Give Wind a Break

By Wanter Uja, Law Clerk

Wind energy is generating a lot of controversy because while most parts of a wind turbine can be recycled or at least repurposed on another wind farm, the turbine blades are a different story. Roughly 90% of a wind turbine can be recycled since they are made out of steel, copper and other materials that can be broken down. Made out of resin and fiber glass, turbine blades are built to withstand hurricane winds and cannot be easily recycled; as such, not many options exist to recycle them. The current methods of disposing wind turbine blades include burning them and burying them in landfills, neither of which are necessarily environmentally friendly. Some researchers have determined that over the next 20 years, roughly 720,000 tons of blade material will be disposed of, and this number does not include the new high capacity versions.

Wind turbines are built to last between 20-25 years, but since their efficiency reduces as their mechanical parts—including the blades—degrade, they have to be retired sometimes just 14 years after they are installed. As it stands, about 870 blades have been dumped in a municipal Wyoming landfill. The non-recyclability of these blades seems to run counter to the greenness of wind energy, and therein lies the problem. Given the rapid development of wind energy, it is understandable how this might be worrisome, especially considering the need to switch to non-emitting sources of energy in the coming years.

It is, however, important to look at energy production holistically. First of all, wind turbine blades are landfill-safe and represent only a small fraction of the overall solid waste contained in municipal landfills. Secondly, the company Global Fiber Glass Solutions has started the slow but steady process of breaking down fiber glass into pellets that can be used for construction, sparking the interest of numerous manufacturers. One of those manufacturers is IKEA, which has pledged to use only recycled plastic by 2030. This presents a potential opportunity to recycle used wind turbine blades into new materials and products.

More importantly, regardless of how seemingly environmentally unfriendly the disposal of wind turbine blades is, wind energy cannot and indeed should not be traded for other fossil fuels. It is now settled that if there is to be any chance of slowing down climate change, there must be a shift to renewables by 2035. Production of electricity from coal, for example, causes more harm to the environment than burying turbine blades. Burning coal in coal-fired power plants produces fly ash that is usually disposed of in waterways with a permit or in landfills. Coal contains trace elements of acidic matter like uranium, arsenic and mercury, including other substances that are toxic to human life. Fly ash, which comes from combustion of this coal, is more concentrated and especially dangerous to groundwater. Furthermore, particles from fly ash can become lodged in your lungs and trigger asthma and inflammation, and has been known to even cause death. Fly ash is especially harmful because the chemicals in the ash are able to escape and move through the environment.

Although natural gas produces methane emissions, there is no question that it produces way fewer emissions than coal. However, in addition to the fact that drilling gas wells disturbs vegetation, people, wildlife and sometimes water resources, gas flaring releases carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and many other toxic compounds. Natural gas is wrought with examples of methane release due to shoddy leaking pipes. Methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, endangers the lives of people when it is released into the atmosphere. Hydraulic fracturing has also been linked to infertility, miscarriages and birth defects.

The world’s leading scientists have agreed that climate change is being hastened by the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, most of which are emitted from electricity production. Mitigation and adaptation plans include a shift to renewable or non-emitting energy resources. Flowing from the above, it is clear that burying wind turbine blades poses far less risk to the environment than the continued use of fossil fuels.

While acknowledging that burying turbine blades in perpetuity is not ideal, these blades as stated are landfill safe, and with the growth and development of wind energy, technology will advance that will enable them to be recycled faster and/or repurposed to some other use.  In the meantime, give wind a break—it is good for our planet.

But Electricity Comes from Coal: Why Electric Cars are Cleaner than Gas-Powered Cars, Regardless of Electricity Sources

By Mikalah Singer, Law & Policy Fellow

With Tesla becoming more of a household name now than when Nikola Tesla was contributing designs to electrical current, the idea of electric cars have been a hot topic. Although many may see switching to electricity from fossil fuel-based vehicles as a way to protect the planet and the future, electric cars have many skeptics. While there are a number of car brands that produce electric vehicles, with more being announced recently, the largest producer of electric vehicles (EVs) is Tesla Motors. Some of Tesla’s critics have questioned whether EVs will actually help the planet, since many are indirectly powered by fossil fuels. EVs are a better choice for the environment because their lifetime carbon emissions are significantly lower than a gas powered vehicle, even though EVs may still be powered by fossil fuels.

Clear from the name, EVs are powered by electricity rather than by petroleum fuels, and therefore get plugged into a wall socket to charge rather than fill-up at a gas station. While on the surface it may seem obvious that EVs do not use as much fossil fuel as traditional, non-electric vehicles, doubters of EVs are quick to point out that almost 64% of electricity in the United States is generated through the burning of fossil fuels. Since most electricity in the United States comes from unclean energy sources like coal and natural gas, some critics and consumers have come to the conclusion that EVs, including solely EV brands like Tesla, are not as clean as they claim to be. Additionally, critics have argued that buying a new car in general will likely produce more carbon than continuing to use an older petrol-fueled vehicle.  

While EV opponents have raised some legitimate concerns regarding the relative carbon footprints of EVs, recent studies have shown that not only are EVs better for the environment when the electricity they consume comes from renewable sources, but they are also more environmentally friendly when using electricity produced by fossil fuels. Researchers have found that EVs powered through the U.S. electric grid produce significantly less carbon emissions over their lifetimes than conventionally fueled vehicles. For example, a two-year study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs generate half the emissions of the average comparable gasoline car, even when carbon emissions from battery manufacturing and disposal are taken into account.

The study by the Union of Concerned Scientists noted that the lifecycles of both EVs and petrol-powered cars begin the same way—raw materials are extracted, refined, transported, and manufactured into various components that are then assembled into the car itself. EVs are powered by lithium ion batteries that are material- and energy-intensive to produce. Due to the battery production, EVs usually have more emissions at the early stage of their lifecycle than conventional vehicles. However, EVs can make up for their high manufacturing emissions over a lifetime of zero emission driving. Short-range models can even offset the extra emissions within six months. Additionally, companies like Tesla are attempting to power their manufacturing plants with renewable energy to further decrease their impact on the environment.

Despite the fact that a majority of U.S. electricity is produced using fossil fuels, EVs still have a much smaller carbon footprint than comparable gasoline-fueled vehicles. Due to the smaller carbon footprint of EVs, Americans who choose to charge and drive EVs produce much fewer global warming pollutants than Americans who choose to drive a new gasoline-powered car. Furthermore, by the end of their lifecycles, EVs produce almost half as much pollutants than an equivalent gas-powered car. While the United States may continue to produce the majority of its electricity from fossil fuel sources, EVs are still going to be cleaner than gas-powered vehicles over their lifecycles as a whole.