Should wind-project economics include eventual removal and site restoration?

The short answer

A complete project comparison should consider eventual removal and site restoration where those activities fall within the owner's responsibility. The amount and timing need project-specific evidence. Omitting them can overstate value, while adding an invented universal decommissioning percentage creates a different unsupported assumption.

Define the physical and responsibility boundary

List the equipment and site elements included: turbine, tower, foundation treatment, cables, access works and any agreed restoration. Establish responsibilities from the actual project arrangements and applicable local requirements through qualified review.

Do not assume the end of the financial analysis equals the equipment's physical end of life. The project may continue, change owner or be replaced. Each case needs its own clearly stated terminal assumptions.

Estimate costs using a realistic work scope

Seek suitable input for access, lifting, labor, transport and disposal or recovery routes. Record the pricing date, uncertainty and exclusions. A remote location can have different practical cost drivers from a site with ready access and local service capacity.

Keep potential material or equipment proceeds separate from gross removal cost. Netting an unsupported resale value into a single low estimate hides both assumptions and makes later review difficult.

Model timing and funding consistently

Place the end-of-life cash flow in the appropriate period and use the same real or nominal convention as the remaining model. If a reserve is proposed, distinguish the cash deposited into it from the eventual expenditure so the same cost is not counted twice.

The handover should include the work boundary, cost basis, timing and sensitivity cases. This lets the buyer compare whole-project economics without a fabricated product lifetime or the misleading implication that removing a turbine and restoring the site will necessarily be free.