This is to correct a mistake in my last post above. I made one typing error which I missed when previewing.
Here is basically the same but with the tonnage required to build one wind turbine corrected!! I'm surprised JD did not reprimand me for that mistake.
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 may actually learn something. The countryside is being deforested for fire catching, bird killing monstrosities 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 220 TONNES OF COAL is required to build ONE TURBINE.
Fair dinkum where are you getting your information, John Daysh

I said I wasn't engaging with John Daysh anymore but I cannot let him get away with nonsense when (who knows where he lives? - possibly overseas) he keeps on with his blinkered comments.

Here is a link regarding the far north Queensland wind industry structures etc.

https://onewomanjourney.com.au/2023/09/25/what-will-the-fate-of-the-proposed-chalumbin-wind-development-be-notes-from-far-north-queensland/

Farnortherner,

Typo or not, I can assure you that your error was a pretty negligible oversight in comparison to the ideas expressed in your claims, whereby virtually nothing you said was even remotely correct.

As for your correction, it’s about right (give or take around 50 tonnes, depending on the situation).

But, so what?

Modern wind turbines typically have an energy payback time of less than a year, which means that in less than 12 months, a turbine generates as much energy as was used to manufacture it. For the rest of its 20-25 year lifespan, it continues to produce clean, renewable energy without additional emissions.

Thanks for the link to the blog post. The author raises some legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of the Chalumbin Wind Development. However, these concerns do not fundamentally counter my broader arguments earlier about the environmental, economic, and reliability benefits of renewable energy. They still stand.

I think we all would agree that proper site selection, rigorous environmental assessments, and technological advancements in energy storage and grid management are crucial to maximising the benefits of renewables, and minimising their impacts.

Lordy, the JD tripe cycle never ends does it, Farnortherner, and Lytton? We know the peer review process is a joke where mates back mates and give the thumbs down to anything that doesn't fit their own perspective. I've seen peer review published articles where the author has purposefully set out to appeal to a certain lobby with ridiculous claims and they give it the nod.
But remember what George Constanza said about lies ... "They're not lies if you believe them, Gerry."
Obviously JD falls into this category and he doesn't bear up well to contrary evidence, does he? As you say Farnortherner, the evidence is all around you.

Mikko2,

Scientific peer-review is done anonymously to help maintain honesty and integrity.

I can't imagine "mates helping mates" would be very satisfying or fun when no one in a pool of tens-of-thousands will ever know who the other one was. Especially not in a community of professionals who thrive off disproving each other in order to make a name for themselves.

How you can write so much about a topic you know nothing about is beyond me. Dunning-Kruger perhaps?

Ah the old pot, kettle, black again. Peer review is about as reliable as your dangerously damaging intermittent unreliable green energy sources.
Re the validity of peer review, here's what marine scientist Dr Peter Rudd had to say a few years ago which led to his sacking by James Cook University for being "non collegiate":

"The conflicting realities of the Great Barrier Reef point to a deeper problem. In science, consensus is not the same thing as truth. But consensus has come to play a controlling role in many areas of modern science. And if you go against the consensus you can suffer unpleasant consequences.

"The main system of science quality control is called peer review. Nowadays, it usually takes the form of a couple of anonymous reviewing scientists having a quick check over the work of a colleague in the field.

"Peer review is commonly understood as painstaking re-examination by highly qualified experts in academia that acts as a real check on mistaken work. It isn’t. In the real world, peer review is often cursory and not always even knowledgeable. It might take reviewers only a morning to do.

"Scientific results are rarely reanalyzed and experiments are not replicated. The types of checks that would be routine in private industry are just not done.

"I have asked the question: Is this good enough quality control to make environmental decisions worth billions of dollars that are now adversely affecting every major industry in northeast Australia?...

“The basic problem is that we can no longer trust the scientific organizations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science, even things like the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies … the science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated and this is a great shame because we really need to be able to trust our scientific institutions and the fact is I do not think we can any more,”...