Indyvidual,

You're repeating a claim that’s been debunked many times over. The idea that renewables are “more polluting” than fossil fuels is flat-out wrong, and it doesn’t become true by adding a bit of hand-wringing or rhetorical flourish.

Yes, manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries involves mining and energy use. Nobody is denying that. But lifecycle analyses - which compare the total environmental impact from creation to disposal - consistently show that renewables cause far less pollution than fossil fuels. Burning coal or gas creates ongoing emissions, every hour of every day. Solar panels and turbines do not. Once built, they produce clean energy for decades.

A study from the US NREL found that solar and wind produce roughly 20 times less CO₂ per kilowatt-hour over their lifetime compared to coal. Even when you include manufacturing and disposal, renewables come out overwhelmingly cleaner.

You asked for evidence of renewables being “renewed” rather than buried. Sure:

- Wind turbine blades are now being recycled into cement or repurposed into construction materials.
- Solar panel recycling programs are underway worldwide, especially in the EU, with up to 95% material recovery for some panel types.
- Lithium battery recycling has become a booming industry, with major companies like Redwood Materials and Li-Cycle already recovering cobalt, nickel, and lithium at scale.

You don’t have to “wait a long time.” It’s already happening.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels aren’t just polluting during use - they pollute when extracted, when refined, when transported, and when burned. They also emit methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2 in the short term. And unlike renewables, you have to keep burning them forever.

So no, manufacturing a wind turbine or solar panel once is not “worse” than endlessly pumping out carbon, toxins, and particulates. That claim isn’t just wrong - it’s dangerously misleading.

manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries involves mining and energy use.
John Daysh,
Why not also state that this is merely part one of the process & not as simple a process as you word it ? There's the massive amount of worn out, failed equipment & substantial amount of oil that has all to be discarded because none of it or hardly any of it is renewable. The much flogged term "renewable" is straight out fraudulent !
If the claims for saving the environment were even 50% true ambition then why not focus on avoidable environmental impact by frivolous industries ?
Hopefully there'll be an international DOGE on the "renewables" racket !

Indyvidual,

You're moving the goalposts now. First, you claimed renewables pollute more than fossil fuels. I explained why that was wrong, so you now argue that the term "renewable" itself is fraudulent because the equipment wears out. By that logic, cars, planes, and power stations shouldn’t count either, since they need maintenance and replacement.

Do you apply the same outrage to coal plants that wear out and get replaced with more coal plants? Of course not, because waste isn't your real concern.

Let’s be clear: renewable refers to the source of the energy, not the equipment. The winds will always blow, and the sun keeps giving off free energy. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are finite - you dig them up, burn them, and they’re gone forever. The emissions stay in the atmosphere, warming the planet long after you’ve flipped the light switch off.

As for the end-of-life equipment - you do realise fossil fuel infrastructure also wears out, right? Oil rigs corrode, pipelines leak, coal plants age and collapse, and they all create toxic waste. But I don’t see you railing against the fossil fuel industry’s trash pile; again, because waste isn't your real concern.

Regarding recycling, turbine blades are already being recycled into cement, solar panels are seeing material recovery rates above 90%, and battery recycling is growing fast. That’s not "none of it," as you said. That’s a clear trajectory toward a circular system - something the fossil fuel industry has never attempted.

And your “frivolous industries” comment? Absolutely. Let’s talk about fast fashion, endless plastic packaging, and overconsumption. But if you’re genuinely concerned about environmental harm, maybe start with the industries doing the most damage - and that still includes fossil fuels by a long, choking margin.

Calling for an international DOGE on “renewables” is a nice punchline, but jokes don’t override facts. The data’s clear: renewables pollute less, last longer, and are improving faster than anything in the fossil sector. If you’re going to argue against them, you’ll need better material than this.

cars, planes, and power stations shouldn’t count either'
John Days,
What a pi$$-weak & totally off the mark & utterly wrong quip. We're trying to reduce pollution & even village idiots will tell you that every manufactured energy equates into pollution, renewables in particular !
Car, & planes & power stations cause pollution yet still many times less than battery-powered vehicles & wind generators & battery storage.
There's nothing you can state that proves otherwise. You say it's proven that my claims are wrong. Really ? Saying I'm wrong is obviously easier for you than to provide actually data of my being wrong !
My argument is not about opposing renewables, it's about the claims that renewables are better for the environment. To "renew" means to re-use whereas your definition of renew equates to manufacture new & discard the old which also equates to leave more rubbish & pollution for future generations than is left by coal generated energy ! Until you can actually "renew" something, the term renew IS a misnomer of the fraudulent kind. It is fraudulent because it is used to imply that renewables are less polluting or even pollution free. They're not & to make matters worse they ARE worse !

Indyvidual,

Insults don’t make your arguments stronger, and repeating falsehoods louder doesn’t make them true. You’ve now shifted the goal from “renewables are more polluting” to “the word renewable is fraudulent,” as if wordplay trumps decades of environmental science.

You claim that cars, planes, and coal plants pollute “many times less” than EVs, wind turbines, and batteries. That’s simply false. The International Energy Agency, IPCC, National Renewable Energy Lab, and dozens of peer-reviewed lifecycle studies have shown the opposite. Here's a small sample of them:

ICCT (2021): “A global comparison of the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of combustion engine and electric passenger cars”
http://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars

MIT Climate Portal: Are electric vehicles really better for the environment?
http://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

EEA: “Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives”
http://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/electric-vehicles-from-life-cycle

Over their lifespans, solar and wind produce 90–98% less CO2 per kilowatt-hour than coal. Even when you include mining, manufacturing, and disposal, EVs still emit significantly less than petrol cars, especially as the grid gets cleaner. That’s not my opinion, that’s the scientific consensus.

Your “there’s nothing you can state that proves otherwise” line is telling because that’s how people talk when they’ve made up their mind before looking at any data. I’ve now cited multiple sources. You’ve offered none so far. Just personal certainty, vague claims, and a lot of emotion.

As for the “renew” argument: the term renewable refers to the source of the energy, not the reusability of the hardware. Wind and sun are naturally replenishing. Fossil fuels are not. You’re trying to redefine the term so you can call it fraudulent, which is like arguing that “wireless” internet is a scam because there are still wires somewhere in the system. It’s not clever, just misleading.

You say you're not against renewables, just the false claims. But the only false claims so far have been yours. If you’re serious about pollution, then you should be backing the technologies that pollute less, not stubbornly defending the ones that pollute more, simply because they’ve been around longer.

If you want to keep this conversation going, bring facts - not slogans.

That’s not my opinion, that’s the scientific consensus.
John Daysh,
I simply don't believe surveys & faux facts presented by those who have the most to gain from these fibs and, they're not the tax payers who benefit !
As for; Let’s be clear: renewable refers to the source of the energy, not the equipment." Now that is a cop-out of as large a proportion as the industry itself. Pollution doesn't discriminate between materials used to create energy & material used to use energy !
Coal-powered station equipment is recyclable, renewables are not ! " Too much environmental damage will be done before there's any chance of achieving renewability ! When you have this energy available then yes, use it but not as long as it is nothing more than a hellishly costly & destructive experiment !`