Claims that decommissioned wind turbine blades have been secretly dumped in a shallow grave in a forest in far north Queensland have been thoroughly debunked this week – but not before being gobbled up by 2GB, Sky News, The Australian and various other Murdoch media mastheads.
The story spread via a video made by Nick Cater – executive director of the Menzies Research Centre, conservative columnist and would-be anti-renewables sleuth – that features him creeping through scrubland.
“I’m coming through here because I’ve been told there are old turbine blades that have been just dumped here,” Cater says against a soundtrack of cracking twigs and sombre piano.
“Here they are,” Cater tells the camera, gravely, standing next to the old blades. “This is renewable energy, by the way. Remember that word, ‘renewable;’ there’s nothing much renewable about these.”
The video was received with glee by Sky and then a video of Sky’s delirious treatment of the story – “and we haven’t even started on solar!” – was republished in full by The Australian. News reports were also published in local Murdoch owned papers around Queensland.
It turns out, however, that the “forest” is actually the private property of local Ravenshoe business Kidner Contracting, and the turbine blades – from Queensland’s first ever wind farm, the 12MW Wind Hill project – are not so much dumped as stored there, instead of being sent to the tip.
“We have taken possession of disused wind turbine blades from the Windy Hill Wind Farm and are storing them on our 280 acre free hold quarry which take up around 500m2,” says Kidner Contracting managing director Blake Kidner in a statement forwarded to RenewEconomy.
“We see future value in the blades in a circular economy. These blades were destined for landfill, but we took possession of them and were stockpiled onsite as we have been working on ideas for reuse of them.
“Eight of these blades have been rehomed – two of them for trials for recycling options to CSIRO just last year, and the others for training purpose to repair them in-situ in NSW and VIC, so they don’t have to be removed for repair or be replaced if damaged, as other blades removed just get buried.”
Kidner says the “misinformation” pedalled in the video was illegally obtained by Cater, who was on the company’s property without permission.
“Nick Cater did not get any permission to enter our property, he has illegally obtained the footage, trespassed on our land,” Kidner says.
“The neat stockpile is not hidden in the forest. Nick’s political agenda does not show that there is a large shed and office within 100m of these, the camera man is standing on a quarry haul road.”
But Cater’s really not all that interested in the truth about the Windy Hill turbine blades, or Kidner’s motives for storing them.
The true aim of the video is to spread anti-renewables sentiment, more broadly, anti-wind energy sentiment, specifically, and anti-Chalumbin wind farm sentiment most specifically of all.
“This tells a story,” Cater says in the video, standing next to the ex-Windy Hill turbine blades. “One point four billion dollars for the Chalumbin wind farm and, in 15 years, they’ll just be sitting here like this.”
Ark Energy’s 600MW Chalumbin wind farm, proposed for near Ravenshoe in the state’s far north, has become the latest hobby horse of anti-wind lobby groups, whose efforts to derail Australia’s transition to renewables are becoming increasingly desperate.
Legitimate concerns about the project’s proximity to the adjacent Wet Tropics World Heritage Area last year saw it whittled back to less than half its original size, with 114 of the 200 turbines initially proposed cut from the plan to avoid sensitive ecological and cultural heritage sites.
Meanwhile, a dedicated community group set up in opposition to it, called Stop Chalumbin Wind Farm, has attracted well known anti-renewables politicians (Bob Katter, Gerard Rennick) and professional agitators (Cater) to its cause, which claims to be a battle of renewables vs nature and traditional owners.
Their efforts appear to be working. Just today, the ABC published a story on the project reporting that a group of traditional owners will go to Canberra “in a last-ditch effort to stop a controversial $1 billion wind farm from being built adjacent to World Heritage-protected rainforests in Far North Queensland.”
But the traditional owners of the land on which the project is being built, the Jirrbal People, are far from united against the project.
Last weekend, Jirrbal elder Brad Sam-Go, took out a full page in a range of Murdoch newspapers to declare his support for Chalumbin wind farm and to call out “misinformation being spread in the media.”
Sam-go says the Jirrbal Peoples “strongly support” the development of Chalumbin wind farm on their Country.
“It will bring opportunity for our peoples and help improve land that is now covered in weed and pests.
“The company has been working with us since 2019 to ensure they are respectful of Jirrbal Peoples’ connection to this area,” Sam-Go writes.
“The project is a win-win as we get local jobs on country and the environment gets a win too.
“If people want to oppose the wind farm for valid reasons they should be honest about it,” he continues. “But don’t misrepresent the truth and don’t misrepresent the views of the majority of the Jirrbal People. Our voice is our own.”
A media release issued on Thursday by the Wabubadda Aboriginal Corporation – the Registered Native Title Body Corporate that represents the interests of Jirrbal People – confirms its authorisation of the Chalumbin Wind Farm Area Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
“Whilst the details of the ILUA are confidential, the ILUA agreement includes mechanisms for protecting and preserving Jirrbal People’s cultural heritage and also has environmental protections,” the statement says.
And it adds, “All queries regarding matters affecting Jirrbal People’s Native Title rights and interests or cultural heritage interests should be directed to Wabubadda, in writing.”
The ABC speaks to Jirrbal woman Melita Asaki, who is opposed to the wind farm and will go to Canberra as part of a group, Including members of Rainforest Reserve Australia, to petition the federal environment minister Tanya Plibersek to reject the Chalumbin project.
Asaki tells the ABC that the Wabubadda Aboriginal Corporation does not represent all Indigenous people in the affected area. “They haven’t been out there and I don’t know who these people are,” she is quoted as saying.
In an email written in response to questions from the ABC reporter behind the story, seen by RenewEconomy, Ark Energy’s Anthony Russo says:
“It is my understanding from the NQLC [North Queensland Land Council, the Native Title Representative Body Aboriginal Corporation for the project area] that the ILUA with Jirrbal #4 People was subject to extensive consultation since 2019 and was authorised by majority on 7 May 2022.
“Like any group of represented people, there will be differing views amongst its constituents. We see this every day in local, state and federal governments. Governance is a matter for those organisations representing their constituents.”
This does not make it into the ABC story.
Is there any sort of legal repercussions to the media publishing categorical lies?
Hope this makes it to Media Watch if nothing else.
Oh, the Australian Press Council will investigate and might find them at fault.
Then, there’s about a 4% chance there may be a published adverse judgment.
"According to the APC’s latest annual report, for 2021-22, 694 complaints were received throughout the year, with 81% partially or fully upheld. Of these, 22 resulted in published adverse judgments. " Source
Must be the same legal team as the ones working for the Residential Tenancies Authority
The only real repercussions would be if someone could prove they were seriously harmed by the lies. E.g. a business that loses all their customers, or a person who gets fired as a result of the lies.
Clearly conservatives are jumping on the story in bad faith (as they always do) but the opposition from everyone else seems pretty legitimate. Lumping them all in together but only really exploring the motivations of the climate denialists is not particularly good journalism either, and implies the opposition movement is being led or heavily influenced by them when that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. Unfortunately it often feels like renewable energy projects just get a free pass from the public because of the severity of the climate crisis and the braindead opposition from conservatives, but they absolutely deserve to be scrutinised and opposed if they will cause significant and/or unnecessary damage to the local environment.
If people are interested in this story, I encourage them to read the statements from Rainforest Reserves Australia and this article from The Guardian. This is not an isolated issue and has been ongoing for a while, as reported by the ABC’s Background Briefing.
but they absolutely deserve to be scrutinised and opposed if they will cause significant and/or unnecessary damage to the local environment.
I grew up and live near the wind farm in the article. Wind power isn’t being “scrutinised”. Rather there has been a 30 year long deep rooted and frankly disgusting campaign to try and make it impossible to transition to clean energy.
Virtually everything they have spread has been complete and utter bullshit. Including claims that somehow just standing within a 50 miles of a wind turbine will kill you. They’ve also repeatedly and consistently claimed that various groups oppose the turbines when in fact those groups support it.
This was a small pilot program to verify whether or not wind power is viable long term. It’s one of the oldest (modern) wind farms int he world and has for decades produced reliable power to a few thousand homes. It has ultimately lead to much larger wind farms being built on the same mountain range and those have faced similar fear campaigns - again with nobody really knowing who is backing the campaigns.
I doubt it’s coming from “conservatives”. There’s no evidence of that. The pilot has been extremely successful and is broudly supported by everyone… except for nutcases who seem to think wind power is an existential threat to human life or something ridiculous.
Virtually everything they have spread has been complete and utter bullshit. Including claims that somehow just standing within a 50 miles of a wind turbine will kill you. They’ve also repeatedly and consistently claimed that various groups oppose the turbines when in fact those groups support it.
Who is “they”? As I have just said, the opposition is from multiple groups so you need to specify who you are talking about here.
I doubt it’s coming from “conservatives”. There’s no evidence of that.
Did you bother to read the original article…? Conservative opposition to wind farms and renewable energy in general is not up for debate. It is obvious for everyone to see. You discredit yourself by even attempting to suggest otherwise.
Who is “they”?
“They” are anonymous, in part because some of their tactics are illegal. The person in this article is guilty of trespassing for example.
Did you bother to read the original article…
Yes I did. I’m not disputing there’s opposition by some conservatives. But their opposition has mostly been far more reasonable. It’s more “we don’t think tax payers should be footing the bill for this wind farm”. I disagree, but it’s a valid position to take.
I’m talking more about the miss-information, such as claiming that the turbine blades were “secretly buried in a shallow grave” when in fact they and are being stored while waiting for someone to buy them.
“They” are anonymous, in part because some of their tactics are illegal. The person in this article is guilty of trespassing for example.
That person is Nick Cater, executive director of a conservative political think tank and writer for a conservative newspaper. He is not anonymous (he is literally named in third sentence of the article so stop lying about having read it - you obviously didn’t) and he is also not affiliated with Rainforest Reserves Australia or the Jirrbal people. Nor is he affiliated with Ark Energy, whose own environmental review admits that the project will negatively impact endangered species in the area, or the former principal botanist for the Queensland govenrment who is also opposed to the project as outlined here.
Yes I did. I’m not disputing there’s opposition by some conservatives. But their opposition has mostly been far more reasonable.
The guy you are accusing of “illegal tactics” is literally the conservative in this scenario.
I’m talking more about the miss-information, such as claiming that the turbine blades were “secretly buried in a shallow grave” when in fact they and are being stored while waiting for someone to buy them.
And this claim was published by a conservative journalist and circulated by conservative media. Again, read the article. None of your complaints have anything to do with the genuine opposition from environmental research groups and advocates.
Going back to your original comment:
Clearly conservatives are jumping on the story in bad faith (as they always do) but the opposition from everyone else seems pretty legitimate
I’m talking about “everyone else” when I say “they”. I’m not talking about Nick Cater. Obviously Nick isn’t anonymous.
My experience, living within a few minutes drive of this pilot wind farm and the larger more recently built one nearby, is that nobody has ever presented any even remotely legitimate opposition.
There are a few people who think the turbines are ugly - OK I can accept that… but they generally don’t feel strongly enough to put up much opposition. It’s the people who go on about cancer, birth defects, surrounding farmland being unable to produce acceptable crop yields, etc… that’s all complete bullshit and that has been the real and serious opposition which I’ve seen cause real and significant delays in our transition away from fossil fuels. Nobody (in a position to make decisions) is seriously worrying about what we’re going to do with a wing when it wears out. Yes, someone has to figure out what to do, but it’s an easily solvable problem.
Unfortunately the more serious, and more crazy, opposition is more successful. Not because their arguments are legitimate but because enough of the general public falls for it and they can’t be ignored if you want to win an election. These are long term projects, they can’t be delivered within a single election cycle, so maintaining support within the community is necessary for the project to actually happen.
I’m talking about “everyone else” when I say “they”. I’m not talking about Nick Cater. Obviously Nick isn’t anonymous.
Sorry but you don’t get to change the narrative after the fact. You specifically mentioned “the person in this article…guilty of trespassing” and that is Nick Cater. Gaslighting doesn’t work when all your comments are still there for us to read so please just stop trying.
Sure, but the author acknowledges this:
Legitimate concerns about the project’s proximity to the adjacent Wet Tropics World Heritage Area last year saw it whittled back to less than half its original size, with 114 of the 200 turbines initially proposed cut from the plan to avoid sensitive ecological and cultural heritage sites.
Meanwhile, a dedicated community group set up in opposition to it, called Stop Chalumbin Wind Farm, has attracted well known anti-renewables politicians (Bob Katter, Gerard Rennick) and professional agitators (Cater) to its cause, which claims to be a battle of renewables vs nature and traditional owners.
So while there might be semi-reasonable opposition it does look like anti-renewable nuts are getting involved in this as well.
So while there might be semi-reasonable opposition it does look like anti-renewable nuts are getting involved in this as well.
The very first thing I said was that conservatives were hijacking it. Reading this article you might get the impression that all environmental concerns have been addressed and that any remaining opposition is purely in the form of a conservative scare campaign, but that’s just not a fair reflection of the facts. The author really makes no attempt to actually address any of the legitimate concerns, instead framing the issue solely as good guy wind farm vs bad guy climate sceptic.
1.1 There are reasons given for what the blades are doing sitting on the Kidners lot. It is communicated very clearly that there is value seen in those particular blades.
While spent renewable technologies is an interesting subject of increasing importance, it is not what the focus of this article needs to be. But it might make a fun follow up piece. Especially following up with CSIRO on how their recycling project is going.
1.2 The point of the article also wasn’t about the Chalumbin windfarm near the rainforrest. That is information brought into the article to illustrate ‘Nick Cater’s’ (the articles alleged antagonist), and other actors alleged bad faith actions in this incident. And their wider campaigns against renewables. As per below,
“…true aim of the video is to spread anti-renewables sentiment, more broadly, anti-wind energy sentiment, specifically, and anti-Chalumbin wind farm sentiment most specifically of all.”
1.3 So, the trespass and lie about the reasons for those blades storage on Kidners lot are what the article is actually focused on conveying. This is why in media you are supposed to give subjects of an article a ‘right of reply’, which it seems Cater might have neglected.
The point of the article was to expose the bad faith controversy that has yet again played out through reactionary disinformation channels. But, as usual, the story is serving it’s purpose to entertain and anger the hard of thinking who watch/read those outlets.
I disagree with your point here,
“but that’s just not a fair reflection of the facts. The author really makes no attempt to actually address any of the legitimate concerns”
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the article describes these owners reasons for having them. And it seems they are being kept because of the concerns about renewables waste.
“We see future value in the blades in a circular economy. These blades were destined for landfill, but we took possession of them and were stockpiled onsite as we have been working on ideas for reuse of them.
“Eight of these blades have been rehomed – two of them for trials for recycling options to CSIRO just last year, and the others for training purpose to repair them in-situ in NSW and VIC, so they don’t have to be removed for repair or be replaced if damaged, as other blades removed just get buried.”
Also refer to paragraph 17 of the article, the writer very clearly addresses legitimate concerns with Chalumbin.
“Legitimate concerns about the project’s proximity to the adjacent Wet Tropics World Heritage Area last year saw it whittled back to less than half its original size, with 114 of the 200 turbines initially proposed cut from the plan to avoid sensitive ecological and cultural heritage sites.”
But, i will readily agree putting paragraph 17 between paragraphs 16 and 18, which are focused on the climate change denier side of the argument, is a jarring switch. If i was the writer, i would have put a version of paragraph 17 above paragraph 16, to more clearly define legitimate actors to bad faith actors.
