One of the the greatest advantages of wind and solar is that you can just about get as much of it installed as you want very quickly. No long arduous and expensive permit process, nor lengthy construction schedules and upgrading a wind turbine site is even easier, as the bulk of those costs and time schedule are avoided. The time clock starts ticking well before the first shovel of dirt is turned, so renovation is a great way to acquire higher value per MW.
Everything has a design life and project feasibility is very much based on that life cycle cost. Wind turbines may have a life shorter than a nuclear plant,however the life cycle cost of each reflect in their value per MW-h and shares of cost billed to the consumer. The lifecycle of each method is well known and based on justifiable experience, not overly optimistic at all. If they were running for 15yrs, I'd say they hit spot on. Many heavily mechanised assemblies, engines, pumps, etc are rebuilt within 10 years with an eye on scrapping and total replacement in another 10. Speaking of scrapping, wind turbine dismantling costs are absolutely nothing when compared to others. A small nuclear plant will run you a min of $300MM, and that certainly is overly optimistic.
If it is the subsidies that worry you, think about the avoided costs. When, not if, oil and gas prices rise again, the avoided cost of fuel alone will more than pay for any subsidy, not to mention the usual social costs that, sooner or later, will become more and more apparent as the big clock (yes the environmental clock) ticks down. Cheap oil and gas has dampened that fuse, but its now getting shorter again, even as we speak. Spain just changed the electric cost rate for which the maximum rate has risen 20%, averaging to an expected 8% overall increase to align with the price rise of fossil fuels over the past two years, once again steadily approaching $70/bbl. Avoided fuel costs to the economy, especially to those that do not have home country supplies, can be enough to affect currency value and severely restrict future growth, if not its continued existence. Subsidies, usually just really tax avoidence schemes, have relatively little impact at such a scale. Its just another way that large companies manage to pay little tax. Close that loophole. Did you know that at one time JW Marriott (hotel chain) was one of the biggest wind turbine investors? Why? Yes, a tax avoidance scheme. Are you upset that the tax scheme happened to be connected to wind turbines? If it wasn't that, they could have just as easily avoided tax by investing in some Irish Leprechaun monument. What's the difference?
BTW, a google showed on page #1 that those wind turbines above were indeed old, small units, 1MW each, that were installed in 2002. Lifespan of 18yrs, which hit my midrange estimate exactly. I'm not in that business yet managed to easily figure that out, definitely not being overly optimistic at all. I will bet they used a 15yr life cycly and "economically speaking" got 3yrs of "free power" out of them as well. So, Where's the problem? You want to wait until rust brings them down?
