New York’s New Solar Religion Is Absolutely Devastating To Wildlife, Farmland

By Vijay Jayaraj

Drive from Buffalo into Genesee County and you will pass fields that have grown corn and soybeans for generations. Soon, thousands of those acres will be covered by steel and glass. New York state is forcing industrial-scale solar plants onto rural communities that never asked for them, and the people who live there are discovering just how little their voice counts when a governor decides differently.

The Mandate Behind the Mess

New York is tearing up rural communities, wiping out wildlife sanctuaries, and burying prime agricultural soil under solar installation in the name of green energy. The root of this campaign is New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) of 2019, which demands that renewable sources supply 70% of the state’s electricity, that greenhouse gas emissions fall 40% below 1990 levels, and that the state build at least 3,000 megawatts of storage.

The footprint of the 18 solar power plants is staggering. The Cider Solar Farm in Genesee County will cover 4,000 acres, and the Ridge View Solar Farm in Niagara County will take another 2,000. Both were pushed through over the strong objections of the people who farm.

Destroy Wildlife and Redact Key Information

What becomes of the animals living where these panels will sit? The Fort Edward project targets land inside a Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) grassland and bird sanctuary. DEC documents describe the area as critical for breeding grassland birds and wintering raptors.

The site hosts the short-eared owl, a bird so rare that the Grassland Bird Trust counts fewer than 50 breeding pairs in New York. The northern harrier, listed as threatened, hunts there. Fifteen species of reptiles and amphibians already of concern to biologists will lose their homes. These are key indicator species wildlife specialists monitor to judge ecosystem health.

You would expect a state that prides itself on environmental leadership to publish this information without hesitation. Instead, residents who filed Freedom of Information requests for an agency report on the Fort Edward site received a document so heavily blacked out that one local compared it to the redactions in the Epstein files. Why does a government agency need to hide a solar project’s effect on endangered owls?

Governor Kathy Hochul created the Office of Renewable Energy Siting and Electric Transmission specifically to override the objections of the towns and counties in its path. Critics say the agency exists to cut through red tape, sideline environmental review, and neutralize local pushback so projects move forward regardless of what residents want. That is silencing the communities the state claims to be protecting.

A Federal Reckoning Arrives

By 2026, even New York’s own climate agenda had begun to buckle under the weight of its contradictions, forcing Governor Hochul into a March recalibration of the CLCPA that acknowledged the complaints of rural communities.

Then came a rebuke from Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, and Small Business Administration head Kelly Loeffler jointly challenged New York’s approval of solar projects on productive farmland, criticizing the state for not applying federal standards in evaluating its farmland.

And here is the contradiction that should embarrass every official who signed off on the policy. Hochul announced a moratorium of up to a year on new data centers that draw more than 50 megawatts, which typically occupy 15 to 40 acres. Meanwhile, New York has already parked solar complexes on approximately 11,000 acres of federally certified prime farmland and wildlife habitats.

Centuries ago, South American civilizations offered land, crops, and sometimes human lives to appease gods they believed controlled the climate. New York has updated the ritual for a modern audience. It has built altars of solar farms and appointed a priesthood of bureaucrats who redact the evidence of their policies’ destruction.

A government convinced it can control the climate by conquering the countryside is not practicing science. It is imposing an ideology on a citizenry that pays the tribute in property and quality of life.

Originally published at Daily Caller, August 29, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

Tags:

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.8 13 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
59 Comments
Ronald Stein
September 1, 2026 6:10 am

Spending billions of dollars on weather dependent electricity generation by wind turbines and solar panels that CANNOT be dispatched on demand is a main cause of rising electricity rates.
 
Wind turbines and solar panels have NOT eliminated any continuous and uninterruptable electricity generation by coal, natural gas, hydro, or nuclear.

Denis
Reply to  Ronald Stein
September 1, 2026 7:21 am

Also, wind and solar machines may actually increase CO2 release. Wind and solar electricity production is erratic and often zero. Fossil fuel machines, largely natural gas, must be available with some in hot standby ready to go when wind or sun fail or their power output varies. Operation of such machines at variable load and, in particular idling no-load, is very fuel inefficient. Some gas turbines consume as much as 40% of their full-power fuel consumption while idling just to maintain their very high operating temperature. That is why they make poor engines for cars and trucks despite their lessser weight and high power production. Where they reduce CO2 production compared to other fossil machinery is at full steady power where they produce more electricity for one unit of fuel than any other fossil machine. Yet such backup sources must be present to fill in for the variation of wind and solar electricity to meet demand and avoid blackouts. I have never seen a study of the CO2 release consequences of part and variable load operation of fossil fuel backups in a real grid supplied by a variety of generation sources including wind and solar. This much is clear, zero CO2 release from one watt of renewable generation does not save one watt of CO2 release from fossil generation; it must be less. Could it be that renewables do not reduce CO2 release at all and may even increase it because of the fuel consumption inefficiencies of part load and idling? Add to this the CO2 generation from fabricating and installing renewables equipment and it gets worse. Perhaps New York State officials know this but are not saying because they do not want to look stupid. Or perhaps they just are stupid. Any bets?

Scissor
Reply to  Denis
September 1, 2026 7:50 am

On a positive note, deer have found a good place to hide. Of course they starve there.

Reply to  Scissor
September 1, 2026 9:23 am

Really? I saw video clip that showed goats gobbling up the weeds growing under the panels.

Scissor
Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 1, 2026 10:59 am

Of course not all the sunlight is blocked and some plants will grow, but generally speaking, shade limits plant growth.

2hotel9
Reply to  Harold Pierce
September 3, 2026 4:10 am

Goats eat what deer won’t.

Reply to  Denis
September 1, 2026 7:52 am

HIGH COST OF SOLAR ELECTRICITY PER kWh
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-of-solar-electricity-per-kwh
.
The video linked below shows, among other things, a comparison between the
Blevin Solar Complex in Texas, a 270 MW solar complex covers 2300 acres.
Bridge City gas plant, 1200 MW, covers 26 acres, or 88 times smaller area than solar complex. 
Gas plant nameplate rating 1200/270 = 4.4 times Solar Complex.
Gas plant annual production about 1200 MW x 8760 h/y x 0.8 CF = 8,409,600 MWh, 24x7x365
Solar Complex annual production about 270 MW x 8760 h/y x 0.22 CF = 520,344 MWh
Gas plant production is 8409600/520344 = 16.2 times Solar Complex
Solar Complex life about 20 – 25 years
Gas plant life about 40 – 45 years
 
The Solar Complex required mining ore-laden materials, extracting minerals and refining them, transporting the refined materials to a solar panel manufacturing plant. All these steps are very energy intensive, require lots of electricity, usually produced by coal in China. The panels are transported to Texas for building the Solar Complex. Ultimately the solar panels need to be stored in a hazardous waste landfill.
 
Solar production peaks around noontime, when demand is low. That means the OTHER plants must reduce their outputs as solar production increases in the morning, then they must increase their outputs as solar production decreases to zero during late afternoon and early evening peak hours, to maintain the production-demand balance on the grid, 24/7/365.
Then the solar production is zero from early peak hours to early morning hours the next day. That means the OTHER plant must provide the entire electricity supply for that period to satisfy demand.
 
In colder climates at higher latitudes, the solar capacity factors, CFs, are less, say about 0.15, which means the Solar Complex would produce a lot less electricity and would have a higher capital investment per MW. 
Also, during winter, solar panels likely would be covered with snow and ice for a week or more, which means near zero solar electricity production, which means the OTHER plants must provide all electricity, 24/7/365
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/sunblock-the-global-fight-to-save
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/mines-minerals-green-energy-reality-checkMM.pdf
.
If little wind and solar, aka DUNKELFLAUTE, there is near-zero output of wind and solar, and a large fleet of OTHER plants, must provide the missing electricity up to demand, 24/7/365.
If the OTHER plants are insufficient, electricity needs to be imported at high wholesale prices
If too much wind and solar, much of the electricity needs to be exported at low wholesale prices
These OTHER plants must be fueled, staffed, kept in good working order to instantly provide what is missing. 
The more wind and solar tied to the expanded/reinforced/more complex grid, the more OTHER plants.
THAT TWO-SYSTEM COMPLEXITY DOES NOT COME FOR FREE.
  
Hidden Costs: These are the A-to-Z costs (wind/solar system to land fill) almost all folks are kept ignorant about. 
At a future 25-30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience: 
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total: 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, with equivalent of 50% subsidies
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  wilpost
September 1, 2026 9:48 am

In winter, WTG blades can ice up resulting in (a) no electricity, and (b) a maintenance action that had to spray de-icer chemicals on the blades. I remain unconvinced that the de-icer trucks can be EVs due to the cold.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 2, 2026 7:42 am

If I’m not mistaken, when a plane is deiced, the chemicals are collected and either reused or disposed of safely.
What do they use on turbine blades and is it collected?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Gunga Din
September 2, 2026 1:08 pm

Similar chemicals and no collection.

Reply to  Denis
September 1, 2026 8:09 am

Ronald
Where they reduce CO2 production compared to other fossil machinery is at full steady power where they produce more electricity for one unit of fuel than any other fossil machine

1) When a jet plane lands, it has full power, with all flaps and air brakes deployed. After it lands, power is cut back and the plane rolls/brakes to a stop, as flaps and brakes are retracted.

This mode is necessary, because jet engines take a lot of time to come to full power, just in case a go-around is required.

Upon go-around, flaps, air brakes, etc, are immediately retracted, and the plane zooms upward at full power.

2) Also, most people, including many engineers, do not know, jet engines become unstable at less than 40% output, so when CCGT power plants are operated in variable mode, their outputs are allowed to vary from about 45%- 50% to 100%.

Reply to  wilpost
September 1, 2026 8:10 am

NEW MINE-MOUTH COAL ELECTRICITY LESS COSTLY, AVAILABLE NOW, NOT PIE IN THE SKY, LIKE EXPENSIVE FUSION AND SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR 
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/coal-electricity-less-costly-available-now-not-pie-in-the-sky
 
Wind/Solar electricity is at least 3 times more expensive than coal electricity; a main reason Europe is castrating itself.
US utilities are forced to buy offshore wind electricity for about 15 cents/kWh.
That price would have been 30 cents/kWh, if no 50% subsidies.

Hidden Costs: These are the A-to-Z costs (windmill to land fill) almost all folks are kept ignorant about. 
At a future 25-30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience: 
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total: 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
.
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 30 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 41 c/kWh, no subsidies
Offshore wind full cost of electricity FCOE = 15 c/kWh + 11 c/kWh = 26 c/kWh, with equivalent of 50% subsidies
This compares with 7 c/kWh + 3 c/kWh = 10 c/kWh from existing gas, coal, nuclear, large reservoir hydro plants.
Some values increase due to inflation and as more W/S systems are added to the grid.
.
Such expensive W/S electricity would have made the US even less competitive in world markets.
Any US tariffs on the European/Chinese supply of W/S systems would greatly increase their turnkey capital costs/MW and their electricity costs/ kWh.
.
Here is an example of the lifetime cost of a coal plant
Coal gets very little direct subsidies in the US.
The key is running steadily at 90% output for 50 years, on average, i.e., base loaded.
.
Assume mine-mouth coal plant in Wyoming; 1800 MW; turnkey-cost $10 billion; life 50 y; Capacity factor 0.9; no direct subsidies; Wyoming coal, low-sulfur, no CO2 scrubbers needed; efficiency 0.4
Annual production = 1,800,000 kW x 8,766 h/y x 0.9 = 14,200,920,000 kWh
Coal heat value = 2000 lb/US ton x 8600 Btu/lb = 17,200,000 Btu/US ton
Year 1 coal cost = 14,200,920,000 kWh/y x (3412 Btu/kWh/0.4)/17,200,000 Btu/US ton x $15/US ton = $105,639,983/y
Year 1 O&M and other costs = 3 c/kWh. See Note.
 
Year 1 revenue, 14,200,920,000 kWh x $0.082kWh = $1,164,475,440/y
Payments to bank, $5 billion at 6% for 50 y; amortized at $317.2 million/y x 50 y = $15.86 billion
Owner investment, $5 billion at minimum of minimum of 10% for 50 y
Standard inflation of coal, electricity, O&M at 3.0 %/y
Year 1 electricity price $0.082kWh
Project cashflow for 50 years
Assume 20-y MACRS depreciation, if applicable
Assume no up-front tax credits; assume loan interest deduction from taxable income
.
Per google AI, the Owner’s initial cash-on-cash yield starts at 6.31% in Year 1. Because the bank debt stays entirely static while operating profits increase via inflation, the cash yield crosses the 10.00% mark by Year 11 ($533.24 Million) and hits 47.52% by Year 50. This shifts the entire 50-year weighted return profile to a 10.77% exact IRR.

NOTE:
Fixed O&M (labor, maintenance, insurance, taxes, land lease)
Variable O&M (water, chemicals, lubricants, waste disposal)
Fixed + Variable, newer plants 2 c/kWh, older plants up to 4 c/kWh
.
Traditional Nuclear has similar economics; life 60 to 80 y; CF 0.9 in the US.
.
For perspective, China used 2204.62/2000 x 4300 = 4740 million US ton in 2024.
China and Germany have multiple ultra-super-critical, USC, coal plants with efficiencies of 45% (LHV), 42% (HHV)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ultrasupercritical-plant

Reply to  wilpost
September 2, 2026 5:34 am

I remember taking my spreadsheet of a cogeneration plant to Arthur Anderson in the 1980s, so it could add the impact of financing with bonds, per Owner requirements.

My project had profits on paper for 40 years, but when standard bond financing requirements were added, all profits became losses for each year.
That was a major wake up call for me.

Now you understand the federal 30% CASH UP FRONT TAX CREDIT. When that is applied to the spreadsheet, plus accelerated depreciation in 6 years, your project becomes a gold mine.

Mac
Reply to  wilpost
September 1, 2026 8:54 am

I remember that Catalina Island Calif has a runway that is bowed in the middle and appears much shorter that it really is. Apparently a couple of private jet jockeys didn’t know this and landed power reduced; then panicked and tried to depart but the engines didn’t spool up and the result was crashes into the ocean to the west.
I knew this by simply looking at runway info.

Sabin Colton
Reply to  wilpost
September 1, 2026 9:16 am

Ah, do not forget the fleets of trucks and machines needed for maintenance; it is not a little.

Reply to  wilpost
September 1, 2026 1:19 pm

re: “When a jet plane lands, it has full power, with all flaps and air brakes deployed.”

Alex, I’ll take aircraft controls for $200.

Button always found on the Throttle Levers of a jet aircraft.

Ans: What is TOGA?

Sabin Colton
Reply to  Denis
September 1, 2026 9:12 am

Solar, wind and biofuel farms are nothing but crony capitalism. You cannot fund any existing industries for energy because they are not run by sticky-fingered family and friends. Think about where all the money went in the Solydra failure. It’s that simple.

Reply to  Sabin Colton
September 1, 2026 9:41 am

When a solar “farm” was being planed for behind my ‘hood- at the planning board meeting- a clean cut looking white guy represented the firm- but I could see in the crowd several clearly Chinese men with haircuts like Moe of the 3 stooges, a sign they just got off a plane from China- the $$$ backers of this “farm”.

September 1, 2026 6:38 am

STORY TIP / Slightly* off-topic: Tilak DOSHI treats Canada [‘Carney’s Dagger], from Ottawa / Ontario to Alberta++, in relation to the U.S.A., since the Anchorage (AK) Summit of last august. Autumnal change is already in the works?
https://tilakdoshi.substack.com/p/carneys-dagger-how-ottawas-trade
*Rochester (Genessee River Valley, described above by VJ-JaRaj) and Toronto (Ontario) are separated only by the short stretch of that Great Lake newly designated as ‘Lake of America’.

Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2026 7:00 am

“We have to destroy the environment in order to save the planet. What are you, some kind of hippie luddite tree-hugger?”

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2026 9:42 am

And we have to learn to appreciate the beauty of thousands of acres of solar panels covering prime agricultural land. /s

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 2, 2026 6:58 am

And watch water foul crash into those panels thinking it is a lake or pond.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
September 2, 2026 8:59 am

I’ll have to check out the “farm” behind my ‘hood. I made a YouTube video when they constructed it. They let me wonder around the construction site while they were doing the work. I didn’t think they would. They have a big fence around it but there’s a place with higher ground so I can see into much of it.

strativarius
September 1, 2026 7:05 am

New York seems to be on the same page as our mad Ed Miliband.

“…fields that have grown corn and soybeans for generations. Soon, thousands of those acres will be covered by steel and glass. New York state is forcing industrial-scale solar plants onto rural communities that never asked for them…”

It’s not a million miles from:

Miliband approves another solar mega-farm on farmland The government has approved the UK’s second-largest solar farm – despite fierce criticism from opposition politicians, campaigners and residents over the loss of prime agricultural land.

Democracy? That is anathema to the elitist’s mission to save the world from human beings…

“We are a plague on Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde,” Attenborough told Radio Times back in 2013

The disparity between US states that are pro cheap energy and those that are progressive and ‘green’ will only get wider as time goes by.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
September 1, 2026 8:36 am

Mad Ed was warned by a cross party committee of MPs in 2025 that his plans for solar could lead to 25% of the country’s farmland being taken out of production.

His response was to continue to override the objections of local people and approve even bigger solar farms.

strativarius
Reply to  Dave Andrews
September 1, 2026 8:43 am

The descriptor ‘mad’ is entirely appropriate in mad Ed’s case. He is very much the son of his father – rabidly anti English.

Reply to  strativarius
September 1, 2026 9:44 am

The English? Like, you mean they still have something to do with the UK? /s

Neil Pryke
September 1, 2026 7:21 am

Large parts (relatively speaking) of the United Kingdom resemble that image at the head of the article…

And appear destined to suffer the same irrational and destructive fate…thanks to ignorant and fanatical catastrophists…

strativarius
Reply to  Neil Pryke
September 1, 2026 7:24 am

Another bold statement…

Sabin Colton
Reply to  strativarius
September 1, 2026 9:19 am

But totally true, unfortunately.

September 1, 2026 7:25 am

pass fields that have grown corn and soybeans

Destroy Wildlife

What becomes of the animals living where these panels will sit? 

Ah yes, the monocultures known for their biodiversity

Biodiversity impacts associated to solar power projects
https://iucn.org/resources/file/biodiversity-impacts-associated-solar-power-projects

Solar plants have been shown to create positive biodiversity impacts when compared to other types of intensive land use. For example, solar plants in the UK previously used for agriculture were found to have a greater diversity of flora and birds when managed through grazing.

oops

strativarius
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 1, 2026 7:34 am

Oops… another NGO puff piece… – IUCN

Solar plants have been shown to create positive biodiversity impacts when compared to other types of intensive land use. For example, solar plants in the UK previously used for agriculture were found to have a greater diversity of flora and birds when managed through grazing.

You are so very funny. 

For example, solar plants in the UK previously used for agriculture were found to have a greater diversity of flora and birds when managed through grazing…

And no food. Malthus would be proud.

Sabin Colton
Reply to  strativarius
September 1, 2026 9:23 am

The flora are normally called “weeds” and the birds usually “pests” living off the weeds and insects. Assuming the land under the solar farms is well-groomed is a big mistake. Within years, German solar farms were weed-ridden with weeds growing ON the panels Yeah, that works.

Reply to  Sabin Colton
September 1, 2026 2:52 pm

Sabin:
Yep! You also have touched on most of solar’s “good-paying high-tech” green jobs touted by politicians & climate alarmists: weeding & dusting off the solar panels.
[Is this where college grads with a “Studies” degree find work?] /sarc

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 1, 2026 8:02 am

oops

From the document where you retrieved your info.

Habitat loss through clearance or displacement

During operation, vegetation is significantly lost or altered. Solar plants 

typically require some form of vegetation management under, and in 

the gaps between solar panel arrays. Unwanted vegetation is sometimes 

discouraged using herbicides, or by covering the ground with gravel 

to facilitate facility operations. In other cases, some form of vegetation 

cover is grown but mowed frequently to keep it short. For example, in 

western North America, solar developments were estimated to have 

the largest impacts on shrublands compared to other ecosystem types, 

resulting in the conversion of between 0.60 to 19.9 million ha of the 

ecosystem.

You cherrypick. Yes, land used for row crops can certainly have more biodiversity. However lots of hedges separating fields disappear. Pasture land, shrub land, and other types are cleared as this document also shows. Grazing is not a panacea for protecting biodiversity. The word “mitigation” itself means there are negative impacts that may reduced. Note, totally eliminating negative impacts is not part of mitigation.

SxyxS
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 1, 2026 9:38 am

Don’t you think It’s interesting that all construction-related interactions with nature come with a negative spin,(just like everything warming related)
but as soon as those constructions are renewable related they come around with a shit show of positive buzzwords(greater diversity in plants and BIRDS (not those slaughtered by windmill)).
Everything turns into a success store

I’m pretty sure they absolutely don’t lie.

Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
September 1, 2026 9:41 am

Cool, so let’s replace ALL food farms with solar farms! After all, it’s better for biodiversity, right?

September 1, 2026 8:02 am

What will happen to electricity output in winter when the sun is low above the horizon and there is only about 8 hours of sunlight? In winter much of New York has long cold and snowy winters. The PV solar panels would become covered with snow and electricity output would go to near zero. Whatever led Gov. Kathy H. and the Albany Climate Alliance to believe that renewables was a viable method for generating base load electricity? They have been severely infected with the virus of “climate stupidity”, a term I learned at Judith C. blog.

rovingbroker
September 1, 2026 8:03 am

Let us compare the cost and damage caused by fields of solar cells which are OK, with that from AI data centers which are pariahs.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rovingbroker
September 2, 2026 7:01 am

Compare the acreage.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  rovingbroker
September 2, 2026 1:10 pm

Perhaps a /sarc would have been needed for people to recognize the sanity of your post.

Kevin Kilty
September 1, 2026 8:18 am

Fine article with which I wholeheartedly concur, but what does this mean?

” 3,000 megawatts of storage…”

Until we know the Megawatt-hours involved we can’t evaluate what they are proposing nor estimate the cost. Every IRP I read engages in this same obscuration.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
September 1, 2026 8:02 pm

Surely 3,000 megawatts of storage means that 3 megawatts per hour can be released for 1,000 hours, or 30 megawatts for 100 hours, and so on.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Vincent
September 2, 2026 7:12 am

You understand the concept but you miss on the details. Without knowing the output terminal voltage and the maximum load current, one cannot assume how the capacity is consumed.

Battery capacity once was Amp Hours with a terminal voltage specification.
But since bigger numbers are better, the output amperage rating multiplied by the terminal voltage is “better.”

A 1 amp hour battery can supply a 1 C output current (spec.) with a terminal voltage of 3.5 Vdc.
So which is better? The 1 Ahr or the 3.5 W battery.

This was a marketing strategy likely based on Power Point 101 training.

Will a 3.5 Whr definition tell you if it is compatible with your system?

Disclaimer: Those are non chemistry specific numbers. There are batteries that can supply 1.5 C or 2.0 C output currents. Terminal voltages vary with temperature and life. Etc.

And don’t call me Shirley. 😉

Retiredinky
September 1, 2026 8:26 am

We are doing all of this to “save the planet”? I believe this was the original driving thought – CO2 causes global warming which threatens live on the planet. To save the planet we must reduce/eliminate CO2 production.

And despite all of the billions spent to date CO2 concentration continues to rise.

Why can’t the people of New York and other places understand this? These are smart people. My only conclusion is that those pushing/selling this idea must be making money off this. This is corruption of a scale that makes the other scams seem insignificant.

If the voters are this uninformed/dumb they deserve to be taxed to death. I just hope they freeze to death quietly.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Retiredinky
September 1, 2026 8:48 am

Correction: trillions spent to date

Sabin Colton
Reply to  Retiredinky
September 1, 2026 9:39 am

As long as the average ocean temperature is above a certain temperature, the seas will continue to outgas CO2. Period.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases. This is junk science promulgated for political purposes. Saving the planet only involves us taking care of real pollution of land, water, and soil, OTHER THAN THE PLANT FOOD WE NEED DESPARATELY TO KEEP BREATHING. DUH.

Reply to  Sabin Colton
September 3, 2026 3:04 pm

Have you been advised that the Earth is no longer flat?

ResourceGuy
September 1, 2026 8:46 am

That religion extends to the very deep subsurface as in the case of antifracking, maybe to the core of the earth.

Tom Holsinger
September 1, 2026 10:39 am

Hailstorms will turn those in toxic waste within a few years.

Reply to  Tom Holsinger
September 1, 2026 1:51 pm

Hailstorms” … or a big storm…

And make the land unsuitable for grazing for goodness knows how long.

Little shards of glass everywhere is not good for animal digestive tract.

solar-farm-storm-aftermath
Graeme4
Reply to  bnice2000
September 1, 2026 10:15 pm

Plus the release of long-term toxic chemicals into the soil.

Reply to  Tom Holsinger
September 2, 2026 3:48 am

I’m curious what four feet of lake effect snow will do to them.

September 1, 2026 2:35 pm

Story Tip.. Tragic Nepal incident was a bedrock failure, not a glacier collapse.

Nepal Floods Caused By Bedrock Failure | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

Bob
September 1, 2026 5:41 pm

I wouldn’t sacrifice a house mouse for a wind or solar farm. Get busy building clean, safe fossil fuel and nuclear generators.

September 2, 2026 9:19 am

Anyone wanting to help out in the fight against ORES in NY can contribute to https://www.americanlandrescuefund.com/our-mission-purpose – this is a non-profit set up specifically to file lawsuits against ORES.

0perator
September 2, 2026 12:25 pm

The point isn’t to produce pv power, the point is to render America’s fertile farmland useless forever.

Richard Rude
September 2, 2026 12:29 pm

I would not be surprised to see some “monkey-wrenching”–this time from normal people.

claysanborn
September 2, 2026 8:36 pm

Who gets the cleanup (if cleanup is even possible) bill after a tornado or a derecho blows and shatters the photovoltaics the hell all over the place? Shattered solar panel pieces can leech out hazardous materials like lead or cadmium. These and other metals can be absorbed into food crops, and thus passed on to consumers. “Mom look, Sally is sucking on glass bits from the our back yard“. New York state apparently gets an average, since 1900, of 31 tornadoes per year.