SOLAR PANELS

RE RAY Harch’s letter (TC, 03/03). Mostly spot on, although the land will never, ever be returned to exactly as it was.

However you ask, “Just how much of our best agricultural land is covered with solar panels which produce costlier electricity than conventional coal-powered stations?”

Answer: More and more. The obvious one is “goanna country” but that involves clearing trees. It’s much easier to push over a kurrajong or bottle tree that a grazier saved when they originally cleared the land to provide the best flour.

Someone said on the ABC that “they” can’t cut trees down on highvalue agricultural land (not that any agricultural land in Australia can compare with Europe) but these panels are covering $3000-an-acre cultivation land. Environmentally, it is like allowing an engineering workshop in in the burbs.

Like you, I have a question …Why can’t the billions thrown at solar be put into upgrade for clean-coal technology like the technology Japan uses our coal in.

Even if by some stretch of imagination they become obsolete in 35 years, the ground underneath will, like mine, never be returned to its original state. The number of trenches in shallow clay soil and 100s of tonnes and gravel etc. ensure that.

You have no idea. I watch it every day. There is also a very bright, rainbow type glare when viewed from an angle 300m away (we were promised trees before construction), the constant hammering of the post driver for months, the hum of the on-sight generator and the reduction of neighbouring farms adds up to stress.

Still, the land owner has an ensured income (support that), the council no doubt is making a fortune out of massively increased rates and the state and federal governments can tell the world how they are saving the planet from climate change.

The only thing left to do is, “If ya can’t beat them, join em” and maybe run a few sheep. The state and federal members could take the lead on their property.

M. KINGSTON, Oakey