Dear Diggers: The Windfarm Debate

Dear Diggers is a column in The Diggers Club magazine for Diggers Club Members to engage in healthy debate. This letter from Alice G started a thread of information regarding Wind Turbines. Read on to catch up on the thread and the various opinions of our members. 

Dear Diggers: The Windfarm Debate

Dear Diggers, 

I would like tosubmit a Letter to the Editor for publication in the Diggers magazine. Please also see the image atthe following website: 

https://recfit.tas.gov.au/what_is_recfit/energy_vision/renewable_zones 

By the way, if anyone at Diggers is interested to know where I got the information for my article, I have pasted a reference list just below the Letter to the Editor. 

Kind regards, 

Alice 

  

Letter to the Editor: (Featured in Diggers Autumn Garden edition 2025) 

 Wind Farms will Destroy our Soil  

I'm alarmed by the wind farms springing up Australia wide. Did you know turbines only last 20-25 years – then are usually dumped in landfill? How long can we keep this up? 

Thenthere's the toxic, endocrine-disrupting, reproductive system-harming BPA they shed into the environment through erosion of epoxy-based turbine blades.Don't believe those who sayit's negligible! One study of an operational wind farm reported that 50% of blades showed severe erosion after 14 years – enough to reduce energy production by up to 4.9% (through lost aerodynamic efficiency).Where's all this eroded BPA going? You guessed it! Our soil and water. 

LPA now asks farmers seeking accreditation a new question: "Do livestock have access to leaking electrical transformers, capacitors, hydraulic equipment, solar panels, wind turbines, coal seam gas structures or coal mine wastes?" No one can get answers as to why. Meanwhile, scientists are finding BPA in the livers of eagles near a large wind farm in Norway. 

As regards climate, wind turbines leak SF6 gas – a potent greenhouse gas with a global warming potential 23,500 times that of CO2, but whichcannot be absorbed by plants. We need trees, not turbines! And soil carbon. Dr. Christine Jones saidthat, "It would require only a 0.5% increase in soil carbon on 2% of agricultural land to sequester all Australia’s emissions of carbon dioxide." 

Here in Tasmania, much of our state is due to be covered in Renewable Energy Zones, transforming us from a tourist destination and food bowl into an industrial zone for energy generation.It's easy to say that nothing can be done, but we canall do something, even ifit's only to write letters to our politicians. 

 Alice G. 

References:  

 

Replies 1-5

 #1 To The Editor

Whilst I understand you have a policy of publishing opinions even though they differ from those of the publication, I have to say I was baffled by your choice to include that of Alice G. in your last issue. 

To describe it as a cherrypicked slew of misinformation is being polite. The only thing that differed from a hit piece direct from the coal loving LNP was her desire for more trees. Please be a little more diligent with your publishing choices in the future. 

Regards
A concerned digger. 

 

#2 Dear Diggers 

There is an alarming amount of false information about renewable energy being spread by the fossil fuel industry and its media supporters. Alice G made claims about wind turbine blades and Bisphenol A (BPA) which are simply not true and are fuelling anxiety. Wind turbines do not emit harmful amounts of BPA. The epoxy resin used in manufacturing blades doescontainsmall amounts of BPA, but once the resin cures and hardens, only microscopic traces of BPA remain. The US Food and Drug Administration haveestablished BPA exposure limits for food and beverages packaging which are far higher than any BPA emissions from wind turbines. Consumers have more exposure to BPA from their plastic containers and other packaging. Furthermore, when a blade becomes slightly eroded it is very quickly repaired because it starts to produce less energy. Doing otherwise would not make economic sense. 

A search of the source quoted at the end of Alice’s letter (recfit.tas.gov.au) does not reveal information about Bisphenol (BPA). This Government body is focused on reducing the State’s greenhouse gas emissions, creating jobs in the renewable sector and generating new income for farmers.Their mission is to be applauded. Our changing climate is due to decades of CO2 emissions primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. It is a problem that is affecting all of us and Australia is well placed (with our sun and open spaces) tobenefit from the economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy, such as wind farms and rooftop solar. 

Alice’s claim about SF6 is an exaggeration. SF6 is used not in the turbine itself, but in the switchgear that controls the current generated by the turbine. These switchgears are common to many other power applications and,according to the Norwegian research organisation, SINTEF, those used in substations for overhead powerlinescontain a far higher amount of the gas (several tonnes compared to less than 3 kilograms in the switchgear of a wind turbine). Research is ongoing to finda viable alternative to this gas. 

Regarding the Livestock Production Assurance form mentioned by Alice,it ispart ofa voluntary program of risk management to give confidence to consumers that red meat has been produced in an accredited acceptable way. The LPA's critical role in market accessnecessitates updates to keep pace with global demands. Their updates are a result of collaboration between Meat and Livestock Australia and the red meat industry.Ifa farmer seesrisk,they are obliged to say how they will minimise that risk.For example,farmers have risk management strategies for any electrical transformers on their farm preventing them from leaking toxicsubstances.Itis reasonable that just like any other machinery or equipment on farms, the LPAformhas been updated to include electrical transformers, coal seam gas structures, solarpanels andwind turbines. 

Thewonderful wild placesin Tasmania do need protection. Wind turbines play a vital role in doing just that by reducing the harmful CO2 emissions which are warming our planet and changing the climate.  

Sue H 

 

 #3 Dear Diggers, 

I am writing to express my disappointment and offence at the publication of the letter by Alice G. in the Autumn Garden edition. A bit of fact checking can easily show that the letter in questioncontains a few facts and a good amount of dis and misinformation. However, more to the point is why have you published it? Did you not have enough gardening related letters that month? 

As a keen gardener with a background in horticulture, my garden is an important aspect of my life, be it for growing food,flowers or pleasure. I’m sure like many subscribers to Diggers, the garden is a place of peace and calm and respite from the worries of the outside world. I like to read a diverse range ofviews; about gardening! To open mylong awaited magazine and read a letter expressing someone’s political views or opinions is, quite frankly,insulting and offensive. This is a very emotive issue and gardening is not. It is about creating a haven for humans and nature alike. 

I am not going to fall into the trap of pitting my beliefs and research against the earlierwriter,  I merely wish tostate that as a long-time Diggers subscriber, those letters belong inlocals papers and social media sites that ascribe to all manner of conspiracies. Gardening magazines of esteem are for gardening matters. 

Regards,
Jane H. 

 

#4 Dear Diggers    

 Claims like Alice G’s are disappointing because they detract from honest conversations about cleaner energy. No energy source is perfect, but wind is far better than coal,oil and gas. Planting trees isgreat, butwon’t replace dirty energy sources. Those concerned about BPA might more logically look at their shoes, which in wind-energy-friendlyDennark contribute hundreds of times more BPA than wind turbines.  

And Europe’s SF6 leakage from their wind farms equals 0.001% of emissions they avoid by wind energy each year.Don’t like how turbines look? Please be honest and say so. And consider directing some of your concern to toxins from burning dirty coal, or gas exploitation that wreaks havoc on fragile coastal environments.  

As you may be aware,almost all credible environmental groups support the responsible development of wind. This even includes the bird advocacy group,BirdLife. 

Most resistance to wind comes from the fossil fuel industry and people whodon’t want their landscape to change. The latter is a validconcern, but is often unstated and masked in a lot of spurious claims.  

Janice W 

 

#5 The Editor 

It is challenging to sort out facts from fiction in these days of misinformation and disinformation. Unfortunately, the letter “Wind farms will destroy our soil” (Autumn edition) falls mostly into the misinformation category. The greatest threats to Australian soil are erosion, acidification and salinisation, not wind farms. While it is true that four renewable energy zones have been planned for Tasmania, three on land, and stronger nature laws are needed to ensure more native forest and endangered species habitat is not lost, the claims about Bisphenol A (BPA) from weathering blades significantly polluting soil are grossly exaggerated and have been debunked. Wedefinitely need tomonitor for all sorts of pollutants, and not just under wind farms. However, a 2024 Dutch study found the level of BPA per cubic meter of air directly behind a wind turbine’s blades was millions of times smaller than the European Chemical Agency’s recommended limit for BPA in the workplace.  

Your correspondent also claims that “wind turbines leak SF6”, sulphur hexafluoride, a potent greenhouse gas. This is misleading. SF6 is used to prevent fire in switchgear in substations, acomponent of all electricity systems regardless of the source of electricity generation. Finding an alternative to SF6 is what we need. Fortunately, advances are being made.  

The dirtiest fuels are coal and gas which also threaten the aquifers farmers rely on. Nuclear power has radioactive waste. Renewables are the cleanest source of power available to us. References provided.  

Ray P 

References for BPA: 

References for SF6 

References forClean Energy