Fester,

The article you linked actually supports what I've always said. It talks about short-term increases in energy bills due to things like infrastructure upgrades and changes, not because renewables themselves are inherently expensive.

Again, none of this is ground we haven't covered ad nauseum.

In fact, it mentions that clean energy is cheaper at the wholesale level. That’s why the UK isn’t backing away from renewables - it’s investing more into both wind, solar, and nuclear.

On curtailment: calling the concept “economically illiterate” misses the point. Overbuilding capacity is standard grid planning - fossil and nuclear generators don’t run at 100% either. Curtailment is simply the name for surplus in systems with near-zero marginal cost. Even with that, wind and solar remain the cheapest sources per MWh, and storage + demand management are improving efficiency further.

Your “2% of total energy” claim keeps resurfacing, but again - it ignores that the electricity sector is the first target of decarbonisation, and that wind and solar now supply 30% of global electricity and make up over 80% of new generation capacity each year. That’s rapid growth, whether from a low base or not.

As for nuclear: yes, standardised builds with international coordination sound promising. But we don’t build energy policy on hypotheticals - we build on outcomes. Wind and solar are cheap, proven, and scaling today. Nuclear is still struggling with costs and timelines, even after 70 years.

it’s been rigorously studied, and when compared to fossil fuels or even other infrastructure (like roads, buildings, or transmission lines), it’s extremely low.
John Daysh,
What a ridiculous comparison & an even more ridiculously feeble attempt to distract from the real issue.
Per Kw/hr present alternative energy is several times worse not only environmentally but also socially & economically than your 'rigorous study' claims. The mining & manufacturing of Batteries, copper, plastics & everything from hanger-on 'scientists' to hanger-on 'investors' & hanger-on Tax avoiders makes coal the most sane option at this stage to produce electricity.
The notion that Australia using coal has any impact on the global scale is nothing short of silly.
The money & materials used on the present alternative energy guesswork is criminal wastage & damage..

Indyvidual,

You asked about the environmental impact of wind - I addressed it directly with evidence and comparison. Now you’re saying I’m dodging “the real issue,” but this wasn’t what you originally raised.

If you’ve changed topics, that’s fine - just be upfront about it. Otherwise, it looks like you're moving the goalposts.

As for the rest:

- Per kWh, wind and solar have among the lowest lifecycle emissions and impacts, even accounting for mining and materials. That’s backed by the IEA, IPCC, CSIRO, and others - not “hanger-on scientists.”

- Coal, the “sane” option? It causes thousands of deaths annually from air pollution, accelerates climate change, and relies on subsidies and regulation just to compete.

- Batteries and copper are used across all modern energy systems - fossil and nuclear included. And newer batteries increasingly avoid rare minerals.

- Dismissing scientists, investors, and the entire field of clean energy economics as some sort of scam isn’t an argument - it’s just a conspiracy shrug.

If you want to have a serious conversation, I’m all for it - but let’s stick to facts, not slogans.

Okay John,

"The article you linked actually supports what I've always said."

So all along you've been arguing that wind and solar are more expensive, and here I was thinking you were arguing the opposite.

One other fact about wind and solar generation is that it requires ten times as much steel and concrete per unit of power generated as nuclear. It would be good to see thorium utilised as enough to meet world energy demand is already mined as a byproduct. Compare that with the vast increase in mining required for wind and solar.

Fester,

You're misreading my point. I said the article supports what I've always said - which is that short-term costs rise during a transition, but renewables are still cheaper at the wholesale level and essential to long-term affordability and sustainability. The UK is still investing heavily in wind and solar because they recognise this.

As for your steel and concrete claim: yes, wind and solar involve more materials upfront, but that’s spread over decades of fuel-free operation - unlike fossil fuels or even nuclear, which require ongoing extraction. Lifecycle analyses (like those from the IEA and IPCC) factor this in, and wind and solar still come out among the lowest-impact sources per kWh.

If you want to pivot to a thorium discussion, I’m happy to - but let’s not skip over the fact that the article you shared doesn’t undermine my position. It reinforces it: long-term costs are falling, and short-term spikes are transitional.