A HIGH-SPEED rail connection between Newcastle and Sydney would make Sydney more accessible. Hunter commuters working in Sydney and businesses freighting their products to Sydney would benefit, depending on cost ('Experts on board for rail authority', Newcastle Herald, 6/6).
Cost would be critical. In this context, would the service be public or private? History has shown that private operators jack up fares and minimise maintenance to improve their return on investment. If the service was privately owned, the operator would try to claw back high building costs by charging through the nose.
London's long-distance commuters pay a fortune in fares each week. Ask any Brit whether he or she thinks that privatising the British rail network was a good idea.
Geoff Black, Caves Beach
Coal approvals are in question
NO minister for the environment should be approving new coal mines in a climate and biodiversity crisis ('Minister's coal call to be challenged in court', Herald, 7/6). Coal pollution is undoubtedly causing catastrophic climate change related extreme weather events and disrupting precious ecosystems. To make matters worse, satellite data is now exposing the considerable under-predicting and under-reporting of coal mine emissions. The game is up.
Australia desperately needs an updated Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, possibly with a climate trigger, to ensure that decisions will actually protect our precious environment.
Amy Hiller, Kew
Is fibreglass our next problem
IT appears that close to a million dollars will be given to assist with the recycling of solar panels ('New life for old solar panels', Herald, 7/6) where up to 90 per cent by weight will be recycled. I imagine it's not 90 per cent by volume because the fibreglass construction is massive, but not very heavy. So what happens to this fibreglass?
I placed two small fibreglass garden pots out for council kerbside pickup, but they were left on the kerbside. I have been informed since then that the council does not pick up or allow fibreglass to be dumped at its waste disposal facility because it does not break down over time.
When my small amount is not wanted, how are the millions of cubic metres of wind turbine blades and solar panels going to be discarded, because they are made of a similar fibre carbon material and need to be replaced every 20 years?
Will they come with a guarantee of returning to sender, or will they create an environmental waste disposal problem for thousands of years? The magnitude of this problem makes the waste disposal of much smaller amounts of nuclear waste every 70 years, although not desirable, far more acceptable. So where is the problem?
Carl Stevenson, Dora Creek
You can't deny the momentum
THE Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) says surging renewable energy output saw wholesale power prices in the March quarter 62 per cent lower than the September quarter last year. In the last 12 months, electricity generated by rooftop solar panels grew 23 per cent, and from large scale wind and solar farms 11 per cent, as new projects came online. Gas-fired generation dipped to its lowest level in 20 years.
The last coal-fired turbine at Liddell was recently switched off, to be replaced by a giant battery. "The world is changing, and so is AGL," said its chief executive. Global demand for coal is trending sharply down, according to the International Energy Agency, which notes that 90 per cent of new energy installed around the world in the next two years will be renewable. In the US, coal power made up half the energy mix a decade ago; it's now less than a fifth and falling fast.
China burns about 50 per cent of the world's coal but its demand has flatlined, as vast amounts of solar and wind power are connected to its grid. Between 2022 and 2025 China is expected to bring 1000 terawatt hours of new renewable energy online, or roughly the equivalent of 500 Liddell coal-fired plants.
In the US, in what has been described as the biggest ever piece of peacetime industrial policy in the democratic world, the Inflation Reduction Act and associated legislation has seen over $US 1 trillion pumped into renewable energy industries over the last 18 months.
Meanwhile, a coterie of contributors to this page cling to coal, and forecast catastrophic blackouts and other calamities unless we keep digging it up. They regularly accuse others of hypocrisy for wanting an end to coal while at the same time using the power it provides.
I wonder if they'll think the same of themselves as they use more and more renewable energy to light their homes, cook their meals, and watch Sky After Dark.
Few generations witness such an enormous structural change to their economy and society as that currently under way. It is unstoppable. More importantly, it is crucial to a sustainable future. It should be welcomed and supported.
Michael Hinchey, New Lambton
A different spin on turbines
HOW ironic that Rising Tide activists cite threats to marine life in support of their rally for offshore wind turbines when there is an obvious overlooked direct threat to marine life ('Walk for Hunter offshore wind', Herald, 5/6). According to a quick Google search, each turbine has to operate continuously for seven years just to replace the energy it took to manufacture. They are dependent on wind being neither too light nor too strong, so such efficiency cannot be attained. Each turbine also requires 60 gallons of lubricant, which must be replaced biannually at significant risk of contamination to the environment from leaks and spills.
They also have a life span of just 20 years and will create an enormous amount of waste that cannot be recycled. Factor in the risk from the major storms common here, and risks of contamination and shortened lifespan are magnified.
I believe the proposed location of these turbines poses a significant risk to local fisheries at three important estuaries. They are also directly in the path of the annual whale migration, which I fear will inevitably be disrupted. Frequencies from vibrations during operation are also an unknown threat to marine life given that sound travels farther and is louder in water.
It seems that the potential risk of disaster far outweighs any potential benefit, particularly given the lack of evidence that ocean temperatures can be influenced. The offshore turbines will not only be an eyesore, visible from our coastline, but they are a potential environmental disaster and environmental vandalism.
Greg Howley, Lambton
SHORT TAKES
I THINK the scandal involving PwC is another example of privatising gone horribly wrong ('Claims Treasury 'sleeping at the wheel' over PwC tax scandal', Newcastle Herald, 8/6). When in power the past LNP governments, both state and federal, have slashed the public service and paid private consulting firms to do the same job. While most of these firms likely do the right thing, there are always exceptions to the rule. These companies do not work for free and the financial savings the government tells us they deliver I believe are a big lie. Privatising a government-owned industry has always been a disaster for the workers of this country and always will be.
Darryl Tuckwell, Eleebana
WHILE I have few issues around the safe management of a nuclear power station, the claim that a nuclear power station will not require subsidies is wrong. After factoring in the capital cost and the time delays in bringing a nuclear power plant into production, the financing costs alone mean that it needs to be subsidised. In addition the window when the wholesale electricity price more than covers the operating cost of generating nuclear power will close as renewables fill the gap. The assumption that a nuclear plant will pay taxes in the future is a pipe dream and will require more subsidies than renewables plus storage.
Lloyd Davies, Stockton
YES there is a double standard when it comes to war crimes as Barry Swan has pointed out ('Double standards on war crimes', Letters, 7/6). But guerrilla wars are a major driver of atrocities because everyone is a potential enemy and some combatants become unhinged. As a thought we might ask ourselves if Ben Roberts-Smith would have done any terrible deeds if he had not been sent to that war. If that were the case, then in my opinion the crimes he committed are shared ones, but no-one considers prosecuting those like John Howard who sent people to an illegal war in Iraq.
Don Owers, Dudley
DURING a recent trip to Canada, I was able to ride the SkyTrain in Vancouver. While much of this automated metro system runs underground, some is elevated. There is nothing new about this. I have seen this in parts of Melbourne where level crossings have been removed and part of the Sydney metro is elevated as well. Considering the difficulties that may be faced when determining where any extensions to the light rail should run, one has to ask whether part of the light rail network be elevated. Some will say that elevated light rail would be ugly; an eyesore. To this I say that those same people seem happy to accept freeways which in many places are elevated. What's the difference? As I have said before, if we want to reduce traffic congestion then public transport needs to be on its own alignment, particularly with light rail. We need to get it right. We can't afford any more blunders like the closure of the railway and putting the light rail in Hunter Street.
Peter Sansom, Kahibah
HAS anyone else noticed how Sydney centric Fox rugby league commentators seem to be? Or is it just me?
