This is depressing, and it's just Queensland, but happening in other states too. How can anyone condone this massive solar and wind farm environmental destruction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HJYuZVzZK4
(It's factual too, unlike the lies promoting intermittent "renewables" that will never achieve net zero,)

Mikko2,

Thanks for the link to the video. There are a number of claims made in it that require correcting, however.

Firstly, the claim that we need to triple our electrical capacity due to the intermittent nature of renewables is exaggerated. Modern battery storage systems and improved grid management are increasingly effective at handling renewable energy variability. Advances in wind and solar technology have made them more efficient and reliable, reducing the need for excessive overcapacity.

Concerns that wind farms will industrialise untouched areas are overstated. Wind farm projects undergo strict environmental impact assessments to minimise disruption and select the least harmful locations. Compared to the widespread environmental damage from fossil fuel extraction and combustion, the footprint of wind farms is much smaller.

Claims of large-scale deforestation and habitat destruction from wind and solar farms miss key points. Many renewable projects include habitat restoration, conservation offsets, and careful planning to avoid critical areas. The long-term benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from these projects protect global biodiversity and ecosystems from the greater threat of climate change.

The idea that state governments are fast-tracking approvals for renewable energy projects, leading to insufficient scrutiny and public input, is not entirely correct. Even with expedited processes, these projects must meet stringent regulatory standards and undergo thorough environmental reviews. Transparency and public engagement can still be maintained, even when timelines are accelerated to meet urgent climate goals.

Lastly, the claim that conservation groups are not opposing wind and solar farms and are on the wrong side of history overlooks their balanced approach. Many conservation groups support renewable energy as a crucial strategy to combat climate change, which is a major threat to biodiversity. They advocate for responsible development that minimises environmental impacts while transitioning to clean energy.

Concerns about the negative impacts of wind and solar farms are often overstated and lack context. The environmental benefits of renewable energy, particularly in reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change, far outweigh the localised impacts.

Given your obvious concerns for the environment, I trust the above will come as somewhat of a relief to you.

I'll leave you to your delusions John D as you seem to be the only one here who thinks the huge wind and solar farms aren't destroying our natural environment. Good luck with green dreams, some (most) here believe in reality.

Mikko2,

If you have any arguments or data to counter anything I've said, then please share them. Assertions and insults alone don't give me much to respond to, I'm afraid. Nor do they reflect well on your position.

Well John D you just state things supporting unreliable renewables as fact usually without any back-up. Pretty much like Albo and Bowen telling porkies. There is no evidence to show that clearing an area the size of Tasmania for short-life, intermittent, unreliable solar and wind farms are somehow good for the environment (tell that to the whales and koalas), or the climate, when Australia contributes a tiny fraction (1.3%) of world emissions, which even NASA admits are greening the planet and producing greater food supplies. Believe what you like but it will never achieve "net zero," here or anywhere and no other nation is trying to achieve it solely with renewables. A reminder of what former chief scientist Alan Finkel told a Senate hearing several years ago - if Australia cut its emissions to zero tomorrow, its effects on world climate would be "virtually nothing". Oh, and we all know he later tried to back-track but those were his words regardless of how he later tried to deflect the flak.

John,

Nuclear reactors will use existing coal fired power station sites. They will have no environmental effect other than the positive of protecting life (nuclear power is credited with preventing millions of deaths). Wind and solar will affect an area the size of Tasmania, so nuclear will cause 100% less environmental damage than wind and solar regardless of public opinion.

As for cost and time delays with nuclear, I'd point out that the commissioning of Olkiluoto 3 after nearly 17 years and well over budget has left Finland with an energy glut and a 75% reduction in wholesale power prices.

The major problem with wind and solar, aside from the substantial environmental impact, is that it requires a very substantial amount of infrastructure to make it dispatchable. This includes a transmission and generating infrastructure capable of carrying and generating several times the average power demand. The discussion in the Idel paper I linked suggested that the storage cost of intermittent power sources would need to reduce by over 90% to make them competitive with grids running on dispatchable power sources like nuclear.

As an aside John, although I disagree with you, I think your attention to the subject and respect of others is testament to your good character. I come here not to engage in tribalism but to try and understand why people have their opinions.

Well done!