It Costs $532,000 to Decommission Single Wind Turbine | Hacker News Reader

It Costs $532,000 to Decommission Single Wind Turbine

americanexperiment.org

13 pointsrmason26 comments

A less controversial way of saying this is that 10% of the cost of these wind turbines is the cost to decommission them after twenty years.

Based on quickly browsing their other headlines, though, I suspect less controversial headlines about wind power are not the goal of this organization.

How much does it cost to decommission a megawatt-hour? Seems like an odd number to throw out without comparing what a coal plant or nuclear plant of equal output costs to decommision and clean up.

Check out the other "stories" this site has written about wind. The point is clearly to come up with a bad things to say about wind, and since there are not many bad points, they need to reach a bit: https://www.americanexperiment.org/?s=wind&srch_sbmt=Search

Costs aside when the author advocates an oil pipeline in place of wind we can know he's not to be taken seriously

But the decommissioning prize is mainly due to full decommission. Upgrade instead of remove and your costs would be more manageable.

Which is basically what the US does for nuke reactors.

Putting in a new turbine that's a few percent more efficient, despite having the giant PITA to open it up, is better than a full decommissioning.

Turns out power generation of all kinds have maintenance cost. Who knew?

Just think of all the toxic chemicals they are going to leak into the environment when they are abandoned, and the risks to groundwater. Not to mention the risk of explosion!

Wait, sorry, that’s the oil wells.

I know you were being edgy with that, but there are very strict rules for decommissioning oil wells that generally consist of plugging the well with a special concrete and then removing the pipe to about 20 feet below the surface. There are considerable resources covering this if you are interested.

My mistake, I was talking about orphaned wells, not abandoned wells.

Sure, but that's also a relevant rebuttal to this hit piece, since it's specifically complaining that concrete (and just concrete) is left in the ground when one is removed.

I should also note that US oil drillers have to post a bond that will ensure there will be funds available to decommission the well when the time comes. Maybe this should be done for all green energy also as there is a significant amount of non-recyclable waste involved in decommissioning windmills and solar farms.

If only the bond was actually enough to cover decommissioning.

LOL. Tell that to Alberta, with its $47 billion worth of orphan wells, some 50000 of them unreclaimed. “A report from the Alberta Energy Regulator shows that, since 1963, there have been more than 440,000 wells drilled in the province, and only 67,000 have been sealed up through the oil and gas industry’s abandonment process.”

The Center of the American Experiment is a Minnesota-based think tank that advocates for conservative and free-market principles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_the_American_Experim...

Is there something about the conservative ideology that makes sustainable energy an enemy?

Or is it just polluting industries lobbying for more subsidies and less regulation under the conservative banner?

Yes, that something is that over decades the oil, gas, and coal industries spent tens or more likely hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda, subsidized talking heads, lobbying, donations, infomercials and such on making happen. This isn't just a natural outgrowth of conservative politics. They got their money worth.

Subsequently, we understand the more mature oil and gas industry better, as they have been around longer, and have had more money invested in them.

It should be acknowledged that the emerging - in terms of time and investment - renewable industry affords a different risk level.

How sensitive one is to risk will determine their outlook.

Confer: Tesla vs. Ford, Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, etc

I have no idea, other than this is a report from a possibly biased, non-objective source and should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt...

They cite their claims with primary documents.

> Is there something about the conservative ideology that makes sustainable energy an enemy?

I know it's not what you want to hear, by it's that wind and solar don't make economic sense. Conservatives don't have an idealogical stake in energy so tend to look at it practically.

"Economic sense" for who exactly?

Wind costs 5 cents plus zero pollution per KWh.

Coal costs 3 cents plus 2 kg of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and a shitload of particulate pollution per KWh.

"Economic sense" for the owner of the coal power plant is one answer.

"Economic sense" for whoever is paying medical bills and dying early is a different answer.

The article seems to ignore the very real possibility that the foundations would be reused when an ageing turbine is replaced

That was my first thought too - most the article is about remediation of the site - cabling, foundations, etc. It seems sensible to me that you'd refresh an existing site rather than paying for a full remediation and then developing a new site elsewhere. (Saving both the remediation costs, and the initial development/infrastructure/groundworks/planning at a replacement site)

That will get cheaper.

That's a bold statement.

Also, this article doesn't address the huge issue with disposing the thousands of tons of fiberglass and plastics that are currently being buried in landfills.

I'll take it over the billions of tons of pollution spewed into the atmosphere from other energy production where we have zero feasible way to materially remove any of it

Most things do, which is good news. I'd be interested to know if there are any projections of how these costs may be reduced. Do you have any references on hand?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com