It’s not just Wind Turbines that kill wildlife, from the Wall Street Journal:
“A giant solar-power project officially opening this week in the California desert is the first of its kind, and may be among the last, in part because of growing evidence that the technology it uses is killing birds.”
“The $2.2 billion solar farm, which spans over five square miles of federal land southwest of Las Vegas, includes three towers as tall as 40-story buildings. Nearly 350,000 mirrors, each the size of a garage door, reflect sunlight onto boilers atop the towers, creating steam that drives power generators.”
“The owners of the project— NRG Energy Inc., NRG, Google Inc. GOOG and BrightSource Energy Inc., the company that developed the “tower power” solar technology—call the plant a major feat of engineering that can light up about 140,000 homes a year.”
“Ivanpah is among the biggest in a spate of power-plant-sized solar projects that have begun operating in the past two years, spurred in part by a hefty investment tax credit that expires at the end of 2016. Most of them are in California, where state law requires utilities to use renewable sources for a third of the electricity they sell by 2020.”
“Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs–Ivanpah costs about four times as much as a conventional natural gas-fired plant but will produce far less electricity—and also for the amount of land they require.
That makes for expensive power. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only that it will be passed on to electricity customers.”
“The BrightSource system appears to be scorching birds that fly through the intense heat surrounding the towers, which can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The company, which is based in Oakland, Calif., reported finding dozens of dead birds at the Ivanpah plant over the past several months, while workers were testing the plant before it started operating in December. Some of the dead birds appeared to have singed or burned feathers, according to federal biologists and documents filed with the state Energy Commission.”
“Regulators said they anticipated that some birds would be killed once the Ivanpah plant started operating, but that they didn’t expect so many to die during the plant’s construction and testing. The dead birds included a peregrine falcon, a grebe, two hawks, four nighthawks and a variety of warblers and sparrows. State and federal regulators are overseeing a two-year study of the facility’s effects on birds.”
“The agency also is investigating the deaths of birds, possibly from colliding with structures, found at two other, unrelated solar farms. One of those projects relies on solar panels and the other one uses mirrored troughs. Biologists think some birds may have mistaken the vast shimmering solar arrays at all three installations for a lake and become trapped on the ground after landing.”
You would have thought that the nighthawks would have known better….. 😉
Silver ralph says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:12 am
You would have thought that the nighthawks would have known better….. 😉
——-
Ok, that is funny…
Zeke: For example, in Germany, “Almost all predictions about the expansion and cost of German wind turbines and solar panels have turned out to be wrong – at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five.”
–Daniel Wentzel, Die Welt, 20 October 2012
Hey you know the odd thing is nuclear projects seem to over like that too.
Now if we stop all the disingenuous politically motivated sniping on all sides and look at overall picture, it seems that whatever kind of technology is being developed it’s always grossly under-estimated to get the project approved , then it’s like “oh dear we’ve hit a couple problems and it’s not going to take years longer than expect to complete and will cost the taxpayer/consummer twice as much as initially estimated.”
EDF’s Flammenville project in France is a fine example and the UK govt, has just accepted that wholesale “strike price” from two such plants it has approved for the UK will be TWICE the current wholesale price of power in the UK. (Plus the govt takes on the cost of clean up in the case of any leaks or accident at the plants: more hidden costs for taxpayers and illegal subsidies for EDF).
By the time it’s build it will probably have doubled again.
Greg Goodman says, “Hey you know the odd thing is nuclear projects seem to over like that too.
Now if we stop all the disingenuous politically motivated sniping on all sides and look at overall picture, it seems that whatever kind of technology is being developed it’s always grossly under-estimated to get the project approved….”
That is why it is so foolish to purposely destroy, decommission, and phase out coal. Society loses the value of objects destroyed. Suppose we break all windows in everyone’s houses because we do not like them anymore – let’s just say they’re “dirty.” The owners have to spend money on new windows, and are unable to enjoy what they would have done with that money if his windows had not been broken. What is being done to the energy sector is vandalism on a massive scale. Frederick Bastiat warned about ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas in any economic policy. The fact that coal plants that work perfectly well are being destroyed for no reason means that we all must spend money to replace them. The added insult is that the replacements are worthless and intermittent.
CNC says:
February 13, 2014 at 11:33 pm
“The birds a really a non issue, a lot more die flying into bay windows, a lot more. …”
—-l
Citation? And would these include the rarer species? Not that I don’t agree that the comparative inefficiency of the solar plants is the more important issue.
Greg Goodman says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:27 am
……
Over regulation is the problem with nuclear and drives up the cost to silly numbers. Bureaucrats. Long term our children or grandchildren will use nuclear because it is by far the most environmentally friendly energy source and could easily be the cheapest. In the mean time shale gas and oil can take care of what wind and solar never can do. Used responsibly they can help the world.
Cheap energy is what make everyone’s life better and is what we all should be pushing for.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 12:55 am
CNC says:
February 13, 2014 at 11:33 pm
“The birds a really a non issue, a lot more die flying into bay windows, a lot more. …”
—-l
Citation?
Fair enough, here it is:
http://www.huntingtonaudubon.org/window-collisions.asp
“Did you know that between 100 million and 1 billion birds are killed by collisions with windows each year?”
Solar is still a big waste of money in most locations.
This is french technology and NRG is also a frech alphabetic way of saying N-air-G. This technology was first tried in france many years ago but I can’t remember where or when but they did in the mountains. They line a south facing slope with rotating mirriors and fired the heat into a single tower. They must have known before building that cooking birds was one of it’s main features.
“Did you know that between 100 million and 1 billion birds are killed by collisions with windows each year?”
Another of those finger in the air estimates with a range of an order of magnitude. These estimates really wind me up. They are rubbish. NONSENSE.
Stephen Richards says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:19 am
Another of those finger in the air estimates with a range of an order of magnitude. These estimates really wind me up. They are rubbish. NONSENSE.
————–
I agree but it is a citation which was requested so that was the first Google I found. A waste of 10 seconds. But I am still sure that more birds die running into windows then fried by solar plants or hitting winds mills. It is a BS argument to use against them. The fact the are not economical and do nothing to reduce the world carbon foot print (no that it needs to be reduced) and what we should focusing on in my opinion.
CNC says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:04 am
—-l
The article seems positive, though there seems to be a conflict of interest which might detract from its objectivity and scientific approach. Stephen Richards seems to feel that the citation could be better 🙂
For conservationists the number of deaths is not as important as which species are involved. Sparrows could still be viable after a few thousand deaths, while peregrine falcons might not be.
I think the main point of the post is to highlight the hypocrisy of the “green” movement where renewable energy is concerned.
negrum says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:32 am
I think the main point of the post is to highlight the hypocrisy of the “green” movement where renewable energy is concerned.
——————–
Agree, I am a bit off topic.
This is quite a state of affairs. But why does anybody only care when wildlife is affected. The impact of renewables on energy prices affects human beings and very often the poorest.
cd says:
February 14, 2014 at 1:39 am
“This is quite a state of affairs. But why does anybody only care when wildlife is affected. …”
—-l
It’s easier than dealing with human problems 🙂
It’s a federal offense to kill endangered species. It’s even a violation to own a single feather. Who would be held accountable and prosecuted for killing them, the owners of the power plant?
What would be the attitude if I built a machine in my backyard that killed eagles all day long? How long before the Feds were at my front door?
Ahhh . . . the thorium reactor hoax shows up again. It’s getting to be like Godwin’s law.
SAMURAI says:
February 13, 2014 at 8:14 pm
“LFTR (first one was built in 1965)”
Absolutely false. A reactor was built. No thorium was ever placed in it.
Your LFTR belongs on the shelf next to the 100 mpg carburetor.
The best part of the wsj article is the comment section. People with numb minds try to defend this boon doggle and get repeatedly slammed.
Whale oil use, at its peak, amounted to about 10% of the other major ‘fuel’ at one time.
Whale oil was also the most EXPENSIVE ‘fuel’ to be had … you expect ppl at that time were not aware of the ‘economics’ (cost) of one fuel vs another?
Maybe in one’s haste one just ‘glossed over’ the 164 footnotes (citing historical accounts, records and reports written in the day) found bottom of the webpage I cited above; surely all these accounts and reports are not “myths created by the biofuel websites subsidized with your tax dollars“? Surely one is not prone to simply ignoring well-researched pieces with such rich and detailed references, rather than believing in grand and widespread con spir acies spun by the biofuel industry?
BTW, cites from Wiki should be the last one uses in lieu of more reliable sources when working to support one’s point or assertions.
A sample of a footnotes and article excerpts which reference them:
#13 Some 152 popular and scholarly articles under the heading “Alcohol as a Fuel” can be found the the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature between 1900 and 1921; about 20 references to papers and books written before 1925 are found in the Library of Congress database catalog; a 1933 Chemical Foundation report lists 52 references before 1925 on alcohol fuels; a 1944 Senate report lists 24 USDA publications on alcohol fuels before 1920; and several technical books from the period document hundreds of references from the 1900 – 1925 period.
#19 Index of patents issued from 1790 to 1873, Inclusive, (Washington, D.C.: US Patent Office). Listed as “patent for alcohol for burning fluid, carbureted,” March 17, 1834.
By the late 1830s, alcohol blends had replaced increasingly expensive whale oil in most parts of the country. It “easily took the lead as the illuminant” because it was “a decided improvement on other oils then in use,” (especially lard oils) according to a lamp manufacturer’s “History of Light.”21
#21 History of Light, pamphlet by the Welsbach Gas Co., Philadelphia Penn, 1909; on file in the Smithsonian collection of Advertising, Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.
By the late 1830s, alcohol blends had replaced increasingly expensive whale oil in most parts of the country. It “easily took the lead as the illuminant” because it was “a decided improvement on other oils then in use,” (especially lard oils) according to a lamp manufacturer’s “History of Light.”21 By 1860, thousands of distilleries churned out at least 90 million gallons of alcohol per year for lighting.22 In the 1850s, camphene (at $.50 per gallon) was cheaper than whale oil ($1.30 to $2.50 per gallon) and lard oil (90 cents per gallon). It was about the same price as coal oil, which was the product first marketed as “kerosene”23 (literally “sun fuel”).
#22 Free Alcohol Law, Senate Finance Committee Hearings on HR 24816, Feb. 1907, Doc. No. 362, page 320. The authority cited is the Civil War era Special Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, David A. Wells, and the apparent reference is to the New York regional market. It is possible that over a hundred million gallons per year of camphene were sold by the late 1850s. The city of Cincinattie alone reportedly used 10 million gallons in 1860. Note that kerosine sales in 1870 reached 200 million gallons.
#23 Harold F. Williamson & Arnold R. Daum, The American Petroleum Industry, 1859-1899, The Age of Illumination (Evanston Ill NW U Press, 1959).
.
Big Green is not about the environment. Big Green is about lining the pockets of insiders with our money. None of their schemes work. Wind is a huge bird killing landscape destroying fail. Now we know solar is as well.
And the nasty hypocrites from the Big Green dare to talk about oil industry tax subsidies. Not ONE of their fisaco projects would even exist if it were not for direct tax payer operating subsidies or the laws they push through forcing utilities to give preferred tariff rates to the miserable power they actually generate.
Gamecock,
So thorium is unworkable? I have followed the issue some, but would like to know more.
with all these solar installations, children just aren’t going to know what birds are…
I thought California had very stiff penalties for “poaching” wildlife:-/
Trying to determine why this facility was built is a mystery.
It does not have thermal storage, like so many of these plants in the world do
it doesn’t supply power to its nearest city, Las Vegas, 38 miles away
it’s built more than 400 miles from its intended market San Francisco( transmission line loss ???)
it’s being opened during the largest natural gas discoveries in the last 60 years, a fact that was known prior to construction.
and as covered many times above, it cost 5+ times the cost of a natural gas plant that operates 24/7
The only explanation can be that if you only have one idea, solar, every problem must be solved using that idea. (if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail)
As to the cost of the land and the birds; have you ever been out there? It’s an empty barren inhospitable place that if it wasn’t for the greens being offended by any progress would not even be being discussed.
@Jimmy Dell – fried fowl smells better than car exhaust?
Breaking news from 222BC. Archimedes used this technology to “light up” Roman galleys. Maybe he had a DOE grant.
I would ask what kind of blithering idiocy is required to view this Rube Goldberg idiocy as a reasonable method of power generation, but unfortunately, I already know the answer.