> to pay up for all that steel, copper, aluminum, and a couple of rare earth metals,
This sentence obfuscates that we're just talking about the dollar price here. Which is easily calculated
> offset the environmental impact of collecting and producing such materials?
Harder to decisively calculate but seems unlikely to be an actual issue; and trivial when compared to the opportunity cost of generating the same energy with fossil fuels.
"GE’s renewables segment is going to generate between $15 billion and $16 billion in revenue this year, and onshore wind will make up the vast majority, roughly 70%."
The returns are fine and growing, but GE is restructuring, and as the article points out, facing stiff competition and supply chain issues as well. Apparently they think losing 20% of their staff will help, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how long it takes a new tower to become profitable.
There are several businesses in the chain.
The manufacturer (GE), and sometimes component manufacturers, the project lead/developer, financiers, insurers, the engineering lead, and sometimes specialists, the subcontractors who do the physical work. And probably more.
It's not uncommon for some of these to be financially stressed at times in PV. Not the financiers, though.
Jérôme Guillet has a series on financing offshore wind[1]. On-shore is along the same lines; I'm sure you can adjust.
On shore wind is not as cost effective as solar or off shore wind either.
No direct answers but you can back out some timelines from these https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/offshore_...
https://weatherguardwind.com/how-much-does-wind-turbine-cost...