The Biden-Harris administration aims for a carbon-free power sector by 2035, primarily through wind and solar energy. However, these sources require costly backup power since they can’t generate electricity around the clock. These technologies produce no energy when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Not only are they inconsistent with the continuous power Americans need, but they also have environmental drawbacks. For example, it’s estimated that the global wind industry will create 47 million tons of blade waste by 2050, with the U.S. contributing around 20 percent.
Wind turbine blades are exceptionally large, and many waste disposal sites are unable to accommodate them, leading to accumulation in cities like those in Texas and Iowa, where numerous wind facilities are located. Additionally, onshore wind farms require 11 times more critical minerals than natural gas plants, which are often processed using inexpensive coal power from China. These minerals are difficult to extract, with some coming from mines in the Republic of the Congo—partly controlled by Chinese firms—and involving child labor under poor conditions. While all energy sources come with environmental costs, proponents of wind and solar energy often label their choices as “clean” and “green” while criticizing other energy sources, thereby obscuring the full range of their negative impacts.
Critical Mineral Hogs
Onshore wind farms require eight times the amount of critical minerals as natural gas power plants do and offshore wind farms require 13 times as much. Critical mineral mining and development are environmentally damaging and the excessive extraction required for wind turbines is out of proportion to the energy produced. For every megawatt of power capacity, a natural gas power plant requires about 1 ton of critical minerals and a nuclear power plant needs 6 tons. In contrast, onshore wind plants require 11 tons and offshore wind plants need 17 tons of critical minerals—for the same megawatt of energy output.
Turbine Blade Disposal
Although some wind turbine components can be recycled, wind blades pose a significant challenge because they are made from composite glass or carbon material and resins that are difficult to separate and recycle. While the main body of wind turbines consists of recyclable materials like steel and copper, turbine blades are constructed from composite glass or carbon materials and resins, which generally end up in landfills. With blades reaching lengths of up to 260 feet and averaging 36 tons in weight, their disposal becomes a major issue. Due to their size and weight, blades often need to be cut into smaller pieces for transport, and even then, municipal landfills across the country are struggling to accommodate the large volume. NPR reports that over the next 20 years, the U.S. will need to dispose of more than 720,000 tons of blade material, not including the newer, larger turbines being installed. This growing problem of blade disposal is one that neither the industry nor state regulators are fully prepared to handle.
Additionally, large wind blade storage sites, like the large ones near Sweetwater, Texas, and in Iowa, have emerged. By 2050, the U.S. is expected to account for about one-fifth of the global wind blade waste, which will total over 47 million tons.
Blade failures are also occurring at both onshore and offshore facilities. For instance, an offshore wind turbine blade exploded and scattered debris across beaches in Nantucket, Massachusetts, creating hazards for beachgoers. This blade was part of the Vineyard Wind offshore project, which the Biden-Harris Administration supports as a climate solution. The enormous size and weight of these offshore turbines, comparable to the Eiffel Tower, contribute to their susceptibility to problems.
In Wyoming, a lightning strike on July 17 damaged a blade at the Corriedale wind farm west of Cheyenne. This blade was part of the $79 million Corriedale project that began operating in 2020 on land leased from the historic King Ranch. Replacing a blade that is 130 to 200 feet long and weighs several tons is no simple task, particularly due to prevailing winds. The cost of using a mobile crane for such a job ranges from $150,000 to $200,000, and coordinating the equipment’s arrival adds further expense and complexity. The Casper municipal landfill is already the final destination for hundreds of blades that have reached the end of their 20 to 25-year lifespan.
Other Wind Issues
Wind facilities require substantial land use. According to a study by the Breakthrough Institute, generating wind energy needs about 30,000 acres per terawatt-hour of electricity annually, compared to just 18 acres for nuclear energy—a difference of 99.9 percent. Wind energy also occupies six times more space than a natural gas power plant.
The largest onshore wind farm in the U.S., the Alta Wind Energy Center, produces 3.29 terawatt-hours per year with 582 turbines. In contrast, the largest U.S. nuclear power plant, Palo Verde, generates 33.7 terawatt-hours annually—over 10 times more. Wind turbines operate at maximum capacity only around 35 percent of the time, much lower than nuclear power plants, which have a capacity factor of 93 percent, and natural gas combined cycle plants, which can run over 80 percent of the time if continuously operational rather than as backup for wind and solar. Additionally, wind capacity factors are expected to decline as new wind farms are built in less optimal locations, with the best sites already utilized.
U.S. power grids must balance electricity supply with real-time demand. On some days, wind energy might exceed demand, while during peak usage periods, turbines may produce no power. When wind stops, coal or natural gas plants are required to fill the gap, increasing both capital investments and electricity costs for consumers. Some states are investing in costly batteries to store excess wind power for later use, but this combination of intermittent wind generation and expensive backup drives up electricity prices, as seen in California and other states pursuing this approach. European countries are facing similar issues and are beginning to deindustrialize as a result.
Wind turbines kill over 1 million birds and hundreds of thousands of bats annually, according to the American Bird Conservancy. Offshore wind projects, like those from Atlantic Shores and Orsted’s Ocean Winds, have been authorized by the Biden-Harris Interior Department to produce sound waves that may harm whales, dolphins, seals, and porpoises.
Wind energy also lacks the versatility of natural gas and oil, which can be used for electricity generation, heating, cooking, and transportation. Wind energy is limited to electricity production. Despite these drawbacks, the Biden-Harris administration’s climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, provides significant subsidies to wind energy. Renewable energy sources, including wind, are projected to receive around $425 billion in subsidies from 2023 to 2033, in addition to about $200 billion in other “green energy” subsidies. As Warren Buffet has noted, without these subsidies, wind projects would likely not be feasible. Wind plants have shown a marked decline in performance after their 10th year, coinciding with the expiration of the lucrative production tax credit. Once this credit ends, maintenance typically declines. The issue of wind blade disposal has been worsened by government policies that renew tax subsidies for wind turbines that have been repowered, with new blades replacing the old ones.
On a state level, wind energy benefits from renewable portfolio standards, which mandate a certain percentage of electricity sales come from renewable sources. Politicians in these states require utilities to produce renewable energy regardless of cost. For example, California aims to derive 60 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. Similarly, Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz has signed legislation to achieve 100 percent zero-carbon power by 2040, with a focus on transitioning to greener plants in areas previously served by fossil-fuel facilities. Despite the expansion of wind capacity due to federal and state incentives, it produced less energy in the past year compared to 2022.
Conclusion
The Biden-Harris administration has a goal for a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035 and expects wind power to provide a sizable amount of that electricity. While the Biden-Harris administration heralds the environmental hazards of fossil fuels because of their carbon content, it overlooks the environmental damage that comes from its politically correct technologies–wind and solar power. Wind requires massive amounts of critical minerals processed by cheap coal electricity in China and has a huge waste disposal problem among other environmental issues. These issues are overlooked as the administration justifies them based on questionable climate impact results. The Biden-Harris administration’s climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, provides massive subsidies that continue to spur investment in wind and solar power. Far less wind and solar power would be built if federal subsidies and credits, paid by taxpayers, and state mandates were removed. Reliability, affordability, diversity, and practicality in electrical sources once guided deployment. That, has been replaced by politics.
