My learned colleague, LVO, today argues that wind farms are environmentally destructive.
He makes some excellent points about their ecological footprint in land-clearing practices.
I would only counter by saying that most of Australia’s best wind resources are in pretty remote regions.
This raises the question of whether the wind resources will remain sufficient given the scale of energy needed.
The answer is very politicised, with skeptics like the IPA arguing one quarter of the landmass would need to be covered with turbines, while climate-friendly research concludes the area is a lousy 1200sqkm.
I don’t have the complete answer, but AEMO gives us a guide. Wind is expected to comprise about 15% of electricity production in a decarbonised network.
So, even in the IPA scenario, the utilised landmass is only 3.5% of the continental surface area and is probably much smaller.
That said, it offers little comfort to those who live in the area and dislike turbines. Ditto for 6000kms of expanded transmission networks.
Therefore, it is understandable that some parts of rural Australia resist the idea. However, even this is exaggerated in terms of impact.
The anticipated additions to the network do not appear burdensome overall.
Perhaps the view is obstructed, so it may be helpful to move over the hill.
As for carbon output, which is what this is all about, the total carbon output from wind farms (including construction, etc.) is a median of 11 g CO2-eq/kWh.
Coal-fired power is considerably higher. Gas is also higher, but it is a small component of the overall output. Nuclear is highly competitive.
I have no problem with considering nuclear energy as part of the solution. It even comes with the bonus option to weaponise if needed in the future.
I am concerned that the cost of a nuclear rollout will be prohibitive. These types of projects in Australia often experience significant cost overruns.
I also worry that the Dutton plan to use former coal sites for nuclear power is not electable, given resistance to it in affected electorates and Australians’ long-term resistance to the idea.
This means that any nuclear rollout may require funding for the construction of (10-20?) reactors and a comparable transmission network expansion to that for renewables, as the power stations are forced to remote regions, which could also lead to significant environmental damage.
Ultimately, the truth of this debate is more a matter of personal preferences about appearances, costs, and their impact on opinions than of rigid beliefs from either side.
