I routinely reset passwords for people who forget. Since that password is the same for every device in the enterprise, these are people who have literally forgotten their password for hundreds or thousands of devices.
It probably works out about the same for people in the U.S. once you count social security payments, income tax (federal and state), sales tax, sin taxes on alcohol, "luxury tax" on cars, and then the big monthly bill for the health insurance. That last one can be a real killer, because it's not a tax, it's a bill that's due whether you have the money or not.
I may post more in-depth later. For now I can't stop giggling at all the right wingers here who after years of screeching "that's socialism' every time anyone breathed a hint of a word in favor of a social safety net who ar now trying to walk that back and claim "That's not socialism at all!"
You been huffing your own ass gas again? Clearly I was comparing a windmill to structures which present similar levels of contamination and hazard once abandoned. Such as a bridge or a radio tower. Only an idiot would suggest that a windmill presents the same hazards and costs of decommissioning as a nuclear plant. Apparently there are several such idiots in this thread.
OTOH, with the tower already built, it may still be more cost effective to re-fit. If not, then the tear down would be paid for out of the profits for the new tower.
And they still get the recycle value of the old generator and tower.
It's very much related. Nuke plants have to plan their teardown in advance because they are too hazardous to let them decay in place. Windmills, not so much.
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to hold windmills liable up front because if they choose the least profitable way to decomission them later, someone may choose the most polluting method of removing the insulation from the perfectly good copper cables?
Also, burning would cost more than cutting at that scale.
The wells need to be made safe and the tailings from a mine and various pools of contaminated water from extraction need to be cleaned up.
So for the windmills, it could be argued that the blades would need to be lowered to the ground, but other than that, they're just inert towers containing no hazardous substances.
It is rather obvious. If for some reason a company did want to just throw away all those cables and for some reason no machine could do the stripping, it would still be worth it to strip the cables by hand in order to sell the copper as scrap.
It's more akin to money in the bank than an unfunded liability.
That typically covers remediation of any hazardous substances such as asbestos, PCBs, carcinogens, radioactive waste, etc. It does not cover buildings and inert equipment. If the land is rented, there may be contractual terms to be met but that is a private matter. There is no requirement to put the expected demolition cost in escrow.
In practice, they would likely sell the lot off for salvage. Plenty of copper, steel, and a few good rare earth magnets to be had.
No, I assumed that nobody has to escrow cleanup for a structure that contains nothing deadly within it. Nuke plants need the radiation cleaned up (the building can be left to rot just like an office building). Since windmills aren't radioactive, aren't filled with PCBs, and don't contain carcinogenic residue from burning coal, they need a teardown escrow as much as an office building does. Or a single family home for that matter.
Have you set aside the demolition costs for your house?
All this just convinces me conservatives actually do hate clean power with few downsides just because non-conservatives like it. It's the least irrational assumption left.
Slashdot Mirror
I routinely reset passwords for people who forget. Since that password is the same for every device in the enterprise, these are people who have literally forgotten their password for hundreds or thousands of devices.
It probably works out about the same for people in the U.S. once you count social security payments, income tax (federal and state), sales tax, sin taxes on alcohol, "luxury tax" on cars, and then the big monthly bill for the health insurance. That last one can be a real killer, because it's not a tax, it's a bill that's due whether you have the money or not.
I may post more in-depth later. For now I can't stop giggling at all the right wingers here who after years of screeching "that's socialism' every time anyone breathed a hint of a word in favor of a social safety net who ar now trying to walk that back and claim "That's not socialism at all!"
*GIGGLE*
You been huffing your own ass gas again? Clearly I was comparing a windmill to structures which present similar levels of contamination and hazard once abandoned. Such as a bridge or a radio tower. Only an idiot would suggest that a windmill presents the same hazards and costs of decommissioning as a nuclear plant. Apparently there are several such idiots in this thread.
If a tower falls in a remote empty field and nobody is there to see it, does it make a difference?
But of course, steel has a substantial scrap value, so it won't be hard to get someone to pull it down and take it away.
I've seen buildings around town left abandoned long enough that full sized trees were growing out of the roof.
It's more like losing a single modern variety of tomato or corn. We still have many varieties to choose from.
Or prescriptivists, whichever comes first.
You provided irrelevant references. Here is a picture of a duck.
AAAAAnnnnnnnd they're gone!
SIX years ago.
Cell towers tend to be in populated areas and disused mines tend to be dangerous and leave toxic waste.
OTOH, with the tower already built, it may still be more cost effective to re-fit. If not, then the tear down would be paid for out of the profits for the new tower.
And they still get the recycle value of the old generator and tower.
All that means is that nuclear plants may have overpaid. I don't see why that means windmills should also overpay.
It's very much related. Nuke plants have to plan their teardown in advance because they are too hazardous to let them decay in place. Windmills, not so much.
I have no answer that will convince someone who would rather believe anything BUT the truth.
...Until they get sick or injured.
Not voting is just a way to say the election is between "turd sandwich" and "giant douche".
To top it off, the current president didn't even turn out to be the least unpopular choice in the election, but won anyway.
Only an egomanic fool would consider that an endorsement.
Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to hold windmills liable up front because if they choose the least profitable way to decomission them later, someone may choose the most polluting method of removing the insulation from the perfectly good copper cables?
Also, burning would cost more than cutting at that scale.
That's a private matter and the landlords are free to put that in the lease agreement if they wish.
The wells need to be made safe and the tailings from a mine and various pools of contaminated water from extraction need to be cleaned up.
So for the windmills, it could be argued that the blades would need to be lowered to the ground, but other than that, they're just inert towers containing no hazardous substances.
It is rather obvious. If for some reason a company did want to just throw away all those cables and for some reason no machine could do the stripping, it would still be worth it to strip the cables by hand in order to sell the copper as scrap.
It's more akin to money in the bank than an unfunded liability.
That typically covers remediation of any hazardous substances such as asbestos, PCBs, carcinogens, radioactive waste, etc. It does not cover buildings and inert equipment. If the land is rented, there may be contractual terms to be met but that is a private matter. There is no requirement to put the expected demolition cost in escrow.
In practice, they would likely sell the lot off for salvage. Plenty of copper, steel, and a few good rare earth magnets to be had.
No, I assumed that nobody has to escrow cleanup for a structure that contains nothing deadly within it. Nuke plants need the radiation cleaned up (the building can be left to rot just like an office building). Since windmills aren't radioactive, aren't filled with PCBs, and don't contain carcinogenic residue from burning coal, they need a teardown escrow as much as an office building does. Or a single family home for that matter.
Have you set aside the demolition costs for your house?
All this just convinces me conservatives actually do hate clean power with few downsides just because non-conservatives like it. It's the least irrational assumption left.
Now, can you tell me how radioactive a we a windmill might get?
Coal power plants do not. Gas power plants do not. (in spite of harmful leftovers).
A windmill with it's blades removed is no more hazardous than an office building.