Just imagine the proposed offshore wind facilities along the Atlantic seaboard after a major hurricane. Madness Thanks for this article pointing it out
Speaking from System Architect's view... There are 4 independent systems that must be developed every time you create a new (mission) system. (1) System Development Team, (2) System Production System, (3) System Test System, and (4) System Maintenance System. The FMEA, or better - the FMECA - feeds System Maintenance System.
Development of a System must entail the Cost/Benefit analysis along the expected lifetime (and beyond) of the System, which can leave many problems behind.
Most Wind/Solar/Battery projects do not project the Cost/Benefit analysis past the lifetime of the existing project, so they (purposely) ignore the long-term costs of remediation and damage to the environment, and the huge cost (in land and $) of disposal.
Most of the operators are LLC shell companies. They do not typically have (or try to avoid having) Escrow Accounts to take care of eventual cleanup. Instead, they claim to have "letters of credit". But when they go bankrupt (they will), those letters of credit are meaningless. It's all part of their business model, and the politicians let them get away with it.
Good point. There has been a serious failure to require the cost of decommissioning of wind and solar projects.
The developers can, as you say, go bankrupt. Or, they can sell their operation to another shell company, shedding their responsibility. Such transfers should be regulated. Many of the renewables 'farms' are owned by foreign companies, making it harder to get them to own up.
I can think of three ways to make sure the estimated cost for removal, restoring the land to its original condition, and handling all the recycling and landfill costs can be covered.
It's essential to have the money put in escrow, up front, before any ground-breaking.
1. Legislate it and strictly regulate it.
2. Insurance companies should require it.
3. Before landowners sign any agreement that allows their land to be used for these renewables fiascos, they should have the total cost of decommissioning held in escrow.
Excellent points. I was surprised to hear that the utility I worked for continued to have not in-frequent battery fires. There are a number of adjustments that contribute to their lack of visibility;
a) Modularized battery designs the fire / loss to a single module
b) Coordination with local fire departments not to respond - they simply let the fires burn themselves out.
I drove by several wind towers that were toppled in South Dakota. Not all failed at the same point along the tower. I would like to know more about the design and installation procedures. These towers came down where there were no people at the time - in the storm; but there are a variety of farming operations that could have been involved. I’m sure the point has been made on the locals to be aware of how close they get to these monsters.
Not just towers - a 300 foot, 50 ton blade can fly off, and many have done so.
Offshore turbines can have 500 foot, 70-100 ton blades. Remember Nantucket? That was a GE 350 foot fiberglass composite blade that sort of disintegrated. The beach cleanup cost was over $10 million.
I wouldn't want to get hit in the head with one of those things.
Is this ultimately a problem that will end up in court to find a resolution?
In California, PG&E has been sued over wildfires caused by their transmission lines that have arced or fallen to the ground. In either case, wildfires were the result.
These windmill operators are both generating revenue from the potential power being generated and the landowners are generating revenue from leasing their land.
Assuming the generators file for bankruptcy or perhaps they are foreign-owned, it seems that landowners are going to be paying the price tag for the inevitable cleanup costs.
Otherwise, welcome to energy socialism where everyone equally enjoys the benefits of “green” net-zero power (a.k.a. Power Rate Increases)
Just imagine the proposed offshore wind facilities along the Atlantic seaboard after a major hurricane. Madness Thanks for this article pointing it out
Speaking from System Architect's view... There are 4 independent systems that must be developed every time you create a new (mission) system. (1) System Development Team, (2) System Production System, (3) System Test System, and (4) System Maintenance System. The FMEA, or better - the FMECA - feeds System Maintenance System.
Development of a System must entail the Cost/Benefit analysis along the expected lifetime (and beyond) of the System, which can leave many problems behind.
Most Wind/Solar/Battery projects do not project the Cost/Benefit analysis past the lifetime of the existing project, so they (purposely) ignore the long-term costs of remediation and damage to the environment, and the huge cost (in land and $) of disposal.
Most of the operators are LLC shell companies. They do not typically have (or try to avoid having) Escrow Accounts to take care of eventual cleanup. Instead, they claim to have "letters of credit". But when they go bankrupt (they will), those letters of credit are meaningless. It's all part of their business model, and the politicians let them get away with it.
Good point. There has been a serious failure to require the cost of decommissioning of wind and solar projects.
The developers can, as you say, go bankrupt. Or, they can sell their operation to another shell company, shedding their responsibility. Such transfers should be regulated. Many of the renewables 'farms' are owned by foreign companies, making it harder to get them to own up.
I can think of three ways to make sure the estimated cost for removal, restoring the land to its original condition, and handling all the recycling and landfill costs can be covered.
It's essential to have the money put in escrow, up front, before any ground-breaking.
1. Legislate it and strictly regulate it.
2. Insurance companies should require it.
3. Before landowners sign any agreement that allows their land to be used for these renewables fiascos, they should have the total cost of decommissioning held in escrow.
Also, cleanup after destruction.
Excellent points. I was surprised to hear that the utility I worked for continued to have not in-frequent battery fires. There are a number of adjustments that contribute to their lack of visibility;
a) Modularized battery designs the fire / loss to a single module
b) Coordination with local fire departments not to respond - they simply let the fires burn themselves out.
c) Work to suppress any publicity of the fire
I drove by several wind towers that were toppled in South Dakota. Not all failed at the same point along the tower. I would like to know more about the design and installation procedures. These towers came down where there were no people at the time - in the storm; but there are a variety of farming operations that could have been involved. I’m sure the point has been made on the locals to be aware of how close they get to these monsters.
Not just towers - a 300 foot, 50 ton blade can fly off, and many have done so.
Offshore turbines can have 500 foot, 70-100 ton blades. Remember Nantucket? That was a GE 350 foot fiberglass composite blade that sort of disintegrated. The beach cleanup cost was over $10 million.
I wouldn't want to get hit in the head with one of those things.
Is this ultimately a problem that will end up in court to find a resolution?
In California, PG&E has been sued over wildfires caused by their transmission lines that have arced or fallen to the ground. In either case, wildfires were the result.
These windmill operators are both generating revenue from the potential power being generated and the landowners are generating revenue from leasing their land.
Assuming the generators file for bankruptcy or perhaps they are foreign-owned, it seems that landowners are going to be paying the price tag for the inevitable cleanup costs.
Otherwise, welcome to energy socialism where everyone equally enjoys the benefits of “green” net-zero power (a.k.a. Power Rate Increases)