No one said they’re made of fairy dust, Indyvidual.

All infrastructure - wind, solar, coal, nuclear - requires materials and energy to build. The question isn’t whether wind turbines magically float into existence, but how they compare over their lifetime in emissions, pollution, and damage.

And here’s the reality: once built, wind turbines generate electricity for 20-30 years without burning a thing. No CO2, no mercury, no particulates. Coal plants, on the other hand, keep polluting every second they run.

If you're going to criticise renewables for the materials used in their construction, I trust you’re just as outraged about highways, skyscrapers, and, well… coal power stations - which also use concrete, steel, copper, diesel, and a whole lot more. Or is it only bad when clean energy uses them?

Wind turbines have an energy payback time of around 6-12 months - after that, it’s clean output. Fossil fuel plants never pay back. They just keep burning and billing the atmosphere.

So no, I don’t think turbines are made from thin air. But pretending they’re worse than coal because of their materials is like saying bicycles are worse than SUVs because both use rubber.

You want to talk costs? Sure - wind is now the cheapest new generation in Australia. That’s why it’s being built. Not because of rainbows and unicorns, but because the economics beat coal. Sorry if that ruins the narrative.

Renewables aren't just held to a different standard by their detractors, they're expected to meet an impossible standard.

Why?

Because, again, it's never really about the concerns expressed. It's about fear, identity, and tribalism - which is why you're not supposed to be talking to me.

"Wind turbines have an energy payback time of around 6-12 months"

I'm guessing that would not include the overbuild, transmission upgrades (Victoria just discovered that a 4.3 billion estimate was more like 20 billion), batteries, pumped hydro, grid stability measures or back up fossil fuel generation. The koala clubbing and environmental vandalism that goes with installation is probably part of the fun.

Oh, and the AFR has an article on the slow pace of renewables rollout in today's edition. The article didn't blame the critical members of the peanut gallery on olo. Instead, the spanner in the works were lobby groups for farmers/conservationists concerned about the environmental destruction that the wind and solar con entails. And the land area involved? Not what lying Johnny would have you believe. 1.7 times the area of Tassie was mentioned, and that might only be the area needed for electricity generation, the re superpower BS.

It's about fear, identity, and tribalism
John Daysh,
Correct, the fear of the proponents to lose ongoing massive funding which as till now has no balance as to cost vs benefit nor any reduction in pollution. Considering that the pollution from the wind farms is in addition to the pollution from coal this is not the kind of equation to boast about.
That whole industry is one of promises & massive waste of funding that could actually be used to curb pollution far more effectively if people actually cared.
Come up with real proven alternatives such as discipline & restraint & pollution will reduce.

Thanks, Fester.

It’s always amusing how quickly we go from cost concerns to koala-clubbing in the span of a paragraph. Let’s unpack it:

//I'm guessing that would not include the overbuild, transmission upgrades [...] batteries, pumped hydro, grid stability measures or back up fossil fuel generation.//

You're guessing correctly, because those are system-wide infrastructure investments, not the energy payback of an individual turbine. It's like saying a car’s fuel efficiency must be a lie because roads cost money.

And yes, the grid needs updating. Because everything changes when you shift to new technology - just like it did when we first built the fossil fuel system. You think coal power didn’t require overbuild, new lines, backup generation, and subsidies?

//Koala clubbing and environmental vandalism...//

Ah yes, the newfound concern for wildlife from people defending an industry that causes actual habitat loss, particulate pollution, acid rain, and oceanic dead zones. The fact that you think turbines are worse than open-cut coal mines or gas fracking says more about your ideology than any environmental principle.

//The land area involved? 1.7 times the area of Tassie.//

Care to mention that most of that land remains usable? Wind turbines don’t blanket the terrain - they’re spaced out, and land beneath is still farmed. Solar farms too, in many regions, are co-used with grazing or set on degraded land. It’s not 1.7 Tasmanias of scorched earth - that’s just the surface-level footprint if you squint and panic.

//Not what lying Johnny would have you believe.//

I know you're proud of that line, but resorting to name-calling every time your points wobble doesn’t exactly scream confidence.

And that AFR article? It doesn’t disprove the viability of renewables - it proves the irony. Many of the very people who could benefit from clean energy are slowing it down due to environmental fears, which, when you trace them, are often stoked by the same groups pushing fossil fuel talking points.

But sure, tell me more about how a wind turbine is the real menace here.

Indyvidual,

There it is, the real fear: that somewhere, someone might receive funding for solving a problem you’ve already declared doesn’t exist.

You keep calling it a “waste” with “no results,” but the metrics are there - emissions reductions, energy output, declining costs - just inconveniently not on the conspiracy blogs you frequent.

And no, pollution from wind farms is not “in addition” to coal. Wind replaces fossil generation - that’s the point. Unless you believe we're firing up turbines on top of running coal at full tilt just to burn money.

Your solution? “Discipline and restraint.” Sounds noble - but discipline alone doesn’t decarbonise a grid, and restraint doesn’t generate megawatts. The transition needs real infrastructure, not lifestyle sermons.

Let’s be honest: this isn’t about cost-benefit or environmental concern. If it were, you’d be calling for stronger regulation, better oversight, and faster displacement of coal - not shouting down every form of clean energy because it threatens your worldview.

You’ve just confirmed my point: it’s not the turbines or the spending that really bother you. It’s the type of people backing them.

That’s tribal panic, not environmental concern.