24 April 2025

Tumut residents get a first glance at Bondo Wind Farm vision

| Edwina Mason
Join the conversation
120
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

120
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.

You may also recall, CR, the payout against over the 2009 KIlmore East (Victoria) fire, which killed 119 people and destroyed more than 1,000 homes, the cause of which was determined to be contact between the live conductor and a cable stay supporting the pole caused arcing that ignited vegetation:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-23/judge-approves-black-saturday-class-action-settlement/5984374

Oh and just to clarify, the 2003 Canberra fires were caused by a lightning stike in the Brindabellas:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/canberra-bushfires-craig-allen/4455454
… no wind turbine anywhere to be found.

Every week the “Fires near me” app tells me of house fires just in nearby suburbs.

Stop building houses.

Tune in tomorrow for more Retro solutions.

Capital Retro11:57 am 29 Apr 25

I am not aware of any “uncontrolled coal power plant fires” that have burned down 400 homes, JS9.

Capital Retro12:07 pm 29 Apr 25

I know what caused the McIntires Hut fire, JS and we are talking about wind turbines, not powerlines.

Did you know that wind turbines are prone to lightning strikes? Look at video about 1.25 from start: https://youtu.be/hwg3V9fRM_Y

Also, be aware that it happens in Australia too:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/berrybank-lightning-strike-could-be-the-new-normal-for-wind-farms-says-expert/

Were 400 homes were burned by the Redhill wind tower fire, or any other, Capital Retro? No?

Lightning strikes in Australia as well as in other countries? Yes, it does. Top marks.
Have you considered that a wind tower typically acts as a safe lightning conduit to ground, whereas striking a tree might have started a fire?

You are such a Nervous Nellie Capital Retro, although very selective about it.

@Capital Retro
Even knowing the cause, CR, you apply your “Chicken Little – Sky is falling” logic, as if those 2003 fires were caused by a wind turbine.

Yes, I did know that, not surprisingly, structures which stand around 80 to 150 meters high, with some reaching up to 260 meters, are regularly struck by lightning. I also found that . Nevertheless, quite the dramatic youtube video you found there, CR. And it would appear that lightning strikes don’t only impact wind turbines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0yqUKD0TDA
… but we can all cherry pick individual occurrences can’t we.

BTW did you know that approximately 2,000 commercial airliners are hit by lightning each year?

Wow, who’d have imagined that a metal thing might get hit by lightning! What a suppository of wisdom you truly are CR.

Luckily we also understand as a species how to effectively ground such objects to minimise such impacts….. hard for small brains to understand I know.

Capital Retro3:18 pm 29 Apr 25

Stop trying to link the 2003 Canberra fires with wind turbines, JS.

The point I made was the location of Bondo in relation to Canberra and the possibility that a fire could eventuate from a wind turbine and travel to Canberra.

Sometimes the blades are hit by lighting and they are not made of metal.

And you can’t help yourself by now talking about aircraft?

Speaking of cherry picking JS, I used to pick them in Orange NSW and we had large, high steel ladders. The orchardists would not allow us to use the ladders if there were storms about which is common sense to most people.

Capital Retro3:57 pm 29 Apr 25

Sometimes people can’t deal with common sense Franz so I forgive you for those puerile comments.

The orchardist had to stop you from going out in a lightning storm, especially when clutching a steel ladder?

Were you picking cherries after kindergarten or just a slow learner?

Why do you feel qualified to comment on any of this?

@Capital Retro
“The point I made was the location of Bondo in relation to Canberra and the possibility that a fire could eventuate from a wind turbine and travel to Canberra. ”
Yes, CR, and, just as in 2003, another lightning stike nowehere near those wind turbines, could also cause a fire that threatens Canberra. So, you have no point, other than spurious ‘Chicken Little’ speculation.

Oh, I’m sorry you didn’t find my stat, about lightning strikes on commercial airliners, relevant. I suppose it’s about as relevant as your anecdote, about your cherry picking adventures up a ladder.

You have been most entertaining today Capital Retro, but never sensible.

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.

Saying that nuclear plants are being out-competed by cheaper renewables.

Glad you mentioned it.

Capital Retro12:08 pm 29 Apr 25

I didn’t say that at all.

I guess you did not notice what the facts mean.

So there is zero understanding by experts that know what they are talking about, but some old whinging bat in Canberra, 10,000 miles away knows the answer….

Rightio.

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.

“Now i could be wrong”

You probably should have just stopped there Penfold because it doesn’t remotely “validate” your comment.

The NZ study is full lifecycle including construction and material inputs, including concrete. Not to mention the second link that you’ve ignored directly includes the same.

I could post these studies and links all day but we both know you’ll just ignore the evidence anyway.

Wind farms are very short payback periods for the embedded energy and carbon emissions in the products use to manufacture, construct, operate and decommission them. They are very, very clean.

“Now i could be wrong,”

Yes.

Please feel free to provide evidence that concrete was included in your link chewy, because the report clearly suggests otherwise.

That’s right Franz, it’s good to ask yourself if you’ve got things right.

Several others here might benefit from doing likewise, especially chewy and JS.

And ask yourself this if, unlike yourself, you’re someone who does try to provide links – is absence of evidence really evidence of absence ?

Penfold. Come in, spinner.

It would be quite remarkable for anyone to imagine that a lifecycle cost, ‘cradle to grave’ might count towers but exclude hundreds or thousands of tonnes of necessary concrete beneath.

People who are not incurious, or not dedicated to strange beliefs, will want to check whether something so unusual could really be true.

They might want to read the original academic paper, “Developing onshore wind farms in Aotearoa New Zealand: carbon and energy footprints”, 2024, Pincelli, Hinkley & Brent,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2344785#abstract

Concrete related emissions are included, of course, along with suggestions for reducing impact. The payback figures quoted by chewy14 are provided on that whole of life basis.

Penfold,
The report doesn’t clearly suggest otherwise at all, but we do know comprehension is an issue in your reading.

Why dont you just read the study?

Quote:
“The site construction work constitutes soil removal for the tower installation, mounting mobile cranes, concrete foundations, access road construction, laying and installation of cables, and usage of energy and electricity for other purposes. Detailed data were obtained directly from the wind farm developer for civil works, electrical works, project management, and turbine works. The data specified the material demand, fuel consumption in equipment, electricity usage, and waste management.”

The same as is clearly shown in the other links that you’ve consistently ignored.

“That’s right Franz, it’s good to ask yourself if you’ve got things right.”

I actually agree with you it is very good to question if you are right.

The bit you’re missing is you should then change your position when provided evidence showing you’re demonstrably wrong.

Unfortunately you just keep repeating the same discredited and incorrect arguments.

Which deserve to be ridiculed for their clear disingenuous intent.

It makes me wonder chewy, have you ever admitted you were wrong ?

Penfold,
All the time. Its what sensible people do. I also change my position when the evidence changes or new evidence emerges. But you can obviously do that before you press submit which is something I’d recommend for you.

These are not softer topics where opinions may vary significantl, the facts are clear and well understood.

For example, i was a big proponent of nuclear power for Australia 25 years ago but that ship has sailed and the economics are now clear that it doesn’t and won’t ever make sense here except in niche applications.

You could have a far more sensible position arguing around how the transition to renewables should be achieved and how long it should take. The same could be said for action on climate change.

But when you go straight to ridiculous and verifiably incorrect arguments, you just look silly.

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 Retro,
how is it hair splitting to point out the actual implications of your link?

You think that link shows something bad about renewables where it actually shows in this particular area, the assessments of their cost effectiveness and efficiency have been greatly under estimated. That this area is particularly good for increased investment in wind power.

The funny thing is you don’t even realise how your own link defeats the attempted point you were trying to make.

You should have stuck with not commenting on issues you have no knowledge in, but here we are.

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.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy.

Oops.

I accidentally mentioned a fact.

Capital Retro12:16 pm 29 Apr 25

Getting the devices that make electricity from solar and wind is only possible because of the massive taxpayer funded subsidies and concessions available.
Then the developer gets 100% write off immediately, locks in a high, government guaranteed selling price to the market and then flogs the whole thing off to a pension scheme in another country.

What a huge scam, Franz.

Capital Retro, please present a table quantifying all available fossil fuel subsidies with those related to renewables.

After you have denied weight of the former (as you will) then show your detailed valid critique of the current Gencost report, which report does not rely on subsidies as components within its analysis.

After you have failed there, perhaps you could go back to why Spain is closing all of its nuclear plants in favour of renewables, and all countries are increasing the proportion of renewables in their energy mix compared with new fossil or nuclear. This includes your old coal favourites India and China, and heavily nuclear France.

To you, Capital Retro, the whole world is a scam. Maybe it’s not us, it’s you.

Capital Retro3:07 pm 29 Apr 25

Don’t beat around the bush Franz, you tell me what subsidies are paid to coal fired power projects.

Spain has seven nuclear reactors generating about a fifth of its electricity. Its first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1968. Under Spain’s nuclear phase-out policy, its nuclear fleet is scheduled to shut down by 2035.

Yes, that is the schedule of plants closing, out-competed by renewables now and in the future, as I said.

It is amazing how well you are doing on recognising the transition these days.

I do not care much about the documented fossil subsidies nor incentives for renewables because petty debates about what is truly a subsidy ignore the massive fact that on base level analysis, renewables are cheaper, and every country recognises this as I described.

If you think subsidies are interesting, be honest and tabulate them all, after which you can go back to the basic fact of cheaper renewables.

You have no wish to take up any of the challenges. It’s you.

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’….

Capital Retro9:31 am 29 Apr 25

All of the above is incorrect.

“All of the above is incorrect.”….prove it, we both know you won’t because you can’t.

Whoosh whoosh is most certainly an issue. Well, according to scientists at least. It’s even peer reviewed 😁

Nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97107-8

You’re welcome.

CR don’t you love the constant cries of “show me the evidence”. And then when said evidence is presented, it is summarily ignored 🤣

“CR don’t you love the constant cries of “show me the evidence”. And then when said evidence is presented, it is summarily ignored 🤣”

Oh yes, you definitely are the expert in “ignoring the evidence”.

And just how many people are going to be living within 500m of the turbines Penfold?

You didn’t read that far in the said ‘study’ however did you?

But then you may not understand the difference between 500m and 20km – we’ve seen your constant struggles with basic percentages after all.

The difference between 500m and 20km is a distance, not a percentage.

Thanks chewy, my comment validated.

“You didn’t read that far in the said ‘study’ however did you?” …tbf to Penfold coalition talking points and Telegram memes are usually light on detail, they’re after all not aimed at critical thinkers.

@Penfold
It’s a clear indication that your ‘evidence well’ is dry, when you turn to Capital Retro for validation.

Was simply pointing out Penfold that we already know your strong suit isn’t mathematics, that’s all.

And you’ve clearly not yet correlated that results at 500m are a lot different to results at 20km, which is the stated approximate distance from Tumut of the new wind farm. There appear to be zero studies out there that provide any tangible evidence that wind farms can be heard at such a distance, so unless you can prove otherwise, it shows just how irrelevant your claims around ‘whoosh whoosh’ in this case really are.

And right on queue CR highlights an inability to understand the difference between the concepts of undeveloped and developing. One condition does not equate to the other, one applies in this case and one does most definitely not. Being a developing country does not mean a country is ‘undeveloped’, despite the relationship of those two words in other contexts.

“Thanks chewy, my comment validated.”

Yes, your comment about individuals here ignoring all the evidence provided to them to repeat discredited arguments is most definitely validated.

Two of the most prominent members even feature in the details of your comment.

Capital Retro12:20 pm 29 Apr 25

Yeah JS, it’s a like being “a little bit pregnant” is it?

JS – perhaps you’d like to address some of those earlier questions.

Including whether you are using that dreaded coal and gas power to post here. You don’t know, do you.

It would however help if I also use the right words – such as cue, not queue in that context lol. Ah well.

JS9 a simple review on Google maps would have saved you much embarrassment. The proposed site Bondo site

There’s a number of houses, campsites and other structures including on Brindabella and Wee Jasper Roads. Right inside the proposed development.

Whoosh whoosh indeed. The poor locals.

JS9 – that’s okay, we know that differentiating between a cue and queue can be tricky. Especially when attacking others for an “inability to understand”.

@Capital Retro
Thanks for posting that link to the ABC article which clearly states, that despite being the world’s second largest economy:
“Beijing maintains that it sees no reason to give up the self-declared status at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).”

Let me give you a hint, CR, “self declared” is not in itself proof.

Oh and here’s another hint you might find useful:
That nice man who wants to sell you a bridge? Nope – it’s a scam, the Sydney Harbour Bridge is not for sale.

Wow, there are houses in the countryside. Who would have thought.

Its not an entire town, its a handful of properties – not what you were projecting at all. And there are clear requirements around such things to begin with, that will stop any DA in its tracks if they aren’t met.

The fact is there will always be people more impacted than other by all sorts of developments – and processes are in place to mitigate or manage such impacts.

Another straw man from a person that specialises in nonsense.

@Penfold
I didn’t anser those questions because chewy14 did so admirably.

As we are on solar power here, and most of my posts are during the day, I’m confident I’m using nice clean renewable energy. Thanks for asking.

JS9 – well it’s great you’ve advanced to realising that people live in the country. You seemed to infer civilisation ceased at the Tumut town limits. Perhaps you should pop in and see what the locals think about the development.

JS – still waiting to hear that all your power comes from those dreamy renewables. And really hoping you don’t drive a petrol car. You’ve gone all silent buddy.

A pleasure JS, so you have solar panels or use ACT solar ? Your answer wasn’t clear. So for sure you use a component of the fossil fuel devil. Winter coming too, hopefully the heating runs off the battery. You do have a battery presumably.

As for the car I’ll take the non response as a petrol admission. Awkward.

@Penfold
We have solar panels, so we have wonderfully reduced power bills, thank you. Much better than your lamented, just under $5.30 a week, missed reduction, which Albo lied about.

… we do have occasion to use the grid … funnily enough, that’s the reason it’s there. I’m still considering the cost-benefit for us, in a battery – you know, that’s what rational people do, look at cost/benefit before making decisions.

Despite the fact I saw no mention of a car, I’m more than happy to provide an answer. Similarly, our current hybrid is serving us quite well, thank you. Oh and it’s pleasing to see how little the bowser clicks over when I fill it, especially when compared to some of the large SUVs and twin-cabs, I encounter, who often arrive at the bowser before me, and are still going when I am done.

@Penfold
Perhaps before directing assinine implications like “You’ve gone all silent buddy”, you need to give thought to the concept of ‘posting delays’, which may be due to ‘awaiting moderation’ or having a life away from RiotACT. Just a thought 🤦‍♂️

Well JS I did ask the question at 6:21 last night, you seemed to be avoiding it.

And unlike yourself always demanding proof for things, I’ll accept your comment at its face value.

There was an exchange a few weeks ago with Seano who claimed because the ACT produces 100 renewable energy he must consume 100% renewable. Poor fella.

@Penfold
As I said – I thought chewy14 handled your post admirably, and as such didn’t read it in its totality.

As for accepting my comment at face value – given this is an anonymous site, there’s no way I can prove it, but actually, I really don’t care one way or another whether or not you believe it.

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.