At peak capacity the 83 acre PSEG Bethlehem Energy Center in formerly known as the Albany Steam Station can put out 893 megawatts of power when all four turbines are operated at full speed. The 94 acre solar farm in Greenville can put out a peak of 14 MW of power.
I think if you look at the environmental impact of many of these large scale renewable projects natural gas is a much less polluting source of energy than large scale solar. We should be working to improve efficiency of existing gas plants and improving pollution controls on legacy facilities rather than building industrial solar facilities.
CONQUEST, N.Y. – Imagine every inch of the New York State Fair covered with solar panels. Now double it. That’s the size of a solar farm that developers hope to build in Cayuga County.
The proposed facility in the rural town of Conquest would contain hundreds of thousands of solar panels spread across 2,000 acres, or more than three square miles.
A 200 MW nameplate solar farm on 2,000 acres of land is absurd compared to what can be done with fossil plants with a much lower environmental impact. Burning natural gas produces carbon dioxide, but the impact on the climate is small compared to the vast industrial impacts of solar.
Maybe there an upside to President Trump blocking New York from tinkering with it's ISO rules to ensure that solar farms have access to the grid. If he's re-elected, projects like this might be forever stillborn, as nobody will finance a power plant where there is no guaranteed market for the power produced.
“For every additional 10 percent of congressional votes against the environment in 2014, a legislator would receive an additional $5,400 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in 2016,” the study finds. On average, researchers found a 10 percent decrease in pro-environment votes is associated with an additional $1,700 in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies in the following election cycle. The evidence supports what the researchers call the “investment hypothesis”: “The more a given member of Congress votes against environmental policies, the more contributions they receive from oil and gas companies supporting their reelection.”
And these companies are investing millions of dollars to reelect lawmakers who support their anti-environment agenda. The researchers note that oil and gas companies spent more than $84 million on congressional candidates in 2018, and this year they have already contributed more than $40 million, with the overwhelming majority going to Republican candidates.
“The oil and gas industry is going to support candidates supportive of their agenda, which often runs contrary to the environmental agenda,” said Tyson Slocum, energy program director at consumer advocacy nonprofit Public Citizen. He said the study shows how the industry “seeks to financially reward opponents of action on climate change” and acts as a roadblock to legislative and regulatory climate action.
“In a system where candidates are extraordinarily dependent on private corporate contributions, donations by oil and gas companies is going to play a big role in stopping action on climate,” Slocum said.
“These findings are troubling, considering that Congressional candidates are much more likely to win if they raise more money than their opponents,” Goldberg added.
Grassroots actions are already working to counter this political paralysis on climate action powered by oil and gas money. Goldberg noted that more Americans are engaging in climate activism and increasingly view global warming as a voting issue. The youth-led Sunrise Movement is building a broad coalition to help elect candidates not beholden to fossil fuel interests, organizing around the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge. Candidates who take that pledge say they will refuse contributions over $200 from fossil fuel PACs, lobbyists, or executives.
According to Slocum, these efforts are encouraging, given the undeniable role of oil and gas campaign spending on legislators favorable to their interests.
“It gives great legitimacy to broad efforts for candidates to reject fossil fuel money,” he said.
Main image: Former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, left, and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe April 26, 2018. Sen. Inhofe has received more than $2 million in donations from the oil and gas industry. Credit: U.S. Department of Defense/Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro, public domain Get DeSmog News and Alerts Tags: oil company campaign contributions campaign finance
Dana Drugmand's blog
Share Tweet Reddit Share Share PRINT SUBSCRIBE ‹ PREVIOUS Momentum Builds to Monitor Cancer Alley Air Pollution in Real Time After Exxon Refinery Fire in Louisiana NEXT › Jordan Cove Backers Double Down on Efforts to Push Project Following Federal Permit Delay