24 April 2025

Tumut residents get a first glance at Bondo Wind Farm vision

| Edwina Mason
Join the conversation
62
Bondo Wind Farm artist's impression

Those who attended the recent community drop-in session in Tumut were treated to an artist’s impression of the proposed Bondo Wind Farm. If you squint, turbines are discernible on the horizon. Image: Neoen Australia.

Locals in Tumut have been given a first glimpse of what could become one of the state’s most significant renewable energy developments, with Neoen Australia unveiling an initial artist’s impression of the proposed Bondo Wind Farm during a recent community consultation session.

Held earlier this month at Neoen’s Fitzroy Street office, the event marked a key moment in the early development of the project, which could see up to 154 wind turbines installed across Bondo State Forest — roughly 20 km east of the thriving Snowy Valleys town.

The area, currently a softwood plantation managed by Forestry Corporation of NSW, has been earmarked as ideal for renewable energy thanks to strong wind resources, access to existing road infrastructure and three nearby transmission lines.

Residents were offered a chance to view renderings of the turbines as they might appear from Tumut Lookout at 9 am and 3 pm, showing how the structures could blend into the landscape under different light conditions.

READ ALSO Tumut’s Bondo State Forest makes Forestry Corporation’s shortlist as potential wind farm site

The images are part of Neoen’s broader effort to be upfront about the project’s visual footprint in an area that falls within the boundaries of three NSW local government areas including Snowy Valleys Council, Cootamundra-Gundagai Regional Council and Yass Valley Council.

Neoen’s state development leader Emily Walker made it clear to attendees the current layout was far from final.

“This is just one iteration,” she said. “We’re still in the investigation stage, working through extensive environmental and technical studies. The community’s feedback is going to be a big part of shaping what this ultimately looks like.”

And the community did show up. A steady stream of locals made their way through the consultation space, asking questions, offering thoughts, and in some cases, raising concerns.

Noise, visual impact and local biodiversity were among the top issues discussed, alongside the broader question of what the project could mean for the town’s future.

Bondo Wind Farm preliminary turbine layout

The preliminary turbine layout of Bondo Wind Farm. Image: Neoen Australia.

In response, Neoen pointed to its community benefit-sharing program — a long-term initiative which, if the project is approved, would see a portion of revenue funnelled back into the region over the life of the wind farm.

It says the community program could support infrastructure upgrades, education, health services, cultural projects and environmental initiatives.

There’s even talk of commissioning a large-scale public artwork, co-designed with local artists to reflect the region’s unique heritage, to be painted on one of the turbines.

Ms Walker said no development would occur in native forests — only in plantation zones — allowing existing forestry operations to continue.

In the meantime, detailed assessments are ongoing, including surveys of local flora and fauna, cultural heritage studies and noise impact modelling.

As part of the early-stage groundwork, Neoen has planned to install four 180-metre meteorological masts at key locations within the Bondo plantation.

These temporary structures, which would need council approval, would collect wind and ecological data and could also serve a secondary function as wildfire detection platforms, using automated cameras to spot potential fires before they spread.

Ms Walker said the economic implications of the wind farm project were significant, with construction alone expected to bring a surge of activity to the region; contractors, suppliers, and support services all stand to benefit.

Long-term, the operational phase would generate jobs in maintenance, monitoring, and logistics, while also supporting local business through indirect demand, she said.

READ ALSO Forestry Corp proposes building wind farms in five plantations

The wind farm, if approved, is still a few years away from construction but Neoen is planning to submit a scoping report to the NSW Government in May, followed by a full development application in the third quarter of 2026.

Approval is anticipated by late 2027, with construction slated for early 2029.

The Neoen pop-up project office is open Tuesdays and Wednesdays, giving locals further access to information and the chance to speak with project representatives in a more casual setting.

Original Article published by Edwina Mason on About Regional.

Join the conversation

62
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Capital Retro9:04 am 29 Apr 25

Let’s hope this doesn’t happen at the Bondo Windfarm which is North West of Canberra, only kilometres from where the McIntyres Hut fire started and then wiped out hundreds of homes in Canberra in 2003:
https://www.facebook.com/countryfireservice/posts/wind-turbine-fire-at-redhill-7-february-2024-a-fire-has-destroyed-a-turbine-and-/790729909755586/

Because there has never been an uncontrolled fire at a coal power plant, now has there?

Your desperation continues to shine through.

Capital Retro8:31 am 29 Apr 25

Massive power outage in Spain and Portugal cripples both countries.
The exact cause is not known but something about freak atmospheric conditions has been cited.
Sounds like “climate change” to me.
These counties have interconnectors with other European countries and Spain is heavily reliant on renewables. This will be more so in the next 10 years as they are closing their 5 nuclear generators.
Just saying.

A small fact to start the day. The Nordex Delta 4000 wind turbine requires 2,000 tonnes of concrete in its foundation. Acciona Energia’s Macintyre wind farm will host 180 of them.

The concrete will produce 1,860 tonnes of CO2 per turbine, or 334,800 tonnes of CO2. That’s the equivalent of 66,960 households or 72,783 cars emissions per year. Just to build the foundations.

How clean is that ?

LOL,
Is that all you’ve got, its just comical the desperation Penfold goes too.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-turbines-pay-back-life-cycle-carbon-emissions-in-less-than-2-years-nz-study-finds/

“Wind turbines in New Zealand pay back their lifecycle carbon emissions after just 1.5 years of operation, researchers from Victoria University in Wellington have found.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2021/04/28/how-green-is-wind-power-really-a-new-report-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/

“Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. “

And on, and on.

“How clean is that ?”

Very.

If you’d ever bothered to look.

Capital Retro8:33 am 29 Apr 25

Everything “Made in China” too.
BTW, what happened to Albo’s “Made in Australia” solar panel factory at Liddell?

This is probably the silliest post I’ve ever seen on this matter.

Maybe Penfold can tell us which electricity option does not use any concrete at all

Thanks chewy and you seem to have validated my point.

“The researchers looked at data from a Hawkes Bay wind farm covering everything from making individual turbine parts, to transporting them into place, to decommissioning the entire windfarm, and compared that to combined cycle gas turbines.”

Now i could be wrong, but there’s not a single mention of the concrete foundations. Is this another “accidental omission” from renewable proponents ?

Well you deserve credit Penfold for attempting to actually use factual information for once, instead of just making it all up like you usually do.

Now provide a comparison of the embedded carbon of alternatives.

Franky I’m not sure when basic facts became silly. And tbh “this matter” seems to have been ignored in all the discussion about “clean” energy.

Good on CR for raising it yesterday.

Thanks for providing a link showing that wind projects are proving even more effective than thought and require further investment to allow the full potential of this cheaper generation source to be realised.

Well done.

Oh BTW, you do realise AEMO aren’t the “renewables industry” right?

Capital Retro8:36 am 29 Apr 25

Well, I would expect the RiotAct’s leading hair-splitter to respond with some “vaguely related to context” response.

You should have stuck with the favourite one of the left “renewables are the cheapest form of energy”, chewy.

Capital Retro7:33 pm 28 Apr 25

What annual rental are the wind factory developers getting from the NSW Government and how much in RECS dollars are they (the developers) getting?

And please, no Albo answers like: “renewables are the cheapest form of energy”

Why don’t you go and ask the developers if you are suddenly so interested CR. Who on earth on here is going to know such details?

But hey – another comment, another pile of nonsense. The CR way.

Innernorthlattesipper5:47 pm 28 Apr 25

Looks great. Love the elegance of windfarms. Just get on with building it!

Wow! How to destroy a beautiful rural community! Irrespective of how clean the energy generated is, the disgusting sight of windmills on the ridgelines is attrocious, let alone the environmental damage done to install the towers and infrastructure for a part-time (only when the wind blows!) energy supply – I hope the people of Tumut oppose the installation and retain their beautiful country environment the way it is!

Coal fired power stations, coal mines, coal trains and coal trucks are of course known for their beauty and how little pollution they spread over their local area….and of course when the wind is not blowing in Tumut it’s not blowing anywhere…..apparently.

Do you really think we are going to shut the coal mines? Seriously, we just ship it overseas for millions of dollars so that other economies benefit! Wake up, coal is an organic material and is no more polluting than a decent sized bushfire (and we have hundreds each year). Rail lines transport more than just coal and roads more than coal so that argument is ridiculous!

I didn’t say anything about shutting anything down champ.

“Wake up, coal is an organic material and is no more polluting than a decent sized bushfire”… that’s laugh out loud funny stuff though, you’ve clearly not been around fired power and don’t know what you’re talking about.

“Rail lines transport more than just coal and roads more than coal so that argument is ridiculous”

I didn’t say anything about rail lines being shutdown either champ, another strawman.

Because you got get stuff I’ll explain, the beauty of the environment is just as harmed (arguably more so) by fossil fuel generated energy. I’d explain why the wind not blowing comment is silly as well but I’d probably have more luck explaining the energy market to my kelpie.

The kelpie has a much better chance of understanding that explanation of the energy market than any human has.

Mate, after 40 years in the electrical/electronics/tech industry, you are delusional if you think renewable energy sources will be enough to power your EV, Data Centres and other electrical/electronic systems that run the country – current renewables are only at best a supplementary, possibly secondary power source! But you keep drinking the coolaid that they feed you!

Love wind power. I think the turbines look majestic. Everyone wants electricity – but just put the generating part in someone else’s region.

F ZZZ it sounds like you’re pushing “baseload” nonsense, which suggests you don’t know much or have read anything recently on the energy market and how it works.

But the AEMO and CSIRO would disagree with you, you know actual experts not online comment section ones:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/aemo-and-csiro-to-lead-new-study-into-100-pct-renewable-grids/

Tell us how the environmental damage by wind turbines compares to damage from climate change.

What do you suggest for future electricity generation?

The only one that is delusional is those that drink the baseload koolaid.

Maybe whiners would like the wind farm replaced by a coal fired power station or several large diesel generators.

Capital Retro8:04 am 28 Apr 25

In the past 150 years numerous earthquakes have been recorded in Tumut, Yass and Kiandra which are near the borders of this proposed wind factory.

Each of these bird-blenders has hundreds of tonnes of machinery mounted on top of a 100m high hollow steel tower.

A moderate earth tremor under the area will topple the lot.

@Capital Retro
Ho hum … another ridiculous claim from you, CR, that, as usual, inhabits the ‘fact-free zone’.
https://www.dnv.com/article/how-do-recent-earthquakes-events-impact-wind-turbines–179350/

Sorry Capital your made up drivel isn’t as scary as Chernobyl or Fukushima ….what else have you got?

You’ve got to laugh at the lengths of ridiculousness people like CR will go to in making up stupid reasons why renewable power sources won’t work.

The lack of understanding of straightforward engineering assessments that happen in designing these types of facilities is hilarious.

Particularly when real earthquake damage over many events can be shown in other structures where CR wouldn’t care or comment in the slightest, the risk being so low.

Bird blenders? Wind turbines account for about 0.01% of human-caused bird deaths. Check Statista for details https://www.statista.com/chart/15195/wind-turbines-are-not-killing-fields-for-birds/ Vehicles, buildings with lots of glass and especially cats cause huge numbers of bird deaths. And your bird deaths comment has about as much credence as your assertions about earth quakes and turbine stability.

Keep on dribbling Capital Retro. Hopefully at some point you’ll just dribble with your drivel into non-existence, and the rest of us can get on with making the world a better place, not dreaming to turn it back into 1750s London.

And in 25 years time they will all be useless metallic carcasses polluting the environment and the landscape.

In the meantime, will Tumut residents be able to hear the “whoosh, whoosh” all day ? Sorry, part of the day, and night.

@Penfold
It’s not difficult to do a bit of research, Penfold, rather than just post a negativity-laced comment.

This (https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/wind-turbine-blades-find-new-life-in-sustainable-infrastructure-20250331-p5lnst) is but one of many articles, I found, which report that “approximately 85 to 94 per cent of a wind turbine (by mass) is readily recyclable in Australia” – with the main ‘landfill issue’ being the fibreglass blades.

However, as the article further reports, “Countries like Denmark and Germany have already integrated repurposed wind blades into infrastructure, consumer products, and energy projects”, so those recycling figures for Australia can be expected to increase even further in the future.

Well JS you’re quick to leap on Google AI and it’s friendly theories. The reality is quite different. Wind turbines are hugely expensive to recycle so most finish up in landfill.

Your sponsored link was hardly balanced.

https://www.unisa.edu.au/media-centre/Releases/2022/end-of-life-plan-needed-for-tens-of-thousands-of-wind-turbine-blades/

Capital Retro12:33 pm 28 Apr 25

Nice try JS but you should have looked deeper because this link only deals with relatively very recent events: “no catastrophic loss of a wind turbine has been recorded in any earthquake since 1986.”
How long have wind turbines been around?
Earthquakes have been around forever.

Capital Retro12:35 pm 28 Apr 25

Yes Penfold, the defender’s of the wind factories now claim they are recyclable but they don’t mention the 400 tonne plug of concrete in the ground, do they.

Capital, have you ever been to a coal fired power station, let alone lived near one or a coal mine, or coal trains or coal trucks? Seriously mate log off and for a walk you might find some perspective.

@Capital Retro
Are you saying there have been no earthquakes in areas which have wind turbines since 1986, CR? I suggest you reread that link I posted in the above thread – because wind turbines have successfuly withstood “strong magnitude 6.4 and 7.1 seismic events near Ridgecrest, California” – which I think even you will agree is more than just a “moderate earth tremor”

@Penfold
Thank you for providing a link to an article which addresses what I said – that the main ‘landfill issue’ with wind turbines is the fibreglass blades, noting that some European countries are taking steps to address their repurposing.

Yes CR, plus you’re assuming the turbine hasn’t fallen over before it his its 20 or 25 years.

And that’s not to mention the environmental destruction, ecologies, bird and wildlife species. Renewables lovers will complain about the damage done to the Amazon but not to the damage to the beautiful Snowy mountains environment.

That’s a pleasure JS, the university certainly provided a more balanced assessment than your renewables company did.

And what do you make of this:

“Prof Majewski says it is likely consumers will ultimately bear some of the end-of-life cost through energy tariffs”.

More costs that the renewables lobby will never tell you about.

@Penfold
… and of course the study in that article didn’t cover the approximately 85 to 94 per cent of a wind turbine (by mass) is readily recyclable in Australia, so it’s not all doom and gloom as you try to suggest.

@Penfold
… and of course the study in that article didn’t cover the approximately 85 to 94 per cent of a wind turbine (by mass) is readily recyclable in Australia – which you have conveniently ignored.

So it’s not all doom and gloom, as you try to suggest – especially with the technological advancements being implemented overseas, in the repurposing of end-of-life blades.

Heard you the first time JS, but yes sometimes posting here is a little tricky.

The “85 to 94% recyclable” doesn’t mean much when the costs of doing so are exorbitant. And isn’t it great relying on China for Labor’s energy plan, what could possibly go wrong.

I’d much rather a nice, new, 💯 % clean nuclear reactor. No noise, no pollution, reliable and inexpensive. Isn’t it hilarious how renewable lovers reject the cleanest and safest form of energy available.

Oh btw JS, as CR notes, is that 85% by mass including the 2,000 tonnes of concrete ?

A wind turbine uses 500+ tonnes of concrete per megawatt. A nuclear plant uses 12. Oh look at the link, it’s your Acconia buddies.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/first-concrete-foundation-poured-in-australias-first-gigawatt-scale-wind-project/

@Penfold
“💯 % clean nuclear reactor. No noise, no pollution, reliable and inexpensive. ”
inexpensive? PMSL – are you serious? Wow – you really are a mouthpiece for Dutton’s hair brained schemes aren’t you?

I don’t have a philosophical issue with nuclear per se, it’s just that we are 30 years too late and there are much cheaper options.

But hey … keep on promoting the fantasy … you’ve definitely got a minority of Australians behind you on that.

Why are we “30 years too late” ? Won’t we need reliable power in 30 years time, or 100 ?

No comment on the concrete ? Each tonne of concrete releases 930kg of CO2, around 10% of all global emissions. That’s extraordinary.

Investment economics.

Renewables win.

It’s obvious, although there are still some who have no clue about the energy market.

Capital Retro5:34 pm 28 Apr 25

Seano, yes to all of those and I am still “upright and ash-free”.

There are lots of eclectic powered lights at a coal-fired power station but strange, no lights at a wind factory

Why is that so?

Capital Retro5:39 pm 28 Apr 25

I think that earthquake caused a lot of damage, JS.
The claim that the towers did not appear to have fallen does not mean their generating ability continued.
That was 40 years ago which is barely a wink in the eyelash of time.

Capital Retro5:43 pm 28 Apr 25

And the cost of the recycling wasn’t mentioned anywhere, JS.

These monstrosities will have to be demolished and transported somewhere at great cost before any recycling commences.

It’s like saying that “renewable energy costs nothing” without adding that the infrastructure to mine and transmit it costs a bomb.

@Penfold
Perhaps 30 years ago we could have afforded the time, and cost, to build nuclear reactors but that ship has well and truly sailed. But, of course, if one doesn’t accept that anthropogenic climate change is a time critical issue, that needs to be addressed, then of course, one would be happy to have the life of inefficient, expensive and increasingly unreliable coal power stations extended.

Absolutley, concrete is an emissions intensive product – and it’s the world’s most used material in general, not just for wind farms, after water. This is the reason, as this article (https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/06/smart-concrete) states, “Concrete researchers are innovating with the widely-used material to increase its lifespan, help the natural environment it lives on and cut down on emissions made during its production.”

“Smart concrete” you say JS. Is that like “green steel”, though that hasn’t fared so well. Is it where concrete meets AI and maybe builds itself ? Of do you inject DNA into it and it grows a brain ? Either way i love the terms the smart renewables guys come up for these things, they always sound so dreamy.

As for nukes, well do you know that there’s over 30 mainly developed countries around the world who disagree with you and are building nuclear power plants as we speak ? In fact there’s 65 plants under construction and 90 planned. Perhaps these countries don’t share your wisdom, despite some operating nukes for years. Perhaps they haven’t realised the “ship has sailed”. Can you tell them please – oh and Microsoft at Three Mile Island too – so they don’t waste their money on clean, economical and reliable power ?

Sorry to ask so many questions, there’s just so many holes in any anti-nuclear argument.

By the way i do hope that every time you hit the “Submit” button it’s using nice clean renewable energy. Right now there’s no sun and little wind so i’d hate to think you’re using fossil fuel power. That would be awkward.

Ah Penfold once again just rehashing the exact same points around Nuclear that have been repeatedly refuted with actual evidence on past threads.

Evidence which he consistently ignores, showing the truly disingenuous nature of his comments.

Maybe Penfold should tell the far greater number of countries installing renewable energy capacity at orders of magnitude higher than new nuclear capacity that they’re wrong?

Or maybe look at the total energy generated by nuclear power plants in the world that has been flatlining for the last 25 years?

But as usuaI, we know Penfold wont be acknowledging the facts and reality of the topic.

I wonder if Penfold has worked out how to calculate percentage changes yet?

Capital Retro9:20 pm 28 Apr 25

There is even an undeveloped country to the north of us that has 58 nuclear power stations and is building more.

Whatever fantasies you have about nuclear energy in other countries doesn’t make it cheap here Capital. I’ll point out for you again because seem to have difficulty dealing in facts.

1. Renewables are the cheapest, quickest, most dispatchable for of energy.
2. Nuclear in Australia is the most expensive.
3. The Energy Generators & Retailers have said no to Dutton’s nuclear plan, too expensive, too slow, too risky (see Hinkley C in the UK which was supposed to open in 2017 at a cost of $35bn but won’t open until 203? at a cost of over $100bn).
4. The QLD LNP govt (not exactly “woke”) have said no nuclear reactors in QLD.
5. Even if Dutton wins, he won’t have the votes in the Senate, he might not even have the votes in the house to change John Howard’s laws banning nuclear in Australia.

This is the point conversation where facts make you scuttle off.

@Capital Retro
“The claim that the towers did not appear to have fallen does not mean their generating ability continued.”
Yet again, you make these outlandish claims without any supporting facts, CR.

That strong magnitude earthquake near the Ridgecrest (California) wind farm happened in 2019. As this report (https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-approves-alta-wind-battery-energy-storage-project-california) shows, not only is the wind farm still operating efficiently, it’s capacity is being enhanced.

Because no power generation source has ever been renovated or replaced or upgraded in history.

What absolute hogwash champ – as for hearing the ‘whoosh whoosh’, making stuff up doesn’t make it true.

How is a country ‘undeveloped’ if it is building nuclear power stations.

Do you even read the dribble that you post before you click ‘go’….

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.