This information and links supporting my contention have been posted here repeatedly. And since I post significantly more links to more objective supporting resources than any other poster in this forum, your accusation is simple bullshit.
It is the blades that are difficult to recyle. The main gears are solid metal and completely recyclable.
Feel free to nitpick and fantasize costs all you want but be aware that it is quite obvious you are intentionally ignoring the elephant in the room: fuel costs. The bottom line is that solar and wind are cheaper per kWh than any fossil fuel power source and the cost of those fuels is never going to go down.
Which is quickly made up by the production of power with zero GHG emissions.
Jesus, dude, can we say S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G.
The US government provided over $10 billion to the oil industry in 2022.
Then you should be pleased because wind and solar dramatically reduce carbon emissions and cost less per kWh.
I love nuclear power. Bring it on.
You're not going to express your concern at the amount of GHGs produced in rocket exhaust to get all that into orbit?
I agree.
But some lunches are a whole lot cheaper than others. Wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuel in every regard.
As always, you over-rate the effect of GHG - Green House Gases. The key isn't the quality of 'heat' they retain but the quantity. At one part (carbon dioxide and methane) per 2,500 parts of everything else: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, etc. it has yet to be proven that the one part transfers equal amount of heat it retains to the other 2,499 parts.
In other words, still no proof that using basic chemistry and physics can one molecule at 71 degrees change the other 2,499 from 70 degrees to 71 degrees.
$10 billion to "oil" (petroleum?) is nowhere near the amounts siphoned off from government to the green energy industries.
Considering there was thought forty years ago that we'd have some orbital solar power in operation by now, but haven't, and 'rocket' efficiency has improved, and GHG depends alot on fuel types; there is nothing yet to be concerned about. Likely there will be improvements and efficiencies in rocket propulsion when/if such a program is ever implemented. Also, the most efficient and affordable process includes extensive use of colonies on the moon to mine and manufacture much of the material and components which will launch from the Moon.
Your manipulated figures might show cheaper, but more realistic ones don't. Especially when factoring that when the Sun don't shine(night) and wind don't blow, your solar and wind sources produce nothing. also they don't take place of "fossil fuel", more correctly carbon resources, in providing raw material for about 98% of man-made materials.