Every few months, like clockwork, the fossil-fuel lobby resurrects its favourite zombie myth:
“Renewables can’t be recycled. They’ll just end up on the trash heap.”
It wasn’t true in 2015.
It wasn’t true in 2020.
It’s definitely not true in 2025.
Yet here we are again – watching Sky After Dark deliver the same tantrum segment for the 47th time, while Advance’s misinformation machine cranks out memes that crumble faster than a coal ash dam wall.
So let’s walk through the facts, the receipts, and the real waste mountain the “anti-renewables” crowd never wants you to see.
Solar Panels: 95–99% Recyclable (and Already Being Recycled)
Solar panels consist mostly of:
- Glass (≈75%) – fully recyclable
- Aluminium frames – fully recyclable
- Silicon – reusable
- Copper and silver – recovered at high value
- Plastics – increasingly separated and repolymerised
The technology exists.
The industry exists.
The economics now favour recycling.
References
CSIRO: Solar Recycling
EU: WEEE Directive
And critically, the domestic industry is already operating:
- Reclaim PV in South Australia
- PV Industries in NSW and Victoria
- Australian solar recycling is scaling up – because it’s profitable.
Funny how that never makes it into a Sky segment.
Wind Turbines: More Than 90% Recyclable
A wind turbine is, at its core, a giant pile of recyclable metals:
- steel
- copper
- aluminium
- cast iron
The only difficult component has been composite blades, and even that problem is now solved:
- Blades are shredded and used as cement kiln feedstock
- Recyclable thermoplastic blades are in commercial production
Europe and the US now offer fully circular blade recovery.
References
GE: Renewable Energy
Vestas: Circularity Program
Compare that to coal infrastructure – no part of a coal plant magically becomes non-toxic after use.
Batteries: The Circular Gold Rush
Lithium-ion batteries are the closest thing humanity has to a closed-loop resource system.
Inside every battery are valuable materials:
- lithium
- cobalt
- nickel
- manganese
- copper
- aluminium
Recycling companies don’t landfill value – they harvest it.
Global leaders:
EV batteries:
- are repurposed in second-life storage
- recycled for their minerals
- and recoverable indefinitely
Fossil fuels?
You burn them once and they’re gone.
There is no “recycling petrol.”
The Waste They Never Talk About: Coal Ash
And now we arrive at the part the fossil-fuel lobby desperately hopes you don’t notice.
Australia alone has 400+ million tonnes of coal ash sitting in dams and dumps — much of it unlined, unmanaged, and leaking into waterways.
Coal ash is one of the largest industrial waste streams on Earth, containing:
- arsenic
- mercury
- lead
- cadmium
- hexavalent chromium
But sure – let’s panic about solar panels in 2041.
References
EPA: Coal Ash
EJA: Coal Ash Legacy
The renewables waste “crisis” is imaginary.
The coal ash crisis is already here.
Where the Misinformation Comes From
None of this happens by accident.
The “renewables can’t be recycled” storyline flows through the same pipes every time:
- fossil-fuel lobbyists
- Sky After Dark’s nightly outrage theatre
- the Advance disinformation factory
- mining donors who really don’t want Australians generating their own energy
Gina Rinehart didn’t pour tens of thousands into politics out of charity. She invests in outcomes – and nothing threatens those outcomes quite like cheap, decentralised, zero-fuel energy.
So the solution is simple:
- Manufacture fear about renewables.
- Ignore the actual waste mountain behind them.
- And hope no one looks too closely.
Oops.
The Reality: Renewable Waste Is Small, Solvable, and Economically Valuable
Here’s what the evidence shows:
- Solar is recyclable
- Wind is recyclable
- Batteries are recyclable
- Recycling infrastructure is expanding
- Material recovery is profitable
- Technology improves every year
Meanwhile, fossil fuels remain the only sector where the waste is the product.
Burn, pollute, repeat.
The Punchline
The renewable transition is the first major industrial system designed to become circular.
Materials don’t disappear – they stay in the loop.
Waste becomes wealth.
Pollution drops as the system scales.
The future becomes cleaner the more we commit to it.
Fossil fuels can’t compete with that – so they compete with misinformation instead.
Here’s the truth, as simple as it gets:
Renewables can be recycled.
The lies can’t.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Yes, an ex-colleague of mine is into the “wind turbines use tons of metals and plastics and can’t be recycled” brainfart.
And, don’t forget they are unsightly and destroy valuable rainforest – unlike clearfelling for mining etc.
I sent him aerial photos of a couple of old abandoned coal mines and asked him to tell me about rehabilitation – no reply yet ….
Lachlan, if plastic is recyclable why are we producing more of it, when there are tonnes of it floating in our oceans?
If “material recovery” is profitable, why aren’t we doing more of it?
Do you really believe the cables that service off shore wind farms will be recovered?
Just look around our country at the mines sites no longer viable, the state they are left in, tell us who cleans them up.
Lachlan, what can be done and what in fact is done, are two very different things, this country has that many forgotten holes in the ground, it’s just no funny.
There’s absolutely zero need to dig up or mine any more material. All we need to do is use the abundance of renewable energy to recycle recycle recycle what we already have.
I totally agree, my only concern is “the abundance of renewable energy”, I’ll believe it when I see it. There are a multitude of problems to overcome and we are not travelling well.
Jonangel:”..I’ll believe it when I see it.”
He/she seems unable to do simple computations using Physics principles. Amount of sunlight times area = solar panel output. Similarly, wind times area = power output.
Why are we not travelling well? Because there are “merchants of doubt” telling us renewables will never work.
Reminds me of the guy who refused to believe the earth was spheroidal until he could see the curvature himself, so he built a rocket to take him up. I recall reading this in the news. The rocket exploded and killed him it seems.
Non-numeracy is the bane of our population, combined with ignorance of basic science. But never mind, we will prevail somehow. Hope springs eternal etc.
I have never said “renewables will never work”, try sticking to fact. What I have constantly said, is we will never be free of fossil fuels and we won’t.
All the things you have mentioned, “solar panels”, “wind times area”, to harness them requires the use of fossil fuels.
Humanity will never be free of fossil, fuels, if you are interested, I’m selling shares in the Sydney harbour bridge, would you like to buy some?
Try sticking to what I said. I did not attribute to you the statement “that renewables will never work”. Please read carefully.
“Humanity will never be free of fossil, fuels.”
And you will sell shares in the Sydney Harbour bridge to prove your contention!
A very scientific argument indeed! Proves what I said about lack of understanding about science.
To move onto internal combustion engines we still needed some animal-driven carts etc. Do we need them today to manufacture those engines?
So why will we always need fossil fuels to harness renewables?
The idea of a “transition” escapes your comprehension it seems.
Enough said.
Sorry, but you used the term “merchants of doubt”, you had already asserted I was one such person.’
But please tell, why your ne4ed to move onto “internal combustion engines” I thought you supported renewable energy?
As for your question; I know of no moving part that does not need lubrication.
But you are right, “enough said” humanity won’t survive without fossil fuels.
I never asserted you were a merchant of doubt. Please check.
I gave an example of internal combustion engines and animal power to illustrate the transition. Does this mean I don’t believe in renewables? No you assumed that. Your thinking is quite illogical.
Solar panels have no moving parts requiring lubrication. Moving parts can be lubricated in many different ways including none.
You have obviously never heard of lubricants made from vegetable or even animal sources.
Clearly you are way out of your depth with science and technology.
Just re-asserting “humanity won’t survive without fossil fuels” doesn’t prove your point. It’s your article of faith. Good luck with that!
At least we now know what to think of your posts on these topics.
You can tell yourself whatever you like, but you inference regarding me being a “merchant of doubt” was very clear.
Regarding moving parts (windmills) I doubt they’d last long unlubricated, sticking with the electrical system, Transformers are filled with oil as are circuit breakers etc. But yes we could use gas on some switch gear, OH but that’s a fossil fuel isn’t?
Again, in answer to your questions; yes, I have heard of whale oil and palm oils, but I’d suggest killing whales and chopping down palm plantations is as bad as burning fossil fuels.
But I am impressed with you vast knowledge, I almost feel inferior.
jonangel, sometimes it’s impossible to ignore your glaring misattributions, such as “we will never be free of fossil fuels and we won’t’…
The word ‘never’ is an imperative.
Fossil-based energy reserves – coal, oil, gas – are finite resources. There will come a point in time when they run out, as in, fully extracted, finito, the end.
I guess you’re in possession of some magical thinking that is contra to the reality of the meaning of the word ‘finite.’
Keep digging, matey, but you’re on a hiding to nowhere, and I see this pattern repeatedly in your posts.
And don’t bother with your sanctimonious holier-than-thou crap about ‘Oh, I feel so sorry for you, you poor ignoramus’; just try to get your head around the fact that a large proportion of the people who read and respond to your posts disagree with your views, and I’d suggest they are a lot more on the money that you’ve shown yourself to be so far.
Objective self-education goes a lot further than ignorant and wrong-headed dogmatism… try taking the time to read the following article by Bill McKibben in the Rolling Stone from 2012. It’ll help, trust me.
It was good to read your latest diatribe,at least this time iit didn’t have any Biblical references. But you know my views.
BTW Jonangel, Anything used as lubricants is not FUEL. Nice try conflating lubricants with FUELS.
So you know something about the electrical system. Wow! SF6 in switchgear is hardly oil or FUEL. We don’t need whale oil for lubrication. Nice try at deflection again. We kill millions of animals every year simply to eat them and plenty of animal fat is available from those, since no one wants to eat it nowadays. So you have heard of biofuels. Great. Then we can have bio-lubricants too. Just look up lubrication, bearings, etc. in Wikipedia. You might learn something.
And Bill McKibben’s article from 2012 will surely bring you up to speed on other matters.
Please tell me more, so lubricants don’t come from oil and oil isn’t a fuel? As for bio-fuels, yes they come from many sources, but can you even imagine the number of animals you’d have to kill of the plant life you’d have to destroy to replace the oil we pump out of the ground?
As for learning, I am always ready to learn, are you>
I have been trying to get an informed response to the following question but so far without any success:
The “Solar Sharer” program will require electricity retailers to offer three hours of free daytime electricity to households in New South Wales, South East Queensland, and South Australia, starting July 1, 2026. Once fully operational and householders have geared their consumption as far as possible to take advantage of the free power (i.e. arranged to set timers on some appliances such as dishwashers and washing machines, domestic hot water storage tanks, battery recharging etc.), to what extent will this initiative reduce electricity consumption to the average consumer?’
NB: An average standalone suburban home occupied by a family of two parents and two children. They only use electric energy for hot water (25% of energy usage), heating and cooling (38%), cooking (4%), lighting (7%), a dishwasher, clothes washer and dryer, three computers, two TVs and a swimming pool. They have no alternative energy source.
This household consumes just over 15,000 kWh of electricity per year, or 41 kWh per day.
Anybody?
Terry, as always I stand to be corrected, but as I’ve posted before, this “free power” will do nothing for the average family.
If one goes through your list and deletes those families who don’t have a swimming pool, aircon, dishwasher, dryer and only one computer and one tv, you are left with what? Add to this those, like me, who won’t leave the house with an appliance in operation, how does one go if a malfunction burns your house down.
Terry, this is an almighty con job and I doubt even our gullible electorate will see this as a bonus
So, jonangel, when you leave your house you switch the fridge off, is that correct? What an odd person you are. I’d suggest that there would be no-one like you if that’s your position. Or perhaps I’m wrong, and you don’t possess a fridge?
And as far as your comment that “…as always I stand to be corrected” goes, pull the other one. No you don’t. Time and again respondents in these pages have pointed out the errors in your views and yet you persist, obdurately, to throw the onus back on your interlocutors to prove their POV’s and to accept your incorrect positions.
You have just highlighted your problem, I might not have a fridge, you assume, can I suggest you get some professional help, you obviously need it. Failing that, you could spend more time reading that good book you aften reference.
Canguro: this is a person who will get rid of their fridge just to prove you were wrong!
Interaction appears to be futile but no doubt enlightening for other readers.
TM: Everything except heating and cooling can be done in those three hours. Heating and cooling is all lumped together, but if it is cooling in the summer, maximised usage of the aircon in those three hours will do a lot to reduce usage later on.
So, at least everything except 38% will be reduced and possibly more.
Having solar panels, we already do this scheduling and our bills have been reduced greatly. Pleased with this, we have become a bit more profligate in energy usage, keeping in view our old age and need for comfort.
I was watching 730, Ferguson interviewing Ley.
If you think there is any alternative the opposition offers, forget it.
jonangel, yet again you misrepresent. What is it about reality that you find so difficult to deal with? I have only ever referenced the Bible once, one time only, not [sic] “that good book you aften reference.” For good measure too, encouraging leefe by quoting a biblical reference that cautions about dealing with fools given the risks involved.
totaram nails it: “Interaction appears to be futile…”
Nevertheless, carry on, keep digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Oh dear .
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
You can leave me out of this; I know when to walk away from futility, and the thickness of a certain person’s skull – and their resultant inability to even comprehend basic logic – is one such case.
You should have walked away sooner,, you are correct, the “skull(s)” of Canguro and totaram should be awarded to medical science for future study.
(Here we go again with the mean-spirited little squabbles).
Does not Lachlan McKenzie’s well-researched, positive, facts-based piece deserve civility?
You are right, but cannot any one see that humanity without access to fossil fuels is a nonsense? Without fossil fuels we’d still be in caves, how does any one think we got to where we are?
Dense is as dense does. Nice try at deflection, jonangel, but it’s your skull that leefe’s referring to. With all due respect to Herbert, I’m beginning to suspect that jonangel might in fact be one of these very zombies that Lachlan cites as being obsessed with the idea of fossil fuels being the holy grail…zombies, after all, not being known for their intellectual heft in any matters of any consequence.
Zomjon poses a question: “Cannot anyone see that humanity without access to fossil fuels is a nonsense?” Zomjon fails to acknowledge that humanity, which has domiciled on this planet for at least 300,000 years, first used coal around 3,000 years ago. Do the math. That’s around 297,000 years humanity did quite well without the use of fossil fuels. The nonsense lies in Zomjon’s argument.
I note you did not answer the question, beyond you?
jonangel:
You are still insisting that “Without fossil fuels we’d still be in caves” and you still have not presented any data, any historical record, anything at all, to back that up.
It’s an outlandish, hyperbolic and just plain wrong remark. Refusing to retract, amend or provide citations to support it does not make you look like a reasonable person.
Also: If you can refuse to answer questions, why is not acceptable for others? But Canguro’s comment does answer your question. A 300,000 year old species that only started using fossil fuels 3,000 years ago, is obviously capable of a great deal without them. The pyramids were not built with fossil fuels. The great early civilisations in India and China did not use fossil fuels.
I’m not sure of a lot of this stuff.
Everything seems binary- people can’t live without fossil fuels, even if things are engineered differently to at last yield rational alternatives.
or
push ahead with change before the older systems are replaced, in which case the pubic is again forced to bear the real world costs.
The real problem, as ever, has been the people like Rinehart getting in the road of improvements that ARE neccessary, to preserve their own wealth-they have waged a guerrilla war against science throughout this century, inc FTAs and PPS’s welcomed as “reform” by people like Murdoch.
Everyone said” great” when the libs were kicked out, but is Labor doing any better against the corporate mentality?
@Paul Walter
If you can get past the paywall this NYRB article might interest you.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/09/25/how-to-blow-up-a-planet-abundance-klein-thompson/
The merchants of doubt….
Beyond the discourse of denial: The reproduction of fossil fuel hegemony in Australia Author links open overlay panel Christopher Wright
, Daniel Nyberg, Vanessa Bowden
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629621001870
Jonangel whoever you are, may I suggest that you zip it!
Maybe even try and read the science link just posted.