Listening to the people:
I am compelled to respond to a letter (Today, 13 June) by Jamie McDonald.
Mr McDonald is intent on attacking our local MP, James Lister, and supporting wind turbines in his area. I should begin by saying that I have no interest for or against the installations of such machinery, nor do I have any connection with any mining or mining support industry.
In his article, speaking of Mr Lister, Jamie McDonald says that Mr Lister, in a speech to the Queensland Parliament, was proposing an attendance at a public meeting held in Greymare and that “we as landholders considering a wind farm development were invited to attend. This is incorrect.”
Then he says “he did contact my wife to encourage us to attend this meeting but he was told clearly that we would not attend on principle“. Then, Mr McDonald, as Mr Lister said in parliament, you were invited to attend. Apparently, you had vested interests in the development of these wind turbines and had already made up your mind on the matter, and if you decided not to attend that was your decision.
There have been a number of such meetings on the proposals for wind turbines established in various communities; I attended one at Allora. I was not invited to attend, but it was a public meeting, open to anybody. It was extremely well attended with people standing outside the venue because there was insufficient space inside.
There was a broad discussion about the matter, with arguments for and against, but the overwhelming opinion was that they did not (they being the people of Allora) want wind turbines in their community. At this meeting the company proposing to establish the turbines, a company based in Victoria, was invited but did not wish to attend, like you. And you speak of hypocrisy?
Your paragraph about the need to build the transmission infrastructure is indeed relevant. No matter where the turbines are placed, such transmission towers will have to be placed on somebody’s property whether they want it or not. In your final paragraph, you suggest a meeting to be attended by a wide diversity of people on this subject. If you succeed in achieving this meeting, I would love to attend.
I have no doubt that the proposal put to you by the people selling wind turbines would be financially attractive; much easier than farming. Personally, I anxiously wait for the development of nuclear energy as proposed by Peter Dutton, and we will be able to say goodbye to this “green energy“ campaign by Bowen and Albanese.
In the meantime, James Lister is not “digging a hole“, he is representing the wishes and opinions of his constituents. This is something some MPs failed to do, but James Lister is doing exactly what he is supposed to do.
Bruce Wilkinson, Warwick.
Renewable Myth:
Renewable energy, often hailed as the panacea for our environmental woes, is defined as energy sourced from natural resources that are replenished on a human timescale.
However, while the sources – wind and sunlight – are indeed renewable, the equipment used to harness this energy can be among the most destructive ever made.
Take wind turbines, for example. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies Office, a typical large-sized wind turbine comprises approximately 8000 parts, including the foundation, tower, nacelle, and blades. The construction of these towers involves extensive use of concrete and steel. A single tower’s foundation can require between 600 and 1000 tons of concrete and 165 tons of steel. To obtain these materials, significant mining operations must be undertaken, consuming vast amounts of oil products and electricity, thus negating the “green“ aspect of this technology.
Additionally, the installation of these turbines often necessitates the clearing of land, leading to deforestation and the destruction of wildlife habitats. Wind turbines are notorious for their negative impact on both human lives, through noise and visual pollution, and wildlife, particularly birds and bats, which can be fatally injured by the blades.
The economic benefits of wind turbines primarily accrue to landowners, who receive payments for hosting these structures on their property. This shift in land use from agriculture to energy production reduces the availability of farmland for food production, creating a paradox where we have the power to cook but potentially less food to cook.
Focusing on the blades, the manufacturing process is highly complex. It involves creating a large mould filled with dry fibres, which is then infused with resin and heated to form hardened carbon fibre. A carbon “spar“ or spine is added for rigidity and strength. Balsa wood, primarily sourced from Ecuador and Peru, is used in the blades for lightweight structural support. The high demand for balsa wood has led to increased logging in the Amazon rainforest, often without adequate consultation with or consent from local Indigenous communities.
Composite materials like fiberglass and carbon fibre, which make up the blades, are difficult to recycle due to their blended composition. While these materials are durable and resistant to wear and tear, their disposal poses a significant environmental challenge, with many retired blades ending up in landfills.
Wind turbine blades are also getting larger, with the average rotor diameter increasing significantly from 1999 to 2021. Despite this growth in size and capacity, the environmental footprint remains substantial. Wind energy currently produces about two per cent of global energy, resulting in four tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. In comparison, solar energy accounts for 1% of global energy production but generates 5 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear energy, producing four per cent of global energy, results in three tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
These figures challenge the perception of wind and solar energy as entirely benign alternatives to fossil fuels. While they play a crucial role in our transition to sustainable energy, it is imperative to address the environmental costs associated with their production and disposal.
Peter Crawshay-Williams, Mount Colliery.
Steer clear of nuclear:
Peter Dutton and the LNP are urging Australians to consider nuclear energy across our country, and the Southern Downs, as an alternative to wind and solar.
Maybe in a few generations it will be.
But with Fukushima rated at the same disaster level as Chernobyl, still leaking radiation over a large area, maybe we should give it a wide birth.
Cheap travel tickets to Japan don’t seem so cheap. Cheap nuclear doesn’t seem so cheap either.
Floods, cyclones, increasingly unpredictable weather patterns means nuclear energy has a long way to go before we can consider it a safe alternative.
I am happy to wait until we can chuck a banana skin in our nuclear car tank and drive back to the future. We have a long way to go.
In the interim let’s create a safe environment for our children and grandchildren.
Jo Nehmer, Warwick.
