Top Tweets for #CLACK

Tens of thousands of slabs of reinforced concrete weighing up to 1,000 tonnes are being abandoned in the ground as turbines hit the end of their working lives. The reinforced concrete base of a typical 2-3 MW wind turbine can weigh anywhere from 400 to 800 tonnes. But the concrete foundations of even bigger turbines (5 MW+) can exceed 1,000 tonnes. As lifespans end these massive concrete monoliths are abandoned where they lie. This is an issue of significant contention. In many jurisdictions, including Australia and the US, decommissioning regulations only require the operator to ensure the concrete foundation stays at a depth of 1 meter (approx. 3.3 feet) below the surface. The remaining 3-plus metres of these steel-reinforced concrete fossils are typically left in the ground indefinitely. Over the decades, they can interfere with deep-soil hydrology or remain as a permanent industrial remnant in rural landscapes. Contracts usually say operators are responsible for decommissioning. But the financial reality is complex. Bank guarantees or bonds set aside for removal (around €50,000 or $100,000 per turbine) are frequently far too low. Real-world estimates for total removal and site restoration can exceed $200,000 to $400,000 per unit. If the cost of total removal ($200k–$400k) exceeds the bond set aside by the operator ($50k–$100k), there is a strong financial incentive for companies to declare bankruptcy . Or they sell the asset to a shell company as the turbine nears its end-of-life, leaving a landowner with the bill. While the steel towers are more easily recyclable, their triple fibreglass blades are notoriously difficult to process and often end up in turbines blade graveyards. The theoretical benefits from renewable technology are meaningless compared with the staggering environmental costs.

The energy transition is framed as a scientific necessity, but the costs are staggering and economically unsurvivable. It is not just about the merits of fossil fuels, which have served us so profoundly. This is also about the nature of sovereignty. A climate 'emergency' is being used as a means to an end—a set of guidelines designed to bypass national democracy and place it under a centralised global rule. The answers do not lie in intermittent wind or solar; they lie in returning to the stability of coal, oil, and gas while our engineers lead a global nuclear renaissance. This offers reliability, predictability, and a return to essential baseload power. We must end this conflict between two competing world economies: one based on traditional, proven power, and the other a poor substitute that is colossally expensive and fails to produce the baseload electricity we need. The future for wind and solar is one of blackouts, dismantling farming and transport and a $21 trillion bill to replace the world's electricity grid. So we end up with two grids side by side. We are replacing something that works extremely well. To reach net-zero by 2050, the global electric grid must double in size, requiring roughly 427 million metric tonnes of copper alone. Meanwhile, we are told to ignore the past. Geological history is thrust aside to feed a falsified state of emergency. Yet, NASA satellites reveal the truth: rising CO2 levels are turning the world greener. An area of new leaf cover twice the size of the United States has emerged. Agriculture is flourishing. With $9.2 trillion being spent annually on a 'dead end' energy replacement, we must call a halt. If we continue to sacrifice our energy security and our freedoms for a virtue-signaling dogma, we risk losing the very foundation of Western civilisation. Look at the year-by-year cost of dismantling our grid in the graphic below—the ultimate economic dead end.