The VPA for the Winterbourne Wind Farm Community Benefit Fund is on display on the Walcha Council website. Council is seeking feedback from the community and we encourage everyone to make a submission to this vital part of the Winterbourne project. As a guide, our view of the important points are as follows; We request Council to seek the following conditions from Winterbourne Wind Farm P/L before signing a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) around the Community Benefit Fund (CBF). Upfront payment of the full value of the CBF rather than annual instalments > To ensure security of payment; and > To give Council confidence to fund long-term worthwhile projects (eg. Funding for Riverview Aged Care) Council and the Community to have a full understanding of the project and the CBF. Council to view and consider the Winterbourne Wind Response to Submissions before considering the VPA and a presentation of this VPA by Winterbourne Wind Farm with time for questions and answers from the community. A decommissioning policy to be acceptable to Council including a bond or bank guarantee to ensure decommissioning occurs. This would include an agreed definition of decommissioning, which should be the removal of all project infrastructure from the Walcha LGA. Please add your own thoughts, and your own views. Return your submission to Walcha Council; via email: council@walcha.nsw.gov.au or via Mail to: PO Box 2, Walcha 2354 SUBMISSIONS Must be received by Walcha Council by the 12th June 2024. The details … These are some of the points we have noted from the agreements …. Draft Renewable Energy Community Benefit Policy This has been designed so future developers can shape their Community Benefit Funds around what Council and the community see as beneficial to the community. It is only 2½ pages and is relatively easy to read. OPen Draft Renewable Energy Community Benefit Policy Upfront Payment of Community Benefits Security – We do not want to rely on an annual payment. There is no guarantee from 1 year to the next that this payment will be received. We cannot guarantee that the project will not become insolvent or the owner refuse to pay the benefit. Confidence for long-term community projects – If the fund is paid up-front, Council can be confident to invest in long-term projects, knowing the funds to cover ongoing operational costs are secured. It is not an unreasonable request – this Community benefit fund is not a big expense for these developers of multi-billion-dollar projects. If a developer is unwilling or unable to offer an upfront payment, that is a red flag signalling their lack of intent to support the community, or the financial ability of the entity in question to do so. An up-front payment, that can be invested in an investment account, can provide a secure and ongoing annuity, that can support a legacy project such as the ongoing staffing and operation of the Riverview aged care facility, for example. This is not possible if relying on an unsecured annual payment agreement. It would seem reasonable to ask for $25 000-$30 000 per MW (indexed from 2024) of the proposed project paid on financial close of the project. Part Payment of this Fund at Scoping and EIS Submission Council could ask for $100 000 (non-refundable) to be paid to Council at the time of submission of the Scoping Report and $200 000 when the EIS is submitted. This would allow council to investigate the projects and prepare VPAs, traffic reports, impact assessments impacting Council resources. We have seen from the Winterbourne project that it is not a fair process when an under-resourced Council is negotiating with a highly resourced multi-national corporation. This could be deducted from the over-all fund. Winterbourne Wind Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement This is 20 pages long and is not an easy read! Open Winterbourne Wind Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement These are some of the points. 1. Why is Council negotiating with Vestas? Vestas have refused to hold meaningful engagement with the Walcha community. They have misled the community in statements they have made. They have presented an incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading EIS. They have not even provided financial support for Walcha in preparing this VPA. Is this a company we want to welcome to Walcha to develop a $2billion plus project? Is this a company we can trust to pay an annual fee? Until we have all the information about this project, do Council really want to give the project the green light from them? 2. Up-front payments would be secure, but an annual payment plan? Council could ask for $100 000 (non-refundable) to be paid to Council at the time of submission of the Scoping Report and $200 000 when the EIS is submitted. This would allow council to investigate the projects and prepare VPAs, traffic reports, impact assessments impacting Council resources. We have seen from the Winterbourne project that it is not a fair process when an under-resourced Council is negotiating with a highly resourced multi-national corporation. Security – We don’t want to rely on an annual payment. There is no guarantee from 1 year to the next that this payment will be received. We do not know who will own this project in the next few months, let alone 25 years. We cannot guarantee that the project will not become insolvent or the owner refuse to pay the benefit. Confidence for long-term community projects – Based on discussions in the extraordinary council meeting (7th May 2024) Council (rightly) will not have confidence to invest in any projects that have ongoing operational costs that will need to be taken on by the council. If the payment is paid as an up-front payment, Council can invest this money and be confident of the ongoing revenue. What worthwhile projects will be funded by this fund under the current terms. If netball courts (as suggested by Councillor Reilly) cannot be funded because of the ongoing operational costs, it is hard to think of any worthwhile intergenerational projects that

Nick Cater is coming to Walcha. Monday 29th April, 5pm Walcha Bowling Club Everyone welcome He would like to hear from the source how regional communities are being impacted by the renewable energy transition. This is our opportunity to expose to the wider Australian public, the impact the Renewable roll-out is having on the Walcha community. Many of you will recognize Nick Cater as a journalist for the Australian newspaper and through his role as host in “Reality Bites with Nick Cater” and “Nick Cater’s Battleground” on ADH TV. In his own words … “After a 40-year career as a journalist, broadcaster, editor and think-tank director I am devoting my time to resiting the spread of bad ideas, challenging sub-prime thinking and standing up to vested interest groups who subvert public debate for personal gain.” LinkedIn And from ADH TV … “Informed by decades of experience as a journalist, Cater provides critical analysis on the most pressing topics in Australia and around the globe. A Senior Fellow at the Menzies Research Centre, Cater offers an outstanding contribution to the conversation on public policy.” ADH TV We want to use this opportunity to showcase the plight of the Walcha Community as an example of what regional communities stand to lose in this poorly planned race to transition to renewable energy. We want to highlight how half-baked government policy is destroying the social fabric of regional communities. We want to highlight the effects large renewable projects are having on Walcha individuals, businesses and community. This is really important and we are asking all concerned Walcha and New England community members to Please … Come and hear and support our community members as they speak on the local impacts of the Renewable roll-out. We need to demonstrate that regional communities are hurting and will stand up against irresponsible development. We NEED a big crowd. Please encourage friends, family and neighbours to come along and be involved. Have your voice heard – if you would like to present at this forum, we would love to hear from you. How do the REZ and renewable developments affect you? We want many and varied speakers so please get in touch if you would like to talk. Make sure our voice is heard.

The anticipated Community Engagement Review from Andrew Dyer has been recently released. It is a damning report on the manner in which some developers have been treating communities and landholders. We have contributed to this report through a written submission, as well as a face-to-face meeting in September 2023 by members of Voice for Walcha. See news story (ABC)- Friday 2 February 2024 Download the Report Download V4W submission to the enquiry It was with encouragement that we read through the 9 recommendations, the first two themes dealing with our primary concerns with the experiences we have had in Walcha. Our strongest message that we have been delivering to the Planning Department, Energy Co and to Andrew Dyer directly, has been; The need to regulate developers through an accreditation process, (to avoid inexperienced operators in the system, who are merely flipping contracts with landholders to the nearest developer) and To avoid wasting communities’ resources through projects that are poorly designed and located, and not suited to the communities that may host them. These projects should be cut out at the first gate. Extract from the Review Things should improve for the community of Walcha that has already felt the fracturing repercussions from developers that the report has identified as being problematic. It is refreshing to see an important report that admonishes the poor behaviour that we all knew was not right. Extract from the Review Part of the review was a survey, and the leading questions was; “Do you currently, or are you expecting to, host renewable energy infrastructure on your property?” Approximately 50 out of the 250 answered yes – ie, around 20% were, or expected to be, land hosts. By deduction, 80% were not. Later in the report, a number of other questions were asked, around the subject of satisfaction with dealings with the developers. The responses from these questions ranged through 92%, 85%, 89%, 85%, 90%, 89%, 93% as dissatisfied. Bottom line, a significant proportion of land hosts are also dissatisfied with the performance of the developers. Significantly, the review also asked “whether the local community would benefit from large scale renewable energy projects.” The following responses were measured. Extract from the Review Only 9% of ALL respondents felt there was community benefit. Remember that 20% of respondents were turbine hosts. Importantly, from the numbers above, we could assume that none of the non-hosts, and less than half of the turbine hosts – felt that there was any community benefit. Read that again, it is significant. This alone is a damning statistic, and one that we would love Walcha Council to measure, and to acknowledge. If there is no broad community benefit, even in the eyes of over half of the turbine hosts, why are we facilitating this poorly designed and located development in the Walcha LGA. We would prefer to see a broader study of the cumulative impacts or cost benefit analysis of large scale renewable projects in the Walcha LGA. This could cover all aspects – social, environmental, economic. We feel that this is the first question to ask, before looking at impacts of only one component of a project, such as a “donga village” in the Walcha district. Make sure our voice is heard.

Following the release of the Draft Guidelines in late 2023, the Planning Department have (clumsily) hosted a number of community meetings, explaining the content and purpose of these guidelines. One such meeting was at Walcha Vet Supplies on the 30th November, where many of the Walcha community attended gave a strong reception. Thank you to the community for taking the time to attend and asking such a variety of informed and pointed questions. Again, the Walcha community stepped up and gave a clear and united message. The framework is now on public exhibition until 11:59 pm on 29 January 2024. Up until this time, we are asking all community members to make a submission. Download V4W Submission Link to NSW Energy – Energy Policy Framework Link to Wind Energy Guideline Listen to an audio guide to making a submission Audio only To make a Submission 1. Type your submission and have it ready to upload, or copy to the online form. Remember any submission is of value, it does not have to be perfect. 2. Go to Draft Energy Framework and scroll down to … (See pic) Link to Submission Page 3. Fill details and upload or paste your submission, which ever is preferred. Will YOUR effort make a difference? We have the opportunity to make submissions in order to have an impact, and we have to take that opportunity. Many might feel that the Planning Department will ignore the message, but we feel that we have to take every opportunity to defend our community and our landscape around Walcha. Our view is that the guidelines in their current form are designed simply to facilitate developers, in the blind rush to roll out renewables at any cost, and not to protect the communities that host these developments. This needs to be highlighted, and the best way to make a change, is to make a submission. We also need to send the message to the Planning Department that communities like Walcha will not roll over and allow uncontrolled development. If we want our community protected, we ALL need to make the effort to make a submission. What are some of the issues that we are concerned about? Following are some issues that we have identified, that we feel are patently unfair to regional communities. Decommissioning There is no bond to protect landholders or communities. It is a private deal between the host landholder and the developer. The decommissioning responsibility is for above ground infrastructure only. So at best the developer pulls down the tower but leaves the concrete and steel and the cables in the ground scarring the landscape forever. Why are renewable developments not required to provide a bond for de-commissioning, as other resource developments are? The Map Change as a result from pressure from developers. On the 16th November, the New England REZ was shown clearly as “Less Suitable” on the scale ranging from “Less Suitable” to “Desirable”. This gave confidence to regional communities that restraints and community concerns were being noted. What followed was a collective tantrum from developers and pro renewable politicians, placing pressure on the Planning Department. After 7 years of finalising and presenting update to the Wind Guidelines, within 2-3 days of this pressure and lobbying, the region was re-rated from “Less Suitable” to “Suitable” How have we gone from “Less Suitable” to “Suitable” without consultation? How can the Planning Department claim to be independent? How can they claim to have maintained their integrity through this developer friendly backflip? Where is the clear definition for social licence? With 79.5% of our surveyed community clearly indicating that they are concerned and objecting to the Winterbourne Wind development, there is a breach of this undertaking from NSW Planning that projects will not proceed without Social License. What is Social License – as a definition? Forced acquisition of your land The guidelines point to a scenario where a project designed with a significant energy storage system, can be deemed Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI). If this is the case, landholder consent is not required, and forceful acquisition would take place, as per section 5.13 of the EP&A Act. In areas such as Walcha, that are highly unsuitable areas for wind development due to tightly held land holdings and multiple neighbours to project sites, this gives free reign to an overly ambitious developer, to cause unfettered harm to the community. Where are the protections for the community in this scenario? Winterbourne exemption These guidelines have been updated as a result of larger turbines being used in projects, and the impacts they have on community and the environment. Winterbourne have snuck through the gate and are not subject to this update – purely by timing. If approved, Winterbourne will be in place for 20 years, and should be subject to updated guidelines. Why is it that projects like Winterbourne Wind will not be subjected to these upgraded guidelines? Project licensing and Developer accreditation We advocate for project licensing and developer accreditation, to avoid situations like at Walcha where an inexperienced developer is simply accumulating contracts, putting pressure on community, and selling these contracts as soon as they are signed. A promoter of projects at Walcha is not even planning to take these projects to EIS stage and has no care for the success of the project, or the impact on the community. Why is there not a developer accreditation process in place, to ensure against this behaviour, that is harmful to the community, and harmful to the renewable industry. Further points, outlining our concern with the Draft Wind Guidelines, in brief We can assist with more detail if requested. Click on the heading to expand. Is the REZ system still the best way for renewable energy roll-out? REZs were drawn up based on unreliable information – Modelled, not measured. Wind turbine technology has changed so high winds are no longer as important in project location meaning site selection should be based on strategic land planning rather than wind and

Where is Vestas? Has anyone heard or seen them lately? Surprise – surprise – Vestas’ pushes responses to submissions back again to the plethora of objections to the Winterbourne Wind Project – with yet another extension granted to the 29 MARCH 2024. They have now had 15 months and two extensions from the end of the public exhibition to try and manipulate a response to the community’s many objections. Rather than accept this Vestas excuse, as just another ‘dog ate my homework’, we need as a community to seriously contemplate and question whether these delays go to the Project’s viability. We acknowledge the Government is desperate to keep any projects on the table as serious cracks are emerging as to the viability of the REZ rollout. However, an inability to close many of these projects raises serious questions as to the quality of the projects – environmentally and economically and/or the skill sets of the developer in making poor site acquisitions and development decisions. A situation exacerbated when the developer is Vestas who is really just the turbine salesmen with minimal development experience. They have been in no man’s land on profitability for the last three years. So, the Elephant in the Room in contemplating Vestas’s ongoing delays asks two pertinent questions; Firstly, is the Winterbourne Wind Farm project from an environmental and socio-economic assessment perspective a compliance or a consent dud? That is, the environmental issues it raises are just insurmountable conflicts – project consent is just too hard or just not possible. There are too many fatal flaws its Environment Impact Statement (EIS). Secondly the Elephant inquires as to just how economically bankable is Winterbourne Wind Farm? Wind Turbine technology costs have escalated 38% since 2021. The average price of seven of the most significant critical minerals for the wind industry has increased by 93% since January 2020. WWF promotes for 50KM of grid connection with transmission costs having escalated by up to 40%. From a revenue perspective who knows – no one has sighted the wind data – not at scoping – not at EIS – not even the DPE by their own admission at the recently held Community Consultation Q&A held at Walcha Vet Supplies. The Developer’s claim that the site produces acceptable wind profile at night is untested from independent review sources. How do we know once constructed and commissioned whether the WWF project is an ongoing commercial value proposition or stranded assets? The dollar value of any offtake agreement is uncertain as the Federal Government keeps changing the ground rules. The latest consideration announced by Chris Bowen – the Capacity Investment Scheme – asks more questions than it answers. So, from an investors perspective this project might just present as ‘in the too hard basket’ – add to the mix significant disregard to Indigenous Culture, dodgy non-compliant noise assessments, insurmountable road and traffic issues – no identified resources, water and gravel. Vestas advised 2 years ago that Winterbourne Wind Farm Project had new owners – it had been on sold to Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners (CIP). Has anyone ever seen or heard from CIP – ZERO? Successive delays must also create some unease amongst Host Landowners. The DPE at its recent Q&A referenced that Host Landholders on issues of decommissioning stepped into developers’ shoes. This may be an accurate conclusion which could increase the Hosts exposure, coupled with onerous obligations to bonds, insurances, and caveats etc. Voice for Walcha    

From John Heffernan with Voice for Walcha I’ve always considered Denmark and Wind Power as inseparable, like a horse and carriage, a marriage made in a renewable heaven. That’s why I was recently stunned by another high quality study that tells a disturbingly negative tale about the Danes and Wind. The work mainly focuses on ageing and performance variations plus failures and major breakdowns in three generations of turbines: (1) small ones with a capacity of less than 1 MW; (2) larger ones of 2+MW; and (3) offshore ones of 3.6 to 6+ MW capacity. The data largely comes from the Danish Energy Agency’s register of wind turbines, which at the end of September 2019 held information on more than 9,500 turbines. Statistical and econometric work is by Professor Gordon (from Edinburgh University’s School of Economics), the ex World Bank senior advisor on energy and environmental policy who headed the exacting study into 350 UK wind farms operating between 2002 and 2019, the same time frame as this study, And just like that UK study, the findings of this Danish research could also be called sobering. Professor Gordon makes it clear that the smaller turbines aren’t a problem at all. For those with a capacity of less than 1 MW the combined but offsetting effects of ageing and technical progress lead to only minor declines in average load factors as turbines get older. It’s the larger 2+ MW onshore and offshore turbines where age-related decline in performance rears its ugly head, with a decline of about 3% annually for onshore turbines and as much as 4.5% for offshore machines. This means that by Age 16, an onshore wind farm will only produce 63% of its Age 1 performance, while for offshore rigs that drops to 50% of peak output. In other words “the economics of keeping a turbine or wind farm in operation look increasingly unattractive once it passes an age of 16 years.” Pretty crook, eh? But it gets crooker. For starters, all those more reliable small turbines have effectively reached end of life, leaving the larger less reliable and poorer performing onshore turbines to run the show, alongside the even larger, even less reliable, poorer performing and more costly (to maintain) offshore rigs. And to make things even worse, according to the Professor, “manufacturers are contemplating a shift to yet another generation of 12+ MW offshore turbines with all the likely problems” linked with that. There are plenty of lessons to take home from this study, but perhaps the most salient is the patent untruth that large-scale wind power generation is nearly costless. It most certainly is not. At the very least it involves seriously expensive engineering and economic tradeoffs that must not be ignored. For that reason alone, those who seek to promote large-scale wind projects – like operators, governments and official bodies – need to engage in honest and open cost/benefit discussions that acknowledge and factor in such serious trade-offs for any worthwhile analysis of wind as a viable renewable technology. Once again, as with the Edinburgh University study of 350 UK wind farms, Australia should take on board this invaluable free lesson from Denmark, and begin thinking about more viable, more reliable and more desirable sources of energy.

John Heffernan According to the Global Wind Energy Council, 2023 is proving to be an unequivocally important milestone for wind energy. The total amount of installed wind capacity world wide will exceed One Terawatt at the end of this year, if not before. That’s real cause for celebration, at least for those welded-on Windies among us. But there’s another reason why 2023 will be a wind energy milestone. At the close of this year, “modern” wind technology will have been around for twenty five years or thereabouts, a time frame that basically aligns with the life cycle of a wind factory, taking into account manufacture, construction, maintenance and decommissioning. So for about two and a half decades we’ve been able to observe the performance of this often contentious technology. We’ve effectively reached a position where we can conduct serious evidence-based research about this technology as a sustainable source of renewable energy. And that’s what’s been happening. Quality studies into industrial wind projects are emerging at last, providing information for developers, governments and communities to make better decisions about what the technology can do for us. (Or not, as the case may be.) Moreover, an increasing number of such studies are proving to be negative. Generally large-scale works, very professional, supported by fact-based data and often peer reviewed, they are beginning to make it crystal clear that wind energy is not all it’s cracked up to be. At the very least, they should not to be ignored. A  brief summary of just one such study is below, an impressive work with real warnings for Australia. The study, by Professor Hughes at the University of Edinburgh’s School of Economics, looks into actual capital and operating costs for the bulk of onshore and offshore wind farms built in the UK between 2002 and 2019. It totally debunks widespread claims that the past two decades have seen falls in the costs of wind energy. Based on over 350 wind farms – a far larger sample than any previous research – the study uses exacting statistical and econometric methods to produce a voluminous report of least 16,000 words plus supporting appendices, and then warns us with apposite Scottish brevity that: “The findings are complex but sobering.” Hughes makes it clear that not only have costs of onshore and offshore wind generation not fallen significantly over the last two decades, but that there is little prospect of them doing so in the next five or even ten years. Indeed, far from falling, actual capital costs for new wind farms increased substantially from 2002 to 2015, and reports that costs for new offshore projects might fall by 2025 are “consistently unreliable and incomplete”. The story for operating costs is gloomier, with very strong empirical evidence of a powerful rising trend in costs per MW of wind farm capacity. Onshore projects in the UK have seen an average yearly cost increase of 4.4%, while offshore wind farms increased by 5.5%, plus large hikes for working at depths of 10–30 metres or greater than 30 metres. Matters have been made worse by serious reliability problems with new generation turbines suffering rapid performance declines with age, creating a lethal mix of higher maintenance costs alongside much lower yields. This has focused attention on the economic life of wind farms rather than physical life, seriously shaking confidence in the financial security of the wind energy game. Most wind turbines claim a physical life of 25-30 years, but almost all are actually being decommissioned before 25 years, and many before the age of 20. “This means that initial capital cost must be recovered over 15 or 20 years rather than 25 or 30 years”, creating a crisis whereby wind financiers will almost certainly need to be bailed out. The scale of that bailout will be large: “about £30 billion is at risk in the UK wind sector alone”, the study states, “with significantly more in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark.” As I said, sobering, especially since this comes from a previous senior advisor on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank. The facts spell it out. Wind is a highly capital-intensive energy source, has a short economic life due to high operating costs, doesn’t work in load-following mode, hides costs behind subsidies, contractual games and system integration charges, and now a great many of its whizz-bang new generation turbines manifest serious performance issues with premature ageing. As for Offshore projects, don’t even think about them; they’re a cauldron of nightmare scenarios. “The fundamental costs of wind generation”, Hughes states, “are rising over time and seem likely to continue to rise for years into the future. This has important implications for the role of wind energy in any politically and economically sustainable low-carbon agenda.” Give me a stiff whiskey, mate! Australia should take on board this invaluable free lesson from the UK (and elsewhere), and begin thinking about more viable, and more desirable, sources of energy.

by John Heffernan & Voice for Walcha Wind basically took off as a source of renewable energy a bit before the year 2000, and the period up until now (2023) has basically seen the vast majority of wind energy capacity globally installed. That period also basically aligns with a wind farm’s life cycle – 20 to 25 years – manufacture, construction, maintenance and decommissioning. Which means that we’ve effectively reached an historical point where we can seriously assess wind energy and make sound judgements about the Good, the Bad and the In-between of that technology. Which is exactly what’s happening. Quality studies into industrial wind farms are at last emerging. These can provide evidence-based information to help developers, governments and communities make better decisions about what that technology can do for them. Or not do for them. For that reason I want to highlight these studies, and will kick off with an excellent one from the Pusan National University of Korea – by J Dorrell and K Lee – a large comprehensive peer-reviewed study of scientific literature covering industrial wind developments around the world from the year 2000 to 2020, focusing on a raft of negative impacts. Analysing almost 150 articles, it’s a serious study. The study’s main thesis is that: “As wind energy has expanded, the negative impacts have become more evident.” Those negatives are mainly economic, but not entirely. Unemployment is one to begin with, despite popular misconceptions. Yes, wind energy creates jobs, especially in manufacturing, but “the net employment impact for the economy as a whole is negative.” Market Volatility is another negative. “As wind farms have increased, so has overall intermittency of electricity supply”, along with “higher levels of volatility in the electricity market”. Higher Energy Costs have been another negative impact of increased wind farms, sometimes extremely so. Take Germany, for instance: “The national energy transition has almost doubled the price of electricity in just 15 years.” Government subsidies for wind farms are another negative; there has been greater dependence on subsidies in many countries with the growth of wind projects. Declining efficiency of wind turbines over their life time is another (often hidden) negativity. So too are significant decreases in residential house values due to proximity, visibility and size of wind farms, especially in rural areas – a multifaceted matter, including issues like noise, shadow flicker, electromagnetic fields, visual obstruction, and more. Last but not least is a negative impact of wind farms that’s often overlooked: transition to grid connection. “Massive infrastructure investment is required for industrial scale electricity transmission lines, driving up electricity supply cost.” The study also found that winds farms globally involved ecological and biodiversity impacts. “These negative externalities include bird fatalities, human health impacts, bat deaths, ground animal ecosystem disruption, and habitat loss.” On top of that: “The construction phase of wind farms has also been found to cause significant detrimental effects on residential well-being. But wait. Be aware that the above negativities are essentially ones that have only become evident over the last twenty-odd years of wind energy’s global expansion.The technology already comes with huge onboard economic baggage. As the study emphasises: “upstream processes such as the extraction of raw materials, production of finished materials and components, transportation, and manufacturing as well as the downstream activities such as decommissioning require massive amounts of capital.” That’s why this study ends by emphasising that in order to fully and fairly assess the entire economic performance of wind energy, its entire life cycle from use to disposal has to be understood. We are beginning to grasp that fact from quality research like this study. But we really do need to take serious notice of such research. Anything less is head-in-the-sand stuff. Ain’t no future in being an ostrich.