Letters to the editor: Listening to people

Listening to people:

I am compelled to respond to a letter (today, June 13) written by Jamie McDonald.

Mr McDonald is going to attack our local MP James Lister and support wind turbines in his area. I should start by saying that I have no interest in or against the installation of such machines, nor do I have any affiliation with any mining or mining supporting industry.

In his article, speaking about Mr Lister, Jamie McDonald says that Mr Lister, in a speech to the Queensland Parliament, offered to attend a public meeting held at Greymare and that “we, as landowners considering building a wind farm, were invited to attend participation in it. This is incorrect.”

He then says, “He contacted my wife to encourage us to attend this meeting, but was told clearly that we would not attend as a matter of principle.” Then, Mr McDonald, as Mr Lister said in Parliament, you were invited to the meeting. You clearly had an interest in the development of these wind turbines and had already made up your mind about it, and if you chose not to participate, that was your decision.

Many such meetings have been held regarding wind turbine proposals being built in various communities; I attended one in Allora. I was not invited to this meeting, but it was a public meeting, open to everyone. The meeting was very well attended, and people stood outside the room because there was not enough space inside.

There was extensive discussion on the topic, with arguments for and against, but the overwhelming opinion was that they (being Allora residents) did not want wind turbines in their community. The company proposing to build the turbines, a company based in Victoria, was invited to this meeting, but they did not want to participate, just like you. And you’re talking about hypocrisy?

Your paragraph about the need to build transmission infrastructure is indeed accurate. No matter where the turbines are placed, such transmission towers will have to be built on someone’s property, whether they want it or not. In the last paragraph, you suggest organizing a meeting on this topic with a wide variety of people. If you manage to organize this meeting, I will be happy to take part in it.

I have no doubt that the offer made to you by wind turbine sellers would be financially attractive; much easier than farming. Personally, I look forward to the development of nuclear energy as proposed by Peter Dutton and we can say goodbye to the “green energy” campaign led by Bowen and Albanese.

Meanwhile, James Lister is not ‘digging a hole’, he is representing the wishes and opinions of his constituents. This is something that some MPs have failed to do, but James Lister does exactly what he should.

Bruce Wilkinson, Warwick.

Renewable myth:

Renewable energy, often hailed as a panacea for our environmental problems, is defined as energy obtained from natural resources that are replenished on a human time scale.

But while the energy sources of wind and sunlight are indeed renewable, the equipment used to harness this energy may be some of the most destructive ever created.

Take wind turbines for example. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Wind Energy Technology, a typical large-scale wind turbine consists of approximately 8,000 parts, including the foundation, tower, nacelle and blades. The construction of these towers requires extensive use of concrete and steel. The foundation of a single tower may require 600 to 1,000 tons of concrete and 165 tons of steel. To obtain these materials, significant mining operations must be undertaken, consuming huge amounts of petroleum products and electricity, thus negating the “green” aspect of this technology.

Moreover, the installation of these turbines often requires land clearing, which leads to deforestation and destruction of wildlife habitats. Wind turbines are known for their negative impact on both human life through noise and visual pollution, and on wildlife, especially birds and bats, which can be fatally injured by the blades.

The economic benefits of wind turbines accrue primarily to landowners who receive remuneration for locating these facilities 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.

The manufacturing process, focusing on the blades, is very complex. It involves creating a large mold filled with dry fibers, which is then saturated with resin and heated to create hardened carbon fiber. A carbon “girder” or spine is added to provide stiffness and strength. The blades use balsa wood, sourced primarily from Ecuador and Peru, to provide light structural support. The high demand for balsa wood has led to increased logging of the Amazon rainforest, often without proper consultation or consent of local indigenous communities.

Composite materials such as fiberglass and carbon fiber from which blades are made are difficult to recycle due to their mixed composition. While these materials are durable and wear-resistant, their disposal poses a significant environmental challenge, with many retired blades ending up in landfills.

Wind turbine blades are also getting larger, and the average rotor diameter has increased significantly between 1999 and 2021. Despite this increase in size and efficiency, the environmental footprint remains significant. Wind power currently produces about two percent of the world’s energy, emitting four tons of greenhouse gases. By comparison, solar energy accounts for 1% of global energy production but generates 5 tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nuclear power, which produces four percent of the world’s energy, emits three tons of greenhouse gases.

These numbers challenge the perception of wind and solar energy as a completely benign alternative to fossil fuels. While they play a key role in our transition to sustainable energy, it is necessary to consider the environmental costs associated with their production and disposal.

Peter Crawshay-Williams, Mount Colliery.

Avoid nuclear energy:

Peter Dutton and the LNP are calling on Australians to consider nuclear power across the country and in the Southern Downs as an alternative to wind and solar power.

Maybe in a few generations this will happen.

But considering that Fukushima has the same disaster level as Chernobyl and still emits radiation over a large area, maybe we should make it more widespread.

Cheap tickets to Japan don’t seem so cheap. Cheap nuclear energy doesn’t seem that cheap either.

Floods, cyclones and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns mean that nuclear power has a long way to go before we can consider it a safe alternative.

I’m happy to wait until we can throw a banana peel into the tank of our nuclear car and go back to the future. We have a long road ahead of us.

In the meantime, let’s create a safe environment for our children and grandchildren.

Jo Nehmer, Warwick.