Wind turbine blades only last between 3 and 7 years, rendering wind power expensive and ineffective in fighting climate change. Fact:  Studies show that wind turbine blades last between 17 and 25 years on average. The industry standard is 20 years. The world’s oldest wind turbine, in the town of Tvind in Denmark, has been generating electricity continuously since 1978! At 53 metres high and with a wing diameter of 54 metres, it produces enough electricity to power 1,000 homes. [To put this in context, a modern offshore turbine is five times as tall, has twice the wing diameter and can power 16,000 homes.]

Wind turbines have a very high carbon ‘footprint’ – meaning the manufacturing process emits a lot of CO2. So, it’s a waste of time thinking they can significantly reduce emissions. Fact: This claim is simply rubbish! CO2 emissions do result from the manufacture of wind turbines, but these are dwarfed by the CO2 saved over the life of those turbines. Recent studies have concluded that wind power has a carbon footprint that is 99 percent less than coal-fired power, 98 percent less than natural gas, and 75% less than solar power. Other studies have shown that the ‘energy-payback’ time for wind turbines (that is, the time it takes for a system to generate more energy than it took to make it) is just 4 to 6 months. When the turbines are produced using renewable energy, as will be the case in the not-too-distant future, their carbon footprint will be next to zero. So, there is no truth whatever to this myth. 

Wind turbines kill large numbers of birds, particularly big predators like eagles.  Fact: Wind turbines do kill birds, but the number killed pales when compared with other threats they face. In the United States, cats kill an average of 2.4 billion birds every year, and collisions with glass on buildings kill another 599 million. Wind turbines, by contrast, kill just 234,000. In Australia, the figures are even starker. Wind turbines kill a maximum of 10,000 birds a year, while feral cats kill 377 million!  There are also ways to reduce avian fatalities from wind turbines. These include painting the towers or the blades black and using artificial intelligence to slow the blades down when flocks of birds are approaching. Painting the towers can reduce fatalities by almost 50 percent, while doing the same with one of the blades can reduce them by 70 percent.

Wind turbines are a danger to human health, as they cause dizzy spells and sleep deprivation on the part of those who live nearby.  Fact:  Wind turbines produce what is known as infrasound. Infrasound is defined as any sound below 20Hz, meaning it is usually inaudible. It occurs naturally, but can also be man-made. Numerous studies have been done on the infrasound produced by wind turbines, and none have shown there to be any adverse physiological or psychological effects on those exposed to it. In fact, infrasound levels from wind turbines are usually lower, and certainly no higher, than those we are already exposed to in nature. A recent study conducted by Sydney University’s Woolcock Institute of Medical Research looked at the impact of infrasound from wind turbines on sleep patterns and found there to be none at all. To quote the study’s lead author, Associate Professor Nathaniel Marshall, “We’ve been able to show conclusively that the infrasound generated by wind turbines doesn’t make you dizzy or nauseous, doesn’t impact heart health or mental health, or impact on sleep.”

Clearing trees to build solar farms negates the impact of those solar farms on emissions. You’d be better off not cutting the trees down at all.  Fact: Felling trees does have a negative impact on emissions, but that impact is completely overwhelmed by the emissions that are saved though the installation of new solar panels. In fact, the ratio is over 200 to one, meaning that for every tonne of carbon emitted by felling the trees, 200 tonnes are saved by increasing solar capacity. Hence, the myth is a total furphy.

Solar panels don’t work efficiently in cold countries because snow covers the panels and prevents them from working properly.  Fact: Solar panels work perfectly well in colder climes, as they are installed with sufficient tilt to prevent snow from accumulating on them. A recent study in Canada revealed that snow only reduces the output of solar panels by 3 percent – an insignificant amount. 

Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated to be feasible now. We should wait till it’s commercially available, to provide all the clean energy we need. Fact: Nuclear fusion has been demonstrated to be feasible, but will not be commercially available for decades. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change, we must act immediately and reach net zero before nuclear fusion becomes available. This makes renewables our only viable option (although a small amount of nuclear power will be in the global energy mix). 

Small modular reactors are the solution to the climate crisis, as they are cheap, clean and safe. Fact: Small modular reactors (SMRs) are mini-nuclear power plants, similar to the units used in American aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. They have been touted as viable sources of zero-emissions energy but actually suffer from the same problems as their full-scale counterparts. At the moment, there is only one SMR operating in the world – Russia’s 70 megawatt floating nuclear power plant, which is used to provide electricity to isolated settlements on the Arctic coast. This reactor cost 37 billion roubles (A$688 million) to build and produces power at five times the cost of renewable energy in Australia. China’s demonstration 210 MW high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) is proving slightly less expensive to run but is nowhere near competitive with renewable energy sources or with large-scale nuclear plants. The only way the costs of SMRs could be reduced to a competitive level would be to mass produce them, but there is no sign of this happening.  Prior to the 2025 election, the Coalition mooted the idea of replacing Australia’s ageing coal fired power stations with SMRs. To do so would require 71 such reactors, but these could not be built until most of our coal-fired plants had already closed down – leaving us with significant power shortages. In addition, the Department of Energy estimates that the cost of building 71 SMRs would be $387 billion, or $18,167 a kilowatt, compared with $1,058 for large-scale solar projects and $1,989 for onshore wind. Even if the ultimate cost of SMRs proves to be much less, they will still be uncompetitive, short of massive taxpayer subsidies. Artist’s impression of a small modular reactor [Source: NuScale Power]

China is going all-out for nuclear energy. Other nations should do the same. Fact: China is indeed building more nuclear power plants than any other nation, but nuclear’s contribution to its electricity grid is very small. In 2026, it had 60 nuclear reactors, with a total capacity of 58.7 gigawatts (GW). Another 36 GW are under construction, with a total capacity of 38.9 GW. In 2025, it increased its nuclear capacity by 1.1 GW. That same year it increased its renewable capacity by 430 GW! In other words, China added 391 times more renewable capacity in 2025 than it did nuclear capacity. So yes, China it is building nuclear reactors, but these are not central its energy plans. 

Nuclear energy can provide all the backup needed for a grid that is mostly powered by renewables. Fact: The problem with this line of argument is that nuclear reactors must operate at near full capacity in order to amortise their high capital costs. This means they cannot ramp up their output if there is a sudden dearth of wind and/or sun. And even if they were to operate at a loss, at say 60 percent capacity, they cannot increase their output anywhere near quickly enough to deal with a failure elsewhere in the grid.  Battery storage, hydro storage and peaking gas are far better forms of backup for renewable energy. They can be brought into play almost instantly, preventing blackouts while the power outage is rectified.