We are being offered little in comparison to what energy companies have to gain.

Dear Editor,

We are being offered little in comparison to what energy companies have to gain.

These companies will be paid $1M/ turbine annually in RET (Renewable Energy Target) subsidies.

Bullawah has proposed 170 turbines, Pottinger 247 a combined minimum of $417 M/yr. These will not be the only projects to get approval in our area.

A group further east of Hay, called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) pushing for all of their projects to come our way because apparently “we want them here”!

There are 18 proposals for over 2000 turbines and over five milion solar-panels within 120km of Hay.

These industrial areas are not renewable; they are replaceable!

Their lifespan is short and have an enormous footprint.

I have never heard of a solar panel or a wind turbine renewing itself.

All of their components deteriorate and are a huge drain on our natural resources, not to mention the detriment to the environment, creating much more emissions during their construction.

Why are we not concerned about the disposal of the towers, blades, generators, batteries and solar-panels?

It is a problem we need to face.

More importantly than the disposal of physical parts, is whilst they are deteriorating, they are shedding PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) all across our lands.

PFAS, a forever chemical which can never be removed. Small particles are blown in the wind contaminating everything. PFAS is carcinogenic and is linked to testicular and kidney cancers.

Why do farmers selling their livestock, now need to tick a box? “Have been grazed under renewables.”

Judy Jarratt, Hay.