The unfolding nuclear disaster in Japan has focussed attention on a form of energy that was growing in popularity because of its potential usefulness in a low carbon world.
We need to be careful that, as the world searches for energy sources that are not reliant on fossil fuels, we do not jump from the frying pan into the fire.
At the moment, all energy sources have downsides. The hazards of nuclear energy are on display in Japan for all the world to fear, not to mention the problems of disposing of the radioactive waste.
The pitfalls of coal include the oft-discussed CO2 emissions, but there are problems with the environmental costs of the mines. In the Southern Highlands, mining has caused creek beds to crack and surface land to subside.
Kristina Keneally this week committed to banning the use of toxic chemicals known as BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene) in the controversial technique known as fracking to extract coal seam gas.
The chemicals are injected into the seam but not all are recovered at the end of the process, so some end up in local waterways, polluting underground water. Environmental hazards are not confined to non-renewable energy sources.
A meeting in Boorowa on Monday night heard evidence of the effects of windfarms and low frequency sound emissions on the health of people living nearby. Currently there is a Senate inquiry into windfarms.
There are 825 submissions on the website (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/com mittee/clac_ctte/impact_rural_win d_farms/submissions. htm) and although I haven’t read them all, I have seen enough to understand that the environmental effectiveness of windfarms and their effects on health are under question.
When you have eminent doctors voicing their professional opinion that, based on their observations of their patients, they believe industrial wind turbines are more likely than not to harm the health of people living close to them, you know that things may not be as easy as the windfarm companies glossy brochures assure us.
It must be said that there is very little hard data either way: there are a few small scale scientific studies, but funding is a problem.
Windfarm companies are unlikely to fund a study that may provide ammunition for their opponents. With the numbers of turbines proposed for the Yass, Bookham, Boorowa, Gunning, Rugby and surrounding districts now well into the hundreds and coming ever closer, it would seem prudent to make sure turbines are not built too close to people’s homes until we can be sure of the health implications.
Wind power is not the only renewable technology with potential downsides. Solar energy at the moment is expensive and inefficient to produce compared to coal, gas, and wind power. Julia Gillard’s proposal for a carbon tax could change that.
For us to actually do something positive about climate change requires a change in behaviour. The hip pocket nerve is a powerful motivator, so as a society we need to reverse the current situation and make environmentally sound energy the cheapest form of energy.
We can make carbon intensive energy more expensive (with a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme) but without research to make renewable technologies more efficient we are only doing half the job.
The coal industry has had hundreds of years to refine its methods with research: we don’t have that long to spare with renewable technologies, we have to get in there and do the research as a matter of urgency. It will be better for the environment, better for our hip pockets and potentially better for our health, as it will help identify potential problems before they get out of control. Just do it.
Email a friend