Winding down?

21/7/2025

Wonthaggi's windmills are approaching their use-by date.

By Catherine Watson

The Wonthaggi Wind Farm is approaching its use-by date. Commissioned in 2005, it was one of Victoria’s early forays into renewable energy. The six turbines are now 20 years old, their nominal life span.

Peter Wyse, operations manager for EDL Australia, which owns the wind farm, says the company is working with the original equipment manufacturer to assess their condition.

“These assessments are common and help determine whether they can continue operating safely and efficiently beyond their original project life,” he says. “We expect to have the outcomes later this year and will then make a decision on seeking to extend operations at Wonthaggi Wind Farm.”

He acknowledges local interest in the wind farm’s future. “We understand the community has a strong interest in the site and will continue to keep residents informed.”

Love them or hate them, the windmills have become part of our landscape. When you see them you know you’re nearly home. From the hills road, you glimpse a straight line of six. From the coast road, coming into Kilcunda, you see four in formation, two off to the side. From Wonthaggi itself, they’re a clump of spinning daffodils scattered by a careless gardener.

From Kongwak ... photo: Geoff Ellis

It’s not just their position that’s mysterious. It’s rare to see all six turning at once. Often five spin while one rests, but not always the same one. Sometimes only one turns, then pauses, as another takes its place. Is it the vagaries of the wind?

After 20 years, you’d think we’d have stopped talking about them, but people still do. I’ve heard hard-nosed types who’d scoff at a kinetic sculpture in a gallery grow unexpectedly lyrical about the turbines. “Sculptural” is the word we settle on most often, but it’s more than that: it’s beauty and grace combined with purpose.

From Baxters wetlands ... photo: Catherine Watson

In the early days, the verdict on their performance was mixed. Some claimed our turbines weren’t much chop, or perhaps it was our wind that wasn’t up to scratch, which seems unlikely given that Wonthaggi is supposed to mean something like “Bloody windy”.

By today’s standards, the Wonthaggi wind farm is modest, a total capacity of just 12 megawatts. That’s enough, according to EDL, to power about 4340 homes. The 2021 Census recorded 4,290 homes in Wonthaggi so we’re a pretty good match.

For some years, particularly before they were built, the wind turbines were a subject best avoided. Many residents were dead set against the wind farm for a range of reasons: it was too near the coast; it was foreign owned (by a New Zealand state-owned corporation); it would kill birds; the turbines would frighten the cows; falling blades would kill them; the noise of the blades supposedly caused greying hair, energy loss, concentration lapses, weight gain and all the problems of ageing; the flickering could cause epilepsy, even strokes. Worst of all, these 100-metre-plus monsters would ruin the view.

Bass Coast councillors were united in opposition. So when the State Government called in the project and issued a planning permit in 2002, there was outrage. Then mayor Neville Goodwin said it was one of the worst things ever to happen in Bass Coast, ruining the iconic view of the coast from Kilcunda.

Once the turbines were built, the conversation slowly shifted. One day I admitted to a friend: “Actually, I don’t think they look that bad.” He eyed me warily. “I like them,” he said.

People began saying it out loud. Some even said they loved them. A Kilcunda woman told me she sits on her verandah in the evenings, soothed by their slow, rhythmic turning.

In 2015, Bass Coast Council actually considered buying the wind farm, inspired by the Hepburn community wind project. But the costs of maintaining ageing turbines proved too uncertain. The plan was dropped.

And yes, soon afterwards, one turbine really was struck by lightning. The blade hung like a broken arm until it was replaced.

When the company called for ideas on how to recycle the damaged blade, then mayor (now Bass MP) Jordan Crugnale proposed using it as a centrepiece for the redeveloped Guide Park. A fun idea, but it didn’t fly with the next council.

Wonthaggi Wind Farm
By the numbers

Start of operation: 2005
Generating capacity: 12 MW
Hub height: 69 metres
Rotor diameter: 82 metres
Electricity generated: ~23.9 GWh a year
Equivalent homes powered: ~4,340 a year.
Avoided emissions: ~20,490 tonnes CO2 a year
Equivalent cars off the road: ~6,830 a year

Source: EDL Energy

These days, a new wind farm on this site would likely be rejected. The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner recommends a 1.5-kilometre buffer between turbines and homes, which would rule out most of Bass Coast. Instead, Gippsland’s offshore zone is being prioritised for large-scale wind energy. Out of sight, out of mind.

Meanwhile, Wonthaggi’s windmills have earned their place in our landscape. Now we wait to hear their fate.

Let us know how you feel about the windmills. Please send us your thoughts, memories and favourite photos.

Bernie McComb

24/7/2025 11:25:47 am

Minor point, hoping not too pedantic but they’re wind turbines. Not wind mills, no milling of flour or any other kind.

Catherine Watson

27/7/2025 06:27:18 pm

You're right Bernie, but they will always be windmills to me.

Clive Vernon

24/7/2025 12:54:22 pm

I’d like to know exactly where the power is used. Is it just sold into the grid, or somewhere specific?

Peter Bogg

24/7/2025 02:35:28 pm

Goodness, Neville Goodwin was definitely on the wrong side of history on that evaluation!

Felicia Di Stefano

24/7/2025 03:51:11 pm

We love watching the soothing turn of the blades of the slim white poles in the distance. We see them clearly from our home in the Ryanston hills. To know that they save the earth 23.9 GWh of coal pollution a year is an extra bonus.
I remember, in the early 2000s the local people had a meeting to discuss the generators' benefits or otherwise at the Wonthaggi Union Theatre. Our group of supporters sat on one side of the theatre and those who opposed sat on the other. I also remember several severe glares from one party to the other as contrevesrial points were raised.

Jon Temby

24/7/2025 04:23:02 pm

I see all wind farms as examples of responsible forward thinking. If we want a livable planet for our grandchildren, we need more green energy sources and we need to stop using fossil fuels.

Steve wardle

27/7/2025 05:17:46 pm

Save the planet how dumb can Australians get send all our coal to China so they have cheap power. Climate change is a load of bullshit follow the money trail .Brain washed lot of morons

Amy Lowell

27/7/2025 05:57:27 pm

Hard to get much cheaper power than wind power, Steve. Unless perhaps it's sun power.

Rob Parsons

27/7/2025 07:34:59 pm

Response to Cr Jon Tenby’s Comment on Wind Farms:

Cr Tenby says, “I see all wind farms as examples of responsible forward thinking.”
That might sound good in a press release, but it doesn’t reflect the real-world impacts on our local communities, our farmers, or our environment.

Of course we all want a livable planet for our grandchildren—but that doesn’t mean embracing poorly planned industrial wind developments that are forced on rural communities without genuine consultation or consent.

The reality is:
• Wind farms disrupt agriculture, affect livestock management, and divide communities—particularly when only a few landowners benefit financially while their neighbours suffer noise impacts, visual pollution, and declining property values.
• Environmental damage is conveniently ignored. Wind turbines may produce energy without emissions, but their materials don’t simply vanish at end of life. Turbine blades and towers are constructed with composites that do not biodegrade. Once decommissioned, they are often buried in landfill. These materials can leach microplastics into the soil—substances that are not biodegradable, may remain in the environment for over 1,000 years, and whose long-term effects on human health are unknown and untested.
• This is not clean energy if the full lifecycle—from mining rare earths to turbine disposal—is hidden from public view. It’s greenwashing dressed up as progress.

Cr Tenby seems more focused on pushing ideology than representing the very people who elected him. If he were truly concerned about “responsible forward thinking,” he’d listen to the ratepayers, residents, and farmers of Western Port Ward—many of whom are raising legitimate concerns about land use, energy policy, and environmental integrity.

Clean energy must also be accountable energy. That means weighing costs, consequences, and community impact—not just slogans.

Jim Barritt

24/7/2025 06:56:11 pm

I’ve always had a soft spot for Wonthaggi’s wind turbines, a wonderful testament to engineering and the responsible renewable future. Of course I would never have dared to say that out loud when my mother was alive…she absolutely loathed them!

Werner Theinert

26/7/2025 07:56:47 am

We’ve walked past these iconic wind turbines so many times. On quiet days when you could hear the feint sound of the yaw system turning the nacelle searching for that elusive wind. I’ve taken so many photos of them over the years. Many visitors to our house were taken for the short drive up the road to the wind farm, especially on windy days when the blades were flexed back. Many stated - “They’re not at all noisy!” “They’re majestic!”
One of the turbines broke a blade once, some say it was a lightning strike. They quickly came with their amazing cranes and replaced the damaged blades and nacelle, it was amazing to watch.

Paul Cross

27/7/2025 04:59:06 pm

The value of Wonthaggi property will increase when these eyesores get removed .

John Godfrey

28/7/2025 03:09:30 pm

6 daisies in a bouquet of hope and forward thinking. Replacing them with reconditioned 2MW turbines (same size & height) is actually possible and could pay back in under 2 years, based just on purchase and freight cost. You'd have to allow for installation and on-going operating costs, but certainly feasible.

Paul Cross

28/7/2025 03:21:20 pm

John Godfrey, a 2mw turbine would be lucky to generate 1MW in real terms . Wind turbines are hopelessly retrograde, and expensive .
Forward thinking is wanting SMRs.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-equal-energy-output-one-typical-nuclear-reactor#:~:text=Today%2C%20nuclear%20reactors%20range%20in,with%E2%80%94to%20about%201600%20megawatts.&text=The%20average%20nuclear%20reactor%20has%20about%20900%20megawatts%20of%20capacity.

Werner Theinert

28/7/2025 04:33:36 pm

Totally agree John, repowering older machines with new Nacelles / Blades and Controls is all the go in North America and Europe. It's the quick and easy way to update the equipment and controls to align with new AEMO control systems.
None of the machines in the Latrobe Valley have their original main components.

Rob Parsons

29/7/2025 11:50:23 am

Response to Comments on Repowering Wind Turbines:
Thanks for your comments—it's clear there's some technical knowledge here, and we appreciate people engaging in the discussion.
Yes, repowering—replacing old turbine components with newer technology—is increasingly common, especially overseas. But we need to consider whether what works in Europe or North America translates well to regional Victoria, especially in sensitive landscapes like ours.
Some important points often overlooked in this kind of discussion:
“Same size and height” doesn’t mean the same community impact. New turbines are heavier, operate under different tolerances, and may still carry noise, vibration, and visual issues that locals never agreed to.
The payback calculation is always selective. It rarely accounts for full lifecycle impacts—such as rare earth mining, freight emissions, decommissioning of old blades (which still go to landfill), and disposal of microplastic-laden materials.
Repowering doesn't fix the bigger issue: These decisions are still being made without proper local consultation, and often without addressing environmental damage to farmland and nearby ecosystems.
So yes, while “repowering” is being marketed as a smart upgrade, I would argue that any energy development—new or retrofitted—must meet three key tests:
Local support and consultation,
Environmental accountability over the entire lifecycle, and
A fair deal for communities, not just energy corporations.
I welcome respectful discussion—but let’s not pretend that shiny upgrades make this industry immune from scrutiny.

Pete Bogg

29/7/2025 11:10:32 am

Interesting comments above and I would like to address some of the misconceptions people have:

1. Renewables are by far the cheapest form of NEW electricity. No company is investing in coal fired power stations in Australia because it is not profitable. There are no subsidies for building wind turbines whereas the old coal fired power plants were 100% paid for by the government.

2. RP - raises disruption. All developments are disruptive. What are you suggesting we do instead of building renewables. I am sure your answer will also cause disruption.

3. RP raises decommissioning. Windturbines are almostly recyclable. Steel and copper are very valuable as scrap.The blades are mainly fibre glass and we can tread this as we do all things made of fibreglass (landfill). But look at the alternative. Hazelwood cost 1 billion dollars to decommission and the open cut is still to be dealt with. Suggestions are to turn it into a lake. This will take considerable water which I see moves are afoot that they will have to pay for.

4. PC raise plated capacity. No machine every runs at 100% capacity. Before the SEC was sold, the coal fired power stations ran at 71% capacity, and often the the usefulness of the electricity was limited as the power plants could not easily be turned off at night when there was little demand for electricity. Much of the electricity produced during the night was wasted. Off shore turbines get a better percentage as they have un-interupted wind resource. The draw back is setup cost is usually double the cost of on-shore installations.

PC also mentioned SMR (small nuclear reactors). Not one has been built yet that is commercially viable. Nuclear energy produces very expensive electricity and must be support by the relevant government. Just a quick google search of the three newest reactors to see how expensive they are.

If PC was really concerned about decommissioning costs. Look up Sellafield reactor in England. They have been decommissioning it for 30 years and will take another 100 years to complete the job at a further cost of 300 billion pounds.

But if we must have a nuclear reactor, I am sure Paul will be the first to stand up and say put it in Wonthaggi.

Rob Parsons

29/7/2025 12:15:29 pm

Response to Pete Bogg:

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Pete. Let me clarify a few points and respond to what you called “misconceptions.” I’d suggest they’re not misconceptions at all—but rather concerns rooted in local experience and a more grounded, long-term view of what’s happening to energy, the environment, and rural communities.

1. Cost of electricity:

Yes, wind and solar are often cited as the cheapest form of new energy. But that claim overlooks the full system cost. Wind and solar are intermittent, so they require massive backup—batteries, gas peakers, transmission upgrades—all of which come at a cost to the taxpayer or the consumer. It’s not about comparing a turbine to a turbine. It’s about the real cost of delivering reliable, dispatchable power across the entire network. That’s where renewables still fall short.

2. Disruption and alternatives:

All infrastructure causes disruption. But there’s a difference between disruption that is consulted on and community-led, and disruption that is imposed on rural communities by corporations and planning schemes with little to no local input.

Here in the Western Port Ward, communities are not being consulted, farmland is being compromised, and sensitive ecosystems are at risk. That’s not a misconception—that’s the reality on the ground.

As for alternatives—yes, I support nuclear energy, particularly the new generation of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) being developed in Canada, the US, and Poland. You say none are viable—but several are already under construction and licensing. And unlike wind, they don’t need 10,000 km² of land or backup batteries. They produce reliable, emissions-free baseload power.

3. Decommissioning and waste:

Turbines may be partially recyclable, but fibreglass blades can’t be recycled and are increasingly being dumped in landfills. These blades contain microplastics and resin compounds that do not break down and can leach into soil and groundwater for up to 1,000 years.

We also don’t yet fully understand the long-term health and environmental consequences of microplastic contamination. Unlike nuclear waste—which is accounted for, monitored, and securely stored—wind turbine waste is effectively buried and forgotten.

4. Capacity factor and system efficiency:

You’re right—no machine runs at 100%. But let’s not pretend that wind and coal are equivalent. Coal provided consistent baseload power. Wind delivers variable output, requiring more frequent ramping and backup to maintain grid stability.

Offshore turbines may improve output, but they come with double the setup cost, marine impact, and still require land-based transmission infrastructure. The capacity factor argument doesn't erase the intermittency and unreliability issues.

5. Nuclear fear campaign:

Citing Sellafield is misleading. It’s a legacy Cold War site in the UK used for reprocessing nuclear weapons material—not remotely comparable to today’s SMRs. It’s like comparing a 1950s gasworks to a modern combined cycle gas plant.

Modern SMRs are modular, factory-built, passively safe, and designed for minimal waste with long operating lives. Nations like Finland, France, Canada, and the UK are investing in nuclear precisely because it offers clean, reliable power without the environmental land grab of renewables.

If we’re going to talk decommissioning, let’s do so honestly—wind turbine blades and solar panels are already piling up, with no clear disposal plan, no long-term accountability, and a growing legacy problem for future generations.

And finally, yes—I would support nuclear in Wonthaggi if the community supported it, and if the process was transparent, safe, and scientifically sound. That’s what real leadership looks like: facing facts, not fanning fears.

Let’s have a serious conversation about energy—not slogans, not cherry-picked stats, and not false dichotomies. Communities deserve better. So do future generations.

Peter Bogg

29/7/2025 02:01:01 pm

Rob, I agree nothing should go ahead without community consultation and agreement.

When I was involved with them, every single wind farm was put on private property, ie land that has already been 'de-natured'. The farmers involved loved them as they future proofed their farming enterprise against seasonal variability.

Also, I should add, that turbines not the only answer, solar, hydro and 'gas peakers' will all be part of the mix that will provide electricity for everyone. Batteries are already being installed (Jamestown) as well as pumped hydro (at Tumut 2 and 4 and Snowy 2.0).

As for safety of nuclear reactors. I think from memory there are something like 530 nuclear reactors built around the world and three of them have created catastrophic disasters. I accept that the SMRs would be safer, so the risk is reduced, but the consequences of going pear shape are still is considerable.

As I said, decommissioning of turbines cost several orders of magnitude less than for either coal fired (eg Hazelwood) or nuclear generators (eg Sellafield). These costs will be borne by our children something I don't think we should do.

Simon Helps

16/9/2025 01:37:42 pm

Response to Rob
The responses to this article have been very interesting to read. The concerns raised about De-Commissioning do need to be validated. There is a live test at Codrington Wind Farm (this will be the first in Australia) so to be clear there are NO piles of wind turbine blades in Landfill. The most likely outcome is that the blades will be recycled into something "New", this could be road aggregate as we do with glass or even made into fiber reinforcing bar to be used in the concrete base of new wind turbines. I would also like to clear up the comment about solar panels and recycling... this line about solar panels in landfill is used o Sky news and other Ambulance chasing News shows and is just straight out BS. There is a national program for recycling panels, and saying we should not use solar because there are piles of panels at scrap yards is like saying don't by a car because there is a pile of old ones at the junk yard. there is a good industry developing to recycle panels as there is for car's and other items when they get to the end of there life. Regulation of this is well established.
So my rel question to you and other's that took the time to voice you thoughts here ..
what is an acceptable future for the wind farm?
should the community get together and talk through what that would look like?
The alternative is to let the current Chines owners make that decision for the community and that will most likely be the option that leaves the most cash in their bank.
Yes there are good and bad in all the options but you are correct it should be the community that is in the room when the decision is made.
We also need to accept that there will not be 100% agreement in the community on a plan but we all should understand the why.

Paul Cross

29/7/2025 01:20:19 pm

Peter Bogg.

Renewable power is the most expensive. In this like it shows you power prices by country. Just a quick check will show you that the countries with the highest power prices rely on renewables.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263492/electricity-prices-in-selected-countries/

SMRs are operational in the world and many are being built.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

It would be great to have an SMR in Wonthaggi - it would power the whole of Gippsland.

Educate yourself Peter, don’t look like a goose

https://www.atse.org.au/what-we-do/strategic-advice/small-modular-reactors-the-technology-and-australian-context-explained/#:~:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,countries%20by%20the%20mid%2D2030s.

Rob Parsons

29/7/2025 02:18:54 pm

Response to Peter Bogg:

Thanks for the considered response, Peter. I appreciate your agreement that no energy development—wind, nuclear, solar or otherwise—should proceed without community consultation and consent.

However, a few of your points deserve closer scrutiny:

1. Wind farms on “de-natured” private land:

While it’s true that turbines are often placed on farmland, I’d challenge the idea that such land is environmentally insignificant. Productive farmland is not wasteland—it’s the backbone of regional economies and vital to national food security. More importantly, many of these installations now border or encroach on sensitive ecosystems.

And while some landholders benefit financially, neighbours often bear the cost: visual intrusion, property devaluation, loss of amenity, and community division. Consultation needs to include the whole affected community, not just the landowner and the energy company.

2. A balanced energy mix:

You're absolutely right that wind isn't the only technology in the mix. But the current rollout is heavily weighted toward wind and solar, and the supporting infrastructure—batteries, pumped hydro, gas peakers—is struggling to keep up with demand and reliability needs.

Batteries like Jamestown help with short bursts, but don’t yet provide long-duration storage. Snowy 2.0 is years behind schedule, facing tunnelling problems, and its costs have blown out by billions. Without a stable baseload source like nuclear or advanced gas, we risk building an unstable and expensive patchwork.

3. Nuclear safety and SMRs:

Yes, there have been nuclear incidents. But three accidents across over 60 years of operation and 530 reactors hardly qualifies as widespread catastrophe. Modern Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are designed with passive safety systems that physically can’t melt down in the way older designs did.

To put it in context: nuclear energy has the lowest mortality per terawatt hour of any energy source—including wind and solar—when measured by accidents, mining, manufacturing, and pollution. That’s not a talking point—it’s from peer-reviewed global data.

4. Decommissioning costs:

It's not accurate to compare the cost of decommissioning a 50-year-old coal plant or Cold War-era nuclear facility with dismantling a 20-year-old wind turbine. The real question is: what is the environmental legacy?

Wind turbines leave hundreds of tonnes of composite blades in landfill.
Solar panels create toxic waste when broken down.
Neither have a recycling plan at scale.
Nuclear waste, by contrast, is small in volume, contained, and tightly regulated.
The long-term costs borne by future generations may actually come from the renewables industry, if we keep ignoring the waste challenge.

In short, we should be thinking long-term, holistically, and transparently—not picking winners based on ideology or outdated fears.

I’m not anti-renewable. I’m pro accountability, consultation, and a serious conversation about what kind of energy future we want—not just what’s politically fashionable today.

Peter Bogg

29/7/2025 01:36:23 pm

Paul, I have worked in the utilities industry for a considerable time but am now retired. I was enjoying reading your rebuttal until I came to the personal abuse. Please stop.

I checked your first link and it listed the cost of electricity by country. It didn't mention how it was generated. If you have a better source for your claim that renewables are more expensive please provide it. As I said, people are investing in renewables because it is the most profitable source of generation.

I checked Wikipedia regarding SMRs. This is what it says

Operational SMRs

As of 2024, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs.[11] There are more than 80 modular reactor designs under development in 19 countries.[12] Russia has been operating a floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov, in Russia's Far East (Pevek), commercially since 2020.[13] China's pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor HTR-PM was connected to the grid in 2021.[12]

Ie there are two operational SMRs not many as you claim. If you have a better source please cite it. Don't forget, nuclear power plants were never about generating electricity, that was a side product. It was a strategic move to produce nuclear products for their nuclear arms industry.

Great, put a SMR in Wonthaggi (if you can finance it). I'm sure the locals won't mind.

Paul Cross

29/7/2025 03:23:03 pm

Peter, if I were you I would listen to Rob .
If you had read my comment properly I suggested that one can check the energy source by country - it’s really quite easy.
At least I put up citations to prove what I’m saying.
SMRs . I said they are operational in the world and many are being built.
I never quoted a number that were operating, but yes there are 2 .

As for your claim ( no citation) that nuke power plants are linked to nuclear weapon manufacture. What a total crock ..

https://rpmanetworks.com/atomkraftclonesite-english/docs/nuclear-energy-does-not-increasing-nuclear-weapons/#:~:text=No%20connection%20between%20Civilian%20nuclear,has%20never%20produced%20nuclear%20weapons.

So far everything you have said is just your opinion ( I was going to say bullshit but changed my mind)

Educate yourself and stop posting misinformation

Peter Bogg

29/7/2025 04:36:58 pm

Peter, stop being patronising. I do listen to Rob, who at least remains civil and has some sound points that I agree with.

During the cold war and associated arms race. Nuclear reactors have duel use. Electricity production as well as producing weapons grade nuclear material.

Quoting from Wikipedia again:

'Proliferation is tied to the development of civilian nuclear power, as fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities have dual use for producing both civilian and weapons-grade fissile material. It is also tied to the proliferation of nuclear weapons delivery systems, especially ballistic missiles. ,

Ref:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

It is a bit rich when you make a claim (energy source by country) and then cites a source that doesn't support (or otherwise) you claim, and then tell me I can search for an article that proves your claim.

But while you are at it, could you please cite a source that says many SMRs are being built. I could only find articles where countries are planning to build them. Not saying you are wrong, just want to get clarity.

Paul Cross

30/7/2025 04:10:09 pm

Hello Peter,
I understand you struggle to use Google - no doubt you are a retired public servant.
SMRs currently being built ;
“ Small modular reactors (SMRs) are currently under construction or in the licensing stage in several countries, including Argentina, Canada, China, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Some are planned for existing nuclear sites, while others are being developed for new locations. ”
“ Over 80 SMR designs are under development in at least 19 countries. Many nations are actively pursuing SMR technology, with some already operating or constructing them. “

Nuclear power plants available to make nuclear war heads? Has this ever happened ? Iran has a nuclear power station, why haven’t they created a nuclear war head?

So you don’t like the cleanest , cheapest, safest, smallest footprint and most powerful form of energy in the world .
Yet the world has taken heed of what was said at COP28 which was to triple nuclear power in the world has taken.

I have always thought it odd that you Greenies disliked the cleanest form of power, probably because you no longer care about the environment and would sooner turn to supporting terrorism.
It’s a funny old world isn’t it Pet?

Peter Bogg

30/7/2025 05:29:20 pm

Paul,

You are making a number of assumptions in your post and I will take a minute to address them.

I don't struggle to use Google. I have a Post Graduate Degree in Computer Science.

You are incorrect, I am not a retired public servant. I worked in the public sector for three years as it was an obligation for the cadetship that paid for first degree in engineering. Since then, I have worked in the private sector for the rest of my career.

You obviously regard public servants in low regard. Yet they make the country work. Think about that next time you go to hospital, fly in a plane, need assistance from the police, SES, fire brigade etc. I am sure you will appreciate them then.

You gare correct that I am retired, but I told you that.

You produced a list that had already been provided by Rob.

Your Iran statement is rather curious (and I must admit, I was stuck at how to respond). You are aware America recently sent several stealth bombers on a round the world trip to bomb their nuclear refining sites with bunker busting bombs!

I read the rest of your post but can't be bothered deciphering the point you were making.

Paul, I obvioously upset you. So, could please not address any posts to myself, I will do likewise with you.

Rob Parsons

29/7/2025 04:55:53 pm

Hi Peter, Response re: SMRs being built -

Thanks for the question — it’s a good one, and I appreciate your interest in getting clarity rather than just shutting the conversation down.

You're right that many countries are planning SMRs — but some are also actively building them right now. Here are a few concrete examples from reliable sources:

1. Canada – VOYGR SMR (GE Hitachi / Ontario Power Generation)

Status: Under construction (site prep completed, construction licence granted).
Location: Darlington, Ontario.
Operator: Ontario Power Generation.
Details: This is the first grid-scale SMR in North America. Expected to be operational by 2028.
Source:
OPG news: https://www.opg.com/projects/small-modular-reactors/
World Nuclear News (April 2024): https://www.world-nuclear-news.org

2. China – Linglong One (ACP100 SMR)

Status: Under construction since 2021.
Location: Hainan Province.
Details: This is the world’s first commercial land-based SMR being built under the IAEA's safety review.
Source:
IAEA: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-reviews-chinas-small-modular-reactor
WNN: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org

3. Russia – Floating SMRs (Akademik Lomonosov)

Status: Already operating since 2020.
Details: Russia’s floating SMR has been delivering power to Chukotka, in the Arctic.
Source:
WNN: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org

4. Poland – BWRX-300 (GE Hitachi) with ORLEN Synthos Green Energy

Status: First site chosen (Ostrołęka), construction expected to begin 2026, full rollout planned.
Details: Poland has signed agreements for dozens of SMRs across industrial sites.
Source:
https://www.osge.com
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com

So yes — some SMRs are already built, some are operating, and more are under construction. Others are still at planning or licensing stage, but momentum is real and growing.

This isn’t about speculation anymore. It’s about technology already being implemented — with strong government backing in democratic, safety-conscious countries like Canada and Poland.

Peter Bogg

30/7/2025 10:00:15 am

Rob, I didn't say that a nuclear reactor failure would be a "widespread catastrophe". It is catastrophic for the local area. Making the place unlivable for decades or if not hundreds of years.

At Marlinga they did an experiment to see what would happen if a nuclear armed plane crashed. They simulated this by blowing up a few kilos of plutonium with gelignite. After several decades the government thought they would clean it up. This involved digging a pit and scrapping the contaminated soil into it. The scrappings and pit can seen in Google Maps ate co-ordinates: -29.89620473035909, 131.59209553314597.

The pit is the rectangular structure just below the Trarnaki plinth.

At the bottom left corner of the pit (just visible) is a concrete sign that says - do not disturb for the next 260,000 years. I wondered if people could still read English in 260,000 years and be as unaware of the dangers like the rabbits that were now burrowing into the pit.

This is the risk of a nuclear reactor. I know you say the SMRs are inherently safe, but so was the Twin Towers, until they weren't.

Just as an aside, nuclear bombs are actually cleaner and bombed areas can be safe as quickly as a few decades (think Hiroshima). We had the experience of walking around the ground zeros of several detonations sites at Marilinga and the radiation levels were around 1.5 times the background radiation.

You dismissed the cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants. Here are some eye watering examples of costs from Wikipedia:

"In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost €480 million (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as plutonium, caesium-137 and cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.[32][33]

In the UK, the decommissioning of civil nuclear assets were estimated to be £99 to £232 billion (2020), earlier in 2005 under-estimated to be £20-40 billion. The Sellafield site (Calder Hall, Windscale and the reprocessing facility) alone accounts for most of the decommissioning cost and increase in cost;[21] as of 2015, the costs were estimated £53.2 billion.[25] In 2019, the estimate was even much higher: £97 billion.[34] A 2013 estimate by the United Kingdom's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority predicted costs of at least £100 billion to decommission the 19 existing United Kingdom nuclear sites.[35]

In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than €143 million.[citation needed]

Lithuania has increased the prognosis of decommissioning costs from €2019 million in 2010 to €3376 million in 2015.[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning

Instead of building a huge liablility is it better to build windfarms. The Mortlake windfarm cost $AUD1.5 billion to build and produces 530GWH a year of power. The conclusion is obvious.

I will go were free enterprise is investing their money and in Australia, that is renewables.

Rob Parsons

30/7/2025 10:14:24 am

Hi Pete,

Thanks for the exchange — it’s always good to hear other views and challenge each other’s thinking.

That said, I think I’ll bow out of the debate for now. I’m completely immersed in writing The History of Corinella, which is taking up every spare moment I’ve got. It’s a huge project, but a rewarding one.

Just one final observation: free enterprise in Australia is investing in renewables because nuclear is currently banned under federal legislation, thanks to Labor and the Greens. Remove that legal roadblock and I believe we’ll see significant private investment shift toward nuclear, especially in SMRs and next-gen designs. That’s the space I’m watching.

All the best — and thanks again for the thoughtful discussion.

Rob

Paul Cross

30/7/2025 06:59:03 pm

Peter, with your wonderful credentials I thought you maybe more intelligent.
Your assumption of the safety of nuclear is of course bs.
Nuclear is the safest form of power after solar .
So please cut your crap and Alarmism and always check facts before you post your BS .
I get very pissed off by you lefties that oppose anything that doesn’t align with your left wing cult.
Citation;
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Pete Bogg

1/8/2025 01:29:36 pm

Paul,

You have missed the point I was making.

I will make it again here.

The risk of mishap is very small but when something does happen it is catastrophic for the local area.

You cite that nuclear power is safe and somewhere between solar and wind.

Your measure is number of deaths per power produced to equal out the various forms of power.

But deaths are not the only measure of the impact of a reactor failing. It doesn't take into account the forced dislocation of 10's of thousands of people who live around the failed reactor. In Fukushima's case"

In that case "According to a 2012 Yomiuri Shimbun survey, 573 deaths have been certified as "disaster-related" by 13 municipalities affected by the Fukushima nuclear disaster." I suspect these would be included in your figure.”

I imagine they would be, but don’t really know if they are taken into your figure.

But your figure doesn’t take into account future deaths:

"Many deaths are attributed to the evacuation and subsequent long-term displacement following emergency mass evacuation.[16][17] For evacuation, the estimated number of deaths during and immediately after transit ranges from 34 to "greater than 50".[13][18][19]"

“Following the accident, at least 164,000 residents of the surrounding area were permanently or temporarily displaced (either voluntarily or by evacuation order).[15][8]: 158 The displacements resulted in at least 51 deaths as well as stress and fear of radiological hazards.[16][17][18][19]”

I suspect the 51 deaths would be counted in your figure, but the cost and personal loss of 164,000 evacuees would not be measured.

ref:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_casualties

As for Chernobyl:

In Chernobyl's case " exploded.[1] With dozens of direct casualties, it is one of only two nuclear energy accidents rated at the maximum severity on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident. The response involved more than 500,000 personnel and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles (about $84.5 billion USD in 2025).[2] It remains the worst nuclear disaster[3][4] and the most expensive disaster in history, with an estimated cost of US$700 billion.
This %700 billlon cost is not taken into account by your measure:

Also ,many deaths have not occurred yet and therefore are not included in your figure:

'Predictions of the eventual total death toll vary; a 2006 World Health Organization study projected 9,000 cancer-related fatalities in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.[13]'

Your figure doesn’t include people who fell ill:

“The nearby city of Pripyat was not immediately evacuated and the townspeople were not alerted during the night to what had just happened. However, within a few hours, dozens of people fell ill. Later, they reported severe headaches and metallic tastes in their mouths, along with uncontrollable fits of coughing and vomiting.[61][better source needed] As the plant was run by authorities in Moscow, the government of Ukraine did not receive prompt information on the accident.[62]”

Your figure doesn’t include the economic cost of the 30km exclusion zone and the lost of personal property that involved for the 13,000 odd residents of Chernobyl that had to leave their town.

Ref: Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia

This is not scare mongering, these are facts.

So the figure you use to prove nuclear is safe is not really indicative of the true cost of lives shortened, remediation of sites, forced evacuation, personal ppossessions lost or lose of other public assets.

So for the record, I would support SMRs if the following three conditions are met:
1. They are built with private money only
2. They produce power at the same cost or lower than renewables
3. They are built as far away from where I live.

Peter Bogg

30/7/2025 10:20:23 am

Thanks to you too Rob. Enjoyed reading your posts. They are well thought out and written.

Good luck with your book 'The History of Corinella'. Let me know when it is published as I am sucker of history books and will add it to my collection.

Paul Cross

2/8/2025 05:37:54 pm

Peter Bogg, in reply to your rambling bullshit.
And it is bullshit.
There are approximately 455 nuclear power stations in the world of which 3 have encountered incidents . Not one of them was due to the fault of the power station .
If there is a major concern why on earth do countries continue to build them?
As I said, they are the safest form of power generation after solar ( which is the biggest polluter of the landscape man has ever seen. )
Mate, you would have to be the ultimate alarmist, no doubt you are scared to get out of bed each morning.

Paul Cross

3/8/2025 02:44:19 pm

To all you Alarmists that have a sense of humour, ( small audience I know ) you may like this English comedy sketch from 2013.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3907007886229716&id=100007616290896

Comments are closed.