"Respectfully, this is not correct. I support coal-exploration...

"Respectfully, this is not correct. I support coal-exploration but this type of misinformation just adds confusion and frustration to the arguments to be made"

A spaceship orbiting the sun and men on the moon , i think the laws of physics are fairly entrenched

"A wind-turbine can 'pay' for itself energy-wise in less than a year in ideal conditions. In non-ideal conditions, it may take longer, say 3 years"

2mw x 24hrs x 365days = 17520 mwh at 100% prob closer to 50% -
converted to mechanical hp probably not enough to dig the hole for the 2000 tons of concrete and steel to form the base for the tower.- Last i mentioned this a poster informed that only 680 cubic meters of concrete in base. Save it this time as there's 2.4 T in a cube
At $85/mw = $1.4million / year - a $790000/year tax payer subsidy on each turbine.I leave you to do the math on that and check your electricity bill for conformation

"There are many reasons why an exclusive renewable-based solution for energy generation is not possible but nothing to do with the net energy balance of the systems."

Totally disagree - the base energy for green energy to exist is fossil or nuke therefore no matter how you twist it it's a net loss always
Coal energy to electrical energy also a loss (about 750mw coal energy to make 350mw of electrical energy) the difference being the base energy for coal is, the planet and nature have put the energy into the coal for us ----
no-one , doesn't want to save the planet however the opportunists have been able to capitalise on that fear using failed and 100yo technologies

apply a few simple laws of physics and ask one question always - who is the real beneficiary of what your reading or hearing - the big energy , power companies or the planet
One thing for sure Chris Bowens wealth will far exceed his politicians income