The Department of the Interior (DOI) this week announced its intention to end “preferential treatment for unreliable, subsidy-dependent wind and solar energy” by requiring the Secretary’s office to evaluate wind and solar project requests on federal lands. Interior’s new focus gives it an opportunity to fully consider the environmental challenges of wind turbines and solar panels for each project.
A new report I authored for Center of the American Experiment, a Minnesota-based think tank, reveals that wind and solar, in addition to providing only intermittent, low-density electricity, entail serious demands for materials largely procured overseas, massive land use, and ecological effects on wildlife and habitats.
Acting Secretary for Lands and Minerals Management, Adam Suess, got it right when he said that wind and solar projects are dependent on “foreign-sourced equipment.” Of the 50 minerals the U.S. government considered “critical” in 2024, the U.S. is 100% import-reliant for a dozen of them and more than 50% import-reliant for another 28. The vast majority of rare earths and other critical mineral mining and processing is happening in, or controlled by, China. This not only has national security consequences, but also environmental consequences when Chinese-owned or controlled mines fail in responsible stewardship.
Worker health and safety is also harmed by foreign mining: A 2024 Department of Labor report found that 44% of cobalt workers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could not refuse hazardous work. A majority (52%) reported children working at their mine site, which was especially true for artisanal mines (63%).
The Interior Department should also consider the land use requirements of siting wind and solar projects on federal lands. Wind and solar use at least ten times as much land to generate the same amount of electricity as conventional sources like coal, oil, and natural gas. The difference is more stark with nuclear: A 1 gigawatt-capacity nuclear plant, which has the capability to power about 750,000 homes, only takes up 1.3 square miles. To do the same with solar panels, one needs between 45 and 75 square miles; wind requires between 260 and 3,360 square miles. The latter is the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. This magnitude of land use has predictable consequences for other worthwhile uses, like agriculture, as well as habitats and the wildlife that depend on them.
The shorter lifespan of wind and solar projects exacerbates their environmental impacts. Wind and solar are only expected to last between 20 and 25 years, while a natural gas plant can last 40 years, and some nuclear plants are expected to run to 80 years. The U.S.’s financial incentives push wind and solar to repower sooner, with wind turbines repowering at a median age of 10 years in 2021 to requalify for federal tax credits.
All forms of energy entail environmental impacts of some sort. Accounting for the environmental impacts of wind, solar, and battery storage ought to be a standard part of federal, state, and local decisions about electricity generation and land use—and Interior is on the right track to do so.