A report released in June by the Center of the American Experiment (CAE) details the myriad environmental and ecological downsides of the push to transform the American energy sector via the widespread adoption of “renewable” technologies such as wind and solar.

In Shattered Green Dreams: The Environmental Costs of Wind and Solar, CAE demonstrates the many tradeoffs that will be made if policymakers at the federal and state level pursue a transition away from energy generation from fossil fuels such as natural gas, oil, and coal in favor of these “renewable” sources.

“Every form of energy generation comes with its own set of challenges and benefits,” the report explains. “All renewable and hydrocarbon energy sources — wind and solar, hydropower, coal, natural gas, and nuclear — have environmental impacts. The mining of raw materials, manufacturing, and construction, the landscape footprints and ecological impacts of utility-scale wind and solar projects, and repowering and recycling costs must be considered. The negative impacts of wind and solar on the environment are too often overlooked. A wide variety and large quantity of minerals are used in solar panels, wind turbines, battery storage, transmission lines, and more. The U.S. currently sources most of its minerals from foreign countries that do not adhere to modern environmental or worker health and safety standards, which exacerbates environmental impacts that could be managed with domestic mining.”

One main problem the CAE report points out is the low energy density of wind and solar. In electricity generation, low energy density refers to a fuel or energy source that contains relatively little usable energy per unit of volume or mass. This means that more of the fuel or resource is needed—and more space and infrastructure is required—to generate the same amount of electricity as a high-energy-density source. As the CAE report points out, the land use footprint of wind and solar is “disproportionally large.”

According to CAE, “wind turbines and solar panels need at least 10 times as much land per unit of power produced as coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. To generate the same amount of electricity as a 1 GW nuclear plant, which occupies approximately 1.3 square miles, one would need between 45 and 75 square miles of solar panels or between 260 and 3,360 square miles of wind turbines. The latter is larger than the combined areas of Delaware and Rhode Island. If the U.S. relied entirely on wind turbines for electricity, it would need about twice the size of the state of California [to generate enough electricity to satisfy American needs.]”

Further, the shorter lifespans of these “renewable” technologies are compounding disposal challenges, leading to further environmental degradation. “Repowering and replacing wind turbines occurred at a median age of 10 years in 2021, motivated by financial reasons like requalifying for the federal Production Tax Credit,” CAE points out. “Only about 10 percent of solar panels are recycled today due to cost effectiveness, with U.S. solar panel waste expected to reach between seven and 10 million tons by 2050. Wind turbine blades, made of fiberglass or carbon fiber, are challenging and uneconomic to recycle, with 2.2 million tons likely to enter landfills by 2050. Wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries must also be disposed of or recycled correctly to avoid exposure to hazardous chemicals like lithium, silicon tetrafluoride, selenium, sulfur hexafluoride, lead, and cadmium.”

Another issue with the growing footprint of wind and solar farms is their detrimental impact on surrounding wildlife, of which there is mounting evidence. “The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration acknowledges that offshore wind poses risks to whales through exposure to noise, strikes from vessels, entanglement in marine debris, and changes to habitat,” the report notes. “Birds and bats, including some vulnerable species, are susceptible to collision with wind turbine blades as well as habitat loss, fragmentation, and displacement. Solar panels also cause bird and bat collisions in part due to the ‘lake effect,’ where reflective panels resemble bodies of water from afar.”

Despite the vaunting of wind and solar technology from certain circles, it is important to remember that much of the reduction in carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States is due to technological advances from the fossil fuel industry. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest annual U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions study, natural gas is responsible for 61 percent of the power sector’s emissions reductions since 2005.

Another study from researchers at Miami University in Ohio, published in the peer-reviewed journal Energy Economics in May, found that between 2007 and 2019, the fracking-induced shale boom was responsible for an average annual per capita reduction in CO 2 emissions in the United States of 10.5 percent, as well as a 7.5 percent reduction in annual total GHG emissions.

“We find that the shale gas boom has played a pivotal role in reshaping the U.S. energy landscape, resulting in a greener economy,” the researchers conclude.

In January, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory found the GHG-emission intensity of the country’s energy profile had decreased by 32 percent between 2017 and 2020.

“Energy policy should be driven by facts, not by surface-level assumptions,” the report concludes. “All forms of energy entail environmental impacts. An honest accounting of the negative impacts of wind, solar, and battery storage shows that they are far less than the unqualified good that proponents suggest. The material intensity, land use demands, and lifecycle challenges of wind and solar must be acknowledged by policymakers. Similarly, the scalability, reliability, and small land use footprints of coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear are substantial benefits.”

The oil and natural gas deposits found throughout the United States are abundant, affordable, and environmentally safe. Moreover, they can ensure the United States is the world’s largest energy producer well beyond the 21st century. Therefore, policymakers should refrain from placing unnecessary burdens on the natural gas and oil industries which positively impact state economies and are committed to safe, environmentally responsible extraction. Further, policymakers should take the environmental, ecological, and cost concerns raised by CAE’s report into account when debating on whether to promote wind and solar sources of energy. Finally, they should consult the Heartland Institute Policy Study, “How States Can Push Back Against the Destructive Expansion of Industrial Solar Power,” for a guide to prevent large-scale solar development in their home states.

The following documents provide more information about renewable energy, fossil fuels, and ESG.

Shattered Green Dreams: The Environmental Costs of Wind and Solar

This report from the Center of the American Experiment warns that the environmental costs of wind, solar, and battery storage are routinely underestimated in public policy discussions, while the benefits of conventional energy sources such as nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal are increasingly ignored. It offers a comprehensive analysis of the hidden tradeoffs involved in large-scale renewable energy deployment. Contrary to popular perception, the report argues that wind and solar power are not environmentally benign, and their widespread adoption entails significant ecological and material costs.

How States Can Push Back Against the Destructive Expansion of Industrial Solar Power

This Heartland Institute Policy Study summarizes the myriad problems associated with industrial solar expansion—and the reliance upon solar energy more generally—and concludes with a set of concrete solutions policymakers should consider to protect their states.

Clearing the Air: Honest Truths about Green Energy

This report from the American Consumer Institute details many of the environmental impacts associated with the so-called green energy forms being heavily promoted. The life cycles of all three—the wind turbine, solar panel, and EV battery—involve significant environmental consequences that should not be overlooked and need to be part of the discussion when implementing energy policies.

The 100 Percent Renewable Energy Myth

This Policy Brief from the Institute for Energy Research argues that a countrywide 100 percent renewable plan would put the U.S. economy in jeopardy. The brief investigates the intermittency, land requirements, capacity factors, and cost of transition and construction materials that limit the ability of the U.S. to adapt to 100 percent renewable energy.

How the Green New Deal’s Renewable Energy Mining Would Harm Humans and the Environment

In this Heartland Institute Policy Brief, Paul Driessen, senior policy advisor with the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, argues expanding mining on the scale needed to meet the renewable energy requirements contained in the Green New Deal and other proposed renewable energy mandates would cause unimaginable harm to the environment, wildlife, and humans.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Scores: A Threat to Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and the U.S. Economy

This Policy Study by Heartland Institute research fellow Jack McPherrin provides a comprehensive overview of ESG and proposes specific policy recommendations to counteract ESG’s insidious influence.

Nothing in this Research & Commentary is intended to influence the passage of legislation, and it does not necessarily represent the views of The Heartland Institute. For further information on this subject, visit Environment & Climate News, The Heartland Institute’s website, and PolicyBot, Heartland’s free online research database.

The Heartland Institute can send an expert to your state to testify or brief your caucus; host an event in your state; or send you further information on a topic. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance! If you have any questions or comments, contact Heartland’s Government Relations department, at [email protected] or 312/377-4000.