Cyprus-Forum.com

[georgios100]

Wind turbines have a lifetime of 15-20 years. Just like cars, old machinery etc.
Some turbines are dismantled as scrap metal while others are refurbished and sold to third world countries.
The site is clean, ready for other uses like agriculture or parks.
Decommissioning a wind farm is as easy as child's play compared to coal or nuclear power plants.

On the other hand, huge problems arise when decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The following is an example taken from the UK situation. Read on folks. This is truly a sad case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
A wide range of nuclear facilities has been decommissioned so far. This includes nuclear power plants (NPPs), research reactors, isotope production plants, particle accelerators, and uranium mines. The number of decommissioned power plants is small. There are companies specialized in nuclear decommissioning; the practice of decommissioning has turned into a profitable business. Decommissionning is very expensive. The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure, decommissioning is a slow process which takes place in stages. The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time frame.

Comments, anyone?

Well, we'll need something to produce power on still days...

That's it? Come on Grump! Nuclear is your ... "something"?
Nuclear is the ultimate destruction of the land it sits on. Too expensive to build, lethal fuel, fuel rod waste disposal nearly impossible, decommissioning nightmares and centuries of contaminated waste land hovering all over the UK countryside.

Would you think the UK government is subsidising the nuclear decommissioning?
No, they are not. They are paying the full 70 billion. Your wallet is hurt again!

If you are going to post old wind turbine pictures, think twice.
Decommissioning green energy power plants is definitely not an issue because the technology is clean to begin with.
All the others are just necessary evil.

[georgios100]

Thorpe Marsh Power Station. Junk littering the landscape. Old abandoned UK power plants are scattered all over Britain.
Who is going to clean up this mess?

It produced electricity for 29 years - reliably, not just 30% of the time.

And now they are going to build a Combined cycle plant on the same site... What is your point...?

Your post RE: Abandoned wind turbines... What is your point...?

[cyprusgrump]

Wind turbines have a lifetime of 15-20 years. Just like cars, old machinery etc.
Some turbines are dismantled as scrap metal while others are refurbished and sold to third world countries.
The site is clean, ready for other uses like agriculture or parks.
Decommissioning a wind farm is as easy as child's play compared to coal or nuclear power plants.

On the other hand, huge problems arise when decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The following is an example taken from the UK situation. Read on folks. This is truly a sad case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
A wide range of nuclear facilities has been decommissioned so far. This includes nuclear power plants (NPPs), research reactors, isotope production plants, particle accelerators, and uranium mines. The number of decommissioned power plants is small. There are companies specialized in nuclear decommissioning; the practice of decommissioning has turned into a profitable business. Decommissionning is very expensive. The current estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is that it will cost at least £70 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites; this takes no account of what will happen in the future. Also, due to the radioactivity in the reactor structure, decommissioning is a slow process which takes place in stages. The plans of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority for decommissioning reactors have an average 50 year time frame. The long time frame makes reliable cost estimates extremely difficult. Excessive cost overruns are not uncommon even for projects done in a much shorter time frame.

Comments, anyone?

Well, we'll need something to produce power on still days...

That's it? Come on Grump! Nuclear is your ... "something"?
Nuclear is the ultimate destruction of the land it sits on. Too expensive to build, lethal fuel, fuel rod waste disposal nearly impossible, decommissioning nightmares and centuries of contaminated waste land hovering all over the UK countryside.

Would you think the UK government is subsidising the nuclear decommissioning?
No, they are not. They are paying the full 70 billion. Your wallet is hurt again!

If you are going to post old wind turbine pictures, think twice.
Decommissioning green energy power plants is definitely not an issue because the technology is clean to begin with.
All the others are just necessary evil.

It isn't quite as clean as you say though is it...?

This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem

[cyprusgrump]

Thorpe Marsh Power Station. Junk littering the landscape. Old abandoned UK power plants are scattered all over Britain.
Who is going to clean up this mess?

It produced electricity for 29 years - reliably, not just 30% of the time.

And now they are going to build a Combined cycle plant on the same site... What is your point...?

Your post RE: Abandoned wind turbines... What is your point...?

My point is that they are being abandoned once the huge subsidies are removed....

[supporttheunderdog]

latest in the mail

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/wind-turbines/gone-wind/20120325

[kurupetos]

latest in the mail

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/wind-turbines/gone-wind/20120325

Nobody seems to bother to calculate the build/scrap (which also includes heavy CO2 emissions) cost of wind turbines.

[cyprusgrump]

latest in the mail

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/wind-turbines/gone-wind/20120325

Excellent find!

Just what we have been saying....

[cyprusgrump]

latest in the mail

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/wind-turbines/gone-wind/20120325

Nobody seems to bother to calculate the build/scrap (which also includes heavy CO2 emissions) cost of wind turbines.

Indeed... they sit on vast concrete bases and concrete production accounts for 8% of world CO2 output....

[georgios100]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

In the contrary, the Americans are accomplishing promising results with wind power which is now cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw.

Conclusion.
The Americans are a success story while the Brits are a failure when dealing with wind power.
Brits should get out of the wind power business, go back to coal/diesel/nuclear and burn themselves to extinction.

End of story.

[cyprusgrump]

The CY mail article is the "findings" of one guy, a Brit, who has an opinion not shared by the vast scientific community.
He is another conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information.

In the contrary, the Americans are accomplishing promising results with wind power which is now cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw.

Conclusion.
The Americans are a success story while the Brits are a failure when dealing with wind power.
Brits should get out of the wind power business, go back to coal/diesel/nuclear and burn themselves to extinction.

End of story.

It is amazing that you can quote an (obviously biased) Wiki article as unarguable FACT while anything that disagrees with your point of view is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'.

It is the same with Global Warming - anybody that disagrees with them is a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'...

Check back to the video that sotos posted and see how to lose money on wind in the 'States... or is he a 'conspiracy theory advocate trying to make a buck by publishing false information'?

Oh, and again and again you claim that wind power is 'cheaper that coal by 2-3 cents per kw' but ignore the vast amount of cheap gas coming on stream...?