Woodcutter wrote:Please note, I was only talking about concrete bases ... It is very clear in the construction of my post:Woodcutter wrote:And why would we remove them? [...]C moa wrote:[...] And the 300 tonnes of concrete, after 25 years ?? What do we do with it ?? Well 300 tonnes we know how to backfill with but 1000 x 300 tonnes ....
The 300 tonnes are not only in the base, a large part is in the pillar hence my confusion ...
This is not a figure out of the hat, it is a wind farm which says that the life of a park is 20 to 25 years ...lumberjack wrote:I even said that it was bio-degradable ...
If it takes 100 years for a dam, why would it not hold 100 years elsewhere, except at sea because there I think it is really aggressive as an environment ... Finally even if the base lasts 50 years it is already not bad.
Honestly, I don't know, but here too, it is a wind farm that says so.Woodcutter wrote:I am not sure that the majority of the wind turbines are located "in the plowed fields" ...
I admit that I am sometimes tempted by the provocation like jonule with nuclear however, I too can read and:Woodcutter wrote:[...]In my opinion, either you are very badly informed, or in very bad faith ...Completely agree but the manufacturers say that there is no impact on the environment so why worry?Removing them means: again tracks for trucks, again machines, again earthworks, even more important than for the installation probably ...
the 14th reason to prefer windit is: "Wind power generation produces no toxic or polluting emissions or waste.". They don't say in the production phase, they say "LA production "which implies construction, maintenance, dementing ....
I'm still in bad faith ??
In the answers to misconceptions in the pollution part, they talk about everything except their impact in terms of construction, maintenance and disruption.
I am convinced that serious studies are being carried out but in the meantime, the speech which is made to Mr and Mrs toutlemonde is "we have no impact".The environmental impact is quite low in operation but, as very often in many major projects, the construction phase is quite impacting on the environment ... I do not think that serious studies during implantations make an impasse there- above.
At the end of 25 years it is not only maintenance, certainly the tracks are made and the pillars arrived but it will be necessary to completely reconstruct the wind turbine after the previous one was destroyed. This means redoing the impact studies, redoing the soil studies (the wind turbines will have evolved by then) and of course building the new equipment. The sums will be significant. How much I do not know, I am not a specialist but a banker / financier who sees a return on investment after 15 or 20 years, I am not sure that he will be so quick to invest.Woodcutter wrote:From the moment when all the initial studies have been done, the generators connected, the foundations and the access tracks, etc ... At what percentage of the initial investment do you estimate the cost of what I call " maintenance" ?