.svg)
%20(1).png)
In the first two weeks of President Trump’s second term, he’s made clear wind energy is squarely in his crosshairs. President Trump has cited reasons for disbanding wind in the US, ranging from high costs to environmental impact, to inability to recycle wind turbines. As the CEO of Linea Energy, a company deeply committed to advancing clean, cheap, and reliable energy across the United States, I feel compelled to set the record straight.
As a student of history, I know there is one thing that every industry has proven time and time again: efficiency always wins. Energy is perhaps the best example of this. Gas has largely replaced coal over the last couple of decades in the US for one reason: it is a more economic and efficient technology.
It is the same with wind and solar. Efficiency always wins. If you want proof, look at Texas, a staunchly conservative state with no pro-renewable policy that has worked to actively discourage renewables in recent years. Yet, wind, solar, and battery storage are winning in the freest power market in the world.
Why is this? It’s not because of a green agenda. It’s the opposite. It’s simple economics.
Let me briefly address some of the recent claims made. My aim is to give you data and information.
“It’s the most expensive energy there is. It's many, many times more expensive than clean natural gas.” – President Donald Trump, January 7th, 2025
This could not be further from the truth. When it comes to cost, wind energy stands out as one of the most economically competitive energy sources available today. According to Lazard’s most recent analysis of Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), onshore wind is among the lowest-cost options for new electricity generation. In many cases, it is cheaper than coal and natural gas—even without subsidies. For example, the unsubsidized LCOE of onshore wind ranges from $27 to $73 per megawatt-hour (MWh), compared with $65 to $173 for coal and $38 to $115 for natural gas. If you add unsubsidized carbon capture to that natural gas, the LCOE would increase to $84 to $128 per MWh.
This cost advantage isn’t just theoretical or academic, it’s backed by what’s happening in the real world. Utilities and energy buyers across the country are increasingly turning to wind to save money for their customers. Let me give you some concrete examples:
1. In 2014, the American Wind Energy Association found that wind energy provided Texas consumers with $1.2 billion in gross benefits per year, largely due to protection from fuel prices and a reduced need to operate the most expensive power plants.
2. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, renewables deployed since 2000 resulted in global savings of $409 billion in fuel costs in 2023, 36% of which was due to onshore wind.
3. An Ideasmiths study from professors at the University of Texas found that from 2010 to 2022wind and solar saved Texans $27.8 billion by reducing wholesale electricity costs.
“In its 20-year lifespan, it won’t offset the carbon footprint of making it.” – Billy Bob Thorton, Landman
In a scene from the hit show Landman, the lead character played by Billy Bob Thorton explains to a young woman than wind turbines are not “clean energy” but “alternative energy”, claiming that making, building, and operating wind is as dirty as fossil fuels.
Yes, carbon emissions are needed to build wind farms, but wind turbines typically offset their carbon emissions within five to eight months of operation. This rapid carbon payback is achieved because wind energy displaces electricity generation from fossil fuels, avoiding significant greenhouse gas emissions. Analyses consistently demonstrate that the lifecycle emissions of wind energy, including manufacturing, transportation, installation, and decommissioning, are significantly lower than those of coal or natural gas. In fact, wind energy boasts one of the smallest carbon footprints of any energy source. From cradle to grave, wind energy produces about 13 grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh, compared to 33 for lithium-ion batteries, 43 for solar, 486 for gas, and 1,001 for coal. In other words, natural gas produces 37 times the GHG emissions of wind.
It’s also worth noting that wind turbines have a lifecycle of 30-35 years, 50% longer than Landman claims.
Another misleading argument is that developers abandon turbines at the end of their operational life, leaving behind “rusting hulks", according to Billy Bob. This is simply untrue. Responsible developers, like Linea Energy, plan for decommissioning from the outset of a project, often setting aside funds in escrow specifically for this purpose. Moreover, modern wind turbines are largely recyclable, with up to 90% of their components—including steel, copper, and aluminum—finding new life after decommissioning. The fiberglass used in the turbine blades is the most commonly cited concern, but modern innovation allows for the materials to be ground into pellets for use in construction, flooring, or more. We do, however, acknowledge that this has not always been the case and that some early wind turbine blades have been disposed of in field and dumps. Just as we have learned to recycle aluminum cans as opposed to tossing them in garbage, so too have we learned to recycle wind turbines with the industry’s growth and maturity.
As the industry matures, we are also witnessing a growing market for refurbished turbine components, further reducing waste and extending the useful life of these valuable assets. Furthermore, state and local jurisdictions have learned their lesson from abandoned, leaky oil and gas wells, placing strict guidelines on wind developers to ensure decommissioning is completed in accordance with strict standards.
“Go under a windmill someday. You’ll see more birds than you’ve ever seen in your life.” – President Trump speaking to the harm windmills cause to birds
Opponents of wind energy often cite wildlife impacts as a reason to halt development. While it’s true that any form of energy production has environmental consequences, the wind industry has taken proactive steps to minimize its footprint. Through partnerships with conservation organizations, wildlife monitoring technologies, and habitat restoration initiatives, the industry is constantly improving its practices. Let me say this a different way: renewable energy developers have always operated under the strict environmental protocols that thermal generators complain about and reject.
To put this in perspective: while wind turbines are estimated to cause approximately half a million bird deaths annually in the U.S., domestic cats kill at least a billion birds a year, and the harms associated with fossil fuels threaten many more. In other words, Garfield kills 2,000 birds a year for every bird killed by a wind turbine.
“We must be certain that embracing [renewable energy] doesn’t damage our most valuable commodity: our rich Iowa soil.” - U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
The United States’ fifth largest export is agriculture products, accounting for $184 billion in 2023. We are right to protect it. Wind is in fact the most harmonious form of energy for farmland, enabling continued use for its original agricultural purpose.
Farming and ranching activities can continue seamlessly around turbines, allowing landowners to generate dual income streams. Only about 2% of the land in a windfarm’s footprint is occupied by wind turbines, roads, or electric infrastructure. The remaining 98% is available for agricultural use. With careful and coordinated planning alongside landowners and farmers, responsible developers minimize the impact to farming operations while maximizing the economic impact of the land.
Wind turbines are remarkably efficient in terms of land use. For instance, in 2020, wind energy projects had a direct footprint of approximately 88,000 acres in rural parts of the U.S., which is far less than the roughly 2 million acres dedicated to golf courses nationwide.
In a study, the US government found that the total amount of land needed by 2035 to achieve75% clean power with wind, solar, and long-distance transmission lines (19,700sq. mi) would be:
1. equivalent to the land area currently occupied by railroads (18,500 sq. mi)
2. less than half the area of active oil and gas leases (40,500 sq. mi)
3. less than one-third of the area currently needed for ethanol production (59,500 sq. mi), and
4. only slightly more than the historically disturbed land area for coal mining (13,100 sq. mi)
Think about this — the United States has a program that pays farmers to take their land out of agricultural operation to ensure that the commodity prices of agricultural products don’t collapse while also ensuring that the soil has a chance to replenish. This program is called the Conservation Reserve Program, and it’s run by the USDA. It temporarily removes agricultural land from production, spanning over20 million acres (31,250 sq. mi).
The takeaway: to achieve 75% clean energy, we only need to use 63% of the acreage that US taxpayers are paying farmers not to farm on. The United States is rich in land; we should use it to secure a cheap and domestic energy supply.
“Nobody wants them [wind turbines]” President Donald Trump, January 7th
I can cite a lot of people by name that in fact very much do. These are people to whom wind development offers a job, an opportunity to retire, or a hedge to volatile crop prices or yields. As wind developers, we sit in farmers’ kitchens. We hear about their crops, share holiday turkeys, get to know family dynamics, stand by their side through illness and death.
We’ve seen firsthand how wind projects breathe new life into communities. Take our projects in Illinois, for example, where farmers and ranchers are earning supplemental income by leasing their land for turbines. This steady revenue helps them weather economic uncertainties, from fluctuating commodity prices to unpredictable weather conditions, often making the difference between keeping the farm in the family or having to sell out.
America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Through common-law, state law, and the Constitution, they protected property rights — the rights of people to acquire, use, and dispose of property freely. It is foundational to who we are as Americans to allow private landowners to make decisions on and profit from the land they own. Wind and solar give landowners another option – we deeply respect our landowners, and we respect their rights. Through kitchen table conversations, we know wind and solar are options the deeply value.
And then there’s the jobs — by 2022, the wind industry employed over 125,000 people across the United States, many of them in rural areas with scarce job opportunities. More broadly, the clean energy industry added 142,000 jobs in 2023, accounting for the majority of new energy employment. These jobs span construction, operations, maintenance, and even high-tech manufacturing for turbines and blades. By way of comparison, the U.S. coal industry employed approximately 45,000 people in 2023, while the U.S. structural iron and steel industries were responsible for approximately 82,000 jobs in 2023. The US wind industry provided roughly the same number of US jobs in 2023 as coal, iron, and steel combined.
I would humbly argue that each of these employed individuals do indeed want wind to stick around.
The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher
Rhetoric against wind energy does more than spread misinformation; it undermines the hardworking Americans who have devoted their careers to building an affordable, clean, and sustainable energy future. Over the past decade, wind energy has grown to supply over 10% of the U.S. electricity demand, a figure that continues to rise with each passing year. This growth is not a fluke; it’s the result of decades of innovation, investment, and public support for clean, renewable energy.
At Linea Energy, we’re proud to stand in defense of wind energy. We know the truth: wind power is not only viable but essential. It supports jobs, strengthens communities, and protects our planet for future generations.
Most importantly, wind and solar, in most geographies, are the cheapest sources of new electricity. A country with low energy costs is a country that wins.
