Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
LongQ said:
TheExcession said:
LongQ said:
By the way, has anyone ever seen any cleanup costs for wind turbines mentioned anywhere? Ever?
I've found it very hard to find any 'concrete' numbers. Over here, the assumption is that the recycled materials (steel/copper etc) will cover the cost of decommissioning. (Plinths to be left in situ and covered over).There was talk of making owners/operators pay into a bond to cover decommissioning, but I think the Government rejected this as the term was too long - i.e. unpredictable.
When you see pictures of those abandoned sites in the USA you have to wonder why they are still doing an 'Elton' if it is remotely viable to get in there and recycle the materials.
Although maybe not all of it ...?
Even before they're toast, they're harmful and not just becuase they kill thousands of birds and bats - the Board of Health in Brown County, Wisconsin, declared a local industrial wind plant to be a human health hazard. This was the first ruling of its kind in the USA.
turbobloke said:
LongQ said:
TheExcession said:
LongQ said:
By the way, has anyone ever seen any cleanup costs for wind turbines mentioned anywhere? Ever?
I've found it very hard to find any 'concrete' numbers. Over here, the assumption is that the recycled materials (steel/copper etc) will cover the cost of decommissioning. (Plinths to be left in situ and covered over).There was talk of making owners/operators pay into a bond to cover decommissioning, but I think the Government rejected this as the term was too long - i.e. unpredictable.
When you see pictures of those abandoned sites in the USA you have to wonder why they are still doing an 'Elton' if it is remotely viable to get in there and recycle the materials.
Although maybe not all of it ...?
Even before they're toast, they're harmful and not just becuase they kill thousands of birds and bats - the Board of Health in Brown County, Wisconsin, declared a local industrial wind plant to be a human health hazard. This was the first ruling of its kind in the USA.
Not sure what one would do with the blades though. Some of the fancier materials used may not be obvious candidates for any form of recycling.
But I have to say the below the surface structures concern me the most. They are far too easy to "bury and forget".
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
By the way, has anyone ever seen any cleanup costs for wind turbines mentioned anywhere? Ever?
I can't remember seeing anything myself and the planning applications I have looked into don't even raise the subject.
I have from time to time asked the question in various places but so far no response.
I would assume that that it the question never asked and the responsibility never set in place.
Offshore or Onshore? I can't remember seeing anything myself and the planning applications I have looked into don't even raise the subject.
I have from time to time asked the question in various places but so far no response.
I would assume that that it the question never asked and the responsibility never set in place.
WTG's tend to have a projected life of 25 yrs- now, much like O&G and Marginal fields etc, they will be upgraded and kept fruitful where required.
Offshore I can talk about a little.
They are pulling some of the earlier dinky ones out. (Denmark / Finland) and we have pulled some out for technical reasons.
There is a view of course that the infrastructure remains, so pull the old tech / sizes out and plant some new bigger, increased efficiency new WTG's (with the subsequent reduction in quantity to suit the scale increase obviously, and the grid connection / consent from Crown Estate etc)
It is, btw, in the consent and application to have a removal / decom strategy.
I would argue far more the decom is more likely to prevail in contrast to the bulls
t and noise that has surrounded the North Sea for over a decade of the decommissioning that will make tomorrow a new gold mine. I think the net affect of the latter has been simply to pay the wages of consultants to propagate a long game.Been / seen both sides of the coin
PRTVR said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
By the way, has anyone ever seen any cleanup costs for wind turbines mentioned anywhere? Ever?
I can't remember seeing anything myself and the planning applications I have looked into don't even raise the subject.
I have from time to time asked the question in various places but so far no response.
I would assume that that it the question never asked and the responsibility never set in place.
Offshore or Onshore? I can't remember seeing anything myself and the planning applications I have looked into don't even raise the subject.
I have from time to time asked the question in various places but so far no response.
I would assume that that it the question never asked and the responsibility never set in place.
WTG's tend to have a projected life of 25 yrs- now, much like O&G and Marginal fields etc, they will be upgraded and kept fruitful where required.
Offshore I can talk about a little.
They are pulling some of the earlier dinky ones out. (Denmark / Finland) and we have pulled some out for technical reasons.
There is a view of course that the infrastructure remains, so pull the old tech / sizes out and plant some new bigger, increased efficiency new WTG's (with the subsequent reduction in quantity to suit the scale increase obviously, and the grid connection / consent from Crown Estate etc)
It is, btw, in the consent and application to have a removal / decom strategy.
I would argue far more the decom is more likely to prevail in contrast to the bulls
t and noise that has surrounded the North Sea for over a decade of the decommissioning that will make tomorrow a new gold mine. I think the net affect of the latter has been simply to pay the wages of consultants to propagate a long game.Been / seen both sides of the coin
Kawasicki said:
'Terrible Science'.Is that better or worse than agw junkscience...much of a muchness really.
A selection of pertinent quotes from the article linked by Kawasicki:
"(when) originally published, a few scientists noted that the results were wildly implausible and the methodologies deeply flawed"
"when better studies came along contradicting those results, they barely registered a blip in the media"
“falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it”
"advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception"
"important implications for journalism"
"(when) originally published, a few scientists noted that the results were wildly implausible and the methodologies deeply flawed"
"when better studies came along contradicting those results, they barely registered a blip in the media"
“falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it”
"advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception"
"important implications for journalism"
Would that be one of the polls covered by the green blob alert machine which emails activists to get them to vote in online polls?
"If you sign up as an environmental activist you will receive the latest update action alerts by e-mail."
It must work occasionally, though the track record is patchy.
Agree that 97% would have been a great result, but you can't have everything - so credible well-sampled and more accurate satellite temps, a lack of any visible causal human signal in global climate data, and an EROEI for green energy so pssspoor that it will remain a costly unworkable joke at our expense for as long as the misinformation lasts.
"If you sign up as an environmental activist you will receive the latest update action alerts by e-mail."
It must work occasionally, though the track record is patchy.
Agree that 97% would have been a great result, but you can't have everything - so credible well-sampled and more accurate satellite temps, a lack of any visible causal human signal in global climate data, and an EROEI for green energy so pssspoor that it will remain a costly unworkable joke at our expense for as long as the misinformation lasts.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Suction Bucket Jackets.
Right.Yes.
Of course.
Are these, perhaps, Italian inventions?
It sounds like they may hold a lot of concrete and hold it tight.
ETA: Link to video.
http://dongenergyvideo.23video.com/video/10350049/...
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 18th February 22:42
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Suction Bucket Jackets.
Right.Yes.
Of course.
Are these, perhaps, Italian inventions?
It sounds like they may hold a lot of concrete and hold it tight.
Monopiles - Big hollow Nails smashed in to the soils - 'the' foundation of choice for the decade. Cheap. Simple.- we were always told they would only go so far, so deep, so large / heavy before an alternative was required, but needless to say : they've just grown and grown. From Round One projects 4ish metre diameter and 300te to 10m diameter and 1,350 Te ten years later
So, the obvious (boring default?) has been to revert to the world of O&G. So Jackets (tall lattice towers) with pre-drive pin piles, where someone has gone out already and knocked 3 or 4 mini monopiles / nails in to the sea bed with only a little of them left above the seabed to essentially provide pegs to position a jacket on top of.
Suction bucket jackets...... take the lattice tower, and at the bottom of each leg / chord a huge inverted bucket or can. Lower it to the seabed and the self weight of about 1,000Te will push the can / bucket in to the sea bed a little. Plug in a vacuum / dyson to the bucket to provide a suction force to each of the cans / buckets and the thing 'pulls itself in to the seabed.
Theres more to it, of course, but you asked and I've drank enough for a Saturday night.....
As a concept the name sort of fits with "Concrete boots" and one might think of Mafia connections.
The video link show things pretty clearly.
Eco friendly Eh !!!! I guess they will be like the old windmills and they will become part of our heritage in a few years people will be converting them into houses and tourist attractions??
we never seem to learn from the past though do we !!! hopefully someone will master the safer thorium reactors
before we end up in fuel bancrupcy and this failed technolgy will be just a bitter memory for anyone with commonsense...
we never seem to learn from the past though do we !!! hopefully someone will master the safer thorium reactors
before we end up in fuel bancrupcy and this failed technolgy will be just a bitter memory for anyone with commonsense...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Definitely not a wind up.
As a concept the name sort of fits with "Concrete boots" and one might think of Mafia connections.
The video link show things pretty clearly.
As a concept the name sort of fits with "Concrete boots" and one might think of Mafia connections.
The video link show things pretty clearly.
Yes -the video is the same as my ramblings 
and fortunately match !As mentioned previously - the scale of a modern wind farm is to be seen / believed.
As for 'learning from our mistakes' etc..... Helpful stuff.
In another world, I am listening with amazement at how in the WTG generators they are looking to make 'magnetic bearings' to win the generator without frictional parts for greater efficiency.
Don't we think that is progress ?
Progress in a white elephant vanity project sure, but not enough. Self-erecting wind farms aren't energetically good enough - engineers and scientists have been there and imagined that, done the calculations and it still didn't work out. As posted previously, it's not a matter of small incremental gains turning the corner for renewables. The key problem is that the energy cost of manufacturing and running all of the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy.
The farms or farms of farms never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction and operation. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity. As well as the fundamental basis for wind energy being flawed, that particular 'solution' is equally flawed.
dickymint said:
Mate of mine works for Alstom on offshore windymills. He told me of the scouring problem on a farm somewhere in the North Sea. They have to sort out the problem of them sinking. The last I heard He told me they'd thrown millions into it and hadn't got past the first one yet 
Kerching!Meanwhile freezing pensioners burn books to keep warm.
robinessex said:
I wonder how many problems windmills are having, that are kept under the table ?
I would think that, as the public subsidies progressively subside, we'll know more, as they'll have to be either fixed or decommissioned. I just hope they are removed from the scenery and not left to rust. Imagine, they are an eyesore to some now!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff