Conservation group logos. Source Climate Council, fair use, low resolution image to identify the subject.

Nature Conservation Groups Demand More Renewable Energy Transmission Lines

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Environmentalists pimping for wholesale destruction, concrete and clear felling of vast corridors of wilderness and farmland, to succour the renewable energy beast.

THERE CAN BE NO CLIMATE ACTION WITHOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY TRANSMISSION LINES

JOINT STATEMENT  14/12/21

Renewable energy transmission lines are essential to reducing pollution, protecting climate and preserving nature.

Replacing fossil-fuels with renewables is essential to avoid the worst impacts of global warming and keep our communities safe.

It’s a big task that will require replacing all coal-fired power stations with renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydro, backed by storage, this decade. To do so successfully, we need renewable energy transmission lines to plug our homes, schools and workplaces into this cleaner and cheaper power source.

In this critical moment, one of the biggest barriers to replacing fossil fuels with renewables is transforming our electricity grid from one centred around coal regions, to one centred around wind and solar regions.

Not all of us can install solar panels on roofs. Our energy-intensive industries as well as our hospitals, trains, and essential services all require high volumes of electricity to continue operating. The rise of electric vehicles will see a dramatic increase in energy demand. On top of that, more industries that traditionally relied on oil and gas are electrifying so they can reduce emissions.

That’s why we need renewable energy transmission lines to carry high volumes of new, renewable energy generation from areas rich in sun and wind to where we need power. This will support our energy transformation; help us meet our international obligations that aim to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees; and keep our communities, natural environment, and endangered species safe from climate change.

Not acting on climate will result in a deeper crisis for the people and the planet. We are already seeing extreme weather events take a toll on farming and regional communities. Climate change is one of the biggest drivers for species extinctions, a crisis that is accelerating and needs to be halted and reversed.

There can be no renewable energy transition without transmission.

While coal and gas-fired power stations are still the largest source of emissions, our energy transformation is already well underway. Energy investors and consumers are increasingly prioritising clean and cheap renewable energy over polluting fossil fuels. Coal-fired power is likely to leave the national electricity grid by the mid-2030s, if not earlier.

To continue replacing coal as well as oil and gas, we need to build new and expanded transmission lines to carry reliable, affordable, renewable energy to our homes, schools and workplaces.

Right now, many transmission lines are at full capacity and cannot connect new renewables projects into the system, which means the renewables transition is slowing down, not speeding up. And there’s a risk that challenges in building renewable energy transmission lines could further delay the energy transformation we need. The Australian Energy Market Operator—the body responsible for managing our electricity network—has identified the transmission lines that must proceed to connect Renewable Energy Zones already underway and meet our energy needs. Some of these lines are already well into planning.

However, this is not happening fast enough. The timelines for planning and building the required transmission lines do not currently stack up against what is needed to act in line with keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees and avoid the worst climate impacts.

It’s been decades since we last built transmission line projects of this scale in Australia. Doing so will require strong coordination between state and federal governments, energy market bodies, regulators, and transmission companies. Planning processes must involve a greater role for regional communities and First Nations groups.

If we do this right, all of us can benefit.

Our energy transformation must be fair and provide opportunities for regional Australians in locations with planned renewable energy transmission lines.

Building renewable energy transmission lines will unlock jobs and economic development, especially in our regions. We call on governments and transmission companies to procure as much locally manufactured green steel and components for transmission lines as possible to maximise the number of regional jobs created by these large renewable energy projects. Government investment in training to prepare our workforce for the task ahead is needed.

Benefits for regional communities also include further local jobs and opportunities that come as a result of new wind, solar, storage, and renewable hydrogen industries that new transmission lines will enable.

Farmers and other landholders hosting transmission lines, wind turbines and solar panels on their land receive payments, which are already considered a welcome way to diversify farming income. We call on governments to ensure transmission line payments are fair and enable all farms to continue to be productive underneath renewable energy transmission lines.

Where transmission lines are built along existing easements and government land, improvements to local amenity such as bike paths, low-growing biodiversity corridors and gardens should be planned in collaboration with the local community. 

Communities hosting transmission lines must be involved in planning to ensure local impacts are minimised and genuine benefits achieved. These processes must uphold stringent standards of biodiversity protection and environmental impact mitigation. Transmission companies have a responsibility to ensure that the people who are directly impacted including Traditional Owner groups and local environmental groups are active participants in the planning process. 

State and federal governments, energy market bodies, regulators and industry must work together to build renewable energy transmission lines fairly and in line with the pace required to meet international climate obligations.

As leading climate and environment organisations, we support the fair and timely rollout of renewable energy transmission lines. These projects will help protect our environment, our ecosystems, our species, our regional communities, our precious places, as well as our towns and cities from the threat of climate change.

Signed, 

The Climate Council

The Australian Conservation Foundation

Environment Victoria

RE-Alliance

Solar Citizens

The Queensland Conservation Council

Nature Conservation Council (NSW)

Friends of the Earth MelbourneBy Climate Council  /  14 December 2021

Source: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/transmission-joint-statement/ (Tim Flannery’s Group)

Have you ever read anything more disgusting? Groups charged with preserving and protecting the wilderness, who raise money from people on the promise that money will be used to protect nature, vigorously campaigning for a vast network of power line corridors to be bulldozed across the landscape, so even more of the landscape can be cleared and lined with metal and concrete renewable energy installations?

Why do these green groups hate nature so much, that they would call for such wholesale destruction?

For shame.

4.8 16 votes
Article Rating
106 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bill Johnston
December 14, 2021 6:05 pm

Ron White became a philosopher when he stated “you can’t fix stupid”.

Mr.
Reply to  bill Johnston
December 14, 2021 6:36 pm

That’s not the problem.

These people aren’t stupid in any way.

What they are is DISHONEST.

They are quite capable of reading and comprehending all the published physics, engineering and economics of wind & solar, and so they must have arrived at the same conclusions as all rational people – the stated goals are totally unachievable.

BUT, these charlatans just persist with their perfidy for their own benefit.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mr.
December 14, 2021 7:16 pm

Renewable Transmission…hmmm…is that when you use the energy created by 1 wind turbine to turn a fan that causes the next turbine to operate?

Bill Powers
Reply to  Mr.
December 15, 2021 8:09 am

I consider myself a conservationist and I think of that old commercial of the Native American Indian crying at the sight of polluted streams when I encounter these growing wind farms blighting the landscape and killing wildlife.

Renewable energy is a socio/economic religion built and run by the faceless cultural elite and has nothing whatsoever to do with conservation unless you understand that its intent is to restrict developing nations from increasing fossil fuel use to conserve it for the elites to fuel their private planes and yachts and electrify their multiple McMansions. In order to get the 3rd worlders to play along the developed nations need to get their populations under thumb.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Mr.
December 15, 2021 11:49 am

Lobbyists leveraging “groups” is the new way to get ratepayers and taxpayers to pay for the heavy lifting on transmission costs that benefits the few special interests that use that new transmission to nowhere.

TonyL
Reply to  bill Johnston
December 14, 2021 6:57 pm

you can’t fix stupid

1) No, but duct tape muffles the sound.
2) Try Napalm.

n.n
Reply to  bill Johnston
December 14, 2021 10:13 pm

The Green Blight of intermittent/unreliables products is a for-profit enterprise with empathetic appeal. Stupid is the consumer, not investor, not peddler, that follows the cargo cult in lieu of science, in a politically congruent (“=”) climate.

Mike Lyons
Reply to  bill Johnston
December 16, 2021 8:26 pm

Stupid is definitely a renewable resource. If we could harness the stupid we could power the universe.

Steve Case
December 14, 2021 6:36 pm

 We are already seeing extreme weather events take a toll on farming and regional communities.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Bullshit

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Steve Case
December 14, 2021 7:22 pm

Well, it’s not bullshit at all. It’s just redirection.

Yes, extreme weather events are impacting farming and regional communities. They are impacting cities too. They pretty much always have done in this continent, and probably will do for centuries until we work out how to control the weather.

The misdirection part is claiming that it hasn’t always happened, and that it’s because of CO2. That implication definitely is bullshit.

Steve Case
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 14, 2021 7:36 pm

High road low road.

AndyHce
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 14, 2021 11:51 pm

To control the weather, drain the planet of atmosphere.

Reply to  AndyHce
December 15, 2021 12:17 am

Starting with the carbon dioxide.

Waza
Reply to  Steve Case
December 14, 2021 9:26 pm

Steve highlighted statement is not only bullshit but a disgrace.

Green marxists don’t give a f… about farmers. They want farmers to disappear.

Likewise, they want to cry about the impact of extra bushfires on rural communities, but have no intention of allowing increased clearing.
They don’t want people to live in the bush.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Steve Case
December 15, 2021 4:27 am

strange how the warm/wet summer here in MA resulted in my apple and pear trees to be so productive- more than ever- that the branches all bent to the ground and almost broke with the largest, nicest fruit I’ve ever seen

Gerry, England
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 15, 2021 6:01 am

While in my corner of England the frosts in April pretty much wiped out everything.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Gerry, England
December 15, 2021 7:48 am

Climate change will do that, while global warming won’t…

Oldseadog
Reply to  Gerry, England
December 15, 2021 10:50 am

In my corner of Scotland too.

December 14, 2021 6:54 pm

There is an option to unreliable energy production. The old faithful 24/7/365 fossil fuel electricity. They say it is the CO2, so let’s eliminate the CO2. The Sidel Carbon Capture Utilization System is not like other carbon capture systems. Our Sidel CCU System “”Saves Money and Makes Money” by converting the CO2 into valuable, natural, salable by-products. Every ton of CO2 Captured and Removed becomes Profit.
A coal fired power plant with a Sidel CCU System will emit much less CO2 into the atmosphere than a natural gas power plant would.
How many good paying jobs could be revived? And the agricultural community will also greatly benefit.

Steve Case
Reply to  Sid Abma
December 14, 2021 7:04 pm

Our Sidel CCU System “”Saves Money and Makes Money” by converting the CO2 into valuable, natural, salable by-products. Every ton of CO2 Captured and Removed becomes Profit.
_____________________________________________________________________

That deserves a one word response, see my post above.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Sid Abma
December 14, 2021 7:25 pm

the agricultural community will also greatly benefit.

How? By selling them CO2 to improve their crop yields.

Or, we could just cut out the middleman Sid, and let the CO2 flow naturally to the crops for free!

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 14, 2021 7:47 pm

I believe farmers can make a handsome return by leasing land for wind turbines i.e. by joining the rent-seeking crowd.

Dennis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 14, 2021 8:40 pm

I hope for the farmer’s that they signed contracts that require the business owners to remove their assets from site when they reach retirement and make good the land by removing the foundations.

And I wonder how many farmers failed to consider the maybe twenty year working life, plus or minus a few years?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dennis
December 15, 2021 4:33 am

I doubt any turbine foundations will ever be removed. It would be very expensive. There are some YouTube videos showing the construction of the foundations.

Megs
Reply to  Dennis
December 21, 2021 3:23 am

As a region that falls in the Renewable Energy Zone we are fighting wind and solar projects on a continual basis. We help others too. We spoke at a panel last week against a 12MW solar project in the Riverina. The Developer had stated that the development would last 50 years! Of course we challenged him. He also admitted that the decommissioning would be the responsibility of the landholders. I think they convince the farmers that there is money to be made from recycling the ‘valuable’ materials. What goes on is a disgrace! The landholder of this particular development is in her nineties. We defeated this development, but the large State significant projects are much more difficult. You have to have at least 50 unique submissions for these to speak before a panel. Petitions are not accepted, nor are template submissions. Not an easy task for towns with small populations. Even protected and endangered species won’t stop a project, the Developer’s simply purchase certificates to absolve themselves of any responsibility in regard to the future of the animals affected.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 15, 2021 4:31 am

Here in MA, some of the biggest forest owners- forestry industry people with thousands of acres- are rushing to destroy their forests for the vast profits from solar “farms”- several thousand dollars per acre per year for the duration of the contract.

Peter W
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 15, 2021 5:05 am

I am certain those “solar farms” will be extremely productive during the short days of winter when they are covered with snow.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Peter W
December 15, 2021 5:08 am

I should have explained- the vast profits those forest owners are going to get isn’t from the production of electricity- it’s from the vast subsidies and tax breaks the companies installing them will get and some of that goes back to the land owner leasing the land. It’s just a huge scam.

Sommer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 17, 2021 11:29 am

 “It’s just a huge scam.”
Why are people not questioning the financiers’ of these wind projects hidden motives? If the loans are not paid because of unforeseen economic instability, then the collateral, which is the farmland and whatever else was thrown into the deal(roads and road allowances), can be seized.
Could this not become an orchestrated ‘land grab’?

gringojay
Reply to  Sid Abma
December 14, 2021 7:26 pm

This reads like an un-paid advertisement & the website is just as vague.

Steve Case
Reply to  gringojay
December 14, 2021 8:06 pm

I think you are zackly right.

MarkW
Reply to  Sid Abma
December 14, 2021 8:25 pm

After taking a couple of months off Sid shows up again to resume peddling his solution that doesn’t work for a problem that never existed.

What’s the matter Sid, running out of suckers money?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Sid Abma
December 15, 2021 2:24 pm

Mods – Spam alert

TonyL
December 14, 2021 6:55 pm

For Australia, the problem is simple, so simple it practically solves itself.
The vast majority of electrical usage is the urban areas. In Aus., the large majority of the population lives in and around these urban areas. Aus. can avoid the long haul transmission lines altogether, and sidestep transmission losses. A win-win solution.

Simply build the wind and solar farms in the suburbs surrounding the urban areas.
Easy, problem solved.
The Australians voted for it, they should get it. Good and hard.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  TonyL
December 14, 2021 7:28 pm

Agreed. A wind turbine on every street corner.

In a win/win, it would instantly solve the house price problem! My son was amazed that the 9 acre block next to me was up for sale for $370k. He couldn’t believe that the price was so low. He lives in Sydney, and a parking space will cost you half a million there.

Last edited 11 months ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Dennis
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 14, 2021 8:44 pm

Definitely need wind turbines along the beach fronts from Many to northern beaches beyond.

sarc.

LdB
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
December 14, 2021 11:32 pm

I vote we put them in the backyard or roof of every inner city green voter.

Dennis
Reply to  TonyL
December 14, 2021 8:43 pm

Yes, and you reminded me about Labor and Green election campaigns opposing nuclear power stations and asking voters if they would want to have one near their home backyards.

It fascinated me that some voters took that seriously and obviously they are too poorly informed to know where the coal fired power stations are located in the countryside.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Dennis
December 14, 2021 10:17 pm

Same sort of people who would went insane when it was suggested building a nuclear waste dump roughly 300km from the nearest population centre, but were also completely oblivious to the fact that large amounts of nuclear waste is already being stored under much less controlled conditions at locations all through the suburban areas.

Spoiler! Not all ‘Nuclear Waste’ is bright green and glowing slime. Had an X-ray at any time of your life? If yes you are already part of the Nuclear Waste problem.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Craig from Oz
December 15, 2021 6:41 pm

G’Day Craig,

“Had an X-ray at any time of your life? If yes you are already part of the Nuclear Waste problem.”

It was about 1985, Westinghouse wanted to build a “Nuclear Waste Storage” facility in Beaumont, California. Those who attended the City Council meeting to debate the application were about 80% opposed. I don’t recall hearing the expression “Dump Site”, but that was the general feeling in town.

Silly thing is, their federal license was for less radioactive material than the local hospital was permitted.

It was built, and I got to spend about three months working there.

(I was working as a tax preparer at the time, so May to August was ‘free time’. I was registered with two temporary employment agencies – managed to learn something about a number of different industries – fun, and educational.)

Pflashgordon
Reply to  TonyL
December 14, 2021 10:38 pm

I’ve been saying this for years. Let the cities generate their own wind power and live with the consequences.

80F757F9-F385-4788-8960-71B7A7B1F979.jpeg
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  TonyL
December 15, 2021 4:34 am

There should be a 500′ tall wind turbine build on every urban street. I’m sure the locals will love them.

Sommer
Reply to  TonyL
December 17, 2021 11:31 am

This needs to happen in Ontario as well. How about siting turbines and their infrastructure so it’s surrounding Toronto?

Tom
December 14, 2021 7:00 pm

In short, in order to power the world on Unicorn farts, we need to capture more Unicorns.

Smart Rock
December 14, 2021 7:01 pm

I saw “storage” and “hydrogen” but the omission of “nuclear” indicates that these people are attracted to technologies that either don’t exist, or don’t yet exist in commercially viable forms, while simultaneously ignoring a proven, clean and reliable source of baseload power.

At least they appreciate that electricity needs actual wires to get to market. So there might be a spark of intelligence there.

Curiously, I’ve never before seen the term “First Nations” used outside of Canada. We’ve been hearing it for so long that it’s become part of the common vocabulary, but IMHO seeing it used in this context doesn’t bode particularly well for future resource developments in the land down under. As an aside, up here it’s applied exclusively to the very diverse peoples who used to be called “Indians” and not to the other indigenous ethnic group, the Inuit, who used to be called “Eskimos”

Dennis
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 14, 2021 8:52 pm

The Australian Aborigines migrated to the land now called Australia from at least two directions, via what is now Indonesia’s islands and Papua New Guinea that was joined to Australia at the time.

They consisted of at least 250 small tribal groups and with many languages and dialects spoken but apparently shared many beliefs including “dreamtime” or the past people and caring for the land they passed on, that is a very simple explanation and I have been told that people who were not born into the tribes and taught cannot easily understand dreamtime.

First Nations was adopted by the indigenous people of Australia in modern times, copying Canadians. Australian Aborigines tend to adopt many things as their own creation including, for example, dot paintings that is a modern technique taught to the indigenous people. I am not criticising them just setting the record straight. Their ancestors are fascinating and resourceful people and from my research they could not have survived here for at least 65,000 years if they were not.

Mike
Reply to  Dennis
December 14, 2021 9:43 pm

Their ancestors are fascinating and resourceful people and from my research they could not have survived here for at least 65,000 years if they were not.”

Indeed, but how exactly did they go about…...”caring for the land they passed on?

Dennis
Reply to  Mike
December 14, 2021 10:15 pm

Around 130,000 years ago the land now called Australia was a different shape and joined to other lands such as the now many islands of Indonesia, Papua and New Guinea. And the land was covered with rainforest. Gradually the climate changed and became hotter and drier, the rainforests retreated and today cover about 3 per cent of the land, eucalyptus replaced rainforests and could tolerate warmer and drier conditions, and flooding rains in between droughts.

About 65,000 years ago migrants arrived and settled and obviously observed the seasons and the conditions generally and learned how to survive. One survival risk was bushfires, natural bushfires that eucalypts thrive on. The migrants adapted and noted that the fires cleared the undergrowth and litter on the ground making life for them easier and safer. They developed their now traditional seasonal rotational burning of the land.

By season when the prevailing winds and other weather conditions were right fires were lit that would burn towards previously burnt areas or patches and be extinguished because of the lack of fuel. This resulted in cooler fire conditions, it promoted growth of eucalyptus and grasses and attracted game for hunting not too far from tribal camp sites. And the camp sites were also changed with seasons to take advantage of “bush tucker” natural plant food sources. And water supplies.

So they cared for by managing the land. Of course there were rugged or remote areas they ignored and from time to time out of control bushfires were experienced but mostly not always a danger for the people living in managed areas.

Season burning tradition has been revived in Western Australia Pilbara Region and Northern Australia Kakadu National Park by indigenous Rangers using modern equipment and working with other Australian Rangers. From memory the revival started in WA a couple of decades ago.

AndyHce
Reply to  Mike
December 15, 2021 12:16 am

They fertilized it with the bodies of those who could not pay for their own upkeep.

Last edited 11 months ago by AndyHce
Andre Thomas Lewis
Reply to  Mike
December 15, 2021 4:48 pm

In Oz every time a new story about aboriginal life emerges the length of time they claim to have lived here lengthens. It went from 35-40,000 years less than a decade ago to 65,000 years lately. No evidence whatsoever of aboriginal people living on the continent that long ago exists and yet it is regularly published as though it is scientific truth.

Ron Long
Reply to  Smart Rock
December 15, 2021 1:44 am

Right about “storage”, a word that appears only once. This rush to green lunacy basically skipped over the need for tremendous battery storage, at either end of their transmission lines, for times when the sun is not effective (60%?) and the wind does not blow (50%?). The battery storage issue still dominates the lunatic greenie scenario presented by bought-and-paid-for environmentalists.

garboard
Reply to  Ron Long
December 15, 2021 4:51 am

pv electricity generation is cheap . pv electricity storage : mind numbingly expensive .

Dennis G Sandberg
December 14, 2021 7:15 pm

There’s a clear divide in the global warming/climate change community church but they all sing from the same hymnal.

Group 1, those millions tied in some way to the grant seeking, campaign funds seeking, wind and solar mining, processing, selling, installing, dismantling, and landfilling gravy train that can only keep chugging along with investment tax credits, mandates, grid priority and a whole host of other incentives. Fundamental to the perpetuation of the hoax is credibility from the UN IPCC claiming that the only thing that can save the planet is a huge carbon tax. (Dishonest)

Group 2, those millions of low information voters that believe the drivel from the Group 1 gable, that are frightened by the climate fraudster claims. Not everyone has the critical thinking skills and the STEM background to see through the nonsense. (Dumb)

Group 3, those millions that believe sunshine and breezes can power a modern society and the proof is in their (toxic) rooftop solar panels that lowered their power bills (by raising all other ratepayer’s billings and or confiscating taxpayer funds) and “knowing” that sunshine and breezes are free! As the saying goes, it’s not what you know or don’t know that gets you in trouble it’s what you “know” that’s wrong. (Delusional)

Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 14, 2021 8:01 pm

But there is a Group 4. It is very large. It indicated its presence in the results of the UN MyWorld 2015 survey. Somewhere around 930 million people of all walks of life from all round the world who collectively put “climate change” at the bottom of the list. 50th place. These may well keep quiet about what they think, as they risk vilification, loss of employment and personal attacks if they don’t. Then there are those of us in Group 5, who do know it is the biggest scam ever inflicted on the human race and are not afraid to say so, or else just know when they are being lied to. This includes young people who have had this nonsense shoved down their throats nearly all their lives. Skepticism, and the principle of independent investigation of truth, is hard-wired in some of us.

AndyHce
Reply to  Martin Clark
December 15, 2021 12:20 am

It is only a bigger scam than previous large scale scams in that it is being applied to a larger, more wealthy population from whom the scammers can rake in a bigger take.

Chris Hanley
December 14, 2021 7:34 pm

‘Nuclear power stations are not appropriate for Australia’ – Climate Council.
‘Speak out for a nuclear free future’ – Australian Conservation Foundation.
‘Nuclear power – an unnecessary risk’ – Environment Victoria.
‘Australians don’t want nuclear power in Australia’ – Queensland Conservation Council director Dave Copeman.
‘No nukes for NSW’ – (NSW) Nature Conservation Council.
‘Nuclear Power – No Solution to Climate Change’ – Friends of the Earth.
The reasoning behind Re-Alliance and Solar Citizens is opaque but they probably have some connection with industries marketing and installing wind and solar hardware.
Since nuclear power is the only viable low CO2 emission alternative to fossil fuels (apart from hydro) those organizations cannot be genuinely concerned about so-called climate change.

Last edited 11 months ago by Chris Hanley
Dennis
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 14, 2021 8:54 pm

Primary reason – consider that Australian Greens are to the left of international greenism.

They do not want Australia to exploit Uranium and Nuclear anything.

Damon
December 14, 2021 7:44 pm

At least one source of ‘green’ jobs will be picking up the dead birds and bats underneath the wind turbines.

Dennis
Reply to  Damon
December 14, 2021 8:56 pm

It amused me a couple of years ago when the founder and former leader of Greens Australia, Bob Brown, protested about a plan to erect wind turbines in forest near his home in Tasmania, he said the installation would ruin the environment and views.

Consider the article published here recently about wind turbines in North Queensland and the environmental damage there, and ask where was Bob?

AndyHce
Reply to  Damon
December 15, 2021 12:23 am

No, those decomposing bodies are part of the long term plan to make the areas viable for life once the wind turbines are dead, rusted, and carried away on the winds that once turned them.

markl
December 14, 2021 8:27 pm

Makes sense, renewable electricity is different than fossil fuel generated electricity and requires unadulterated transmission lines to deliver. The extra distance will also help further purify the renewable electricity.

Dennis
Reply to  markl
December 14, 2021 8:58 pm

Various electricity businesses offer customers “green energy” for a surcharge, I want to know how a customer can identify the supply of green energy they paid for?

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Dennis
December 14, 2021 9:40 pm

I invented the quantum energy meter. Conventional electricity the electrons spin clockwise but renewable ones go CCW

$1000 each plus installation
Every house must buy

Send money

AndyHce
Reply to  Dennis
December 15, 2021 12:25 am

By which color LEDs glow the brightest when powered with it.

Peter W
Reply to  Dennis
December 15, 2021 5:14 am

By how unreliable it is.

Dennis
December 14, 2021 8:37 pm

Several years ago the first of the Commonwealth of Australia Federation of States members, South Australia, and at the time governed by Labor and the first to demolish coal fired power stations and promote wind and solar installations with subsidies, permitted so called renewable energy business sites to construct feeder transmission lines to the main grid that did not meet the standard required and as a result many pylons were brought down by storms causing widespread electricity failure.

Bernie
December 14, 2021 8:56 pm

Here is a remarkable story from the (Aus) ABC that reinforces your article.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-12/queensland-wind-farms-clearing-bushland/100683198

Peta of Newark
December 14, 2021 9:15 pm

While reading the ‘Norway’ story here (yesterday), it dawned about moving power around.
Seemingly Norway Folks use 4kW each – 24/7/365
For Norway = not any big deal because they’re ain’t many of them

Bring that to the UK and you get a draw of 280 GWatts – make that 300 by time 30 million electric cars are ‘on the road’
That is five times bigger than what the UK grid can presently move around

How, Is. That. Ever. Going. To. Happen

Next: A minor point that always gets my goat is the ‘jobs’ aspect….

1a) Any all previous renewable job schemes here in the UK have done was create an army of Fly-by-Night cowboy installers. They left behind epic amounts of shoddy work, that cost the taxpayer dearly and with no insurance or warranties on that tat
In the case of ‘insulation’ (cladding esp) we’re now landed with a bill of ten times its original cost in order to get rid of it.

1b) As I said in 1a, ‘jobs’ were created but they were only ever ‘unnecessary jobs’
They were installing low-efficiency power systems to replace high-efficiency (fossil) systems that simply didn’t need or have room for those jobs.
=The Broken Window Fallacy at full speed ahead but with the added twist that the new windows only let in ¼ of the light (windmills) or one tenth for solar panels AND only have a fraction of the life expectancy

The World Has Gone Mad

PS Farming changes Weather – simply ask any farmer why he owns and uses a plough and he will tell you it is to:
Kill unwanted herbage that would compete with his crop but mainly to dry out and warm up the soil
…of his intended seed-bed so that his seeds and thus crop grows sooner faster stronger.
Basically he attempts to move his field to lower latitude – expecting to find a nicer climate there

Repeat that many times over and Ma Nature ‘gets the hint’ and saves the farmer his trouble – she makes him a desert
= Constant nice warm dry soil and no weeds. Perfect and think of all the diesel saved..

It has happened over and over and over throughout the last 10,000 years but the Wilfully Blind amongst us claim that:
Natural Variation wiped out The So-and-So People of Outer So-and-So Land

Ma Nature also knows that you can’t fix stupid – except with a plough strangely enough
Ma Nature’s ‘plough’ is oft referred to as Ice Age

“wrap up warm” I might say but, Stupid People don’t (want to) listen

Tell me why I should care….

Last edited 11 months ago by Peta of Newark
Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Peta of Newark
December 14, 2021 9:42 pm

In Norway the grid is set up to keep the trolls in

Saw that in a great Norwegian movie, Trollhunter

December 14, 2021 9:21 pm

reliable, affordable, renewable energy ” A classic oxymoron

gringojay
Reply to  StuM
December 14, 2021 9:39 pm

The missive was voted on whereby all those in favor told to “raise your hand”.

0E84CEBE-799F-4AAC-8C87-0CF995713373.png
observa
December 14, 2021 9:41 pm

China is sticking with large hub and spoke coal rather than all the spaghetti and meatballs destruction-
China coal output hits record in Nov to ensure winter supply (msn.com)

Not to mention the disgusting colonization of first peoples’ lands and covering up the Dreamtime and all their sacred sites-
Fortescue and Alinta switch on Australia’s biggest solar farm outside of main grids | RenewEconomy
Absolute bare minimum 20squ metres of Gaia covered by solar panels for every kW these virtue signalling yuppies and Bollockswood types require to fuel their Teslas. It’s quite clear solar panels are racist.

Rod Evans
December 14, 2021 10:28 pm

Well, it brings a whole new and real meaning to the term Dreamtime I guess?

Redge
December 14, 2021 10:35 pm

Why do these green groups hate nature so much, 

It’s not just nature they hate. They hate man, life, everything including themselves

They’re a doomsday cult

niceguy
December 14, 2021 10:45 pm

Some time ago, one of the most frequent argument for “renewable energy” (esp. in France, compared to nukes) was proximity, less transmission losses, less high voltage lines, less diseases (high voltage lines being suspected of causing many diseases esp. childhood leukemia).

Russell
December 14, 2021 10:52 pm

I’m not sure you have all the story here. When I was involved in acquiring corridors for transmission lines, all these same clans would be opposed and one of their regular chants was that they needed to be installed UNDERGROUND. FYI at about 5-10 times the costs. But when you are spending other people’s money … wait for it …

Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 14, 2021 11:09 pm

I am confused – I thought that hydro power could not be counted as renewable, yet in this article it is.

Also, where is that “reliable, affordable, renewable energy“? Reliable renewable?

AndyHce
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 15, 2021 12:34 am

consider Baptists churches. I’m not sure just what they call the divisions but there are many different Baptists, most sure they and only they have the one correct answer. EVERY religion has its internal conflicts about the true word and true path.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 15, 2021 4:38 am

woody biomass is reliable, affordable and renewable and it, for free, emits plant food :-}

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
December 15, 2021 6:09 am

When they need to bolster their “renewables” numbers, they include hydro. Otherwise, not. The Cargo Cult of Carbon have so many ways of lying. And the lies often contradict one another, but that doesn’t stop them.

griff
December 15, 2021 1:16 am

‘clear felling of vast corridors of wilderness’.

Oh come on: what is the width of a pylon line or underground cable?

Besides these days a lot of them are run along coasts, under water.

griff
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 15, 2021 6:07 am

so you are, I take it, a paid up member of campaigns against US/Canadian oil pipelines, with their potentially leakable and inflammable and landscape scarring potential?

Mr.
Reply to  griff
December 15, 2021 8:39 am

The alternative to transporting oil from fixed geographic sites to port destinations is road or rail.
Pipelines are the most practical, secure, efficient and economical means of achieving the necessary transportation of oil from source.

Oil is a naturally occurring resource.
Wind farms are an unnatural construct , sited wherever developers can stick them.

Last edited 11 months ago by Mr.
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  griff
December 15, 2021 2:41 pm

Pipelines are way safer than the current mode of transport: rail or road.
You need to try a lot harder Griff.

Dan DeLong
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 15, 2021 10:39 am

At least in the US, cross country buried pipelines are on aeronautical charts for the same reason. The land above them is clear cut and pipeline tracking airplanes inspect them for leakage on a regular basis.

Graeme#4
Reply to  griff
December 15, 2021 2:35 am

Eric is correct. Aussie bushfires can jump 500 metre gaps easily, so transmission line clearances through forests are very wide. And at A$2.4m for every kilometre, these lines are VERY expensive. It’s interesting that no private company attempts to finance them – they are very dependent on government subsidies.

TonyG
Reply to  griff
December 15, 2021 12:19 pm

damn, griff, do you even exist on the same plane of reality as everyone else?

“run along coasts” doesn’t do a thing for people not on the coast.

And “how wide” – you DO realize they have to clear WIDE paths in order for the lines to be safe? Have you ever SEEN a real power line?

That comment goes way beyond ignorant.

glenn holdcroft
December 15, 2021 1:27 am

Bureaucrats can plan whatever they like , who pays for it doesn’t matter .
The science is settled , bureaucrats are not scientists or engineers , just talkers .

Joseph Zorzin
December 15, 2021 4:43 am

“Nature Conservation Groups Demand More Renewable Energy Transmission Lines”
well, the people of the state of Maine voted against a really big transmission line to deliver Canadian hydro power to southern New England

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/11/03/science/maine-voters-reject-transmission-line-that-would-bring-clean-energy-mass/

“It’s not just Massachusetts that was closely watching the vote. Across the country, scores of large-scale clean energy transmission projects are poised to be built, but experts say it is likely that other projects will run into resistance that’s similar to what happened in Maine.”

Joseph Zorzin
December 15, 2021 5:58 am

The Boston Globe’s web version of the paper has a section devoted (with very strong devotion) to climate. The motto of this section is: “The climate crisis is now an emergency. We believe solutions must begin here, in our communities, state, and region. Globe journalism will shine light on obstacles to decisive action, illuminate paths toward solutions, and hold to account elected leaders responsible for guiding us to a better future.”

Obstacles like anyone challenging “the consensus”?? The elected leaders will guide us? Certainly not in Massachusetts, the most corrupt state in America. A better future? WTF?

Yesterday’s paper has the following climate story: “Climate change has destabilized the Earth’s poles, putting the rest of the planet in peril”.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/12/14/nation/climate-change-has-destabilized-earths-poles-putting-rest-planet-peril/

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 15, 2021 8:28 am

They are oblivious to the fact that the climate continues to improve since the last glaciation, which was only 80 centuries ago….

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 15, 2021 8:37 am

The climate here in MA has improved in the 50 years I’ve been a forester. I recall many winter days, back in the ’70s working in below zero F. Who needs that? This week here in MA, its mostly in the 40s and 50s F. The weathermen are saying how it’s way above “normal”. But I don’t know anyone complaining- or fearful that it’s some kind of crisis.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 15, 2021 8:33 am

my post above has the first quotes in the wrong place. The first part of that was my words, that is, “The Boston Globe’s web version of the paper has a section devoted (with very strong devotion) to climate. The motto of this section is:”

Jim Gorman
December 15, 2021 6:13 am

These folks have finally figured out that planning is essential to this effort but they are really behind the eightball now. Not only the HV lines need to be added, but distribution equipment needs to be added/upgraded. In our area, one distribution transformer support up to 6 homes. If each home upgrades to an additional 100 amp service, there is no way existing transformers will work. The residential distribution lines will also need upgrading. Substations will need replacement with new equipment. All of this needs to be planned, designed, ordered and installed. It’s too late already. I suspect we are talking a decade or more to get it all done. What happens when the end users convert to electric and the distribution grid won’t support it? Chaos!

John Bell
December 15, 2021 6:25 am

The more wind/solar installed… requires more things built using fossil fuels, and they think there will be some tipping point where you just do not need fossil fuels any more, no it will never happen.

Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2021 6:27 am

Oh my. So many lies, so little time. How does one choose? Starting at the beginning though, we have this doozy: “Renewable energy transmission lines are essential to reducing pollution, protecting climate and preserving nature.”
Yikes. That’s a three-fer. Wrong, wronger, and wrongerer. The only thing they are “essential for” is lining the pockets of Big Green, at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 15, 2021 8:32 am

Refrigerator sized nuclear reactors in everyone’s basement will solve the transmission line problem. We just need to allow some development time. /s

MJB
December 15, 2021 7:10 am

In order to protect it, we had to destroy it.

Olen
December 15, 2021 7:55 am

Who are the we they are referring to that need the power lines? Themselves, when they say we they always mean themselves. Has the general population has been consulted for approval or are they attempting this without approval? If so it is not representation.

Tim Gorman
December 15, 2021 8:17 am

from areas rich in sun and wind to where we need power”

What areas are these that are rich in sun and wind? Australia has three basic time zones. When it goes dark in the most west time zone it is not yet light in the most east time zone. Thus there is a period of dark and lower wind that can’t be avoided. The dark period is longer than the light period. That means you have less time to charge batteries than the time the batteries will be needed. Plus you have to charge the batteries *and* provide power to the grid during the day. Thus you need at least double the amount of wind and solar to handle the charging and power generation. It’s probably three times as much and even more.

It’s nonsense. Why don’t they just recommend we go back to candles at night with no electric lights or appliances? Kind of like pre-1900.

Last edited 11 months ago by Tim Gorman
lmo
December 15, 2021 11:28 am

procure as much locally manufactured green steel”

I don’t even know where to start with that.

Trying to Play Nice
December 16, 2021 4:23 am

These people all need psychiatric help.

Mike Lyons
December 16, 2021 8:23 pm

“We had to burn the village to save it.”

December 17, 2021 10:18 pm

Really what it amounts to is a massive new power industry gets governments to both capitalize it and force the populace to buy its product at higher prices with total disregard for the social and ecological damage.

Last edited 11 months ago by Mark Shulgasser
Peter
December 18, 2021 1:22 pm

There has been an issue with renewable energy farms building, and finding it difficult to connect to the grid, a problem when it’s not there to start with. The suggestion is to get the renewables speculators to pay for there own grid connection. This has been met with horror in some circles.

This is just a bid for more Government subsidies. Being Australia, there is a high chance they will get it.

%d bloggers like this: