact and future proliferation. Ok, ok, fair do's, I should have specifically marked that last paragraph as sarcasm, sorry. But I was trying to make a specific point. "sustainable" Shetland went on and on about how they supported renewable energy, but that we should only do it at a scale to provide for Shetlands needs. "Fit for Scale and Purpose" was the, frankly gibberish, phrase they kept using. The thing is, despite being asked, they never spelt out what this would consist of, or, how much it would cost. Now, the only system of this type I could find was a system built on the Isle of Eigg, in the Western Isles. There they installed a combined wind and solar system with diesel backup. This system cost £30,000 per household. To scale this up to Shetland size would involve spending only a few million short of the cost of the VE system. This money would have to be put up entirely by the CT as no bank would finance a system with no commercial return, and it would still require a Gremista sized back-up station. So, "sustainable" Shetlands solution would wipe out the CT, for no benefit and would still require hundreds of wind turbines, and a new diesel station. If you want carbon neutral power generation in Shetland, you will get windmills. The choice is either VE, with 103 large turbines and the revenue it will bring in to the islands, or hundreds of small turbines, no revenue brought in and no money left in the CT.
-
Climate Change & Global Warming
ArabiaTerra replied to Atomic's topic in National & International News
Ghosty, have you ever actually sat down and seriously thought about the logistics of deploying tidal power on a large scale? Sure, it's constant, reliable and predictable, but it is also expensive, difficult to maintain and has a theoretical maximum efficiency of 50%. This means you actually need to install at least twice as much capacity as you need, underwater. Secondly, while tidal power can provide a constant, base-load, source of power, demand is not constant. It varies through the day. So you still need some sort of storage for your tidal power in order to match it to demand. And that storage capacity will work just as well for wind and solar, which are much cheaper than tidal in the first place. Now I'm not saying that tidal power doesn't have a place in the energy mix, I'm saying that that place is in addition to solar and wind, not instead of. Right now, tidal is not ready for full scale commercial deployment. Wind and solar are. That's why we need to concentrate on wind and solar at the moment. In 5-10 years, when tidal is ready, then we can go wild with it. We need to tackle the low hanging fruit first. The easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to get rid of coal burning. That means deploying as much solar and wind as we can, with gas as backup/load balancing. The next step will be transport, switching it to electric. This is where tidal will come in. The constant power supply from tidal will be ideal for charging electric vehicles most of which spend most of their time stationary, connected to charging points. Tidal has a place, but that place is in the future, not now. -
Also, 103 turbines will cost significantly less to build, therefore reducing the overall cost of the project, therefore reducing the initial investment. The Interconnector will be built as an extension of the National Grid. It will be paid for by slightly increasing the charges to use the whole grid across the whole UK. The cost of it might increase your bill by a few pence. No it won't, for the reasons I outlined above. The windfarm, as proposed, will make a profit as it is because the cost of building it has been reduced along with the size. Well if you* hadn't been so dead set against the original proposal, then it wouldn't have been reduced so much in size and wouldn't have freed up so much capacity on the link. So if you want someone to blame for a proliferation of turbines all over the Isles, point the finger at "sustainable" Shetland, not VE. *You, as in those opposed to the windfarm, not Ched, specifically.
-
I'm well aware of this fact. Are you suggesting that the engineers who designed the bigger turbines are not?
-
BTW, Unlinked, are you seriously telling me that you've been slagging off VE since you got here and yet you haven't even bothered to learn the first thing about the project?
-
Err, that's a lie. VE have always been up-front about the numbers of jobs. Of course, the size of the windfarm has changed since the first proposals were announced, so the number of jobs will have changed as well, but VE have always been clear about this. From here.