‘Renewable’ power a contradiction

James Feuilherade, Sale


RECENTLY, pamphlets were postbox dropped about the latest renewables scheme – to build a wind farm off what is one of the most beautiful segments of coast, to my mind in Australia, let alone Victoria.

Firstly, “renewables” is a contradiction in terms. It takes the mining of around 200 tons of mineral ore, to produce a wind turbine.

An electric car uses 70 per cent more copper wiring than a petrol driven car.

Black coal and sand, combined at high temperatures, are required to form the silica for a solar panel – not to mention all the aluminium framing and wiring.

Recently, the movie by the arch ‘progressive’ (another contradiction in terms) Michael Moore, debunked the renewables hoax.

Boy, has it gone quiet on that in the news media.

Well, I can’t put it better than what one commentator stated in Mr Moore’s doco: “With the damage caused to the environment producing solar panels and wind turbines, you would be better off just burning the fossil fuel”.

Not only is producing them an issue, it’s funny how very little is said on what happens when they are time-expired.

For example, I have seen a picture of a large pile of 80-foot long wind turbine blades, lying in a landfill site, discarded because they are time-expired.

Like many an aircraft part, they only are allowed to operate for a certain time period, then have to be discarded for safety reasons to ensure they don’t critically fail in operation.

These blades are not biodegradable, being made largely of carbon fibres.

If damaged, bonding decayed by time or fire damaged or broken, release tiny lengths of carbon fibres which when breathed in, are deadly to the lungs.

The other studies I would like to see would involve issues surrounding power cable corridors being cleared (more environmental carnage) and resistance transmission of electrical currents (if the turbines are turning slowly, would they even be generating anything?).

I just find it difficult to believe his project really is viable, given offshore construction and maintenance costs.

The other thing often tactfully avoided is discussion on the number of seabirds killed by wind turbine blades.

I actually had a so-called greenie roll his eyes and say “not the old sea bird argument again”.

What a pity Bob Brown doesn’t live near Wilsons Promontory, so he can also protest and stop this wind farm.

The renewable argument is deeply flawed, as are those people who stand to make millions out of ‘renewables’. They are anything but.

Last but not least, there’s the nuclear option.

Used by many advanced economy countries worldwide, with new-age computer control and now being about the size of a 60- foot container, they are ironically, true “green” power and have more generating power in one small reactor than a thousand wind farms – especially when the wind isn’t blowing.

The fact we can’t even talk about nuclear in this country, with our economy so badly damaged by COVID-19 is immature and juvenile.