31 July 2024

Cross-border flak could hurt solar farm proposal

| Ian Bushnell
Join the conversation
64
solar farm on landscape

An early artist’s impression of the proposed Wallaroo solar farm. Image: New Energy Development.

We need more solar farms generating electricity as part of the transition to an emissions-free power grid, but have the proponents of the $166 million Wallaroo project just across the northern border been a bit too clever?

It’s a big one, covering 750 football fields and involving 182,000 rotating panels and associated infrastructure, including battery storage and a substation connected to nearby transmission lines.

It will be capable of producing enough clean, renewable energy to supply about 48,000 homes in NSW and the ACT.

Everybody seems to think that, in itself, it’s a good thing. Just not near them.

Eyesore, loss of rural land, bad for tourism, fire risk and potentially damaging to the environment are some of the objections, including from Yass Valley Council.

READ ALSO Hellenic Club pays $18.7 million for block next door, look what’s planned

If it wasn’t sited less than a kilometre from Belconnen suburbs, that’s where the row might rest.

But border residents on the ACT side are just waking up to a sizeable development happening across the border within eyesight, despite it being on the drawing board for five years.

And now we are only three months out from the ACT election, and Labor is a bit edgy about the Belconnen-based Ginninderra electorate, considered to be the poll wild card.

In 2022, the government said it had nothing to do with us and told the Opposition to direct their questions to the proponents.

Now, the Chief Minister is writing to the NSW Premier.

In NSW, solar developments aren’t supposed to happen within 5 km of residential areas, but some Canberra homes are only 800 metres from the Wallaroo site.

The locals cannot but conclude that the proponents have been a bit sneaky in choosing a site in NSW and erasing whole communities because they are in a different jurisdiction.

The ACT Government may also be thinking about road access and the bushfire risk.

The proponents argue the project’s public benefits outweigh the downsides, and they are doing all they can to mitigate concerns so the development will be embedded in the landscape and hardly be seen.

The site itself has its attractions, being near transmission lines. And from the project documents, it seems residents nearby will be offered discounted power.

Interestingly, the conversation online has favoured the proponents, arguing that clean energy trumps landholders and residents’ concerns and there could be much worse things than a solar farm to contend with.

But those people probably aren’t next door or in the line of sight.

The problem for the proponents and the NSW Government is that the spirit of planning rules shouldn’t evaporate at the border.

And now there is cross-border interest in what’s going on.

READ ALSO The best solar installers in Canberra

The ACT Government and Canberrans, in general, are strong supporters of renewable energy. The political calculus will be just how many border residents are so horrified at the prospect that they protest at the ballot box if Labor doesn’t seem sufficiently concerned about the situation.

Considerable opposition to renewables is being stirred up in the countryside and on the coast, some with the aid of politically motivated misinformation.

Even some of the online chatter about this project has the whiff of such stuff.

Nonetheless, buffer zones exist for a reason and a border is not the same.

The result may be that the proposal becomes a smaller one, if viable.

But the lesson for proponents is to consult, consult and consult some more to get communities on board.

For communities, renewable energy can’t be siloed out of sight and mind. There are worse alternatives. Just ask rural areas where there is fracking, gas wells, open cut coal mines and dirty coal-fired power stations.

Join the conversation

64
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

We love the idea of supporting the environment, just as long as it doesn’t disturb us. The local wallaroo residents making the most noise are probably the ones that have already destroyed the rural setting with their mega mansions. Having lived in the area for over 40 years and having direct line of site with project I am supportive of anything we can do to provide clean power.

I would suggest this post as a very good summary of research up to when it was published in 2017. It has graphs from NOAA.

Of interest is the lag of CO2 behind temperature for most of the 800,000 years covered, but also draw attention to the non-synchronised periods where CO2 has a severe non coupling to temperature and gaps of up to 14,000 years . This creates a significant barrier in the attempting to tie CO2 as the main driver of temperature.

I would all readers to take the time to absorb the referenced post, and welcome further comments.

https://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-and-the-14000-year-co2-time-lag/

Tripe, stevew77, and thank you for welcoming my comment.

That blog by an old oil industry geologist (not a climate scientist) merely references old papers already superseded by later research. Your false claims have been debunked here, time and again, and gain nothing from your evidenced lack of understanding of science.

I encourage everyone to read Euans very comprehensive explanation of the vostok ice core data and decide for themselves.

it thoroughly trashes the climate myth by using NOAA data amongst other sources, and explains neatly how CO2 and temperature are not tied to each other.

Would you also care to explain to all the readers specifically and in detail how NOAA data is wrong?

It’s not the data, stevew77, it’s you.

You posted a link from an oil industry geologist while studiously avoiding all papers by climatologists, as posted here, demonstrating that the fringe-thinking error is in the original data analysis (assumptions) around the Vostok cores. Those cores, even in links which you posted previously, support the scientific consensus on climate change causation, as I pointed out at the time. Why should anyone waste time with your repetitions?

You state further below that you are an engineer and therefore logical, and that the professional body of (therefore logical) engineers know you are wrong. There is some wonderful irony in there.

Looks like its Karma….it was OK for the ACT Government to build solar farms at Royalla and Mugga Lane without supporting residents concerns, but as soon as an election is pending, its very concerned. Also not a word from the Greens…..ohh that’s why… its a solar farm

Incidental Tourist10:02 pm 22 Jul 24

Where are the Greens? Their roaring silence across each side of the border makes everybody think that they lost interest in solar energy. NSW has 7 sitting Greens MPs. ACT has 6 Greens MLAs. Why don’t these 13 MPs and MLAs talk to community and to each other and propose some solution? Why do Greens distance themselves from the pressing environmental community issue in favour of election grand standing?

Better Planning3:27 pm 22 Jul 24

Is anyone else appalled by the lack of regional cooperation on the South East Corner of NSW that is shared with the ACT – talk about a lack of foresight and vision by both Governments at the cost to people living in this beautiful region of Australia. What is it with politicians and their inability to have any vision?

The ACT and NSW governments have an MOU in place which recognises shared priorities such as health, transport, emergency management and tourism to name a few. I am not sure what conflicts currently exist between both governments impacting relations that you seem so riled about. There are proposals to extend ACT borders into NSW as well as this current proposal for a solar farm that I am aware of. Both proposals have been in the pipeline for a few years.
https://www.nsw.gov.au/departments-and-agencies/dpird/our-agencies/office-cross-border-commissioner/act-nsw-mou#:~:text=The%20MoU%20allows%20both%20governments,training%2C%20business%2C%20and%20tourism.

Better Planning2:39 pm 22 Jul 24

This should be part of the ACT and NSW Government MOU on regional cooperation that noone talks about?

Nick Stevens1:03 pm 22 Jul 24

Why are they considered unpleasant to look at? More homes that not, appear to have them, without causing widespread doom and gnashing of teeth.
Maybe replace them with a nook reactor (with a tasteful mural on it to soften the view), run a source of water from LBG, and we’re in.

The reality is that the whole thing is in response to scientifically unprovable climate change. I wouldnt have an issue if you could prove it. Likewise, it locks up productive farm land to promote in essence a fairy story. Not surprised the locals are against it…

To employ the colloquialism: the stream of evidence across multiple threads is now sufficient to “prove scientifically” that stevew77 does not even know what science is.

It’s a private business investing in a product on their own land to make a profit.

The whole “locking up productive farm land” argument is laughable.

So I leave it for people themselves to read these scientific papers that support CO2 lagging behind temperature – not the other way around as the climate alarmists would have people believe.

Yeah, I did science and Engineering, I have a good handle on what proper science actually is. Bridges fall down without it.

The climate naturally changes , its called naturally variability, and temperature is the driver of CO2 levels, not CO2 driving temperature. Once people understand the science has been turned on its head, the whole climate alarmism industry rightly collapses under the weight of actual science.

Climate greenwashing through appeals to authority, running down opposing opinion and flaky political 5 yo tactics like “Prove it, Steve, nah nah” doesn’t really cut it, I’m afraid.

2/10 , must try harder…..

Its a multi-thousand year cycle. Its natural variability. This happened before SUVs were even invented.

So some references regarding ( as a starting point ) the 800,000 years of Vostok Ice Core data that shows temperature drives CO2 ( science ) , not the other way around ( climate alarmism ) :

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Monnin, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291: 112-114

Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

“Climate greenwashing through appeals to authority, running down opposing opinion and flaky political 5 yo tactics like “Prove it, Steve, nah nah” doesn’t really cut it, I’m afraid.”

Surely the person who constantly refers to their supposed scientific and engineering background as if its proof of something didnt write that paragraph eith a straight face?Particularly when repeatedly showing in comments a significant lack of knowledge in either.

The same person saying “Climate change can’t be proven scientifically”, whilst giving no definitions for what he actually means.

The person that keeps posting links to studies that have already been refuted numerous times here.

Hilarious.

Don’t worry stevew77, when the flying pig crashes, you can flog that too.

The sad thing is that you seem unable to comprehend the scientific import of your own references.

Don Fletcher5:24 pm 22 Jul 24

stevew77, as Chewy14 said, the statements in those papers have all been refuted by later scence, some of which used better dating of ice cores.

Here are some more recent references. In future you can quote these when you tell people that you have changed your mind in response to good science, that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that CO2 increases and temperature increases occur in lockstep, contrary to earlier, and incorrect, thoughts that temperature preceded CO2.

References

Brook, E. J. (2013), Leads and Lags at the End of the Last Ice Age, Science, 339(6123), 1042–1043, doi:10.1126/science.1234239.
Caillon, N., J. P. Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J.-M. Barnola, J. Kang, and V. Y. Lipenkov (2003), Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III, Science, 299(5613), 1728–1731, doi:10.1126/science.1078758.
Durkin, M. (2007), The Great Global Warming Swindle, Documentary.
Guggenheim, D. (2006), An Inconvenient Truth, Documentary.
Parrenin, F., V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Köhler, D. Raynaud, D. Paillard, J. Schwander, C. Barbante, A. Landais, A. Wegner, and J. Jouzel (2013), Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming, Science, 339(6123), 1060–1063, doi:10.1126/science.1226368.
Pedro, J. B., S. O. Rasmussen, and T. D. van Ommen (2012), Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation, Clim. Past, 8(4), 1213–1221, doi:10.5194/cp-8-1213-2012.
Pierrehumbert, R. T. (2004), Warming the world, Nature, 432(7018), 677–677, doi:10.1038/432677a.
Shakun, J. D., P. U. Clark, F. He, S. A. Marcott, A. C. Mix, Z. Liu, B. Otto-Bliesner, A. Schmittner, and E. Bard (2012), Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, Nature, 484(7392), 49–54, doi:10.1038/nature10915.

I have just provided you and everyone here scientific journal articles for thier reading pleasure.

Can you show the journal articles refuting the science i have posted here? Otherwise its just empty words old chum

If you can explain why CO2 lags temperature by up to 14,000 years, I’m all ears……

Steve,
You’ve posted 4 papers over 20 years old showing one piece of a puzzle.

Do you honestly believe that “proves” your point around climate change?

If so, your grasp of science (and engineering, you’re an engineer we all remember) may be worse than I thought.

Don Fletcher has already posted a number of other papers above explaining how firstly the relationships are not as simple as you claim, along with further evidence of how this doesn’t refute any of the more recent climate science looking at the impacts of rapidly increasing CO2 today. You’ve been provided with numerous further papers previously that you also keep ignoring.

Your attempts to grasp straws, ignoring the links provided to you repeatedly and then returning to ask for more references (which you won’t read) is embarrassing.

What’s just as embarrassing, chewy, is your “Your references say something that doesn’t align with my opinion, so they must be wrong! Here are some references that say something different that do align with my opinion, so they must be correct!” showing the scientific understanding of a troglodyte.

We have had this discussion on your cult like interpretation of scientific research before, chewy. The science is never settled. A paper being published and peer reviewed does not mean it is correct. Newer research isn’t always right. Consensus does not make it right either. Unless you can find research that directly cites and refutes findings in the research steve has cited, his are just as valid as any you or anybody else present.

“Unless you can find research that directly cites and refutes findings in the research steve has cited, his are just as valid…”

Garbage. Two opposing statements are never “equally valid”. There must be differences in basis or else one will be wrong.

The research on which the prejudiced minority rely has been refuted in the later references. Citing it is utterly superfluous. In fact reading the original claims shows the holes in the analysis where their assumptions exist and were later exposed. Such progress is generally called science.

Why do you even bother when changes to cheaper, less polluting, energy generation is already happening regardless of your bootless protests?

Ken,
Yes we have had the discussion about your inability to support your argument with evidence.

Nowhere have I remotely said that my opinion on anything matters more than the actual research and science is.

Steve (and you) have been repeatedly provided links to a breadth of scientific and other research showing how the evidence based evolves over time. Links have already been provided here showing how Steve is incorrect and limited in his thinking. Grasping on to a tiny piece of evidence as if it disproves the entire breadth of research in the area isn’t science.

When the already discredited or irrelevant arguments then get repeated ad nauseum it shows the unwillingness of those commenters to learn new information and advance their thinking in the same way that science does.

Perhaps you should try it. Learning that is.

Oh, look out, captain “The science is settled” and his trusty sidekick byline are together again. LOL

Please, byline, regale us with your expertise on all if the holes in the finding of actual scientists, and how you know better? LOL

And again, chewy, nothing has been provided proving steves citations “incorrect”, by any stretch. If that were the case, we could probably stop all the research right now. You simply agree with one finding and disagree with another. Meanwhile, I prefer to keep an open mind and not be an alarmist crackpot. Again, science is not a cult. Climate science is largely just a bad joke, because unfortunately it has become politicised.

Ken,
This has been going on over multiple threads and yes, Steve’s assertions around climate change are incorrect.

“If that were the case, we could probably stop all the research right now. You simply agree with one finding and disagree with another.”

I’m the one promoting the entire breadth of climate change research, rather than trying to extrapolate a small sample of older studies to prove a position that can’t be sustained and has been superseded by newer and more broad ranging research.

Steve is the one who is selectively choosing evidence to attempt to push his narrative.

Do keep up.

“Meanwhile, I prefer to keep an open mind and not be an alarmist crackpot.”

“Climate science is largely just a bad joke, because unfortunately it has become politicised.”

LOL, yeah, that mind is wide open all right.

Next you’ll probably say you were just joking or something.

Try not to get so angry.

Missed it all again, didn’t you Ken M.

It’s the constant avoidance by you of all refutations that I watch, or perhaps it is just your inability to read with any semantic clarity.

And i posted a link from 2017 written buy a geologist, who raises the question why using NOAA data etc we see a 14000 year discrepancy between co2 and temperature, and at times there is zero correlation between co2 and temp.

Logic says that if co2 is coupled to temp, they should track together, but they dont.

I agree with Kens point of climate change being a bit cult-like, and are repleat with the usual appeals to authority and belittling that occurs regularly, which is really playing the man, not the ball.

Tsk.

” Try not to get angry”….

Really?

Really?

You need to play the ball, not than man , old chum.

Would you care to quote that which the “prejudiced minority” rely upon?

Yes, did Engineering, rather proud of my qualification and the ability to think logically, which is why I was appalled when the peak engineering body in Oz swallowed the climate nonsense. At that point i decided membership was not worth it. Sad really. I had no idea a society could wind up believing in the climate easter bunny, but they have.

Steve,
Let’s disregard the fact that you’ve repeatedly been provided information showing more recent data and research either discrediting your claims or showing the relationships are more complex than you are suggesting.

What exactly do you think logically follows from historic periods of heating and cooling that either have co2 lags or do not fully correlate?

This simply means that there are other causes of change on earth, such as orbital forcing and solar changes.

But this is already well known, researched and tracked.

And when compared to the historic periods you mention, the impacts of these other causes only account for a small proportion of those heating/cooling effects. Because the increased co2 and other greenhouse gases released by other warming factors create feedback loops that multiply those effects. Speeding heating and slowing cooling. This has been shown repeatedly both in research and climate models.

So no, your claims do not follow a logical progression, you are attempting to extrapolate one piece of the puzzle as if it tells the entire story, whilst ignoring the vast body of other research investigating and explaining the effects. It’s a failed gotcha that doesn’t withstand the most cursory analysis.

I don’t know if I would describe your behaviour as “cultish” but it sure isn’t science or any form of logical thought.

And yes, when the peak engineering body assessed the body of evidence, they came to the conclusion that climate change is real and occurring due to man made impacts. Strange that youve never considered that you are the bunny.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact 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.