DEP AND BINGHAM WIND/ FMM SETTLEMENT - NOTHING TO DO WITH NOTHING!

Comment

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 19, 2015 at 2:44pm

The photos of the blasted areas were not mine, but another person, Richard Harris. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Dy_WLdKmnk5pmA6qdfORLBKAlgK286q...

As to mercury switches, these were to have been eliminated out of the industrial electronic, electrical stream back in the 90's however some home devices still remain. New product is not being created, unless under special needs circumstances.

Scrap values 20 years from now may provide a different value. Plastic Milk containers of today, took me by surprise when quoted to be valued at $1200 per ton, at a recent ENR meeting. This amounts to more than a nearby community's annual tipping fees.

Watching the interim meetings of the ENR, there seems to be a competition for organics, between compost and energy methods, along with the sorting at facilities that generate recyclable materials for some low and some surprisingly high profits when the buyer is known. Much being traded as a commodity on a market.

As to the forward thinking or studies as to the remains after a (so called) restoration, I have no info on that, but know that a blasted area can never be recovered, only hidden.

Accelerated depreciation? Fine for IRS purposes I suppose, however with the TIF agreement with Somerset county vs property tax value, they have already been PRE depreciated to an average of 20% for the 20 years. 

Comment by Kathy Sherman on October 19, 2015 at 2:22pm

The scrap value is already negligible - even I was surprised at how, once it is in the ground, these things become worthless. In other words, they deserve accelerated depreciation credits. Plus we are concerned about "zero waste" in New England and there does not seem to be planning for the toxic components, yet all electronics and mercury switches, and plastics must be segregated out of our waste stream.
I can't believe how little restoration is required (almost seems like less than on ag land where maybe that is enough to allow crops or grazing), especially after seeing your pictures of the depth of the blasted area. No restoration of hydrologic ecoservices or CO2 trapping forest. My question was almost rhetorical, but there is some movement towards industry attempting foresight on these issues, probably in Europe rather than here.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 19, 2015 at 1:41pm

The set aside funding for decommissioning as discussed at the two town meetings only stated for the entire project, however the final method, per or whole, I can not attest to as I have not read the documents. I was lead to believe the total funding was for the total project site. 

Comment by Kathy Sherman on October 19, 2015 at 1:38pm

In so far as the increase in decommissioning funds was the major point in FMM's appeal and only part that would potentially ameliorate scars of present construction as opposed to protect some sites from future destruction, I am surprised that it was not arranged through an amendment of the DEP order.

Is that $1.6 million for the whole project or per turbine (which would seem more realistic). The costs are of compelling interest in Falmouth MA where Vestas V82s are located less than 4 times total height from homes and are in violation of the state's inadequate noise standards and the 40 dB limit that the town had as an antequated by-law. The town decided for itself that it was exempt from permitting requirements and the court said otherwise, but five and a half years later the Town is again trying to exempt itself and advocates are indicating that decommissioning at TODAY's construction labor costs is $10 million with another $15 million in lost revenues if the turbines are not allowed to run full tilt for another 20 years. I believe that the advocate has made many math errors in percentage of homes impacted, and for sure is grossly incorrect in stating that "experts agree that health effects are due to nocebo". They just want to scare the taxpayers with grossly catastrophic costs for losing two turbines (one of which was funded by ARRA).

We can't give up on identifying and informing against the real "stupid" here.

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on October 19, 2015 at 1:20pm

The decommissioning Funds set aside was discussed as a requirement at both the Abbot and Parkman meetings with the boards and then the citizens. They are probably set into escrow somewhere. However the larger picture is, (1) that they are only required to restore the site, 2 feet below grade. This means the large concrete pads, of their depth (?) would only be required to be jackhammered to 2 feet below the final grade of that which they created to surround the pad. My best estimate that would be about 6-8 inches below the surface of the top of the pad. The remaining concrete structure could be left in place covered with 2 feet of soil.  (2) Two feet, does not rebuild a portion nor restore anything back to even near natural conditions of a blasted hillside.

Two feet below grade would not hold much more than shrubs, never again to regrow tall trees with massive root systems, on the 24' diameter of the pads. 57 or so, forest dead zones in the case of the Bingham project. 

These remains, buried and forgotten possibly over time, become the worry and expense of the future land owner for any needed removal. Maybe foundations for some creative Round towers for housing or elevated platforms for highrise gardens....... but still the concern of future generations.

$1,605,410. being the minimum, rest assured that will be the total sum. I doubt they would ever have to increase this amount adjusted for inflation, and be grandfathered should future minimums rise.

 Assuming that each turbine is worth, at final expense $3MM with gifting, labor, and materials, this minimum amount would be 0.00938% of todays cost, for their removal, hauling & disposal. The scrap would be worth more than that. Another way to profit?