NextEra makes a dump of Adelaide township

Adelaide concrete2From Adelaide Twp:
This (at right) is a pile of concrete rubble from a turbine base in the Adelaide Wind Project from NextEra. Well, better known as NextError, how else could this pile happen… The base was poured in the spring, on one of the nice days unlike some of the others that were done while thunderstorms were happening. Recently we saw that the base was chewed up and piled near the edge of the participant’s land. If you look close enough you can see the rebar in the cement.

So lets figure this out… how many trucks of cement was needed to pour the 800 metric tons of concrete for each turbine?  Forty. Then also 40 tons of rebar loaded on 4-6 flatbed trucks, then it needs to be busted out by what and how many diesel machines? Then the used cement is loaded by more diesel machines, into more diesel machines and dumped in a big pile. Can’t you just smell the green fumes?

From there it’s picked up by another excavator and loaded into more dump trucks and buckets and taken to another site. In this case some of it was seen being taken to another participant farmer and placed into another pile for fill and dispersed yet again for other sites for fill. So… is this how the first few feet of concrete will be “disposed of” when the turbines die? Buried somewhere again in our township? We can probably safely assume that’s what will happen with the hundreds of fiberglass blades as well. Strike a deal with a local quarry or something. This is what ‘decommissioning’ really looks like. Shoot, why didn’t they have pretty pictures of rubble piles at those wind company public info meetings!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

And then the beginning of the hamster wheel to get the next 40 trucks of cement and rebar for the cement base re-do! Oh yes so green! Can anyone figure out the carbon footprint figure for all that? This is just one pile, there was talk of more mistakes in this project alone that were done.

Wouldn’t it have just been easier to plant some trees instead of the turbine? Nope, they burn trees. The township is becoming part of NextEra’s new landfill business.

Pictured below you can see this project participant willingly took refuse from cleared turbine sites. There was a pile of cement (not in this picture, behind the other waste), where it was dumped and worked on by other machines for a long while. This pile was later set on fire and burned for days. Here’s a question… how much money is offered to take garbage on a large parcel of land only to put it in between your barns and set it on fire?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


30 thoughts on “NextEra makes a dump of Adelaide township

  1. It’s not about green. It’s about cutting of your access to resources. Adjenda 21. The ex head of ontario hydro is now pushing for a global carbon tax at the UN.

  2. Your comment on ‘strike a deal with a local quarry’ is right on target. There is a clause that was snuck into the new Provincial Policy Statement 2014 that give the green light to so-called ‘recycling’ in pits and quarries (meaning disposal of demolition debris). The pit operators are rubbing their hands in glee because they are exempt from Ministry of Environment guidelines for Class 3 Industrial sites.

  3. The 800 tonnes of concrete and rebar is always glossed over by the “renewable” energy zealots, as is the CO2 emissions associated with building a a 500′ tower capable supporting the blades and generator. They like to think of the towers as magically appearing on the landscape, not like constructing an apartment tower. As for taking down the towers, does anyone expect the wind companies to expend the money to dig out all the pad concrete? The easiest solution will be to simply cover them over and walk away. We may soon find out. When Suez Wind tears down the 8 turbines at C-K airport, let’s see if they really remove all the base so the land can be returned to a growing state.

    • And what they hear is that 1GW nuclear reactor requires about 800,000 tonnes of concrete, plus another 70,000 tonnes of rebar. Enough to build 2-3GW worth of wind turbines.

      I understand and sympathize with what you are trying to say, but random facts don’t really sway the opinions of the people we need to sway most.

      • DTan,

        Often random facts are posted at OWR as posters find them and they need to be organized into material to be presented to the public.

        These random pieces of information will fit into the overall IWT picture.

        Facts don’t seem to mean much if anything to the promoters of IWTs.

      • @Barbra Facts are indisputable, but editorializing is not. Clearly I was responding to the latter. I notice several posters take liberties with the information they acquire. If facts are what we seek, why make up a story to go with it?

      • Some posters like to offer their opinions along with the facts they find/locate.

        Don’t know what you mean by making up stories? Stories are different than opinions.

      • Which I can certainly appreciate. My only concern is that the pro-wind “energy zealots”, as some like to call them, get on this site and laugh at some of the statements made, that are easily disproven. It discredits the real information we have to share, and myself trying to share it.

        Perhaps I’ve misunderstood the purpose of this organization (OWR)? Apologies if I have done so. If we’re only here to have fun, then it’s all good.

      • Don’t think the pro-wind zealots will laugh so much when they realize the OWR archives are filled with facts about who they are and how much money they are making off these IWTs at the expense of all Ontarians and rural Ontarians in particular.

        Ask them why they think rural Ontarians should be sacrificed so they can line their pockets and furnish electricity to the U.S. at the expense of all Ontarians?

  4. I don’t think anything was ever said about digging out the concrete bases at decommissioning time. I always had the impression they might break out the centre piece that sticks out of the ground. so that it could just be farmed over. They’ve always maintained that the concrete would have no effect on the soil. Of course, they’ve always maintained that there are no health effects as well.

    Does anyone actually know what the leases say about base removal?

    • They may cover it over with a few feet of fill, but the idea that this will be suitable for growing crops is ludicrous. These pads will be removed from agriculture permanently, whatever lip service the contracts say about returning to a normal state.At the end of their operation life and the end of government subsidies, does anyone believe the wind companies are going to spend considerable dollars to return the soil to a natural state? They will do it as cheaply as possible, or maybe simply walk away and leave it to the Ont taxpayers to deal with. Many of them are foreign companies and Ont will have little leaverage. There are plenty of pictures of abandoned towers in Cal, and elsewhere left by bankrupt wind outfits.

    • It’s going to be up to the land owner to remove the IWTs and their bases if the company doesen’t. If someone leaves something on your land it becomes yours.

      If a tenant leaves something on your property you have to get rid of it if you can’t make the tenant remove whatever they leave.

      This subject keeps coming up and suspect that the developers are circulating incorrect information about this situation?

      • Yes I suspect that is true. The website for the K2 project in Ashfield, Huron Co. talks about returning all roadways and sites to a natural pre- construction condition but is pretty vague as to what that really means. The state of the pads is not mentioned. I have little faith in this part of the agreement ever being carried out. If subsequent governments of Ont greatly reduce the FIT tariffs, the wind companies will not expend much money to clean up their mess. Property owners would be even less likely to do so.

  5. They will jack hammer a couple of feet off the top then fill in with soil – that is what the wind companies have always said – some claim up to four feet but I wouldn’t count on it

    • But is that quality topsoil, needed for growing anything, or simple fill? The original topsoil excavated to create the foundations must have long ago been sold, I don’t see piles around the tower sites. I can’t see anyone paying for quality soil to fill over the concrete.

      The depth of 3 or 4 feet might be suitable for the present farmer to carefully cultivate over; after 25 years, the next generation will not know enough to do this. Erosion and cultivation will eventually expose the concrete bases, they are there permanently. Drainage and natural aeration will hardly be normal over 800 tonnes of concrete,
      This should have been addressed at the outset by OMAF and the farm organizations like OFA. They were co-opted with the Orwellian term “wind farm” and the idea that industrial energy plants were just a normal adjunct to traditional farming. The originators of Ont wind policies know or care squat for agriculture, witness Kathleen Wynne appointing herself as Agr minister. The acreage of prime cropland lost to wind development unfortunately are largely gone forever. Future generations of farmers will rue the stupidity of their fathers, all for a few dollars of rental income.

      • You point out a real problem. Any amount of concrete is going to be a burden on the land, and future generations. Have our leaders considered the implications? I’m not sure. However, we shouldn’t overstate the impact either:

        The concrete base of a 1.5MW turbine covers about 0.001 acres of land. There are just under 6,700 turbines built or proposed for Ontario. That is roughly a whole 7 acres that might be gone forever, if we assume they are all built on prime farmland and can never be recovered through other means.

        The cottages along the lake the majority of these turbines are being built along take up thousands of acres of prime farmland, and nobody seems too concerned about that. Granted, it is easier to reclaim a cottage, but if you can’t convince a wealthy Torontonian to fight against wind power, how are you going to convince them to give up their fun summer getaway?

  6. As always the devil is in the details/fine-print of these contracts. What they will really have to do has to be in detailed written form in the contracts to be effective.

  7. Would it matter what is in a lease contract if a municipality/township has a bylaw that clearly states that any leased land, where the contract has been terminated, whether consenting or bankruptcy, that the land be restored to original condition with ALL cement and rebar and foreign debris be removed, and this to be done by the lessor or leasee at their expense? You can’t just remove a few feet of cement, cover it with some soil and expect to grow crops on it. The land will be forever ruined as well as the water table unless ALL the cement is removed. If the landowner is too stupid or blinded by greed and has agreed to such clauses in their agreement, then maybe the municipality/township should make some bylaws to cover such things so it doesn’t cost us all down the road. One other thing, no soil disrupted from a leasee’s land should be removed from the property. The wind company leased the land, the soil still belongs to the landowner, it should not be removed, you never know when you may need it to fill in the big holes left from IWTs.

  8. Any such bylaws would be as useful as the agreements councils now have with wind companies regarding road use. Two weeks into construction of K2 in Mar, a massive lake of polluted ground water was created by Samsung and partners. Did ACW or Ont do anything to force the company to deal with it? The problem is the wind companies consider themselves above mundane bylaws and municipal zoning; they have been encouraged in this by the highest levels of the provincial cabinet. I would not expect things to change at the end of the turbine generating life, If local residents cared little for land use, why would Samsung shareholders in Korea give a dam. This has always been the problem with Ont wind development, no thought for the future..

  9. Rural Ontarians are dealing with urban MPPs at QP who don’t even understand what you are talking about when you try to explain to them what it means to agriculture and the other associated issues that go with IWTs when these huge concrete bases are installed in the ground.

    Some 3 years ago the issue of the OFA was discussed here but people were unwilling to withdraw their membership in this organization. People want to have things both ways and they can’t.

  10. Jesuit Superior Resigns. Pope May Resign. Child Abuse Scandal Widens. More witnesses coming forward. British Royal Family implicated

  11. Note all of the steel transmission line poles in one of the photos. Should make the USW very happy!

    • Has anyone had time yet to mark off 1km of this road to measure how much transmission line was used/ km ? There are three transmisson lines in the photo. Doesn’t need to be exact.

    • Toronto Sustainability Speakers Series/TSSS, July 10, 2014

      “7 Billion Reasons for Preserving and Growing Toronto’s Trees”

      Toronto’s urban forest valued at $7 billion or ~ $700/tree.

      Report on tree value furnished by TD Bank.

      First time that a monetary value has been placed on each Ontario tree?

      Trees are worth nothing in rural Ontario but worth ~ $700 each in Toronto. Ok to cut them to make way for IWTs and IWT infrastructures. Just cut and burn them!

      • Knowing the value of each tree makes it possible to determine the economic damage caused by installing IWTs in rural Ontario.

        Isn’t open burning not allowed in this part of rural Ontario without a permit?

        Record the locations where this is taking place but don’t publish the information.

        Photos have an important role in this IWT situation.

        Many of these trees could have been used to supply wood products such as furniture or ground into mulch. Burning was the cheapest way to dispose of them without the public knowing about this.

      • Bark photos can be used to identify trees and maples can be identified in photos by their opposite branching.

  12. Pingback: – NextEra makes a dump of Adelaide township

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *