This is quite disheartening, once again there are no repercussions for those who fail in their efforts to sell their climate cult and fail in planning the costs. It seems appropriate regulatory legislation would be to not allow building until those financing costs are guaranteed.
Thank you for commenting, Andy! I agree — or at the very least, hold wind and solar to the same standards that oil and gas decommissioning must follow.
I'm in the UK. When a wind company decommissions a wind farm it removes all the towers but leaves all the concrete pads and roadways in place. This has also happened when they've upgraded a windfarm with bigger turbines. What they do is take down all the towers, leave all the concrete in place and then put down new concrete pads and roadways for the new turbines. I'm close to Mid Wales where it's lovely hills are seen to be a good place for windfarms. When we ask the companies why they don't remove the concrete they just say it's too expensive.
A performance bond to cover the cost of decommissioning could solve this. If the utility defaults, the bonding company is on the hook, not the taxpayers.
This is quite disheartening, once again there are no repercussions for those who fail in their efforts to sell their climate cult and fail in planning the costs. It seems appropriate regulatory legislation would be to not allow building until those financing costs are guaranteed.
Thank you for commenting, Andy! I agree — or at the very least, hold wind and solar to the same standards that oil and gas decommissioning must follow.
I'm in the UK. When a wind company decommissions a wind farm it removes all the towers but leaves all the concrete pads and roadways in place. This has also happened when they've upgraded a windfarm with bigger turbines. What they do is take down all the towers, leave all the concrete in place and then put down new concrete pads and roadways for the new turbines. I'm close to Mid Wales where it's lovely hills are seen to be a good place for windfarms. When we ask the companies why they don't remove the concrete they just say it's too expensive.
Yes!! I've seen it referred to as decommissioning in place. It is enormously expensive to remove them completely.
A performance bond to cover the cost of decommissioning could solve this. If the utility defaults, the bonding company is on the hook, not the taxpayers.
I believe PJM was giving the Administration the fat middle fickle finger of fate award on that order.
Agreed. Curious your thoughts on it too!
Politicians make terrible power system planners. There were elements of good ideas but too heavy handed.