Center of the American Experiment recently posted a short (2:40) video, “Wind & Solar: Too good to be true?” (see below for the embedded video). The video is based on this recent report by Sarah Montalbano, “Shattered Green Dreams: The Environmental Costs of Wind and Solar.”
Montalbano analyzes the rarely discussed environmental costs of solar and wind power and battery storage. These things are pushed on policymakers and electricity customers for their promise of no carbon dioxide emissions, which, we’re told, make them good for the environment and optimal for electricity generation. Her report discusses the “hidden tradeoffs involved in large-scale renewable energy deployment.” It’s important because there is a pretense among media and renewables advocates that there are no tradeoffs worth discussing.
Here are the key findings from that report:
- Massive Land Use Requirements: Wind and solar power require up to 10 times more land per unit of energy than coal or natural gas. Powering the U.S. entirely with wind would require land exceeding the size of two Californias.
- Wildlife and Habitat Impacts: Wind turbines are linked to habitat fragmentation and harm to bird, bat, and potentially whale populations, while solar farms displace wildlife and disrupt migratory patterns.
- Material and Mining Concerns: Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries depend heavily on critical minerals often mined in countries with poor environmental and labor standards. Domestic mining, which could reduce global environmental harm, is frequently opposed.
- Limited Lifespan and Recycling Challenges: Wind and solar infrastructure have shorter lifespans (20–25 years) than natural gas (40 years) or nuclear plants (40–80 years). Decommissioned materials are rarely recycled and often end up in landfills.
- Undervalued Conventional Energy Benefits: Reliable, affordable, and land-efficient, conventional energy sources continue to play a vital role in powering the grid — a fact often excluded from policy debates.
Several recent reports and briefs from the John Locke Foundation have highlighted similar wildlife and environmental concerns for North Carolina: land use (including transmission lines), wildlife and habitat disruptions, and forever waste problems and issues. This chart from our Policy Solutions compares different generation sources according to many reliability, cost, and environmental measures.
Even viewed strictly from the emissions side of electricity production and the most dogmatic interpretation of emissions-based climate change theory — both of which form the basis for the state’s Carbon Plan law — North Carolina cannot influence the global climate in any measurably way at all.
We can, however, make electricity much more expensive and much less reliable for people, and as Montalbano’s report shows, we can also make its generation much less friendly on net for animals and the environment.
