Is there anything good about wind and solar? They’re expensive, ruinously so, and they do little to help the environment: in fact, on almost every measure, they’re actively harmful to the environment.
Each turbine uses about two tonnes of nickel, most of it mined and processed in horrific conditions, for both human workers and the surrounding environment, for Chinese-owned companies based in Indonesia. The cement used in the bases involves massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. Then there’s the vast swathes of natural bushland bulldozed, including critical koala habitat and in national parks, to make way for turbines and transmission lines.
That’s just the start of the ecological catastrophe that’s wind turbines.
Birds and bats, often caught in the path of these massive blades, suffer fatal collisions. It is estimated that wind turbines in the US alone are responsible for the deaths of between 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year. Bats fare no better, with some studies suggesting that wind farms could claim over 600,000 bat lives annually.
Efforts to mitigate these impacts include strategically placing turbines in less populated bird and bat areas and deploying technology designed to detect and deter potential collisions.
In the case of bats, though, it isn’t likely collisions that are the big killer. Bat lungs are extremely susceptible to sudden changes in air pressure, called barotrauma. Quite simply, the changes in air pressure around wind turbines bursts their lungs, causing them to drown in their own blood. A Canadian study found that 90 per cent of bats found dead at a wind farm had died from barotrauma rather than external injuries.
Solar farms are also destructive to not just the natural environment, but rural communities. Bushfire hazards from solar farms and ‘big battery’ installations are just one hazard.
Former Queensland government principal botanist Jeanette Kemp said there would be “considerable backlash’’ if the general public was fully aware of the extent of land clearing and fragmentation of valuable habitat to make way for some wind farms in Queensland […]
Communities in renewable energy zones in NSW and Victoria have long voiced concerns about quality agricultural land being used for the rush of large-scale solar, wind, battery and transmission projects but there is growing alarm at the damage to sensitive landscapes and areas close to national parks, world heritage areas, protected wetlands and migratory flight paths.
The Wet Tropics Management Authority has issued concerns about the cumulative scale of proposed developments that would involve clearing of relatively intact land near the world heritage area. The National Parks Association of NSW has fought the planned construction of high voltage power lines in Kosciuszko National Park as part of the Snowy 2.0 project.
Then there’s perhaps the maddest climate con of all: so-called ‘biomass’. Which is nothing more than a fancy euphemism for ‘burning stuff’. The same people who lose their minds over burning coal somehow seem to think that burning entire forests’ worth of wood doesn’t emit carbon dioxide.
Biomass energy, derived from organic materials, is frequently touted as a sustainable energy source. However, the extraction and processing of biomass can lead to significant habitat destruction and biodiversity loss.
Deforestation for biomass production often results in the loss of critical habitats for numerous species. Moreover, the carbon emissions associated with biomass burning can negate some of the environmental benefits touted by this energy source.
I wonder how long before some demented climate loon starts advocating ‘traditional African bovine waste mass’ as a ‘renewable energy’ source? Or, as the rest of us would call it: burning cow shit.
Truly, these people are barking mad enough that nothing would surprise me.
