Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
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
I was thinking onshore mainly and in particular the base structures rather than the towers or the cabling, having assumed that offshore stuff would most likely be just left to crumble over extended periods, invisible under the sea's surface. One might argue that is was a "useful semi-natural habitat for creatures of the sea"!
An alternative approach might be needed if new deployments were compromised by the positions of existing redundant base structures.
This question first occurred to me when Greenpeace were involved with the North Hoyle development - so that's about 10 or so years ago? Nowhere did anyone mention the cleanup costs being considered, costed and budgeted for.
More recently I specifically looked at a couple of contended installation proposals in Scotland and could not obviously spot anything in the planning documents (I may not have found the right one I suppose) that even mentioned post operational cleanup or the possibility that it might be required.
I thought that strange in the context of the proposals in question.
On land
LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
Why nuclear is worse than coal or wind turbines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
You and the Guardian would be in strong disagreement with James Hansen in respect of Nuclear vs Coal.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
Fukishima was clearly an outlier event but of course having created the fear the numbers can be ramped up for any purpose that suits. Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Dounraey was a research establishment and recycling plant, not an electricity generating facility, run in a way that seemed acceptable for standards at the time but, as with so many things, condemned subsequently. That, in so many areas of our world, seems to be a 21st Century trait.
Things have moved on. Revised thinking from the experts may take some while to appear in the massed arena of public consciousness. It may never appear.
Russia, for one, seems to be keen to help countries around the world build Nuclear plants from its designs. One has to assume that those countries think the investment will be cost effective for their purpose.
The USA, despite many apparent "issues" with Nuclear power, has a number of Nuclear Powered plants and a long delayed project related to where the 'nasty waste' is to be stored safely for eternity.
The target location has for some time been Yucca Mountain.
For some sort of background to that try Wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nucle...
However that project seems to be making incredibly slow process given what one might assume to be its apparent importance to all concerned.
Maybe it is simply not that important any more?
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_n...
Unless, or course, the person in question is simply a shill for the Nuclear industry and possibly a mate of James Hansen.
They all have it in for coal though.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-UNSCEAR-studi...
Except for Bangladesh and a few other places where Governments seem to like it a lot as port of their energy future.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/09/bangla...
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.
Good post
Point stands
££££££ on nuclear.
LongQ said:
Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Lets play the Brucie Bonus Higher or lower?
Are you really suggesting Fukishima costs will be lower than expected?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXfmfj4z3Zc
hmmmm its a weeping wound that costs billions and there is no end in sight. End of story.
In the old days we all listened to how the Japanese nuclear plants were all built on the ring of fire and yet no problems.
Ahem
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 15th February 23:09
Kawasicki said:
durbster
low fat diets are healthier
these were all settled/consensus science, all have been now debunked
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493low fat diets are healthier
these were all settled/consensus science, all have been now debunked
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 15th February 23:31
dickymint said:
http://jorro.co.uk/latest-news/337-miles-across-rural-scotland-in-2-days-with-a-nissan-leaf/ meh, ive done just over 600 miles up here in a lot less than a day on a gsxr 750 
in the last 2 years i have also done over 74k by car just going fishing .quite often total journeys are over 400 miles .i don't see many charge points on the cliff edges and rocks around coastal scotland .to be fair i do see the point for city driving/commuting.
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Lets play the Brucie Bonus Higher or lower?
Are you really suggesting Fukishima costs will be lower than expected?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXfmfj4z3Zc
hmmmm its a weeping wound that costs billions and there is no end in sight. End of story.
In the old days we all listened to how the Japanese nuclear plants were all built on the ring of fire and yet no problems.
Ahem
LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Lets play the Brucie Bonus Higher or lower?
Are you really suggesting Fukishima costs will be lower than expected?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXfmfj4z3Zc
hmmmm its a weeping wound that costs billions and there is no end in sight. End of story.
In the old days we all listened to how the Japanese nuclear plants were all built on the ring of fire and yet no problems.
Ahem
I prefer middle of the road scientific thoughts on this non trivial problem. And it is a very complex problem, and we should all dust off our college caps and stroke our beards.... In this day and age just sitting back and thinking about it seems to be on the back seat to instantaneous thought / keyboard presses
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
The difference in scale - WTG and field size - between on shore and offshore is, to be frank beyond most.
typical onshore stuff is 2 / 2.3MW size and perhaps 10 or 15 units?
Offshore- now consummately larger than the London eye (which for your mental gymnastics equates to a circa 5MW turbine) at circa 8MW being the latest fashion, an of 40 to 50 in volume.
I'm privy to the next generation of the Offshore Turbine - simply too large for an onshore build / assembly / nimby within 100 miles..... Big.
i hope they have employed better designers than the crew that came up with the monstrosity at the methil yard,it kept falling apart for a while i am led to believe . i understand the decommissioning element is in the proposals at the outset of these projects. however that was the case for the open cast mining in fife not so long ago and we all know what happened there. if i could find out where the director of the company responsible lived, i would be open casting his garden and quite possibly his head. the worst sort of profiteering scum there is ,imo of course.typical onshore stuff is 2 / 2.3MW size and perhaps 10 or 15 units?
Offshore- now consummately larger than the London eye (which for your mental gymnastics equates to a circa 5MW turbine) at circa 8MW being the latest fashion, an of 40 to 50 in volume.
I'm privy to the next generation of the Offshore Turbine - simply too large for an onshore build / assembly / nimby within 100 miles..... Big.
i have a nasty feeling as we approach the decommissioning phase some of those responsible for it will disappear off the face of the earth.
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
Why nuclear is worse than coal or wind turbines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
You and the Guardian would be in strong disagreement with James Hansen in respect of Nuclear vs Coal.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
Fukishima was clearly an outlier event but of course having created the fear the numbers can be ramped up for any purpose that suits. Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Dounraey was a research establishment and recycling plant, not an electricity generating facility, run in a way that seemed acceptable for standards at the time but, as with so many things, condemned subsequently. That, in so many areas of our world, seems to be a 21st Century trait.
Things have moved on. Revised thinking from the experts may take some while to appear in the massed arena of public consciousness. It may never appear.
Russia, for one, seems to be keen to help countries around the world build Nuclear plants from its designs. One has to assume that those countries think the investment will be cost effective for their purpose.
The USA, despite many apparent "issues" with Nuclear power, has a number of Nuclear Powered plants and a long delayed project related to where the 'nasty waste' is to be stored safely for eternity.
The target location has for some time been Yucca Mountain.
For some sort of background to that try Wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nucle...
However that project seems to be making incredibly slow process given what one might assume to be its apparent importance to all concerned.
Maybe it is simply not that important any more?
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_n...
Unless, or course, the person in question is simply a shill for the Nuclear industry and possibly a mate of James Hansen.
They all have it in for coal though.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-UNSCEAR-studi...
Except for Bangladesh and a few other places where Governments seem to like it a lot as port of their energy future.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/09/bangla...
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.
Good post
Point stands
££££££ on nuclear.
Google search result follows.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/16/...
There are always good business reasons to seek to extend the scope and timescales of a project. Many may be valid. Some perhaps not.
Sometimes it's the the other way around. Some may be valid, many not.
A god extension candidate will be anything funded by a cash cow and especially the "public purse".
The beauty of the public purse solution is that it may not be "real" money anyway. Taxes of one sort or another reclaim a significant amount of the "spend" as it is spent. (By "Spend" I mean the publicly acknowledged amounts which may or may not have much basis in reality - we have no way of knowing how it all balances out.)
LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
LongQ said:
Gandahar said:
Why nuclear is worse than coal or wind turbines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
You and the Guardian would be in strong disagreement with James Hansen in respect of Nuclear vs Coal.https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
Fukishima was clearly an outlier event but of course having created the fear the numbers can be ramped up for any purpose that suits. Will anyone ever know what the actual costs are - either higher of lower and whether estimates or actual opportunities lost for alternative investment?
Dounraey was a research establishment and recycling plant, not an electricity generating facility, run in a way that seemed acceptable for standards at the time but, as with so many things, condemned subsequently. That, in so many areas of our world, seems to be a 21st Century trait.
Things have moved on. Revised thinking from the experts may take some while to appear in the massed arena of public consciousness. It may never appear.
Russia, for one, seems to be keen to help countries around the world build Nuclear plants from its designs. One has to assume that those countries think the investment will be cost effective for their purpose.
The USA, despite many apparent "issues" with Nuclear power, has a number of Nuclear Powered plants and a long delayed project related to where the 'nasty waste' is to be stored safely for eternity.
The target location has for some time been Yucca Mountain.
For some sort of background to that try Wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nucle...
However that project seems to be making incredibly slow process given what one might assume to be its apparent importance to all concerned.
Maybe it is simply not that important any more?
https://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_n...
Unless, or course, the person in question is simply a shill for the Nuclear industry and possibly a mate of James Hansen.
They all have it in for coal though.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-UNSCEAR-studi...
Except for Bangladesh and a few other places where Governments seem to like it a lot as port of their energy future.
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/02/09/bangla...
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.
Good post
Point stands
££££££ on nuclear.
Google search result follows.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/16/...
There are always good business reasons to seek to extend the scope and timescales of a project. Many may be valid. Some perhaps not.
Sometimes it's the the other way around. Some may be valid, many not.
A god extension candidate will be anything funded by a cash cow and especially the "public purse".
The beauty of the public purse solution is that it may not be "real" money anyway. Taxes of one sort or another reclaim a significant amount of the "spend" as it is spent. (By "Spend" I mean the publicly acknowledged amounts which may or may not have much basis in reality - we have no way of knowing how it all balances out.)
Indeed. Time machine or hindsight dust in demand.
Gandahar said:
Why nuclear is worse than coal or wind turbines
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
The very large and poorly defined costs of cleaning up after an earthquake and a partial meltdown, cleaning up legacy plant that was constructed with little or no consideration for how it would be dismantled or cleaning up the prodigious mess left by the nuclear weapons programme have little relevance to how much Hinkley C(or a large turbine farm) might cost to decommission; whatever the frailties of the EPR design it is designed for being taken apart and to produce far less intermediate level waste per GWh. That Grauniad article is shttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/0...
"In December, the government said the estimated cost of decommissioning the plant and decontaminating the surrounding area, as well as paying compensation and storing radioactive waste, had risen to 21.5tn yen (£150bn), nearly double an estimate released in 2013."
$150 billion. And that's a double. And given 5 years it might be a quadruple. We don't even know the cost of decommissioning Dounreay and Windscale (as we knew it better days) yet and they were fairly "less eruptive" than other problem plants around the world.
If the government is going to go low CO2 then they need to go low CO2 with low upsides. Nuclear has a big upside. That's without even thinking of the amount of promised money per kilowatt we will be offering for new plants, just for CO2 reduction. Crazy.
te; Tepco haven't measured the radiation levels in there, someone has made a wildarsed guess based on how much interference there was in the CCTV footage. Tepco also don't know whether the grunge stuck to that walkway grating is leaked corium(bad), melted control rod drive mechanism(less bad) or paint and concrete debris(good). The £150bn is similarly wildarsed, until they discover to what extent the fuel has melted in the reactors and if any corium has leaked from the reactor pressure vessels estimating the likely clean up cost involves thumbs and aholes. The cost will be very large but blindly guessing helps no-one; as pointed out on the other thread the extra cost to the Japanese economy for imports of coal, gas and oil through voluntarily shutting down functional reactors for political reasons already exceeds this notional £150bn figure.Gandahar said:
In the old days we all listened to how the Japanese nuclear plants were all built on the ring of fire and yet no problems.
Ahem
Still not much of a problem in the grand scheme; the radiological hazards of Fukushima haven't killed anyone and are unlikely to.Ahem
Geez how do you lot get any work done if you're posting at this frequency 
So just to clarify I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a subject I know well? Or if I do it's dismissed as being bias?
So Cani dismiss all of yours on anything to do with renewable power or EV/PHEV/REX vehicles if you don't own them or drive them everyday?
Massive assumptions again mean you don't know how much of a car enthusiast I am of the traditional type. Or that I like riding motorbikes for fun. Or that I'm saving for a classic mini restoration project for my son etc etc I'm just able to understand that there is a place for EVs rather than running around shouting down others!
If you don't want anyone challenging articles that you post here or opinions that's cool. Just makes the thread irrelevant!
So just to clarify I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a subject I know well? Or if I do it's dismissed as being bias?
So Cani dismiss all of yours on anything to do with renewable power or EV/PHEV/REX vehicles if you don't own them or drive them everyday?
Massive assumptions again mean you don't know how much of a car enthusiast I am of the traditional type. Or that I like riding motorbikes for fun. Or that I'm saving for a classic mini restoration project for my son etc etc I'm just able to understand that there is a place for EVs rather than running around shouting down others!
If you don't want anyone challenging articles that you post here or opinions that's cool. Just makes the thread irrelevant!
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster
low fat diets are healthier
these were all settled/consensus science, all have been now debunked
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493low fat diets are healthier
these were all settled/consensus science, all have been now debunked
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 15th February 23:31
Vizsla said:
Gandahar said:
Kawasicki said:
durbster
low fat diets are healthier
these were all settled/consensus science, all have been now debunked
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35346493low fat diets are healthier
these were all settled/consensus science, all have been now debunked
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 15th February 23:31
PKLD said:
Geez how do you lot get any work done if you're posting at this frequency
So just to clarify I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a subject I know well? Or if I do it's dismissed as being bias?
So Cani dismiss all of yours on anything to do with renewable power or EV/PHEV/REX vehicles if you don't own them or drive them everyday?
Massive assumptions again mean you don't know how much of a car enthusiast I am of the traditional type. Or that I like riding motorbikes for fun. Or that I'm saving for a classic mini restoration project for my son etc etc I'm just able to understand that there is a place for EVs rather than running around shouting down others!
If you don't want anyone challenging articles that you post here or opinions that's cool. Just makes the thread irrelevant!
keep posting , i enjoy learning about such things. your post and subsequent replies were informative .i think most people can see a place for electric vehicles in cities .it is just that currently scaling up use to the levels you suggest does not seem possible currently ,and journeys of a decent distance look to be a pita !So just to clarify I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a subject I know well? Or if I do it's dismissed as being bias?
So Cani dismiss all of yours on anything to do with renewable power or EV/PHEV/REX vehicles if you don't own them or drive them everyday?
Massive assumptions again mean you don't know how much of a car enthusiast I am of the traditional type. Or that I like riding motorbikes for fun. Or that I'm saving for a classic mini restoration project for my son etc etc I'm just able to understand that there is a place for EVs rather than running around shouting down others!
If you don't want anyone challenging articles that you post here or opinions that's cool. Just makes the thread irrelevant!
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.
Weather experts say new El Niño possible later this year
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3899...
"Scientists from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) say there is a possibility of a new El Niño event forming later this year.
In 2015 and 2016, a powerful El Niño drove up global temperatures and played a role in droughts in many parts of the world.
Normally the weather phenomenon only re-appears every two to seven years.
Neutral conditions are most likely later this year but there is also a 40% chance of a new El Niño forming ."
Opps, there's the weather/climate being unpredictable! Who’d have thought it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3899...
"Scientists from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) say there is a possibility of a new El Niño event forming later this year.
In 2015 and 2016, a powerful El Niño drove up global temperatures and played a role in droughts in many parts of the world.
Normally the weather phenomenon only re-appears every two to seven years.
Neutral conditions are most likely later this year but there is also a 40% chance of a new El Niño forming ."
Opps, there's the weather/climate being unpredictable! Who’d have thought it?
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 ...?
European sensibilities and social systems might just have an influence on whether the work is undertaken and how soon after decommissioning.
If the site was to be re-used then one might assume removal would be almost certain.
However the ability to re-use the concrete and steel foundations for the next generation installation may be unlikely. So cover it over and carry on with the next lot providing new foundations might be the order of the day.
So do we think filling a peat bog or a wild moor with huge amounts of concrete and steel is a good move? (To be frank cleaning it all up and finding somewhere to dump it doesn't sound great either! But less bad than trashing ever more of the available surface.)
Either way what is costed into Nuclear plants and mining ventures seems to be ignored for disturbine farms and I see no reason why that should be acceptable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff