With only 10% of the 300+ billion to be spent on renewables spent so far being reported.
We are concerned out here that our already solar overburdened cropping and paddock landscape is going to become a sea of glass.
That's OK.
Discussion in the bush is we will feed ourselves first and then send the "scraps" over the mountains to those consuming all the power WE generate for them.
We wouldn't mind so much, but these lousy overseas solar construction companies make more profit trenching to 800 mm on soft loaming prime farming land rather than construction on non arable poor quality sunny side dirt.
The next person that tells me "but you can run sheep under the panels" cops a spray. Sure you can, but the paddocks still become degraded and cannot have lucerne, peas or any other crops ploughed to put in to improve the soil quality. In some cases they have altered the water courses causing further degradation.
They have sold out our prime farming land to greedy, overseas solar construction firms pocketing our taxpayers dollars.
Rmoor, I confess to not knowing that this was the situation regards the solar panels. How to solve this problem when big money is involved I haven't a clue.
There is now a significant backlash in rural areas by communities and several meetings have been held locally to oppose the many solar farm proposals in the pipeline.
Communities have come to the realisation they were conned in the early days and now there is a sh*tfight every time a new proposal to "steal" prime farm land arises.
This is likely to cause some angst in government circles that are hard pressed to push "renewables".
Problem is, now with urban voters giving a mandate, what will happen to our prime farming dirt now?
We are effectively toothless tigers.
I won most outstanding exhibit with one food item last week at the annual show, don't even have to water most times, as the soil is so good in my region you could grow babies in it.
Initially I couldn't figure out why these solar and wind farm construction companies would lease say 250 hectares of prime land off a farmer at about 10% of the value of the farm with the asset only having a 25 year life. I always thought, there is something wrong with that contract? Why don't they just buy the farm outright at about 40% of the end leasing cost.
Then the penny dropped, at the end of life, in many cases it is the farmer who has to dispose of the obsolete monstrosity on their land. The cost of removal would be enormous at end of life. Also I believe, end of life the other way, if the farmer dies, then the contract expires, they are not transferable. Which one would assume in many cases is also not saleable?
Conned again.
There is only one winner at all ends, the greedy overseas owned construction company that handshakes all these deals, then sells out to any local electricity provider at huge profits and the profits and our govt funding slinks off overseas again.
I couldn't figure out why a $350,000 lease annually of 250 hectares of solar panel land was feasible over 25 years ? I seemed too good to be true.
Then also, the penny drops. Who is paying at the end of the day, easy, it is us - the end electricity user AND the taxpayer for construction. Brace yourselves, the true cost of all this is yet to hit.
The solar farm at Wellington is owned by the Beijing Energy International. It seems they own it outright. What surprised me is that it was approved by the State LNP when they were last in power and that a Nationals local member saw no issue. It also caused no concern with their Federal counterparts who were also in government at that time.
I guess they couldn't think of anything else to do after they had approved the lease of the Port of Darwin so this was the next project in looking after rural people who they always trumpet about looking after,
-- Edited by DMaxer on Thursday 5th of June 2025 11:35:55 AM
Solar electricity isn't an agricultural product. It doesn't care whether the land is arable, so pick a dry-as-a-bone wasteland and build your panels on that. Where is the problem? Is it because all transmission lines necessarily run over prime farming land? I don't get it.
__________________
"No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full."
Well, it wasnt a compulsory acquisition or resumption, so I guess the farmer who owned the land agreed to lease it.
I bet he is making more per acre than cropping and letting everyone else whinge as he laughs all the way to the nearest bank.
Too much emotional BS. https://iceds.anu.edu.au/news-events/news/no-threat-farm-land-just-1200-square-kilometres-can-fulfil-australia%E2%80%99s-solar-and
So how much land do we need? Typically, only about 1% of land covered by a windfarm is actually lost to farming. In most cases, farmers run livestock or continue cropping around the turbine towers and access roads.
Similarly, because solar panels are spaced apart, the area spanned by a solar farm is often two to three times the actual area of the panels themselves.
The panels are typically spaced to avoid losses from shading. As an added bonus, it means rain and sunlight can fall between them, allowing grass to grow and livestock to graze and shelter.
About 10,000km of new transmission lines will also be required for the energy transition. This sounds like a lot but amounts to just 37 centimetres per person.
Again, the area of land that would be taken away from agriculture for wind turbine towers and access roads is relatively small.
A further small area of land will be dedicated to new storage such as pumped hydro power and batteries.
The total area spanned by the solar farms, wind farms and all the other infrastructure is about 22,000 square km (mostly the land between the turbines in windfarms). But agriculture could continue largely as normal on most of this land.
By my calculations, the total area taken away from agriculture to power a 100% renewable energy (zero fossil fuel) economy is about 45 square metres per person. Considering Australias total population of 27 million people, that means the total land area required is 1,200 square km. The area currently devoted to agriculture is about 3,500 times larger than this.
Compare that to Leigh Creek, a tiny coal mine in South Australia that stopped operating about 15 years ago. It is a waste land of about 30 sq km. In 100 years it will still be a waste land.
There are 60,000 abandoned coal mines in Australia.
Why do you always ruin ignorant whingeing by bringing in facts, Peter.
I was recently out near Nyngan in western NSW and went for a look at the solar farm. Heaps of solar panels and heaps of sheep wandering about in between them.
I know the bloke well who sold the land for the first one. 584 hectares in fact.
The one at Suntop was also land that was sold for significantly more than the real estate value at the time.
That one is still in court last I heard with the flooding caused by the idiots that designed it and altered the water courses.
There is much more to the issue than a few off the cuff remarks from people who have little possession of the facts.
On the first construction there was initially a significant amount of weed and burrs under the panels - not sheep.
Subsequent weed spraying fed into neighbouring properties from one local solar farm one of the neighbours told me who copped a cloud of roundup.
Many of the new ones are leased, some are purchased land.
I spotted a huge sign in Geurie whilst on the road a few days ago.
Advertising the community group opposing the 3,264 (or so) acres to be lost to one proposed out there.
There is a lot to it, more than meets the eye, though one did expect a few flippant comments from city slickers who think they know it all.
The comment from those ignorant to the facts that a few sheep can wander happily under them does nark locals.
The pasture cannot be improved for at least 25 years.
Burr and weed growth seems to be more prevalent than under normal circumstances.
The land is degraded over time.
It is not whinging, but statement of fact of significant degradation.
I was wondering when the sheep wandering about rubbish would surface.
Then there is the huge opposition to the European Wind Turbine company with little regard for the 100 year old remembrance trees at Oberon they want to destroy for their props in transit and they don't kick the can for road adjustments and damage caused at roads circa Bathurst.
The ratepayers have to cop the damages bill and the European hit and run wind farm mob just alight with the profits and don't give a damn about Australia.
The high voltage transmission lines from our region to the Central Coast/Newcastle actually do traverse very poor quality ground.
The overseas money hungry solar and wind construction companies don't work that ground.
Digging trenches to 800mm (solar) is too much hard work for them and reduces their profit margins.
That has been the argument from the beginning in the bush and just about every person recognises and says the same thing.
Make them use the non arable poor quality rocky ground near the transmission lines.
Just because a person doesn't agree with you does not mean they are flippant, city slickers or know it alls. As I said before, why did your local member and his government allow it to happen if the problem was so obvious.
These solar farms just don't spring up overnight. There is a proposal that is then subject to public comment. If there is no public backlash of sufficient intensity it then goes through a planning stage and then proceeds through the various Government channels. At all stages objections can be lodged. If objections are rejected the Land and Environment court can hear and determine the application. Usually what happens is if there is sufficient objections on reasonable grounds the proposal is rejected and the person or company seeking the approval takes the Government Department to the Land and environment Court.
I know that here in the Northern Rivers of NSW we have fought off everything from high rise in inappropriate areas to coal seam and mining applications .Local citizens have an enormous amount of clout in these matters.
I know that sheep graze around these structures because my friend has his sheep in there. They also have a few goats to keep the weeds and burrs in check.
I think it is wrong to blame people who live in a city for wanting renewable energy. Look at their roof tops, covered in panels that one day they will have to remove and replace at their own cost. That all goes into the grid, do the people in your area whinge about that too.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 6th of June 2025 10:43:05 AM
Of course though, in the early days the Modus Operandi of the greedy overseas construction companys was not known at the time.
Mind you, the current NSW premier, who at the time was the leader of the opposition was the only one to respond to several letters I wrote about the bankers coming out of Burrendong Dam for 3 months or more feeding the greedy cotton fields downstream several years ago.
Burrendong was drained to 1% and then the big drought hit.
Leaders from all walks of life have little regard for our once great country and appear to have little conscience when it comes to raping our environment or water assets.
On governing, a govt appointed Reflections group, as a supposed not for profit entity, was evolved to manage Burrendong accommodation and many other state owned assets. As usual, that also has resulted in another disaster.
Around Adelaide we are loosing 10X the area of quality arable market garden land because of new housing than through solar panels.
Why is there no objection to that. There are better options.
Cheers,
Peter
