Amen brother, preach!

Here's a good view of the amount of land consumed by bitumen mining just north of the town of Fort McMurray, Alberta.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aubmn2xbZLzvAMbk6

If you zoom in a bit, it is quite easy to distinguish the tailings ponds which are highly toxic and frequently over a square kilometer in size. Those tailings ponds will remain toxic for at least centuries, but more likely *MILLENIA*

It's incredibly obvious from your posts that you are very opposed to renewable energy generation, I have no idea why and don't much care TBH. Rather than randomly putting nonsense in this thread, how about you do some research on how frequently wind or solar generating sites "break down" and require maintenance? As mentioned in a previous reply, I live very close to some and anecdotally there is no time, like not a single one that I have seen them being repaired.

Here's what I found in 10 seconds of Googling (https://werover.com/blog/how-often-do-wind-turbines-need-maintenance/):

Every 6 months: Preventive inspections, lubrication of bearings, tightening of bolts, and safety checks.
Every 12 months: More comprehensive inspections, including electrical systems, hydraulic systems, and blade integrity.
Every 2–5 years: Gearbox oil changes, major component checks, and software upgrades.
After 10–15 years: Large-scale refurbishments or partial replacements as the turbine ages.

Well the answer to that problem is more on the consumption than production side of the equation. There is nothing saying that consumers cannot start pushing governments to reduce the use of and regulate AI more heavily, but in truth the money being pumped into the industry and sloshing over into the coffers of political campaigns ensures that AI will be shoved down our throats regardless of whether we want it or not, especially in the US where lawmakers are mere handmaids to the tech overlords. To have the AI industry do anything other than grow at it's current ridiculous rate would potentially result in a financial collapse that would probably be larger than that of 2008.

So... I live about 5 km / 3 miles from a wind turbine farm that was fully commissioned probably in 2016, with turbines that are tiny when considering the absolute behemoths that are the biggest ones that can be purchased today. I don't know the specifics of the financial arrangements with the farmers, but the land used by the turbines is minimal and likewise with the service roads, for a larger farm it would be less than 3% of their arable land.

  These are in Ontario and the electricity they generate is effectively subsidized until 2040 via higher rates paid to the generating companies that are employing wind or solar. It will be very interesting to see if the companies choose to replace these with new turbines, it would require rate renegotiation with the government and would likely not result in any additional monies paid in higher rates above what is already paid. In other words, if the generator currently generates 230 MW per year with its existing turbines, that amount will probably continue to enjoy higher feed-in (to the grid) rates but any net new above what the existing turbines generate will likely be at market rates.

As for offshore turbines, there is no private individual or entity that would receive compensation. Governments would derive tax revenue from them and that's it. Otherwise people across America would be able to sue many different industries for the ugly shyte they place on the land - steel mills, paper mills and other industrial sites with huge smoke stacks, petroleum distillation sites, oil derricks, AI datacenters etc. Hell, the tar sands here in Canada take up thousands of square miles of land and are a stain on the earth, the open waste pools can be seen from space:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/aubmn2xbZLzvAMbk6