Waste from “clean energy” piles up across the U.S.

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Long known as the nation’s leading producer of oil, Texas in recent years has also surged to the top of the heap in wind energy, with over 19,000 wind turbines operating in the state.

West Texas and the Panhandle have emerged as the gusty go-to places for putting the Lone Star State at the forefront of what was said to be America’s transition to clean energy. Ground zero for this enterprise is Sweetwater in Nolan County. Located 40 miles west of Abelene, Sweetwater is sometimes called the “Wind Turbine Capital of Texas.” But now the small city and its environs are experiencing the downsides of that distinction. It turns out that clean can be very dirty indeed.

In February, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced his office was suing Global Fiberglass Solutions, Inc. and all affiliated entities for allegedly “dumping thousands of wind turbine blades and related materials at two disposal sites in Sweetwater, Texas,” KTAB/KRBC reported. The suit, filed on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, alleges the company failed to properly dispose of turbines it was hired to dismantle, transport, and recycle, resulting in the illegal stockpiling of over 3,000 turbine blades in Sweetwater. Some of the industrial waste abandoned in Sweetwater dates to 2017, prompting Paxton’s office to seek up to $1 million in civil damages.

“Illegal disposal of wind hurts our land and will never be permitted under my watch,” AG Paxton said in a statement. “Just because the radical left calls something a ‘green industry’ does not give any company a free pass to harm the Texas countryside, break our laws, and leave Texans to deal with the negative impacts.”

Sweetwater officials are bringing their own criminal charges against those they deem responsible for polluting their city. “Earlier this week, four individuals were indicted on criminal charges related to these wind blades. I hope this sends a distinct and clear message that individuals who think they’re going to dump in our community are going to be held accountable and there will be consequences,” City Manager Bryon Sheridan said in a Feb. 26 press conference.

Texas isn’t the only place that has had to cope with wind turbine waste. A thousand miles to the northeast, residents of Grand Medow, Minn. had to put up with 111 fiberglass turbine blades haphazardly dumped in their community for four years. Locals in the southern Minnesota town of 1,100 complained that the cavities of broken and stained turbines drew feral cats and foxes and posed a risk to children climbing on the junk, The Star Tribune reported. The mess unfolded in 2020, when renewable-energy developer NextEra Energy rebuilt a wind farm in Mower County but had trouble finding a company to recycle the discarded fiberglass blades.

Despite a growing chorus of complaints by locals, it was not until October 2024 that the blades were removed, and then only after the Minnesota Public Service Commission ordered NextEra Energy to clean up the site.

Even as the Trump administration gives wind power the cold shoulder, waste generated by the industry threatens to become a serious environmental problem. As noted by Ariel Cohen in Forbes, “wind turbines’ large blades are constructed from fiberglass, carbon fiber, and epoxy resin, rendering conventional recycling procedures ineffective.”

“Wind Turbine Graveyards”

Disposal of giant blades in landfills is often the only way to deal with equipment that is no longer serviceable. “Blades are frequently buried in fragments in several landfills throughout the Great Plains,” Cohen adds, “transforming sites in Wyoming, Iowa, and South Dakota into wind turbine graveyards. By 2050, the cumulative decommissioning material from wind turbines could reach 133 million tons. On average, 3,000 – 9,000 blades are being taken out of service per year in the United States, and that number is expected to increase to 10,000 – 20,000 blades per year by 2040.”

In other words, even in the absence of dubious corporate behavior as was seen in Texas and Minnesota, the environmental impact of industrial-scale wind facilities extends far beyond the operational lifespan of turbine blades and related equipment.

Another supposed source of clean energy, solar power, comes with its own waste-related baggage. Estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency project that by 2030, the nation could have as much as one million tons of solar panel waste on its hands. Citing what it says is a “tidal wave of solar e-waste,” the renewable energy company Solar N Plus notes that, “When sent to landfills, the toxic materials used in solar panels, such as lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals, can leach into the soil and groundwater, posing a public health risk.”

Small wonder that the vaunted transition to clean energy is encountering headwinds.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 27 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 5, 2026 10:05 am

Texas in recent years has also surged to the top of the heap in wind energy,

with over 19,000 wind turbines operating in the state.

Looks like $20 Billion to me.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
March 5, 2026 10:42 am

And still couldn’t produce any wind power on Cold February days

William Howard
March 5, 2026 10:17 am

Prager U has an excellent 5 min. video on all of this narrated by Michael Schellenberger

Bryan A
March 5, 2026 10:35 am

Time has shown that, when it comes to generation longevity, Wind Liabilities and Solar Liabilities cannot outlast Gas Assets and Nuclear Assets

Dick Burk
March 5, 2026 10:38 am

The Valley region of Texas, around Harlingen, had wind tubines as far as the eye can see. Very ugly.

oeman50
Reply to  Dick Burk
March 6, 2026 6:00 am

Had? What happened to them?

Thanks.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
March 5, 2026 10:45 am

The unintended negative consequences keep piling up. While nuclear energy has a proven track record for reliability and safety (when done right) a blind eye is cast to wind and solar renewables.

March 5, 2026 11:03 am

A LOT of waste before and after “clean energy” is adopted.

strativarius
March 5, 2026 11:09 am

Waste from “clean energy” piles up 

One for our #1 renewables champion, reloaded, to, er, clear up.

March 5, 2026 11:50 am

If they illegally disposed of these blades in any way, book ’em Danno. I drilled down into the suit and will watch it’s progress.

Goes without sayin’ that Ken Paxton is going to hold renewable producers to MUCH higher standards than the Ben Dover TRRC holds oil and gas extractors. So, those renewablers need to be on their better than best behavior, since (1) this is A.G. Paxton’s last gub’mint job in Texas or DC, and (2) they shouldn’t expect special treatment from Sen. Talarico.

Reply to  bigoilbob
March 5, 2026 12:16 pm

“…Sen. Talarico…”

Thanks for the laugh.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 5, 2026 1:42 pm

It’s renewable energy, so why is there such a non-renewable problem?
It’s claimed to be “green.” So why is it devastating the environment?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 5, 2026 1:47 pm

Goes without saying?
What standards for oil and gas extractors are MUCH worse than tons of WTG blades and poisonous SV panels?

Make sure to include the environmental impact statements for both.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
March 5, 2026 2:16 pm

Wind and Solar requires a much deeper Ben Dover though.

Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2026 4:38 am

When a solar “farm” was built next to my ‘hood in ’12 (north central Wokeachusetts), the town planning board must have been paid off- as they kept saying how awesome it’ll be- how much it’ll benefit the community!

Reply to  bigoilbob
March 5, 2026 2:26 pm

Of course you omit the inconvenient truth. We NEED “oil and gas extractors.” NOBODY “needs” industrial wind and solar.

March 5, 2026 11:53 am

You mean to tell me a wind farm doesn’t give us free energy forever?

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 5, 2026 12:18 pm

They do. For certain definitions of free and certain definitions of forever.

Reference: Spherical cows in a vacuum.

Bryan A
Reply to  Fraizer
March 5, 2026 2:17 pm

Sucks for the Cow

Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2026 5:16 am

I see what you did there! 😆😅🤣😂

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
March 6, 2026 4:39 am

clean and green and free! What’s not to like? /s

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 10, 2026 2:53 am

Yes, as I like to say, “the breezes and sunshine are free; the cost of collecting energy from them is GIGANTIC.

AlbertBrand
March 5, 2026 1:00 pm

Oh where is that subducting tectonic plate when I need it.

Reply to  AlbertBrand
March 5, 2026 1:26 pm

Marianas Trench.

You would probably have to weigh those blades down to sink them.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2026 1:42 pm

One might be able to use trash solar panels as the necessary ballast to sink them.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 6, 2026 6:49 am

Or maybe a few boatloads of flaming EVs.

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 5, 2026 2:19 pm

Don’t kiss Maryanna’s trench or you could get Trench Mouth

Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2026 6:50 am

If you don’t drown or get crushed first.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AlbertBrand
March 5, 2026 1:44 pm

Do you really want lead and cadmium and other toxic elements and chemicals processed into the next generation of oil? Well, it will thousands of years from now, so who cares? /s

oeman50
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 6, 2026 6:06 am

They will thank us for the “free” lead and cadmium.

March 5, 2026 1:37 pm

Here is my proposed process for disposal of the turbine blades:

A ring of natural-gas fired torches is assembled.

The blades are cut up into smaller lengths and split length wise exposing the balsa wood core.

Using an overhead crane, a piece of the split blade is lowered into the combustion zone of the torches,

The flames will cause the combustion of the epoxy resin and balsa wood and the melting the fiber glass.

As melted glass descends, it will cool and solidify.

The solidify glass is dropped into a grinder and ground to small particles.

The ground glass particles are sent to a glass factory for recycling or added to concrete.

How is the cost of the process obtained? Wind farm developers deposit a recycle fee with the state. The state then pays the blade recycling company for processing the blades. This process will avoid the use of landfills.

We need to construct a pilot plant and obtain a large grant. Would the DOE and EPA found this project?

Michael Flynn
Reply to  Harold Pierce
March 5, 2026 7:39 pm

Just use the gas for power generation. The blades will rot away eventually, or the “free market” will figure out a way to get a large government subsidy to dig a big hole and bury the blades.

Or maybe tow them out to sea and dump them. Who would know, as long as the paperwork had all the right signatures?

Much ado about nothing. You can’t tell me the “best and brightest” didn’t see this coming!

Mr.
Reply to  Harold Pierce
March 5, 2026 8:32 pm

No, but I’m pretty sure that Rube Goldberg would be very interested in participating in its design.

Sparta Nova 4
March 5, 2026 1:55 pm

Texas boasts 15,300 to 19,000+ WTGs.
3000 blades using the high side count means ~ 1 in 6 WTGs, on average, lost a blade in the 2023-2026 time frame, approximately 3 years. This does not project well into the future.

In addition to “free fuel” these obscenities require maintenance and replacements at a rate of about 5% per year, just for the blades.

AI says the life of a blade is 20-25 years. AI probably ignores Texas.

Reliability engineers calculated the mean time between failures for WTG is 4.2 years with half of the maintenance and repairs involving major components.

So, this is good. What could possibly go wrong?

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 6, 2026 6:55 am

LOL it’s very windy in those parts of Texas where those short-lived turbine blades are used.

If the “average” life is 20-25 years, it’s probably because of how many worse-than-useless “wind farms” are constructed in areas where they are not subjected to so much wind. Only an idiot who supports wind power (but then I repeat myself) can’t see what’s wrong with that picture.

Tony Tea
March 5, 2026 2:37 pm
Reply to  Tony Tea
March 6, 2026 7:51 am

Sweetwater…sounds like a town with lead pipes in its municipal water system. 😬

D Sandberg
March 5, 2026 3:58 pm

Everything about wind and solar is bad, somethings worse than others. Modern utility‑scale wind and solar projects are built primarily to monetize production and investment tax credits, not to sell electricity profitably into competitive markets. Because these subsidies are paid regardless of wholesale power prices, electricity frequently becomes a by‑product of subsidy capture rather than the economic objective of the investment. We are long past the time to end this failed experiment.

In fiscal year 2022:

  • Solar received approximately $14 per megawatt‑hour in federal subsidies
  • Wind received approximately $3 per megawatt‑hour

By comparison:

  • Natural gas received about $0.65 per megawatt‑hour
  • Coal about $0.24 per megawatt‑hour
  • Nuclear about $0.17 per megawatt‑hour

Reply to  D Sandberg
March 6, 2026 7:54 am

“Wind and solar farms” are actually “mandate and subsidy farms.”

And to add insult to injury, you have to keep coal, gas, and nuclear in place sufficient to meet all demand anyway, unless you like outages.

Michael Flynn
March 5, 2026 7:33 pm

In general, the Devil’s in the detail, and the maintenance will get you.

The tips of turbine blades are moving quite fast through a fluid (air). Chaos introduces flutter, repeated chaotic flexing shreds the tip, causing drag and reducing efficiency. Solution? Replace whole blade. Fix the tip problem, and you’re faced with another – the whole blade flexes, due to wind speed vertical profile differences – Reynolds number, and all that.

Add in all the other maintenance details, and maybe wind power isn’t so “free”, after all. Excellent niche suitability, but obviously worthless for reliable, continuous supply – in my worthless opinion.

Probably admired by the ignorant and gullible, who don’t understand physical reality.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Michael Flynn
March 6, 2026 11:21 am

Probably admired? I challenge that probably assessment. More like worshiped.

March 5, 2026 7:56 pm

This is only a start.

unrenewable-energy-blades
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
March 6, 2026 4:44 am

but… but… I see that they’re all white- so they’ll reflect sunlight on hot days- thus helping to lower the temperature…. /s

March 5, 2026 8:59 pm

Much of Texas’ wind turbine problem can be laid at the doorstep of Gov. Abbot who also allowed illegals by the million. Paxton is a different person.

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
March 6, 2026 7:48 am

who also allowed illegals by the million

Huh?
Abbot tried to do something but the Biden admin fought him. Border enforcement is a Federal issue so how are you laying this on Abbot?

March 5, 2026 9:33 pm

To bring a bit of crunch to the growing wind turbine (WT) disaster, over 1,000,000 utility scale wind turbines are in operation in 2026. The three 100m blades last about 6 years each before replacement, while the WT lasts 15 years, or less.
In that period, analysis (https://docs.wind-watch.org/Interference-of-Flying-Insects-and-Wind-Parks.pdf) has shown that over Germany with 30,000 WTs, estimated from measurements, at least 1.2 trillion airborne insects perished, annually. Similar results have been found in Great Britain. Over Germany, each air parcel, with its flying insects, effectively passes through a WT 20 times a season.
Now, I ask you – Ms.von der Leyen, how are humans to eat insects if we slaughter them on WT rotors? You cannot have your cake and eat it too!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
March 6, 2026 11:23 am

Scrape them off the blades! Simple, right? They are already harvested for you. /s

cartoss
March 6, 2026 2:33 am

Just wait until they start dumping hundreds of thousands of tons of highly toxic lithium batteries, because they are are too expensive to recycle.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  cartoss
March 6, 2026 11:23 am

Well, there are many that self-recycle due to bursting in flame.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
March 10, 2026 3:28 am

You just have to drive them into a giant boiler first so the heat of the flames can be harnessed.

John Gavlas
March 6, 2026 2:49 am

This article is regrettably flawed. “Abelene, Texas” – you mean Abilene, Texas? And “Grand Medow, Minnesota” – you mean, Grand Meadow, Minnesota? I found myself unable to concentrate on the article, such lamentable spelling flaws heavily detract from my focus on the contents of the text. I’m sure I’m not the only person who suffers this.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  John Gavlas
March 6, 2026 11:24 am

Power Point training class 101 points out that typographical and other errors are an unwanted distraction. Still, typos happen.

March 6, 2026 5:14 am

Have driven through Sweetwater over the years. You can tell the age of the various wind “farms” by the number of turbines that are still spinning. The new ones every turbine is spinning. The old ones, there will be one turbine spinning like crazy (indicating that there is good wind) while all the others around it are still. They don’t bother to maintain these subsidy farms. In less than 10 years, they’re junk.

Bryan A
Reply to  Brian
March 6, 2026 6:23 am

But they keep getting subsidy payments, working or not, hence Subsidy Farm.

Michael Flynn
Reply to  Bryan A
March 6, 2026 2:41 pm

Whether the blades are rotating or not, the turbine keeps generating cash.

Reply to  Michael Flynn
March 10, 2026 3:29 am

Therein lies the problem.

DarrinB
March 6, 2026 8:53 am

Huh, I expected one of our WT lovers to pop on here and once again claim they’ve developed a process to recycle blades.

I remember (early 2000’s?) an article where a Hummer was compared to an EV for environmental impact. Hummer had less of an environmental impact then the E. A big part of that was the Hummer would run for something like 40 years while being almost 100% recyclable with current technology. The EV would last maybe 20 years and there’s nothing recyclable about the batteries. I would say wind/solar versus fossil fuel extraction would end up being a comparable study.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  DarrinB
March 6, 2026 11:27 am

Edit: “fossil fuel” should be in quotations or replaced with either carbon based fuel; or oil, natural gas, and coal; or coal and hydrocarbons.

John the Econ
March 7, 2026 3:15 pm

Plenty of subsidies to put up these things, but none to get rid of them. What did they think would happen? If only there was a field of study dedicated to predicting this outcome of bad Progressive policy.

March 8, 2026 5:35 pm

Texas and certain companies sucked up easy money subsidies.
Abbott did Texas NO favor, but maybe he did himself one – 0.1 % would set him up permanently.
Now, they have nearly 30% of all wind turbines in the USA. In 10-15 years, they will have almost no working wind turbines, but one He][ of a lot of junk. Wind/solar are PERMANENT construction programs and will bankrupt any country (we are already bankrupt).
Let’s take a DEEP breath and add things up.
I managed to get Grok to estimate Texas’ full costs,to date, for wind with addition of the costs of transmission lines, battery backup, subsidies, both state and federal (ultimately your and my tax costs),etc. It came to at least $150 Billion for 20,000+ wind turbines, etc.
That is about the same number I computed from the US wind data base.
By comparison, and assuming the intentional delays and costs of regulation against nuclear can be removed, Texas would have had RELIABLE nuclear power at 1/3 the cost in the same time frame.
Moving to nuclear and dumping wind/solar is the way to go.
BTW, Grok provided Lazard LCOEs, but choked on my request to recompute the full cost of wind/solar vs nuclear energy. I tried three times and Grok choked each time, after perhaps 10 minutes of computing. I have seen this behavior a number of times now. I offered to provide the relevant equations and received no reply.