As part of the zoning approval, they pretty much get forced to put in that language. Otherwise, they could avoid setting aside money to restore the land, and just skip town leaving the landowners with rusting hulks and concrete blocks to clean up.
From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of That One Guy /sarcasm Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 12:32 PM To: af@afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread The lease on the turbine on the old ladies family estate has the 10 year renewing lease (it auto renews with a bunch of numbers about changes to the calculation) but it does state it is intended to cease operation in 30 years. There is a residual trust on each one to cover the cost of removal, going into detail about what that consists of, essentially says it will return the property to its original purpose state, in this case, farmland. The lease was like 35 pages, im not a lawyer, so I may have misread it when I looked at it while drunk. I did find it odd to only use something with that much expense for 30 years (taxpayer funded, so who cares) maybe it just means it will be refurbished and the lease revisited, I dont know On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: Just a note: check the calculations on that page, and the charts. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: > " > > Summary of the calculations > > First of all I want to state that my calculations might include > mistakes that I have not realized. Also, I know for a certain I have > not included any accounting gimmicks that big companies might use to > make their returns look better. Also, the fixed tariff price that I > used in every calculation might give wind power some advantage over > solar. > > Without subsidies the profitability of solar energy is surprisingly > low. Especially when considering that it is the one from these three > that seems to be the most talked about in India. Although all that > changes when subsidies are added in to the calculation. > > Also the hydropower gives a mediocre return on invested capital but it > makes it up with its flexibility. By this I mean that hydropower can > be used whenever the electricity prices are high. It should also be > noted that in these calculations I used lifetime of 50. If the > lifetime was 100 the ROCE would be higher. The subsidies did not > affect the hydropower’s profitability that much. Unfortunately I > didn’t find any subsidy schemes for large hydropower plants. > > In these calculations the wind power is easily the most profitable > form of energy. The incentives didn’t change the ROCE that much > because most of the incentives were tax based and only show on the > profit line. Although, I believe that the used electricity price is a > bit too high for wind power. > > As for Atlantic Tele-Network’s statement, solar power can be > profitable without subsidies but only barely." > > From: http://www.huntingvalue.com/renewable-energy-profitability/ > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com > <mailto:af...@kwisp.com> > wrote: >> I think you're reading too much into the provision in the land lease to >> remove the concrete foundation and restore the land at the end of the lease. >> >> If you watch the whole process of developing a wind farm, the actual wind >> turbines are a small part of it. The question would be, if it's still >> profitable at the end of 20 or 30 years, what would it take to extend the >> land leases and refurbish the infrastructure to keep it running? I'm >> guessing a small fraction of the original cost. Maybe just inspect the >> towers and foundations, replace the blades. They still have the power >> wires, access roads, permits, etc. It seems that a certain number of >> turbines get worked on each year as part of regular maintenance. I've seen >> blades break, they just go out with a crane and replace them, it doesn't >> seem to be that big a deal. These things are in rural areas and have access >> roads, they plan on regular inspections and maintenance. >> >> A lot depends on the regulatory environment, are there subsidies, is the >> power company required to buy the power, what does it cost to generate power >> from coal/nuclear/gas, has some other renewable energy like solar taken off. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com <mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com> ] On >> Behalf Of Josh Reynolds >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 11:36 AM >> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >> >> So 30 years of generating power - (certain maintenance types + production >> resource usage) >> >> I can't see that not being not only carbon neutral, but carbon negative. >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> the turbines here are on 20 year renewing land leases with an expected >>> removal at the 30 year mark if theyre still in production >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com >>> <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com> > >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> "The manufacturing, transportation, and erection of these things is >>>> not offset by the gains, its a net carbon loss at the end of the day." >>>> >>>> I haven't seen any data that corroborates that statement. You >>>> basically have to look at how long they plan for them to run, the >>>> power generated during that time, include maintenance, and compare >>>> that to the cost to manufacture and erect. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>>> > realistic dependency reduction is something we havent seen, >>>> > regulating industries out of buisines or to the point consumers >>>> > cannot afford things is not the way to go. >>>> > Imagine how many of these millions of windmills we have in the US >>>> > without huge consumptions of oil. exactly zero. The manufacturing, >>>> > transportation, and erection of these things is not offset by the >>>> > gains, its a net carbon loss at the end of the day. They dont even >>>> > account for the technician carbon footprint driving from turbine to >>>> > turbine. I would like to see an actual report on the oil cost per >>>> > turbine, taking into account all factors, including the oil for >>>> > fedex to deliver replacement parts, and oil consumption in rope and >>>> > rigging. >>>> > >>>> > Solar is a joke en mass, from a carbon perspective, especially here >>>> > where all our power comes from nuclear. >>>> > >>>> > hydroelectric, maybe not a whole lod of oil consumption, but >>>> > ecological impact is catastrophic, what do we have now 2 salmon >>>> > variants >>>> > >>>> > shut it all down >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Josh Reynolds >>>> > <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com> > >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> That's a pretty irrational stance to take, being 100% against a >>>> >> resource I mean. >>>> >> >>>> >> It is not irrational to reduce dependency on anything though, for >>>> >> a variety of reasons. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:08 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com >>>> >> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > wrote: >>>> >> > Try to make industrial amounts of electricity without oil. Even >>>> >> > hydroelectric turbines need lube. Transformers are filled with oil. >>>> >> > If >>>> >> > you >>>> >> > are against oil, be against oil. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >>>> >> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:58 AM >>>> >> > To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>> >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I'm trying to figure out what electricity has to do with oil >>>> >> > from your statement. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > You can also make a decision to reduce oil consumption where logical. >>>> >> > This would be a good thing from a monetary and national defense >>>> >> > standpoint among other things. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:55 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com >>>> >> > <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Being against oil but using oil... >>>> >> >> Think FedEx can do its thing without oil? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> If you are truly against oil, stop using it. >>>> >> >> Go to the forest. No kerosene lamps, deer fat tallow candles >>>> >> >> perhaps. >>>> >> >> No guns, takes oil to make guns... >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> etc >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >>>> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:53 AM >>>> >> >> To: af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com> >>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Would you mind clarifying the follow a bit? Thanks >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> "Being against oil but using electricity and vehicles and FedEx." >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:32 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com >>>> >> >> <mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com> > wrote: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I like driving my gas and diesel vehicles. >>>> >> >>> I like the products derived from oil like the jacket on CAT 5 >>>> >> >>> cable and printed circuit boards. >>>> >> >>> I like the price of oil to be as low as possible. >>>> >> >>> I prefer having sources in this hemisphere and not funding the >>>> >> >>> Arab world. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I too have built many miles of copper and fiber over public >>>> >> >>> and tribal lands. I have gone through the exact same NEPA and >>>> >> >>> FLPMA process as the pipeline many many times. I consider >>>> >> >>> myself a NEPA expert and am currently advising the US Senate >>>> >> >>> on ways to make that process work faster. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Pissing and moaning that folks with more money than you are >>>> >> >>> building a pipe to make even more money than you sounds like >>>> >> >>> sour grapes and jealousy. >>>> >> >>> If >>>> >> >>> you are against the “commons” don’t use common frequencies. >>>> >> >>> Don’t use ROWs. >>>> >> >>> Don’t use electricity. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I don’t get several things: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Being against oil but using electricity and vehicles and FedEx. >>>> >> >>> Being against certain forms of arguably safer and more >>>> >> >>> efficient oil transportation. >>>> >> >>> Being against certain rich people doing business but >>>> >> >>> attempting to become a richer person yourself. >>>> >> >>> Being against the use of public and private ROWs for oil >>>> >> >>> pipelines but not for water pipelines, natural gas pipelines, >>>> >> >>> sewers, fiber cables or electric. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> And being a second or third generation wanna-be 1960s social >>>> >> >>> justice warrior going thousands of miles to hang with other >>>> >> >>> like minded people and think you are really doing anything be >>>> >> >>> being cold, being an ass, being stupid and wasting your time >>>> >> >>> and the resources of local, state and federal authorities. >>>> >> >>> Those folks are punks. (Their parents probably have BA in >>>> >> >>> liberal arts). >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> And yes, BTW, I too have made deals with tribes. It is as >>>> >> >>> Lewis describes. >>>> >> >>> You make the deal, you pay the money and more often than not >>>> >> >>> when tribal leadership changes, the deal no longer exists and >>>> >> >>> you have another round of payola. I have native American >>>> >> >>> heritage in my blood. Don’t get all butt hurt when I say it is >>>> >> >>> called “indian giving” for a reason. Tribes have communal >>>> >> >>> property. You never own anything, you just possess it for a >>>> >> >>> time until some other tribal member decides they need it. >>>> >> >>> That spills over to dealing with non tribal members. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> > team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >>>> > team. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >> -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
