Wind companies do everything they can to get as much of the money generated by a wind project upfront or as frontloaded as possible.

They also avoid at all costs buying the land, because ownership comes with responsibilities. Instead, they typically lease the land for their monstrosities so that when they've wrung it for money, they can simply abandon the turbines, leaving the unwitting lessors stuck with the rusting and leaking hulks.

On February 17, 2012, the wind industry itself warned of more abandoned projects: "The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a taxcredit failed Thursday in Washington."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-17/business/ct-biz-0217-wind-ptc--20120217_1_tax-credit-wind-power-wind-projects

Contrary to wind industry propaganda, there is very little salvage value in these galvanized steel ghosts. Rather, their necessary removal is a huge expense.

There are reportedly thousands of abandoned wind turbines across the U.S.

What will you do to make sure your area does not become part of this growing scourge?

On January 12, 2012, the Co-Chairs of the Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine wrote a report to the Maine legislature which included the following on decommissioning of wind turbines:

Decommissioning language in permits issued is not in compliance with the statute, that specifically states that decommissioning must be planned without regard to the applicant’s future financial condition.   The DEP’s wind project application form does not require, as the statute states, that an applicant demonstrate how decommissioning will be funded in a way that is not dependent on future financial condition, only that a decommissioning plan is submitted.  The statute intends that the risks of decommissioning remain with the applicant.   The only way to insure this is to require the establishment of a creditor and bankruptcy remote fund at the beginning.  The Vermont Public Service Board, in the Deerfield Wind decision, Docket 7250, included conditions for decommissioning which should be a model for Maine:

VI.  DECOMMISSIONING FUND

We require Deerfield to file a Decommissioning Plan with the Board and parties prior to commencement of construction.  The Plan shall include a revised estimate of the costs of decommissioning, covering all of the activities specified in the Decommissioning Plan, and shall contain certification that the cost estimate has been prepared by a person(s) with appropriate knowledge and experience in wind generation projects and cost estimating.  Also, the Plan may allow the Decommissioning Fund to grow as the construction process proceeds such that the funding level is commensurate with the costs of removing infrastructure in place.  The amount of the Fund may not net out the projected salvage value of the infrastructure.  In addition, we require that the Decommissioning Plan include a copy of the Letter of Credit to be posted by Deerfield to secure the full amount of the Fund, and demonstrate how the Fund will be creditor and bankruptcy remote in the event of Deerfield's insolvency or business failure.  We further require that the Letter of Credit be issued by an A-rated financial institution and that it name the

Vermont Public Service Board as the designated beneficiary.  The Letter of Credit shall be an "irrevocable standby" letter of credit and shall include an auto-extension provision (i.e. "evergreen clause").

Similar to the approach we approved in the UPC Vermont Wind Docket102 we adopt the Department's recommendation that a trigger be set for decommissioning review.  Therefore, if actual production falls below 65% of projected production during any consecutive two-year period, a decommissioning review will be initiated.103  However, in the event that Deerfield can show that it has entered into stably-priced power contracts with Vermont utilities through which a substantial amount of power is to be sold to Vermont utilities at stable prices, we may reduce the decommissioning trigger to as low as 50% if we find that those contracts provide sufficient benefit to Vermont ratepayers.  In any case, Deerfield would have the opportunity to demonstrate during this review that there are reasons for the decline in production such that the project should not be removed.

Without properly planned decommissioning the wind merchants will simply take the money and run - leaving area residents to clean up and pay for their mess.

Table of Contents

11/20/08 - Wind Decommissioning Costs — Lessons Learned

11/29/09 - 15,000 wind turbines have been left to rot across America

2/15/10 - Wind Energy's Ghosts

11/24/11 -  Tens of thousands of abandoned wind turbines now litter American landscape

2/17/12 - Hawaiian Eyesores

8/27/13 - Knauth’s Itemized Analysis of cost to decommission turbines

CONTENTS

 

11/20/08 - Wind Decommissioning Costs — Lessons Learned

Wind Decommissioning Costs — Lessons Learned  

Author:  Hewson, Tom

Last month, EVA was hired by the Mountain Communities for Responsible Energy to evaluate a Decommissioning Cost Report prepared for the Beech Ridge Energy Project — a 124-turbine project proposed for Greenbrier County, West Virginia. The project wind developer (Invergy) had argued that the scrap value of the wind turbines would far exceed the cost to decommission the wind project and that therefore they should be responsible for bonding $2,500/turbine that would slowly escalate to $25,000/turbine by year 16.

EVA completed an independent estimate of the salvage value of the Beech Ridge Wind turbines. The applicant’s consultant estimated that its salvage value credit would reach $12.64 million ($101,900/turbine) in their decommissioning fund study based upon application of general scrap factors and prices. This scrap value credit would more than offset their estimated demo costs ($8.68 million: $70,000/turbine).

EVA contacted the major regional scrap yards directly and got current scrap prices for steel, copper and transport. From these data, EVA developed a Beech Ridge project–specific salvage credit estimate of only $2.63 million, i.e., $10.01 million less than the original applicant study. We uncovered several major flaws in the applicant study methodology and pricing. They not only used old scrap prices but failed to take into account that they would have to transport the scrap to a yard. In addition, to obtain the posted scrap price, they would need to break down the tower into 3-4 ft long pieces or else the quoted price would be significantly less. In addition, the copper materials must also have their insulation stripped and/or copper pieces separated to obtain their posted copper price. If not, their scrap value would be far less than the common posted price. Given the large drop in scrap prices this year (>40%), scrap value can no longer cover decommissioning costs.

EVA also compared the estimated demolition costs to another decommissioning report for another wind project developer that had contained detailed cost breakdowns. The other study estimated demo costs of $97K/turbine vs. $70K/turbine by Beech Ridge. The bottom line is that using the demolition costs from the other wind turbine project decommissioning study would translate to a Beech Ridge demo cost of $12.03 million, i.e., $3.35 million more the applicant’s $8.68 million estimate. (Note: In another very recent project I have just reviewed, the decommissioning costs were again severely underestimated by more than 50% by not taking into account recent crane rental rates, extremely low earth moving costs, and assuming high productivity rates (6 turbines/wk).)

The bottom line is that even if the permitting agency allows the salvage credit, the total net cost of decommissioning this project today would be $10.4 million ($83,900/turbine). Our analysis quantified the large scrap price and demo cost escalation risk being assumed by the local community. To protect the community, the permitting agency should require a bond of a minimum $100/K per turbine ($12.4 million) to capture demolition cost escalation risk. If the wind developer can convince the bonding company of the high salvage value, then they should be able to negotiate a lower rate for the bond. If they were right, there would be very little price difference for a larger $12+ million bond. Shift the risk to the bonding company. Let the developer and bonding company assume the price risk — not the community.

Tom Hewson
Principal
Energy Ventures Analysis
Arlington , VA
Hewson@evainc.com

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-decommissioning-costs-lessons-learned/

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

11/29/09 - 15,000 wind turbines have been left to rot across America

Wind Turbines & “Green” Subsidies Under Fire | Print |
WRITTEN BY ALEX NEWMAN
TUESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2011 18:30

Despite billions in taxpayer subsidies pumped into the so-called “green-energy” industry, almost 15,000 windmills — maybe more — have been left to rot across America. And while the turbines have been abandoned over a period of decades, the growing amount of “green junk” littering the American landscape is back in the headlines again this week.

Across the country, subsidized wind farms are meeting increasing resistance — and not just from taxpayers and electricity consumers forced to foot the bill. "If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place?” wondered Heritage Foundation policy analyst Ben Lieberman, who deals with energy and environmental issues. “It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."

It turns out that wind power is expensive and inefficient even in the best wind-farm locations in the world. And regular power plants always need to be on standby in case there is no wind, not enough wind, or even too much of it — a fairly regular occurrence.

That is why, when the tax subsidies run out, the towering metallic structures are often simply abandoned. In their wake: a scarred landscape and dead wildlife — the very same ills offered as justifications by administration officials for preventing oil exploration.

“Wind isn't the most important thing about wind turbines. It is all about the tax subsidies. The blades churn until the money runs out,” noted Charleston Daily Mail columnist Don Surber last week. “If an honest history is written about the turn of the 21st century, it will include a large, harsh chapter on how fears about global warming were overplayed for profit by corporations.”

Even environmentalists are jumping on the anti-wind power bandwagon. In California, where state mandates and subsidies have led to a boom in subsidized “green” energy projects, a San Francisco-based company just announced last week that it was halting plans to build a new wind farm. The scheme was shelved over concerns about the danger it would pose to birds.

The press is starting to ask questions, too. “As Beaufort County [North Carolina] considers the proposal of Pantego Wind Energy, LLC's to build 49 1.6MW wind turbines on 11,000 acres of land, it may be of interest to some that the trend in the industry is to abandon such projects once the tax credits expire,” noted the Beaufort Observer on November 19. The editorial urged county commissioners to attend a seminar exposing the “Big Wind” industry hosted by the John Locke Foundation next month.

Around the world, concern about wind turbines is growing as well. In the UK, the Daily Express reported on November 28 that government ministers were being urged to abandon the race to build wind farms because they can cause “life-threatening” illnesses.

“The health impacts of wind farms are serious. I have no doubt that many people have suffered serious adverse effects,” said Dr. Chris Hanning, an expert in sleep medicine. “The Japanese government implemented a four-year program of research into the health effects of wind turbine noise. Pressure should be placed on the UK governments to do likewise.”

And in Australia, conservation supporters are battling to stop the wind farms, too. Activists in the nation’s southwest rejoiced over the announcement this week that one windmill project in the area was being shelved. But there are still many battles to fight. “It really is one of the most important breeding areas, but wind turbines just don’t mix with birds unfortunately. We’ve got to keep fighting to keep the brolga,” Susan Dennis, a longtime defender of that breed of bird, told The Standard. “I don’t accept that their endangered population is acceptable collateral damage for green energy.”

Of course, dead birds, health problems, and massive wealth destruction are not the only reasons to stop subsidizing wind farms. Other environmental concerns exist, too.

“There are many hidden truths about the world of wind turbines from the pollution and environmental damage caused in China by manufacturing bird choppers,” noted environmental blogger Tory Aardvark in a recent post about wind farms, also citing the dangerous noise produced by turbines. He added,

The symbol of Green renewable energy, our savior from the non existent problem of "Global Warming," abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.

He called the more than 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in theas U.S. symbols of a “dying Climate Religion.”

In recent days, a wave of articles and opinion pieces highlighting the wastefulness and destructiveness of wind farms swept the worldwide web. But with so much tax money at stake for the green-power industry, which lobbies intensely for ever more money, it will be hard to end the subsidies which generated the bogus “industry” in the first place.

The Solyndra debacle, however, has created what analysts called a serious public-relations problem for subsidized “green-energy” producers of all stripes. And then there is “Climategate2.0.” The scandal, surrounding a second batch of embarrassing e-mails from “climate scientists” leaked last week, has dealt another serious blow to the foundation of it all — United Nations-backed global-warming alarmism.

“This whole wind energy mess just further illustrates how the American people have been played by their elected officials who bought into the ‘global warming’ hysteria that spawned the push for wind energy in the first place,” wrote Jonathan Benson for a piece in Natural News dealing with the abandoned wind turbines. “And now that the renewable energy tax subsidies are gradually coming to an end in some places, the true financial and economic viability, or lack of wind energy, is on display for the world to see.”

Analysts have said that if and when tax subsidies to wind power and other green-energy schemes are finally cut, the whole house of cards will come crashing down almost instantly. But then a new question arises: Who will clean up the mess?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/energy/9977-wind-turbines-green-subsidies-under-fire

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

2/15/10 - Wind Energy's Ghosts

February 15, 2010

Wind Energy's Ghosts

By Andrew Walden

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

11/24/11 -  Tens of thousands of abandoned wind turbines now litter American landscape

'Green' debacle: Tens of thousands of abandoned wind turbines now litter American landscape

Thursday, November 24, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Literal beacons of the "green" energy movement, giant wind turbines have been one of the renewable energy sources of choice for the US government, which has spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing their construction and use across the country. But high maintenance costs, high rates of failure, and fluctuating weather conditions that affect energy production render wind turbines expensive and inefficient, which is why more than 14,000 of them have since been abandoned.

Before government subsidies for the giant metals were cut or eliminated in many areas, wind farms were an energy boom business. But in the post-tax subsidy era, the costs of maintaining and operating wind turbines far outweighs the minimal power they generate in many areas, which has left a patchwork of wind turbine graveyards in many of the most popular wind farming areas of the US.

"Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California 'big three' locations which include Altamont Pass, Tehachapin and San Gorgonio, considered among the world's best wind sites," writes Andrew Walden of the American Thinker. "In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills."

Walden speaks, of course, about the birds, bats, and other air creatures that routinely get tangled in and killed by wind turbine propellers. And as far as the "post-industrial junk" language, well, if it costs too much to run the machines in the first place, then it definitely costs too much to uproot and remove them post-construction.

This whole wind energy mess just further illustrates how the American people have been played by their elected officials who bought into the "global warming" hysteria that spawned the push for wind energy in the first place. And now that the renewable energy tax subsidies are gradually coming to an end in some places, the true financial and economic viability, or lack of wind energy, is on display for the world to see.

"It is all about the tax subsidies," writes Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail. "The blades churn until the money runs out. If an honest history is written about the turn of the 21st century, it will include a large, harsh chapter on how fears about global warming were overplayed for profit by corporations."

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

2/17/12 - Hawaiian Eyesores

More Windmills Coming, But Not All Island Residents Approve

Very soon, Kahuku won't be the only place on the North Shore of Oahu with giant white windmills.

First Wind is breaking ground today on construction for Kawailoa Wind, Hawaii's largest wind project, with 69 MW, or enough power for 14,500 homes. This is the company's fourth project in Hawaii.

Hawaii is the state most dependent on foreign oil, and state government officials want to create more energy independence by the year 2030.

Those supporting the project include: Lt. Gov. Brian Schatz Senator Mike Gabbard, Chair, Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Mayor Peter Carlisle, City and County of Honolulu Paul Gaynor, CEO of First Wind Richard Rosenblum, President and CEO, Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. Dee Jay Mailer, CEO of Kamehameha Schools Antya Miller, Executive Director, North Shore Chamber of Commerce and Hermina Morita, Chair, Public Utilities Commission.

Meanwhile residents on Molokai continue to fight any windmills on their island, saying the structures are unnecessary and are ugly.

Larry Helm, well known native Hawaiian veterans' advocate, said about 90 percent of Molokai's 7,000 plus residents are against the windmill construction plan, which would include windmills built on Molokai that would connect to an undersea cable bringing power to the highly populated Oahu.

Molokai residents point to a now defunct windmill operation at South Point on the Big Island of Hawaii as one reason not to erect windmills. On the beachfront site, many of the steel windmills have rusted into place or collapsed.

The property where the Big Island windmills now stand was once owned by Kahuku Ranch. Kahuku Ranch sold the property to the WF Co.

While new windmills are going up on Oahu, many neighbor island residents are wondering why others have been left standing unused for decades.

One Big Island rancher told Hawaii Reporter: "The windmills were the Model T. of Mitsubishi's and had never been tested in Japan.  Eventually they leaked oil and the wind would blow the oil quite a ways from the towers.  Why they are allowed to still stand there is a big question.  Aren't there laws that say that they must be removed and the area cleaned up?"

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/more-windmills-coming-but-not-all-island-residents-approve/123

Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

8/27/13 - Knauth’s Analysis of cost to decommission turbines

(This is the date of posting, not publication)

See the following link: http://www.protectrichfield.com/documents/Decommissioning%20Estimate%20for%20Ridgeline%20Energy%20Monticello%20Hills%20Project.pdf

Or download the PDF itemizing decommisioning costs here:

Knauth%27s%20Decommissioning%20Estimate%20for%20Ridgeline%20Energy%20Monticello%20Hills%20Project.pdf