A25: Global Warming Part 7: Green And Renewable

While wind and solar are neither reliable nor cheap, they are frequently presented as green and renewable; however, the truth is a must different story. This will be fun 😉.

Sold to us as the environment’s guardian angels, these panels are, in reality, a poisonous trap. Each panel is a toxic mix of tellurium, silver, crystalline silicon, lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. Worse still, rain can almost completely wash lead and cadmium out of broken solar panels within just a few months. Cadmium is a Group 1 carcinogen known to cause lung, prostate, and kidney cancer in humans. It wreaks havoc by shutting down the body’s DNA repair systems, allowing genetic mutations to accumulate and trigger uncontrolled tumor growth. Lead damages the brain and respiratory system. If these toxins leach into groundwater, we are poisoning our own water supply. 

Raw quartz is refined into silicon using coal-fired industrial furnaces, which emit massive amounts of sulfur dioxide and the very carbon dioxide that proponents claim to care about. Further refining into polysilicon produces silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic byproduct created at a ratio of up 4-to-1 compared to the silicon itself. When dumped, this silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes. While this waste can be reprocessed, the necessary equipment costs tens of millions of dollars, making it far more profitable for manufacturers to simply dump the toxic sludge into neighboring fields.

The Global E-waste Monitor (2017) warns e-waste is one of the fastest-growing waste streams in the world, and worse, its both toxic and non-biodegradable. It is currently expanding worldwide at three times the speed of standard municipal waste.

While coal, nuclear, and petrochemical companies must comply with strict and costly waste management regulations, solar and wind companies receive massive subsidies while facing almost no disposal standards or decommissioning requirements. Even though the 1980 Superfund law (CERCLA) was created to clean up hazardous substances that threaten public health and the environment, solar panels have largely escaped its requirements.

Regulation at the state level remains weak and fragmented. Washington is the only state that requires manufacturers to develop a recycling plan, and even then enforcement of the policy does not begin until 2031. A few localities, such as Niagara County, New York, have passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws, while several other states have introduced similar bills. However, most of these measures are “paper tigers”. They are poorly enforced, with manufacturers routinely missing deadlines or simply withdrawing from the state.

Consider Colorado-based Abound Solar. After securing $400 million dollars in federal loan guarantees, they went belly-up and didn’t just empty taxpayers wallets, but left behind a toxic mess of carcinogens, broken glass, and contaminated water. Northern Colorado Business Report estimates it will cost up to $3.7 million to clean and repair the building so it can be leased again.

Proponents claim we can simply recycle these panels, but the math is catastrophic. Once transportation costs are factored in, recycling expenses exceed potential revenue by nearly 10-to-1. It costs $20 to $30 to recycle a single panel, while landfilling costs a mere $1 to $2. Consequently, most panels aren’t actually recycled. Instead, they are shredded into a toxic “solar hash”—a useless mixture of glass, silver-coated cells, and lead. This contaminated glass cannot be repurposed because it is laced with lead, cadmium, and antimony which are hazardous materials that are highly deleterious to the environment when they leach into the soil. And yet, we are expected to believe that these producers are so inherently virtuous that they will bear all the costs as if divine light beams directly from their finger tips like the sun god Helios.

Most solar panels tend to have a useable life of around 25 years. To grasp the staggering volume of waste we face the International Renewable Energy Agency estimated there will be a total solar panel waste of 78 million metric tons by 2050, an industrial mountain equivalent to the weight of 214 Empire State Buildings!

Proponents claim that wind turbines deliver ‘free energy’ once the blades begin to turn, boasting a 25-year lifespan and easy recyclability. In reality however, turbine performance plummets as the equipment ages. Mechanical wear, blade erosion, and other factors steadily reduce efficiency. Replacing major components is extremely expensive. Specialized heavy crawler cranes cost between $10,000 and $30,000 per day, with all-in project costs sometimes reaching $100,000 per day. Even when the wind is blowing, operating costs hover around $25 MWh. All these factors drop the lifespan to closer to 10 to 12 years.

Eighty percent of a wind plant’s lifetime output is typically produced in the first 10 years, and 90% within the first 14 years, However due to high decommissioning costs, retirement is economically closer to 10 years after rather than 15. The question then is where do all these materials go? 

While the steel components can be recycled, the turbine blades remain impossible to manage. Engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can't easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. Ranging from 100 feet long to the length of football field, they require specialized tractor-trailers for transport, yet landfills across the country are increasingly barring their entry. This leaves us with a mounting catastrophe: what are we going to do with them?

Incineration is often proposed as a method for disposing of blades to recover energy or materials, but it is deeply problematic. Burning glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) generates toxic fumes, smoke, and soot that pose serious risks to the environment and human health. The thermal degradation of epoxy resin releases carbon monoxide and formaldehyde, while the process also emits significant amounts of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, roughly 60% of the blade material remains as polluted ash after incineration; this ash is frequently sent to landfills, where it creates a high risk of site contamination. 

Mechanical processing is another idea, and involves cutting, shredding, and grinding to separate fibers from resins for potential reuse. However, this energy-intensive process yields only low-quality fibers suitable for basic filler in cement or asphalt. Furthermore, the grinding process releases hazardous dust that endangers workers; inhalation or physical contact causes severe irritation to eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Prolonged exposure to these particles has been linked to acute alveolitis, a condition characterized by damage to the deep lung’s cellular and enzymatic components. 

A final method is chemical degradation, which involves reducing blade size before treating the scrap with chemical solutions. Because no industrial-scale chemical recycling for these polymers has been done yet, experimental processes have utilized hazardous substances like nitric acid and paraformaldehyde. Occupational exposure to these chemicals is linked to serious health risks, including potential nasal cancer and chronic respiratory and skin diseases.

Faced with a total lack of solutions, the wind industry ignores the problem, seemingly hoping Tinkerbell and her pixie will whisk these blades off to Neverland. The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050. This crisis cannot be avoided forever; one day the tax bill will come do and we be forced acknowledge our great sins on humanity!

But what does any of this matter? Sure, there may be a few ecological ‘hiccups’ but such costs are necessary in saving the environment. Let’s examine how we treat our flying friends.

Wind turbines are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats, claiming between 3 to 5 million lives every year. Migratory bats in North America may face the risk of extinction in the next few decades due to wind turbine-related fatalities.

Another? Wind turbines murder an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 birds annually. These are not merely common pests; they are often birds of prey like raptors. Because these species possess slow reproductive cycles, every loss is a devastating blow that ripples through the whole ecosystem.

Imagine the national uproar if an oil company accidently killed even a fraction of the bald eagles slaughtered by wind turbines. They would be crushed with massive lawsuits and federal criminal charges under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The same ‘nature lovers’ now silent would be out in the streets, picketing and grandstanding, desperate to prove their moral superiority. Yet, when these steel behemoths grind our national symbol into the dirt, it is treated as acceptable because they green. These however, are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Most worrying is a study from 2020 found 2,206 onshore wind, hydropower, and solar PV energy generation facilities have already encroached on many of the world’s most important biological hotspots. These projects are actively degrading 886 protected areas, 749 key biodiversity areas, and 40 distinct wilderness areas. It will only get worse, as the number of active renewable energy facilities inside important conservation areas is poised to increase by ~42% by 2028. Globally, approximately 17% of all renewable facilities are now situated in protected regions. 

In its frantic transition to wind, Germany has cleared millions of acres of forest to make room for an invasion of 30,000 steel skyscrapers. The same wanton destruction defines Scotland’s wind power disaster, where, so far, 13,900,000 trees have been chainsawed or bulldozed into oblivion. The irony is staggering: we are told we are saving the environment by systematically destroying it. Currently, wind and solar only represent a fraction of our energy production. How much of the natural world must be obliterated before we become green?

Now, what is the greatest commandment?

Yet, in this modern era we have lost both our minds and our reason. Far more evil is done in this world by fools than by knaves. The heart, unguided by wisdom, soon leads to emotionalism and from that emotionalism to chaos. There will be no future for this nation, unless the heart and the mind are one. 

How sustainable is solar and wind? Let’s begin with solar. To replace our national energy output, we must first calculate the land-use requirements. In 2025, total U.S. electricity production reached 4.52 trillion kWh (4.52 million GWh).

Large-scale PV facilities generate roughly one GWh a year per 3.4 acres. Therefore, providing for the entire nation’s electrical production would require 15,377,010 acres, ~24,000 square miles, an area the size of West Virginia. Yet, this estimate is inherently deceptive. Most proponents stop the conversation at he electrical grid, ignoring the fact that their supposed goal is not merely a ‘renewable grid,’ but a fully renewable transition of our total energy production.

Consider the current scale: in 2025, solar accounted for 8.60% of total U.S. electricity generation, yet provided only 1.25% of total U.S. energy production.

To replace our total energy production, solar capacity would have to increase by a factor of 6.88 (the ratio of total energy output to our current 8.60% electricity contribution). In terms of land use, this requires 165,000 square miles—an area roughly the size of California. When you confront the scale required for this total energy transition, the ridiculousness of the green mandate becomes painfully apparent. The only outcome will be to drown ourselves in California-sized mountains of e-waste every twenty-five years. It will be a recurring, toxic legacy that destroys the land it claims to save.

Furthermore, we lack the resources for this transition. Scientific American reported in 2019  that while photovoltaics supplied only about 1 percent of global electricity, the industry already consumed 40% of the world’s tellurium, 15% of its silver, substantial shares of semiconductor quality quartz, and significant portions of indium, zinc, tin, and gallium. If we require these massive resource inputs to produce a mere 1% of our power, how could we possibly scale to 100% electricity, let alone 100% total energy? The physical math quite simply does not exist.

Turning to wind: turbines require between 100 and 200 times more raw materials per megawatt of capacity than a modern supercritical coal or natural gas plant. To replace the world’s 2017 160,000 terawatt-hours of annual energy consumption with wind would require roughly 183 million turbines and an incomprehensible volume of raw materials: 461 billion tons of steel for towers; 460 billion tons of steel and concrete for foundations; 59 billion tons of copper and alloys; 738 million tons of neodymium for magnets; 14.7 billion tons of steel and composites for nacelles; and 11 billion tons of petroleum-based composites for rotors.

Assuming a footprint of 25 acres per turbine, the total deployment would require 4.585 billion acres, roughly 1.3 times the entire land area of North America. Now, consider the madness of their cycle: these turbines must be decommissioned and replaced every 10 to 12 years!

Where is the science? Where is the reason? Well, it is meant to be that way. It is a house of mirrors. The entire movement is not a technological evolution, but a financial heist. While proponents hide behind the guise of climate science, they are playing a different game, and the tax credit which I am about to show you is merely the first grift that must be ended.

Based on the 26 U.S. Code § 45Y - Clean electricity production credit, renewable plants receive 3.0 cents in federal tax credits for every kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity produced. The average wholesale market price for electricity hovers between 2 and 4 cents per kWh—meaning renewable plants are subsidized at 75% to 150% of the actual cost to generate that power! 150%! Let that sink in. This means renewable energy is being subsidized to produce power for which there is no demand—they are producing useless energy. During times of low demand, they drive electricity rates to fractions of a cent, or even into negative territory. The modern media therefore loves to claim renewables are cheaper, yet they conveniently omit the subsidy that makes the entire charade possible. 

To illustrate the scale: if the wholesale market price crashes to 0.1 cents per kWh ($1 per MWh), renewables—thanks to the federal credit—are effectively selling that same energy at 3.1 cents per kWh ($31 per MWh). They are selling that energy at 31 times its actual market value! Of course, our reliable coal and gas plants cannot compete against a 31-fold subsidy. Yet, due to the intermittent nature of renewables, these fossil fuel plants are forced to sit idle, creating tremendous waste across the entire energy market. 

It gets worse. Because this federal credit expires after the first ten years, electricity producers are incentivized to treat multi-decade infrastructure as a disposable asset. If you want the credit—and you would be an idiot not to take it—you effectively need to replace or ‘rebuild’ the facility every decade. The 25-year operational lifespan of a solar panel becomes irrelevant to a firm that is only interested in the 10-year federal harvest. For the renewable developer, this is the only number that matters.  

“They know full well the nature of this charade; yet they rely on our ignorance while they strip away our wealth and our landscapes. We must stop pretending that science is a pursuit of objective truth when it truly rests in those with the deepest pockets. What is being sold to us is not progress, it is a religion of death. Its harvest is the of our home, and the very land on which we walk.

However, there is only room for one religion, for one God, in this nation, so I say it’s about time to crack this egg right open.

Your Humble and Obedient Servant,

Francisco Pereira