PressedCurdsOfMilk
-
Posts
225 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by PressedCurdsOfMilk
-
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%
- 6,813 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- windfarm
- renewable energy
- (and 2 more)
-
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.
- 6,813 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- windfarm
- renewable energy
- (and 2 more)
-
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. 1. Load Factor http://www.jstor.org/stable/1809629 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_factor_%28electrical%29 http://www.demandcharge.com/Web_Pages/Articles/Electrical_Load_Factor.html http://electrical-engineering-portal.com/demand-factor-diversity-factor-utilization-factor-load-factor 2. Capacity Factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=187&t=3 http://blog.enerdynamics.com/2012/02/08/capacity-factor-a-key-determinant-of-the-value-of-a-power-plant/ Do your own search on both terms. Above are a few top links I got back when doing my search. My previous post was accurate. The calculation of load factor is dependent on demand or utilisation. Capacity factor on the other hand is the calculation that consider the maximum theoretical output of a generator. These are different calculations so if you are confusing them then you are being mislead and you are storing up trouble by misunderstanding potential productivity (that's if you think these factors are interchangeable).
-
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?
- 6,813 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- windfarm
- renewable energy
- (and 2 more)
-
-
Yes, I read it and broadly understood it. I was highlighting an inconsistency here with the way numbers are being used by windfarm supporters. I get your point about the right way to do this... you are preaching to the converted. Plenty of people are bothered and have been fighting for years. I'd just be interested to know what you think is wrong with the "fight for this place". You know there is a bit more than shetlink and SN to this fight.
-
I'm trying to get my head around what efficiency means. VE talk about load factor when Myth Busting about 53% efficiency for Burradale, however in the same breath they talk about a Capacity Factor in the comparison of other types of generation. They are two quite different calculations as I understand it. So, if Burradale is 53% efficient when meeting demand, what is the percentage in terms of Capacity... just wanting to compare like with like because surely it is efficiency in terms of installed capacity that really matters (...when trying to predict the potential profits of a windfarm).
-
Yes, with an agreed confidential settlement which implies it was adequate for them to live there despite the 'problem!'. Also the local authority in the other case, Braunton, agreed a reduction in the council tax banding which goes against the findings of the royal institute of chartered surveyors, suggesting that they agree that property values have come down due to turbines.
-
Yes, maybe their home was not selling. It's not just about health but the right of people to live a normal life. You don't have to look too far to find cases of property devaluation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9418617/Wind-farms-do-bring-down-property-values.html
-
You don't have to look too hard to find a case of home abandonment by a UK couple because of disturbance from a wind farm (http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-14019591).
-
Maybe you should say, "No proven cases yet", paulb. Health Study too late and dismissed, Health Impact Assessment abondoned... and Viking Energy says, "we are satisfied that the risk of negative health effects arising from the Viking Energy wind farm development has been minimised to acceptable levels in all cases". What are these cases they refer to? That statement is complete rubbish!
-
If you know how much the cable and converter station is going to cost and then you more accurately estimate transmission charges and also factor in more accurate estimates of the other costs, and can forecast these figures to at least 2018, and can then show that the income is adequate to cover these costs, then you might be in a position to say that.
- 6,813 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- windfarm
- renewable energy
- (and 2 more)
-
I think that currently the ROC for onshore is significantly less than the £wholesale - £115 differential. So the new subsidy regime will be more beneficial. I have also read that when the market price exceeds £115 per MWh, the generator will have to pay back the difference under the CfD.
-
It looks like that to me: http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/projects--construction/community-infrastructure1/electricity-market-reform/ I hadn't read much about it in recent months and was under the impression that it was additional help. If this is the case then it doesn't seem like a great gain to eradicate uncertainty about viability.
-
Is anyone clear about subsidies... if I've got the terminology right, do CfD's (contract for difference... minimum 'strike price') replace ROC's?
-
They did and they were right. They couldn't change the pricing so they are planning to bail out a business that is going to lose money, using taxpayers money. It's a vindication of all the people who said this was not viable all along and an insult that we will all be paying for it.
-
What political hurt? ... a minority of the electorate (islanders) who might stop voting SNP? ...no change there then. [edit] The myths that won't die ... 1. The Abominable Snowman 2. Nessie 3. Hollow Earth 4. Crystals 5. Elvis 6. Electronic smog 7. Telepathy 8. Fairies 9. Big cats in Britain 10. Angels 11. Viking Energy is viable
-
Anyway, why does this make it any less of a risk. It's still not viable and all this does is shift liability to the monarch and/ or the taxpayer, unless you know different. And why would anyone, in their right mind, want to underwrite something that was not viable?
-
paulb, if you think that I think our bills will drop if all wind generation was scraped, then you are mistake and I really think you should pay more attention to the argument! Where did you get that from? (I was making a comment on transmission charges!)
-
Maybe you should ask what would happen to consumer bills if you relax the current grid connection charging regime? You might complain if you were a generator wanting to make a profit (or a supporter of an unviable project like Viking Energy, which I am not), but isn't it fair to control the industry in order to get a better deal for consumers, particularly when the same rule book applies to all.
-
I agree, the environmental consequences and other concerns that motivate objectors need to remain a central part of this debate. "concerted tirade of abuse" I would be very surprised and disappointed if that were true. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - con·cert·ed Adjective Jointly arranged, planned, or carried out; coordinated. Strenuously carried out; done with great effort.
-
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. That clearly is the problem! I'm trying to explain that you are making a false analogy. You are comparing apples with oranges. The items are incomparable. So your argument about flat grid connection / transmission charges is invalid.
-
Yes, you are correct. Both industries are faced with similar challenges. It's the same as you say. It's fair.
-
From a consumers perspective it does. paul's example shows this well. Shetland is not part of MITS, and connecting it and paying for that connection is an industry problem and that is different from how consumer prices are set and/ or regulated. You still seem to be confusing cost of production with cost to the consumer. It's different. Clothing made in China might be cheaper to manufacture, but when sold in the UK at a competitive price be more profitable.
-
You're missing the point. The previous argument compared the unit cost of production/ transmission with the unit cost to the consumer. It's not a valid comparison.
