Mikko2,

All of my references are peer-reviewed and scholarly, so your “Pot, Kettle, Black” remark is absurd and childish.

Your claims about renewable energy in far north Queensland are inaccurate and overlook the severe environmental damage caused by fossil fuel extraction, such as deforestation, habitat loss, and pollution from mining, drilling, and fracking. Renewable projects like solar and wind farms often use less land than the sprawling infrastructure required for coal mines and gas fields. These projects also include environmental mitigation measures and plans for land restoration, unlike fossil fuel operations. Renewable energy sites can often be repurposed or restored once they’re no longer in use.

The claim that renewables have a short lifespan and create dangerous landfill is outdated. The renewable energy industry is making significant strides in recycling technologies. For instance, over 95% of wind turbine materials and up to 90% of solar panel materials can be recycled. Modern renewable systems are also lasting longer, with solar panels often exceeding 30 years and wind turbines becoming more durable and efficient. In contrast, fossil fuel operations produce vast amounts of hazardous waste, including toxic sludge, mine tailings, and greenhouse gas emissions, which renewables do not.

Concerns about the concrete bases of renewable installations are exaggerated. These bases can be repurposed or recycled, unlike the permanent environmental scars left by open-pit mines and oil spills. The overall environmental impact of renewable infrastructure is minimal compared to the widespread devastation caused by coal mining and gas extraction, which leave behind irreparable damage. In far north Queensland, proper site selection and planning can minimise the impact on pristine areas.

The idea that renewables can’t provide reliable baseload power is becoming increasingly outdated. Advances in energy storage, like batteries, and smart grid technology are making renewables more reliable for baseload power. A well-planned energy grid in far north Queensland can incorporate a mix of renewable sources, supplemented by hydroelectric and geothermal power, ensuring a stable and reliable energy supply. Renewables are also becoming more economically competitive, often cheaper than fossil fuels, making them a viable and preferable option.

Would you like source references?

John Daysh, PEER REVIEWS mean nothing. Just ask anyone who has the inside info on what Peer reviewing means. Nothing!! They check for spelling and other mistakes and do not check all matters of consequence. Science is an ongoing and a moving feast.
I am not bothering with you much more as I have been through all this Global Warming crap for years and don’t intend to waste more time on people who have their minds blocked to learning anything more.
You remind me of another who wasted so much of my time years ago and I don’t intend to get caught up again.

However, before I finish here, I should refer you to the following and let you mull over that one.
https://www.freedom-research.org/p/trench-wars-of-climate-science - Scroll down to the Sub heading "Remarkable actors on the international stage" which mentions various scientists such as William Harper, John Christy and Roy Spencer and what they have said about climate change. https://www.freedom-research.org/p/trench-wars-of-climate-science?

NUCLEAR MUST be in the mix together with GAS and renewables (if they insist on renewables which are just a damned waste of money and destruction to our beautiful country) if Australia wants to reach net zero by 2050.

Fancy all that with which we have to contend when COAL HAS served our generations for our power so easily and efficiently. Not having to worry about the wind blowing or the sun shining.

Here’s another link to really get you going, John Daysh.
Margaret Mead at her Eungenics conference in 1974 began the scare campaigns on Climate change also:
https://larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
Cheers.

I only answered your comment to me, JD.
However, just reading through your nonsense about renewables not making as much mess as coal on the landscape!! You obviously know nothing about what is occurring Queensland all along our beautiful Great Dividing Range. How on God’s earth can yo say renewables are not making a mess of our land up this way. I wish I could post photos on here and you mayactually learn something. The countryside is being deforested for fire catching, bird killing monstrocities and when hail hits our solar panels, I wonder how that will work out?
Did you see where the wasted wind turbines just outside Ravenshoe are stored – like dead bodies in the bushes – not even buried!! This is responsible isn’t it? It was on main stream TV for all to see.
You really are reaching the bottom of the waste paper basket with your comments.
“Concerns about the concrete bases of renewable installations are exaggerated.” (your words) YOU have to be joking. Do you have any idea. how much cement goes into the bases of these turbines? Geez! “Current wind-turbine tower installation involves pouring a large concrete footing at the base of each 300-foot tower. The footings are 9 feet thick and 60 feet in diameter and require 30 to 40 truckloads of concrete – about 300 cubic yards.”
And 20,000 TONNES OF COAL is requires to build ONE TURBINE.
Fair dinkum where are you getting your information, John Daysh

I agree Far northerner - he just serves up the same old BS (Bad Science if you must) about peer review and dodgy sites he deems reputable but which are mostly far left supporters of the non- proven/ non provable hypothesis of CO2 emissions driving climate change and more BS about how "renewables" are becoming more effective and less destructive, when people who live in the affected areas and can see what's happening know that yes it IS very effective - at destroying the environment. And now CFA firefighters in Victoria have actually placed a ban on attending the fires they and the multiplication of transmission lines cause, which they term "Reckless renewables expansion:
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/firefighters-strike-over-reckless-renewable-expansion/video/661fa8e348ecb23c49738315cfe49a60
Welcome to the real world. Wait for summer, what could go wrong?

Tonight, for those who want some facts, not activist theory—

AEMO data tonight tells us that electricity supplies are dominated by power from black and brown coal, and natural gas. Wind is minor and solar and batteries irrelevant.
At the same time, wholesale prices in the NEM are high, well over $200 per MwH, even in Tasmania with its reliance on hydro. Tassie is importing power because its hydro can’t meet full demand. These prices in the NEM translate to over 20c per KwH at the wholesale level, implying retail prices at 60-80c per KwH.
Something to look forward to…more of this, with intermittent renewables?
Let’s dial it back, please.

Farnortherner,

It is clear you have no idea what the peer-review process is, nor could you list any of the safeguards in place for upholding the integrity, reliability, and credibility of scientific research. Perhaps I could tell you, and then you could tell me how exactly the safeguards just happen to fail only when the findings of the research being vetted by them clash with your political views.

To prove your bizarre claim that the peer-review process involves the checking of spelling and grammar only, you link me to an non-scholarly article that relies heavily on cherry-picked data, logical fallacies, and the misrepresentation of scientific viewpoints. Let’s take a look:

The article claims older scientists are more credible on climate issues due to their age and experience, but this is an "appeal to authority" fallacy. Most climate scientists, regardless of age, agree that human activities significantly contribute to global warming. Scientific consensus is based on evidence, not age.

The suggestion that retired scientists are more truthful ignores the rigorous peer-review process that all scientific research undergoes. Climate science is validated through repeated studies and data analysis, not funding sources.

Claiming that consensus is political rather than scientific is misleading. The overwhelming agreement among climate scientists (97%) is that climate change is real and largely driven by human activity. Highlighting a few dissenting scientists doesn’t invalidate the extensive research supporting this.

Mentions of supposed errors and data manipulation in climate science, like satellite data issues, overlook the continuous review and correction process in the scientific community. Improvements in satellite measurements are well-documented.

Citing older theories or selective interpretations doesn’t reflect the current consensus. Contemporary climate science is based on the latest data. Arguments relying on outdated theories don't hold up against modern evidence.

Claims that CO2 is beneficial because it promotes plant growth ignore broader impacts like extreme weather, sea-level rise, and ecosystem disruption. The net effect of increased CO2 is overwhelmingly negative.

The article misrepresents some scientists' views, implying a larger consensus among skeptics than actually exists. Many quoted scientists have been widely criticised and are not representative.