6 February 2024

'Net zero is a lie': farmers converge on Parliament House lawns to protest renewable energy

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
97
anti-renewables protestors

Reckless Renewables Rally attendees at Parliament House this morning. Photo: James Coleman.

“Basically, we’re opposed to the renewable energy craziness, which consists of solar factories, wind factories and associated transmission and distribution networks.

“They shouldn’t be going anywhere, but they’re going on good farming land, and there’s no actual no point to them because they do not help the wider energy problems, and they just drive up costs for everybody.”

Emma Jeffrey is among the hundreds of people converging on the lawns of Parliament House today (6 February) for the first sitting day of the year to protest the Federal Government’s renewable energy projects.

READ ALSO Farmers, landholders converge on Canberra to protest ‘reckless renewables’

Where she’s from, Walcha in the New England region of northern NSW, the state government has set aside a ‘Renewable Energy Zone’ (REZ) stretching from above Glen Innes to near Tamworth. Through wind, solar and battery projects, it’s hoped this will eventually contribute 8 GW of energy to the national grid.

“It’s prime agricultural land,” Emma says.

“Some people are true believers and they think it’s actually helping, but if they looked into it, nothing about it is ‘green’. We’re not going to take this lying down.”

anti-renewables protestors

Protestors are opposed to renewables being built on prime agricultural land. Photo: James Coleman.

Howard and Jo Holgate have journeyed from Ganmain, a small farming community near Wagga Wagga, because “farming is under attack”.

“What we’re facing here is quite minor compared to most of Europe, but prime agricultural land has been taken up with solar panels and wind turbines … and it just makes no sense … We need to realise net zero is a lie,” Howard says.

Jo and Howard Holgate from Ganmain

Howard and Jo Holgate drove from Ganmain in the Riverina to have their voice heard. Photo: James Coleman.

The National Rational Energy Network (NREN) organised the Reckless Renewables Rally for the first sitting day of the year. There are various factions within the group – many from the ‘Convoy to Canberra’ anti-vaccine-mandate protest in January 2022 – but the main objective is to call for a rethink of the Federal Government’s target for 82 per cent of Australia’s power to come from renewables by 2030.

They want a Senate inquiry into renewables, a suspension of all renewable energy projects and a lifting of the ban on nuclear power.

Keynote speakers at the event include Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Price, United Australia national director Craig Kelly, the Nationals member for New England Barnaby Joyce and Queensland Senator Matthew Canavan, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts.

NREN chair Grant Piper comes from Mudgee in central NSW and has a background in engineering. He says the decrease in the amount of usable farmland due to renewables is only one reason for his opposition.

“The bigger question is, ‘Why are we doing it when it’s counterproductive?’ I mean, if you look at the whole life cycle costs of turbines and solar panels – manufacturing them and installing them is all done with fossil fuel and then they’ve only got a short life before they have to be replaced and disposed of. We can’t just say ‘the sun is free, the wind is free’ – that’s not all there is to it.”

Through the $20 billion ‘Rewiring the Nation’ program (part of the ‘Powering Australia’ plan), the Federal Government intends to “modernise our electricity grid” and “deliver affordable, reliable renewable energy to cities, towns and regional communities”.

man next to marquee

Grant Piper says the decrease in the amount of usable farmland due to renewables is only one reason for his opposition. Photo: James Coleman.

Almost all of the 1000 new projects will be located in regional communities, which feel inadequately consulted.

“In the lead-up to most of these ‘projects’, this government has conducted short, insincere, and unacknowledged community consultation,” the rally’s organisers say.

They want the government to suspend the “reckless rollout of renewables” and turn to nuclear power instead.

“Nuclear energy has the lowest overall greenhouse gas emissions of any energy source as a result of its low land footprint, low material usage, and low waste output. The current ban is archaic, restraining Australia from achieving a strong, reliable energy future.”

Reckless Renewables Rally signs. Photo: James Coleman.

A spokesman for Energy and Climate Minister Chris Bowen says the government is “working with regional communities and local landholders to ensure they benefit from cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy.”

“It’s the regions that have always powered Australia that have the most to gain from this transformation and our government is helping them seize the opportunity.”

Farmers for Climate Action chair Brett Hall adds that renewable energy projects offer an alternative income source for farmers doing it tough.

“Income during drought is vital when you’re trying to run a family farm and renewable energy delivers that,” Brett says.

Typical payments offered to farmers by wind companies are now more than $40,000 per turbine per year, and many farms host dozens of turbines while still rearing sheep or cattle.”

Join the conversation

97
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Capital Retro7:06 am 19 Apr 24

The unreliabilty of renewables is demonstrated here again by BOM:

“13:20 AEST A weeklong stretch of low wind power was broken on Wednesday evening, as a weak cold front marched across southern Australia. The chart below shows that the National Electricity Market (NEM) has endured a weeklong stretch of low wind generation, with wind power providing around 6% of the NEM’s electricity, down from last year’s average of 13.1% (Mon, April 15 to Wed, April 17).”

I’d be wonderin’ if those farmers might not be thinkin’ that we are here surrounded by acres of green grass, however not a solar panel, or wind turbine to be seen.

The grass area alone that covers Parly House could be host to a huge number of solar panels, but you canna see any.

Funny ole world innit.

I think the idea of solar, wind and even water power is great! We need more options for power sources. But the whole situation with solar and wind farms is humanity taking responsibility. I understand it may ‘ruin the landscape’ for some people but it’s better to have it than to have no landscape at all.

Capital Retro10:33 am 16 Feb 24

This is the current mantra of the inner city Greens who used to protect the landscape.

Capital Retro9:06 am 16 Feb 24

This is called contemporary (temporary con?) impressionism:

https://www.erinhanson.com/portfolio/palm-springs-windmills

Capital Retro10:28 am 08 Feb 24

Imagine life without petroleum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=winJj-1Q3uk

Matthew Davies8:34 pm 07 Feb 24

So what happened to the article previously on riotact that referenced surveys showing how minimal support for this rabble actually is? I thought it was a rare piece of actual journalism. Where has it gone?

Capital Retro11:49 am 07 Feb 24

The landowners who allow these monstrosities on be built on their properties will regret it as while most planning permits state that decommissioning responsibilities rest with the project owner (i.e. the tenant) however, in the event of default by the project owner, the liability for decommissioning ultimately may rest with the landholder. The landholder generally does not have ownership of the project’s assets and may be unable to recover the costs of any decommissioning activities from selling the assets remaining on the property. Project operators/owners may change many times during the life of the project, and this may put at risk any long-term funding arrangements to cover the costs of decommissioning or erode the enforceability of verbal agreements made over time.

con tricolas1:10 pm 07 Feb 24

Let’s give them the right to reply, shall we? You do a lot of talking for other people.

Capital Retro10:25 pm 07 Feb 24

This has been already reported in the media by a spokesman from the demonstrating group. Not the ABC or Guardian though.

Did “the demonstrating group” explain how such risks differ from those of any other commercial arrangement involving asset lease, or do they not have a clue? How about you?

Did they discuss the somewhat obvious likelihood of re-powering rather than tear-down on a prime site, or does blind prejudice overwhelm them? How about you?

How to show you have no idea about contracting without saying it.

I have no moral, scientific or environmental concerns about nuclear power, but the ability for a plant to be built in Australia , and then serviced by competent employees is well beyond our capability at present. So you are looking at 8-10 years to get to that level where a plant could conceivably be built and staffed. Add in 5-10 years of court cases objecting to every proposal and every proposed site. There might be better options by that stage.

CaptainSpiff9:06 pm 06 Feb 24

Wonder how many of the suburban lefties would like to have a 200 meter high wind turbine built on a neighbors plot, towering over their property?

Or, placed in the ocean offshore from a favorite beach hideaway?

Wind turbines may look cute from a distance but I guarantee you would not like to live close to one.

Why? Are they proposed to be built out the back door of farmhouses or in suburban back yards?

Coal stations do not even look cute on a map, while polluting everywhere around.

None of this matters. Various renewables are cheaper to build, own, operate, tear down and remediate than any coal or nuclear option. In this case economics will decide outcomes despite strident opposition from self-interest and the usual small percentage..

I’ve never seen a turbine built closer than 1 kilometre from any home. And I’d be fine to have them built close to any of my favourite beaches.

Capital Retro9:47 am 07 Feb 24

How much is it going to cost to build the wind harvesters and sun miners and the grids needed to get Australia to “net zero”?

Ask the investors who are doing it for good financial reasons, Capital Retro.

Why do you make these strange, irrelevant comments? You have a talent for writing a splutter.

Capital Retro8:30 am 08 Feb 24

The current government say they are the investors and it’s our money of course. I can’t agree it is for “good financial reasons” unless I see a business plan, value for money proposal or a simple cost/benefit statement. My money is being invested but I wasn’t given any details.

Perhaps you can post a copy of the ones you received?

Do show where any wind turbines are built that close to someone’s house. Anywhere in Australia please?

And have you ever looked at a map and seen the sorts of stuff built 10 – 15 km offshore around Australia.

When you have to resort to such nonsense, it really shows you either don’t know what you are talking about, or have precious little actual argument.

“Ask the investors who are doing it for good financial reasons, Capital Retro.

Why do you make these strange, irrelevant comments? You have a talent for writing a splutter.”

Because said poster subscribes to the ‘vomit often, vomit everywhere’ approach, no matter how irrelevant or frankly stupid comments may be.

Greetings,

I don’t have a pony in this race, but here are some facts. No matter where you locate your future power generation plants you are going to need power / transmission lines. Underground is 3 to 5 times as costly.

You need to realize nuclear is going to take years and years. Almost no one in Australia has likely worked on a nuclear power project. The US is now in the same position as most of their plants finished up in the 1980’s. It truly is a different type of building, requiring special engineering and tradie’s. Google ” Vogtle “, a nuclear plant. 7 years behind schedule and $ AUD 26 Billion over cost. If Australia said YES to nuclear tomorrow, you would not have a plant for 15 years.

I’m in my mid 40’s and people were using the same arguments against nuclear back then “it’ll take 10-15 years!!!” If we had any forethought, we would have planned and started two to three decades ago.

As far as planning, and expertise goes… go straight to France. They have been continuing to build them for a very long time now; It’s where the country gets the majority of its power from.

As far as environmental risk goes – ever heard of disasters in France from their, what 60 or so, with more to come reactors?

con tricolas8:30 am 07 Feb 24

Yes, it will still take 10 to 15 years if not longer. Nothing has changed. We are currently running at 40% renewables in this country. Where will we be in 15 years? I am not a never-nuclear person…but..

Bob,
You’re right in that 20-30 years ago it might have made sense to build nuclear reactors but the scare campaigns of the time got in the way.

But today at absolutely makes no sense.

The same scare campaigns and Nimbys still exist, no one is going to want to live next to a plant despite the proven long term safety of nuclear.

But the main reason is simple cost. Why would you want to build more expensive generation capacity when far cheaper options are available that don’t come with the significant additional negatives of nuclear?

chewy14 – The simple reason is renewables don’t generate 24/7 and energy storage at scale is prohibitively expensive. We still need baseload power, specifically for night time use.

The place to build a large nuclear reactor is an area where both the NSW and VIC grids can connect. It doesn’t have to be close to residential areas so the NIMBY’s don’t really have a leg to stand on there.

Bob,
Even if you include the cost of energy storage, renewables are still cheaper.

And if you include the cost of carbon capture or emissions offsets for fossil fuels, the gap is even wider.

And if you think there are readily available sites away from residential areas that you could sensibly place Nuclear reactors, name some?

They need access to significant amounts of water for cooling and emergency purposes along with the requirements for access to support services and the highly specialised engineering and technical staff to run them. The sensible locations are all near existing large population centres.

The more renewables the more unstable the grid is. You need Some baseload generators with dispatchable power from hydro or nuclear. Wind doesn’t always blow.

Then in 10 years you have to re-build all the green stuff as its aged and retired

Gooterz,
Every word of what you just said was incorrect.

Well done.

Elle Cehcker5:54 pm 06 Feb 24

If the Government was serious, Nuclear would be on the table.

Someone, somewhere is making a lot of “Green” selling renewables…

Capital Retro8:58 am 07 Feb 24

The $300M Bango Wind Farm (recently featured in RiotACT) has now been sold to an equity partners company based in Luxembourg. These people make money using other peoples money. they do not make clean, green power.

The same old collection of cookers and far right deniers. Anti-science and anti-fact, just a rag tag collection of lost minds.

Had a look at some of the livestreams of this protest and besides a large part of it being co-opted by the loopier sovcit/freedom movement, they are lucky if there would be 200 people there.

There’s abundant infighting, name calling, and more conspiracy theories than you could poke a stick at. It’s a whole lot of nothing. Lots of folks sold a lie for what it was going to be, with the harsh reality setting in now. Feel for the few farmers that seem to have genuine concerns.

There’s of course already talk in here about how it’s the fossil fuel industry who pushes anti-climate change rhetoric, out of self-serving interests. But this is just stupid. Completely bloody stupid. And I’ll prove it (not that anyone who’s in favour of the climate change narrative will be capable of understanding, even though understanding should be no more difficult than adding up 1 + 1.

1. If CO2 induced climate change was real, and we’d be cooked if we didn’t do anything about it soon, what’s self-interested about ignoring this, for the purpose of making money out of fossil fuels, to then only be cooked and die, being unable to enjoy you rmoney? The answer of course is that it’s not self-interest, but stupid and completely non-sensical. 1 + 1 = 2. Capiche?

2. The fossil fuel industry is very, very rich and business savvy. This means that, by now, with everyone else against them, ranging from equally rich and business savvy parties, such as bankers, nations, the media, the Vatican etc., they’d have not only realised that fossil fuel was a losing cause, but they’d have abandoned it by now in favour of renewables, which they’d easily be able to do, given the money and business acumen they have. And yet, despite what I’ve said making perfect sense, you’ll still have the donkeys saying that the fossil fuel industry is fighting climate change science, so that it can stay in business and get even richer. And the donkeys incessantly spew out this BS because they can’t figure out what 1 + 1 is.

As all of the above is irrefutable logic, it leaves only one possibility as to who it is that’s doing all the lying, and why it is that they’d be doing it.

1. No one sensible who understands the science of climate change says that the outcome is “we’ll be cooked”, although some of those who don’t believe in climate change clearly already do fit that description.

The impacts are incremental over time and will impact poor people far more than those already wealthy, who have greater ability and resources to protect themselves.

So your “logic” fails at the first hurdle and that’s even ignoring the fact that there are numerous historical instances of industries ignoring longer term risks to focus on immediate profit.

2. Um, this is exactly what is happening, the market and spread of renewables is growing enormously whilst global fossil fuel growth is stagnating even with population increases and the third world increasing their fossil fuel use as their economies modernise to bring people out of poverty. Once again, doesn’t stop the fossil fuel industries trying to exploit that short term profit, particularly with the large amount of sunk production/use cost that already exists.

Irrefutable logic, LOL.

“ the fossil fuel industry is fighting climate change science, so that it can stay in business and get even richer. it’s … stupid and completely non-sensical”.

You said it.

Did the tobacco industry switch to food crops when by the 1950s they learned the health effects of smoking, or keep churning out the product and profits?

Do you have the slightest comprehension of capital investment, accounting, or markets?

By the way, 1 1 + = 10 irrefutably, and ‘capiche’ is pseudo-Italian slang showing a desire to sound mafia-ish with no understanding.

@Vassily M
Pleasing to see your post is up to your usual rant and rave standard. Nothing to refute in your logic because all you’ve proved is … well … ummm … errr … hmmm – can I get back you on that?

The desperation of the rural Nimbys is palpable.

These are the climate change denialist crazies that gave us Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison!

All this Cockie madness descending on Canberra! Just look at the various factions and Anti-government groups lining up to show their faces – anti-vaccine, anti-Asian, anti-Yes vote, anti-logging and anti-just about everything else that aligns with their hostile and far right thought processes!

Not to mention the misfits and keynote speakers who will be there representing them – One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and her slavish and diminutive sidekick Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts, Far right National Party Senator and Young Liberal pin-up girl Jacinta Price, New England country bumpkin and ex-Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, United Australia national director Craig Kelly and Queensland Senator Matthew Canavan.

Says it all!

GrumpyGrandpa8:49 pm 06 Feb 24

Jack D.
I’d be a bit careful when labelling and bagging groups and individuals.

One of those groups you speak ill of – the anti-Yes group, representative 60% of Australians.

And while there are some individuals that you mentioned who are opinionated, like all Australians, they have a right to have an opinion, even if it differs from yours or that of the government.

I think a substantial number of Auatralians would consider Senator Price an outstanding person. Barnaby, like him or not, he has been a Deputy Prime Minister and with that role should come respect, and Pauline, whilst controversial, she has the gonads to speak her mind and in a democracy, that’s a good thing.

CaptainSpiff9:08 pm 06 Feb 24

So much sneering condescension.

Maybe you could try to make a point? Or do you just hate everyone who disagrees with you?

ALP doesn’t care as long as they win the election.
Nuclear is a fossil fuel, but so is the sun.

The only difference with green energy is the destruction of the environment is upfront. Once you have it, it eco friendly.

Nuclear is the only option. The ALP and greens costed it, but they costed it like you wanted a small one in every suburb. We’re one of the only countries without nuclear.

con tricolas8:04 am 07 Feb 24

‘We’re one of the only countries without nuclear.’ 50 countries have nuclear which leaves many without don’t you think?

Tristram Lennard1:45 pm 06 Feb 24

I’m in the crowd listening to the speakers.

If the ‘farmers’ that are here (outnumbered by the red ensign waving freedom fighter loon platoon I might add) haven’t figured out by now that they’ve been had they simply haven’t been listening.

Let me take a wild guess and suggest this is some sort of stooge group backed by the fossil fuel industry.

Hmm yes, it’s definitely a conspiracy led by unseen — but sure to be present — agents from the dastardly fossil fuel industry.

Capital Retro8:37 am 07 Feb 24

It could also be said that the people ridiculing the farmers demonstration are stooges for a foreign power : https://www.solartrustcentre.com/blog/foreign-owners-reign-australian-wind-farm-developments

A lot of wind/solar projects are built by foreign entities largely funded by Australian renewable subsidies and are then sold off to pension funds and other countries, like China who already own a Australian based electrical generators and control our existing power grids.

Join the dots, Ian.

con tricolas8:37 am 07 Feb 24

I’m guessing they are also avid Sky News watchers.

NOT GREEN, NOT CLEAN, NOT ZERO.
Finally Australian regional electorates are pushing back against this false climate cult that has absolutely infilteated left Socialist politics at all levels.

All you need to do, is take note of who the “keynote” speakers at this were, and it will tell you who is behind it happening, the LNP, PHON, Clive Palmer, and the rest of the Right Wing mining lobby members, and their Parliamentary puppets. I’d be interested to know, how many of the protestors are financial members of the Nationals, Liberals or, other RW parties. My guess, all of them.

So, you’re saying it’s a conspiracy.

I hope this protest is successful. This government hasn’t got a clue. You cannot take over prime agricultural land.

Michael M, Actually it been shown that solar cells and windmills can coexist with farm lands. It’s not the farmers getting money from hosting windmills on their land who are complaining. (Maybe jealous neighbours.) No farm land has to be taken away for those. In fact, research shows that pasture does better under solar panels and the animals have shade then too. Win, win. I gave a link in the other article on this.

@Mchael M
I don’t believe the government has “nationalised” any agricultural land … the farmers are freely making their land available for commercial wind farms

A bit difficult growing crops then harvesting in between solar panels. And what research do you speak of? Driving past mugga lane tip and seeing sheep under the panels? Cows would be a much different prospect though wouldn’t it?

So why is this protest happening if the govt isn’t planning on doing just that. Albanese cannot be trusted. Look at what’s been built at Royala, williamsdale and Rose cottage? Yes you can have sheep grazing there but that’s about it. No crops or cattle. Just saying

@Mchael M, Actually it’s sprawling cities which are taking farmland. Farms can coexist with solar panels.

con tricolas8:15 am 07 Feb 24

So it’s such a pressing issue for farmers that 200 turned up..LOL

Capital Retro8:48 am 07 Feb 24

You have never worked on a farm have you, con. It’s not like the public service who allow staff to attend climate change demonstrations or to have bereavement leave for the death of their pet bantam rooster.

Capital Retro9:10 am 07 Feb 24

Maya123, the farmers who have gleefully hosted the wind harvesters on their properties for a fee will be complaining in 15 years time when they are left with the derelict clapped out structures which have to be removed and it won’t be the offshore owners who will pay for that.

con tricolas9:59 am 07 Feb 24

Do you mean farmers can’t attend climate change demonstrations or get bereavement leave for the death of their pet bantam rooster?? Poor souls.

con tricolas10:06 am 07 Feb 24

Maybe the farmers who turned up yesterday could debate the other farmers who are hosting the Wind turbines. Perhaps a nationally televised debate on Sky if we can trust Murdochs not to ‘load’ the audience. It seems to me that they are more displeased with their fellow farmers than they are with ‘guvment’. We in Canberra could also be spared their endless whining and flag abuse.

Capital Retro11:54 am 07 Feb 24

Like I said, you have never worked on a farm.

In reply to Capital Retro.

@Capital Retro
“… the farmers who have gleefully hosted the wind harvesters on their properties for a fee will be complaining in 15 years time when they are left with the derelict clapped out structures which have to be removed and it won’t be the offshore owners who will pay for that …”
Oh dear, CR, another of your fabricated mistruths which is easily refuted with minimal research – Refer to page 12 (“Decommissioning”) in the link below:
https://www.tiltrenewables.com/documents/828/SETUP_Tilt_WF_FAQs_OCT21_WEB_0L9KXT3.pdf

Why don’t you actually save yourself the embarassment of constantly being caught out by doing a little googling before you post another furphy?

con tricolas1:22 pm 07 Feb 24

Either have you

Capital Retro. And how do you know they will be left with the structures. You are making that up. Many farmers appreciate the income this brings to them, as it gives them a guaranteed income.

Capital Retro11:08 pm 15 Feb 24

I have posted elsewhere on this thread information that I got from government guidelines for aspiring wind factory hosts. I am not making it up.

It clearly states the risk that the landholder faces if the “end owner” of the asset cannot honour the requirement to dismantle and dispose of the “clapped out” equipment. It is likely that the end owner (these assets change ownership regularly) may be a “$2.00 company” so disposal becomes the responsibility of the landholder.

The government should have insisted that a bond be lodged to cover disposal before initial approval was given. This happens with most other extraction industries. Maybe that’s why they are called “farms” and not “mines”.

Michael M, Sheep and cattle don’t harvest fields. I’m sure the whole farm won’t be covered in solar panels, unless that’s what the farmer wants. Very lucrative having a solar farm on your property. Some people, like you go out of their way to make irrelevant comments, and ignore research that says pastures improve under solar panels and sheep also have shade. Yes, some fields are planted on sheep and cattle farms, but not most of them. On the farm I lived on most of the fields didn’t have crops.

They look like a glass wasteland! Horrible things, One way to totally ruin a beautiful rural landscape and those humongous wind towers are pretty terrible as well. Makes everything look so dystopian and artificial.

Capital Retro8:12 am 16 Feb 24

And the fields on the farm you lived on didn’t have solar panels or bird blenders either.

Kalo Arepo, Pollution from coal powered stations isn’t great either. I prefer the cleaner air over fields of solar panels, than the stink of coal powered power stations.

Capital Retro, Yes we know you prefer coal powered stations. Hunter valley, with nice farm land, but sticking.

Oops, that’s stinking 😀

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.