A new report released today by 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. Shattered Green Dreams: The Environmental Costs of Wind and Solar 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.
“Every energy source comes with its own set of challenges, benefits, and tradeoffs” said Sarah Montalbano, Policy Fellow and author of the report. “We need honest conversations about what those tradeoffs are before we reshape our energy grid and rezone our landscapes.”
Key Findings:
- 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.
The report urges policymakers to adopt a more balanced, evidence-based approach to energy planning, one that fully weighs the costs and benefits of all energy sources. It calls for greater transparency in local and national discussions about proposed renewable projects and highlights the need for informed consent from affected communities.
“The idea that wind, solar and batteries are better for the environment than fossil fuels is false,” said John Hinderaker, President of Center of the American Experiment. “These technologies, because they are so low-intensity, have multiple, extremely adverse impacts on the environment.”
The new report adds to earlier work by American Experiment that provided a stark warning that the minerals needed to achieve so-called net zero policies are either in short supply, made inaccessible by permitting delays and excessive regulations or controlled by our geopolitical enemies, especially China. Mission Impossible: Mineral Shortages and the Broken Permitting Process Put Net Zero Goals Out of Reach is a sober assessment of the amount of minerals it will take to meet international, national and even local goals to get more and more of our energy from renewable sources such as wind and solar.
Taken together, these two reports raise serious questions about the environmental harms of worldwide efforts to reach net-zero carbon emissions.
The new report can be found here.