Are We Forgetting the Aim of the Energy Transition?

Humans have lived through a range of temperature changes. It is recent civilization that we are trying to save with people living all over the earth in great numbers needing a lot of energy not least in the form of food. We tend to forget how hard life was trying to have enough energy to survive even after we discovered fire.  For most of our existence, the only way for a few individuals to get ahead a little was to use slaves or beasts of burden or warriors. These living energy sources were fed as little as possible or used as canon fodder.  They rarely lived very long.

Then, only a few centuries ago, we discovered much more energy dense fossil fuels.  Suddenly, we could abhor slave labour, care about animal welfare and we could all have good shelter and food.  Poverty has been slowly disappearing in many parts of the world.

Our modern food production is very dependent on a stable climate. It is also very energy intensive.  A few degrees of extra heat or a little less rain has devastating effects on production levels. 

How do we balance energy needs with maintaining a stable climate?  The critical action at this time is lowering greenhouse gas emissions. To do this, the biggest tasks are the electrification of many processes as possible, decarbonization of electricity generation and carbon capture and storage. What is the only energy efficient and cost-effective method of carbon capture and storage? As discussed in my previous blog natural systems are wonderful at carbon capture and storage. Let nature do its work!

Hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, and geothermal power plants all use up energy and produce relatively small amounts of carbon dioxide in their manufacture, construction, demolition, and recycling. Energy is used in the mining for their manufacture.  Some require lots of backup storage or have other firming or conversion requirements. All require transmission lines.

What are Queensland’s Plans?

Queensland Government plans to deliver:

• 50% renewable energy target by 2030
• 30% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030
• 70% renewable energy by 2032
• 80% renewable energy by 2035
• zero net emissions by 2050.

Far North Queensland has two wind farms, Mt Emerald (180MW) and Windy Hill(24MW), with a third, the Kaban Green Power Hub under construction. Under Phase 1, the government has invested $40 million to upgrade the coastal 157 KV transmission infrastructure between Cairns and Townsville to 275KV. This investment will provide up to 500 MW of renewable energy connection potential in Far North Queensland. Several investors have shown interest in the area, with the $400 million 157 MW Kaban Wind Farm now under construction and expected to be operational this year. At Kaban there are 28 wind turbines which are 226m in height to the tip of the blade.

A photograph of Kaban Wind Farm taken Dec 2022. More roads and turbines can be seen in the distance.

Windy Hill has been running just over 20 years and has already needed to replace the wind turbine blades.

During the second half of last year, the Draft Public Environment Report was issued for the proposed Chalumbin Wind Farm on two grazing properties in Far North Queensland. These properties border the World Heritage Wet Tropics on the East and extend westward to the scattered woodland of the Einasleigh Uplands on the West.  Early pictures of the site by Epuron showed cattle grazing in scattered woodland but in reality, most of the wind turbines were to be sited on mountain ridges close to the eastern boundary in dense eucalypt and transitional forest. The potential impacts from the project are substantial and wide-ranging including threats to endangered species and aboriginal cultural heritage.

The site of the proposed Chalumbin Wind farm.

Photos used in publicity about Chalumbin Wind Farm

Under the current Australian system, comments on a draft PER can only be submitted to the Project Proponent. The proponent then revises the document and sends the document plus the comments to The Federal Minister for the Environment.  A decision on the Chalumbin project under the EPBC Act is yet to be issued and has already been postponed a few times. At one stage during the comment period, the Proponent put a full-page ad in the Cairns Post stating that they would welcome positive comments thus inferring that they would not accept negative comments.

A few locals have calculated the implications of the project from a carbon dioxide viewpoint. There were a number of omissions and critical mistakes in the Chalumbin PER about this topic such as equating carbon loads with carbon dioxide loads. This is a factor of 44 to 12.

Figures for the loss of forest carbon storage following clearance vary depending on the type of forest. The Chalumbin site is mostly pretty dense forest with good canopy cover for much of the areas where turbines are to be located. There are many trees with diameters of a metre or more. The carbon stored in these trees would be lost immediately if the trees are piled up and burnt or more slowly if the biomass is just allowed to rot.

Other losses following clearing include soil carbon, carbon from the roots and from soil biota. Estimates made on eucalypt plantations of soil carbon and root carbon loss suggest this can be double or more the above ground loss depending on the eucalypt species, the age of the trees and the rainfall. 

Many studies suggest that natural forests are better at carbon sequestration than plantation eucalypts and that tropical wetter eucalypt forests are better still.

At Chalumbin, I have conservatively calculated that loss of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during clearing will be about 2 million tonnes. Loss of sequestration over 20 years by this lost forest is 1.1 million tonnes or more. The carbon dioxide footprint of the wind turbines during their manufacture and transport to the site is about 300,000 tonnes. This is a total of 3.4 million tonnes.

The maximum savings in carbon dioxide made by replacing current power production with wind power  at Chalumbin is 12 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over a period of 20 years assuming a capacity factor of 30%.  The currently operating Mt Emerald Wind Farm has not achieved this capacity. So, this estimate should be dropped to 10 million tonnes or less.

This means that at least a third of the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions are lost by building a wind farm in this precious forest.

The losses don’t stop with Chalumbin.

Wind farm projects being proposed in the Wet Tropics Catchment Area are numerous and in areas of high biodiversity value, close to World Heritage areas and on the mountain ridges. This is death by a thousand cuts. The cumulative impacts from wind farm projects in the Wet Tropics Area will be unacceptability large and not usually considered.

Fragmentation of Forest and Edge Effects Destroy Biodiversity and Carbon Sequestration

Edge effects strongly affect forest microclimate, tree mortality, carbon storage and a diversity of fauna.

The hydrological regimes of fragmented landscapes differ markedly from those of intact forest. Desiccating conditions may penetrate up to 100m into areas near the roads. Streams in fragmented landscapes experience greater temporal variation in flow rate than do those in intact forests. Cleared areas have less evapotranspiration and rainfall interception and absorption by vegetation. Rapid runoff promotes localized flooding in the wet season and stream failure in the dry season, with potentially important impacts on aquatic animals.

Even narrow forest roads (20–30m) result in increased tree mortality and damage with wide-ranging alterations in the community composition of trees and undergrowth. Some insects and other fauna will not cross even narrow roads, yet hundreds of km of 70m or wider roads are being proposed.

If our forests are themselves at risk from Climate Change, forest fragmentation will accelerate the process.

Proposed Wind Farms Could Add Pollution to the Great Barrier Reef

Projects like Chalumbin lie on the head waters of the river catchments of the Wet Tropics Area. Hundreds of kms of unsealed 70-metre-wide roads that cross waterways have the potential to dump turbid water and other pollutants down rivers through areas of World Heritage Rain Forest out to the Great Barrier Reef. Farmers fear they will be blamed for the impacts.

We should remember that pollution accidents do happen. Wind turbines need lubricating and “oil changes” every 3 to 7 years. Over 200 litres of oil or synthetic lubricant is needed per turbine.

Building Wind Farms in Forests is a Terrible Waste

Forests are giant carbon and water storage batteries. Why discharge greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by land clearing and lose all the benefits forests provide in the mitigation of climate change? When they are gone, we lose all the carbon sequestration and cooling they do every day. Natural forests do this better than plantation forests.

By clearing forest to build wind farms, we lose a very substantial proportion of the carbon savings we would make by siting them elsewhere. A substantial proportion of what we gain in lower carbon emissions from wind power, we lose by destroying forests.

Even worse, we contribute to climate change through the loss of a range of mechanisms forests provide, long before any of the benefits of wind energy mitigate carbon emissions. This is needlessly making climate change worse in the short term which is the opposite to why we are setting 2030 targets.

We are also desecrating our irreplaceable biodiversity, Aboriginal cultural heritage, and tourist jobs in areas of high importance. High quality patches of remnant forest are rare and precious, and one proposed windfarm project area was being planned for inclusion in National Parks in the future. What a waste! We can fight climate change and protect our natural diversity at the same time. When our natural assets are gone, they are gone!

Loss of Forest Affects Cloud Formation and Alters the Hydrological Cycles 

Loss of forest on mountain tops will lessen rainfall and lead to more droughts and flooding. While one project may have almost negligible impact on weather, many more wind farms are proposed. The wind farm projects change the land use from forest to major industrial, with major extensions to each project being possible with much less assessment. This will impact on both our World Heritage listed Wet Tropical Forests and Great Barrier Reef while drying our inland agricultural lands to the west. Good agricultural land is critical to our future.

In Conclusion

 A substantial portion of the savings in carbon dioxide emissions made by using wind power are lost by building them in our precious forests. What a waste!

What worth do we put on the loss of biodiversity and ecosystems, stunning landscapes, natural carbon sequestration and storage. Forests cool the earth and make it rain. Forests soak up runoff like giant sponges and help prevent flooding, while recharging aquifers. They clean the water of pollutants so that most of the water going to the Great Barrier Reef is clean. Forest stabilises the soil so that turbid water does not kill frogs, fish, or corals.

We are putting so much at risk by building wind farms where they should not be.

I thought the goal was to fight climate change, not make it worse.

The photos in this blog are courtesy of Michael Seebeck and Steven Nowakowski

In my next blog I will provide more information about Queensland’s Energy and Jobs Plan, the Queensland SuperGrid.