Farmers who’ve agreed to have wind turbines on their land are tearing up their contracts, and those thinking about entering such agreements are rejecting the offers made by wind power outfits, out of hand.
It’s a MAJOR problem for rent-seekers and their political enablers. And their panic is palpable and hysterical, at once.
In one recent example, 9 farmers from Armidale in NSW, who had signed up to host some 55, 7MW turbines between them, pulled out of their contracts, on the basis that they had been lied to about the very substantial decommissioning costs they face when these things give up the ghost, after 12 to 15 years or so.
This is from the start of an ABC story in which propagandists and crony capitalists rage at the idea that landholders are entitled to refuse to be party to the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.
Ark Energy shelves Armidale wind farm project after landholders change their minds
ABC Rural
David Claughton, Michael Condon, and Amelia Bernasconi
12 Aug 2024
Ark Energy, which was behind a bid to build a 55-turbine Doughboy Wind Farm, 50 kilometres east of Armidale, said in a statement last month the decision to withdraw the project was made “following a change of mind” from some of the nine landowners whose properties took in the project’s boundaries.
…
Bear in mind that Australia’s ABC is wind cult central. The rest of the article is a mixture of pure panic and practiced propaganda from the usual suspects, accusing various (dark) forces of undermining the great wind turbine rollout. And the language used in the extract above is deliberately deceptive.
The property of the 9 landowners in question did not take “in the project boundaries”, their land was to be used for the project on the basis of landholder licence/lease agreements entered with Ark Energy – it was “the project”.
Those agreements are the most one-sided agreements ever written, and no rational farmer would ever sign one. For reasons set out below.
In other parts of NSW, small landholders with turbines on their properties (including a number around Boorowa) are offering their land to anyone who will take it and asking nothing in return (that is to say, literally giving their properties away) because the multi-million-dollar cost of decommissioning a handful of wind turbines will outstrip the value of a small rural property.
Landholders with turbines know that they’ll be ultimately liable for that cost and are hoping to handball their inevitable liability to some unwitting fool.
It’s a condition of the licence agreement that the landholder (as licensor) procure agreement from the intending purchaser that they will take over the licence agreement from the outgoing property owner, leaving the incoming purchaser stuck with the cleanup costs in future.
STT doubts that they’ll find any suckers to take over their properties, and will be stuck with their agreements and the very substantial cleanup costs.
When the ABC article talks about “a change of mind” on the part of the landholders concerned, it’s not limited to those who were foolish enough to sign up with Ark Energy.
The horrifying realisation that landholders hosting turbines will be up for countless millions of dollars to clean up the mess 10 or 15 years or so from now, is one that has spread far and wide via the Bush Telegraph (and Facebook and other media) with lightning speed.
The Genesis of their well-founded fear was the result of answers given by the NSW Labor Premier, Chris Minns to questions put by Robert Borsak MP, the leader of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party during Budget Estimates who admitted, quite frankly to his credit, that the colossal cost of decommissioning wind turbines and solar panels always and everywhere rests with the landholder foolish enough to enter the agreements to host them in the first place.
Here’s a video with transcript of that exchange.
Budget Estimates 2023-2024 – PC 1 – Hon Chris Minns MP – 21 February 2024
YouTube
NSW Parliament
22 February 2024
Robert Borsak MP, the leader of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party (SFF) questions the Premier of NSW, Chris Minns MP in the NSW Parliament Budget Estimates. This extract (2:22:43 -2:26:28) is from the original video and admits that the cost of decommissioning wind turbines and solar panels resides with the landholder.
Transcript
Robert Borsak MP: What is your government doing around decommissioning of renewable energy projects like solar and wind farms when they reach the end of their useful life?
Chris Minns MP: Well, that is something that needs to be considered as part of land use changes, particularly for private landholders that take into, well, I guess, assess a proposal from a renewable energy provider. The government, I understand, has released a calculator so that the landholder has the complete knowledge of what the projected end cost associated with remediating the land would be once the solar project or the wind project has come to their end of life.
It’s obviously important for the landholders to have that information because I think that the upfront fee that people receive for hosting or using renewable energy sites on their land is important, but they need to know the full picture, and if decommissioning is part of that, they’ve got to be remunerated for it.
Robert Borsak MP: Well, yeah, that’s exactly right. Obviously, there are a lot of projects already operational and being installed, and I think in most cases bonds haven’t been paid or there’s no money put aside, and a lot of these wind companies and solar companies may well not be there. Do you think the government will end up having to pick up the tab?
Chris Minns MP: No. Obviously, well, best practice is that it’s reflected in the original price paid to the owner of the property, remediation costs are part of the price, whether it’s the yearly fee paid to the landholder or some kind of upfront payment. Where the government can come in and provide clarity to the land user is to give them the calculator and the information that they need.
Robert Borsak MP: Well, do you think that developers of solar farms, for example, should be required to pay a bond?
Chris Minns MP: Look, I wouldn’t propose that. I’m not sure what that would do to the economics of the model. If in the end we’re producing or the landowner is comfortable or confident enough to be assured that they’re receiving enough remuneration to cope with not just the rent of the property, but also the decommissioning, then it may not be required.
Robert Borsak MP: Well, do you think if a lot of these wind farms and solar farms ultimately aren’t remediated properly, that we may well lose a lot of arable land? Because there could still be a problem there if people are taking the money, taking the contract, there’s no sinking fund, for example, for the future. We could end up with a situation where there’s a lot of dead solar farms and wind farms all over the state and the arable available land would be reduced.
Chris Minns MP: Well, I think it’s important for the owner of the land to have the complete knowledge of what the ultimate costs are, including the decommissioning costs. Look, I’d note that, in terms of a bond, bonds are traditionally used for land intensive mining in particular, and the distribution of solar and wind farms on land in New South Wales is not as intrusive or destructive to the land as open cut mining, for example. So I’m not sure that the economic model that’s been applied to open cut mining should be applied to renewable energy projects because the impact on the land isn’t as destructive.
YouTube
As noted above, Chris Minns’ candid answers have spread like wildfire across NSW, putting the fear of God into landholders foolish enough to have these things grinding away in their paddocks.
The sudden realisation that they will be lumped with millions of dollars in decommissioning costs – costs that Minns says the landholder is solely responsible for, because his government has no intention of ever compensating the landholders – is precisely the reason that the 9 landholders referred to in the ABC hit piece above enjoyed a moment of sense and clarity and ‘changed their minds’.
Behind-the-scenes, rent seekers in the wind and solar industries went apoplectic the moment Minns spoke the self-evident truth about where the buck stops.
It’s not that the landholder’s inevitable liability was unknown. In September 2023, farmers in Queensland were already pulling out of and/or rejecting landholder licence agreements with wind power outfits for the very same reasons: Farmers Rejecting Wind Power Projects to Avoid Massive Clean Up Costs
And a few weeks before Minn’s bombshell answers, Anne Webster MP put out this warning to landholders about the staggering cleanup costs they face when turbines give up the ghost a decade or so from now.
Hidden Wind Turbine Decommissioning Costs a Risk for Farmers
AnneWebster.com.au
Anne Webster MP
7 February 2024
Farmers enticed by the financial benefits of hosting wind turbines on their property may be lumped with the cost of decommissioning the infrastructure at the end of its lifespan, Member for Mallee Anne Webster warned today, echoing the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner’s previous alert that wind turbine earnings could be outweighed by the removal costs.
While total fees earned for hosting a wind turbine for 25 years could yield farmers $250,000-$750,000, figures from the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner indicate decommissioning costs of up to $600,000 or more per turbine.
“Always read the fine print. If the project owner defaults, farmers could be left paying to decommission the turbine,” Dr Webster said.
“The landholder doesn’t own the project’s assets so they cannot simply sell them. Even if farmers have a decommissioning arrangement with the project owner, these projects can change hands many times over its lifespan, jeopardising any agreement made, and risking the landowner responsible for the $600,000 per wind turbine.”
Dr Webster said farmers need to take decommissioning costs and risks into account before deciding to host turbines, which could also have ramifications for their farmland and their neighbours.
“Some renewable energy project developers have been quick to promote projects to communities without securing social licence, or responding to genuine concerns people have,” Dr Webster said, pointing to damning figures released on the weekend.
Dr Webster described the poor answers from project proponents as ‘bulldust’ in parliament yesterday afternoon, and National Party Leader David Littleproud has today called on a moratorium on renewable project rollout in regional Australia due to poor consultation and community impacts.
“Labor has emboldened developers to push ahead with a reckless rush to renewables despite the cost to regional communities that produce our nation’s food and fibre.”
Dr Webster welcomed Mallee residents who drove eight hours to Canberra yesterday, organising a meeting with Energy Minister Chris Bowen and other parliamentarians.
The Member for Mallee also addressed those residents and hundreds of others at the ‘reckless renewables’ rally in Canberra on Tuesday.
Farmers from across Eastern Australia had travelled to Canberra to protest the Albanese Labor Government railroading their communities with renewable energy infrastructure and running roughshod over environmental concerns and farming productivity.
“Labor is asking regional Australia and agriculture to bear the burden of its reckless race to 82 per cent renewables by 2030, without any care or understanding about its impacts,” Dr Webster said.
“Whether it be the VNI West project or any other, regional communities are not a dumping ground for bad policy designed to sandbag Labor metropolitan seats from Green threats.
“Farmers have had enough.”
AnneWebster.com.au
STOP THESE THINGS 
I live in the country site in Germany. If the investor, who leased that field, filed for bankruptcy – than the owner (often the farmer) has to cover the costs for decommissioning.
Therefore, a better (often used) way ist to “transfer the farm to the relatives early enough” – except that one field. The farmer is also bankrupted – so the community gets that field for nothing, but has to pay the costs.
As often, socialize the costs
Best regards Andy
I translated and post it on https://eike-klima-energie.eu/
Thank you
Yes, keep up the good work. Danke
So if the investor leased land from say Bureau of Land Management in the United States or other governing body say even a public school system and the company went bankrupt the taxpayer is paying for “decommissioning” correct?
I’ve been posting for more than a decade that leasers of land to wind mills will be screwed when it comes time for decommissioning. Even if the contract includes a provision making the wind company responsible for decommissioning, that’s easily overcome with a quick sale to a subsidiary and a convenient bankruptcy.
Francis Menton has been demanding that New York State prove that a zero-emissions grid demonstration project exists and is successful. The closest to that is the Gorona del Viento on El Hierro Island in the Canary Islands. Their best year saw 35% renewable, 65% Diesel. They can’t cheat by importing like Germany and California can.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-8-13-zero-emissions-grid-demonstration-project-follies-no-fraudulent-demonstration-projects-allowed