ArabiaTerra

I just want to join the chorus saying this is a policing issue, so the police should get of their arses and sort it. No need for a 20mph limit.

I'm just going to drop this here.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uA_Ff4GQrY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5e0jUmtMyU

Well the science is pretty much settled: It's happening and it's going to be bad. And as far as the political debate goes, we've lost. The fossil fuel industry have bought our politicians, lock, stock and barrel. So until there is some sort of major catastrophe, something big enough to shatter the status quo, then there isn't really anything to talk about, mores the pity. Though if there are any deniers out there who want to put their case, then please, jump right in, I haven't had a decent chew-toy on this thread for months.

And your point is...?

Maybe they warm, maybe they don't. You won't know until you get home at night and collapse the waveform?

"plan to destroy Shetland" You see, it's this kind of hysterical ranting that means I have no time for the majority of the anti's. Lies, lies and more lies. It's pathetic.

My advice would be to pop in to Citizens Advice, they should be able to sort you out.

I'm with talktalk, broadband and phone. It's around £25/month all in. That's for unlimited broadband and it it does seem to be totally unlimited. I've been regularly downloading over 100Gb/month and they've never hassled me. The speed (in lerwick) is pretty good too: http://www.speedtest.net/result/3229236675.png ... however, they don't have any backup for when some numpty orkney scallop fisherman dredges up the cable so I've just got back online after a two week total blackout, phone and BB. This is the third time this has happened since the cable was laid. Also, their customer service is the usual crap Indian call centre sort of thing. I'm just waiting to see if they try to charge me for the full month this time around.

After a two week blackout, it came back on yesterday at around 5pm... for about ten minutes. Went down to the old's for tea, and when I got back, it was working again. http://www.speedtest.net/result/3229236675.png Waiting to see now whether talktalk actually try to charge me for the blackout time.

I'm getting a "Page not found error" on this link, Francis. BTW, love the blog.

For Dog's sake man, take a breath. And stop SHOUTING!

This is an interesting program from the Beeb on Britains energy markets and how they work: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03knv2r/hd/BBC_News_The_Editors_Episode_8/

http://www.speedtest.net/result/3122622287.png TalkTalk, in Lerwick.

But according to the PM in his speech at the Lord Mayors Banquet, austerity is permanent. It will never be over.

^^^^ I got rid of my TV 4 years ago and haven't missed it. I also have adblock on my computer, so I pretty much live an ad-free life. I can't believe how jarring it is when I visit someone who doesn't do this. How on earth do you put up with it? It drives me nuts after just a few minutes of exposure.

^^^ Guys, could you take this debate to the "Trouble with Einstein" thread, it's hardly relevant to this one.

Apparently VE are going to be up-dating their website within the next couple of weeks so hopefully things like this will be made a little clearer. Thank you for liaising with VE on this issue and getting them to rectify their site. Burradale Windfarm Phase 1 - A (Capacity (kW): 1,980.00) Sep 2012 to Aug 2013 Average Capacity Factors = 43.90% Burradale Wind Farm Phase 2 -A (Capacity (kW): 1,700.00) Sep 2012 to Aug 2013 Average Capacity Factors = 47.80% Link: http://www.variablepitch.co.uk (The capacity figure shown is from Ofgem) The overall average capacity factor of Burradale for Sep 2012 to Aug 2013 is 45.7%. Viking Energy claim it to be 53% on average using their load factor/ capacity factor interchangeable terminology. I hope they clear up a bit more than just these definitions up when they update their website. 53% average at the time, "always over 50%"!!! Well lets see the evidence that backs up these figures on their website. I'm happy to be corrected. Loss on transmission comes next as a deduction (best not quote figures from the VE website). I'm thinking (finger in the air) they end up with 30-35% at best, NOT 53% The 53% figure is the average for the entire first 10 years of Burradales operation. and also I know that over the last couple of years they have had down time associated with gearbox replacement and they also removed the blades from all of the turbines for maintenance which, again, would have involved extra downtime, so I expect that would explain those lower figures. Why don't you e-mail them to find out?

I would say confusing rather than misleading, and going back to the VE website, it's not exactly clear what they are talking about. They start off talking about capacity factor, then load-capacity factor and finish with load factor. I have e-mailed them asking for clarification. I'll post the answer here when (if) I get it. That will be interesting. I also think Philip Andrews raises some very interesting points about wind speed (Lang Kames anemometer data) and turbine power curves. Looking at Burradale for evidence is interesting but not the right way persuade investors or the public that the VE project is going to be sufficiently productive. A very small negative difference in efficiency will have huge financial implications. The problem with Philip Andrews letter was that he took the average northern hemisphere windspeed and tried to use that to demonstrate that windfarms won't work in Shetland, which is quite clearly nonsensical. The windspeed here is way above the average for the entire hemisphere. If he had used the average windspeed from the observatory outside Lerwick, then he might have had a point. But then I doubt the resulting figures would have supported his argument. Anyway, I got a reply from VE about the load factor/capacity factor thing. The 53% figure quoted for Burradale is (as I always assumed), capacity factor. Here's the relevant bit from the e-mail: Apparently VE are going to be up-dating their website within the next couple of weeks so hopefully things like this will be made a little clearer.

Ok, this is my understanding of efficiency or capacity factor. Each machine has a nameplate capacity, that is it is rated at a certain output when it is running flat out. I don't know the capacity of the Burradale turbines offhand but the nameplate capacity of the VE turbines will be 3.5 MW. Now, if one of the VE turbines was to run at full 3.5 MW output for an entire year, it would have a capacity factor of 100%. How the 53% for Burradale is calculated is by taking the actual output over a year and comparing it to the maximum possible output. What's confusing me is the fact that VE refer to a 53% load factor for Burradale - Load Factor being the ratio of actual output over a period of time, to peak load (demand). You are talking about Capacity Factor which is, as you say, the ratio of actual output over a period of time, to maximum possible output. Misleading isn't it? I would say confusing rather than misleading, and going back to the VE website, it's not exactly clear what they are talking about. They start off talking about capacity factor, then load-capacity factor and finish with load factor. I have e-mailed them asking for clarification. I'll post the answer here when (if) I get it.

Aah, I think I follow you. Could you give me a link to where you found this definition of load factor, as it's a definition I've never seen. Demand has nothing to do with it.

Aaannd Unlinkedstudent demonstrates that she doesn't understand how polling works. BTW, there was a poll of sorts of every Shetlander (of voting age at least) in the last Scottish election when Billy Fox stood against Tavish on an anti-windfarm ticket. He was defeated 2:1. Which neatly reflects (and validates) the results of the Shetland Times polls.

^^^^ The reason it's still in play is that the Nimby's, while very vocal, have never numbered more than 1/3 of the population. The other 2/3rds either support it, or couldn't care less. The anti's have always been a minority, right from the start.

I understand it fine. What I'm questioning is your understanding of weather. Here is the money quote from your letter: You have assumed that the average windspeed for the whole northern hemisphere has any relevence to a windfarm in Shetland. It doesn't The only relevent windspeed is the windspeed at the hub of the turbine. Because the basic assumption underlying your case is utter garbage, your case is, therefore, utter garbage.

Ok, this is my understanding of efficiency or capacity factor. Each machine has a nameplate capacity, that is it is rated at a certain output when it is running flat out. I don't know the capacity of the Burradale turbines offhand but the nameplate capacity of the VE turbines will be 3.5 MW. Now, if one of the VE turbines was to run at full 3.5 MW output for an entire year, it would have a capacity factor of 100%. How the 53% for Burradale is calculated is by taking the actual output over a year and comparing it to the maximum possible output.

Except that his numbers are wrong, which completely demolishes his whole arguement. The Burradale windfarm has achieved around 52% efficiency over more than 10 years of operation. Which makes it the most efficient windfarm on the planet. Using small private turbines such as those sited at the halls and near private properties is not a valid comparison, as these are rarely sited in the optimum position for power generation, but rather, on the best site the owner could get.