Posted on 03/16/2014 7:48:16 AM PDT by Libloather
**SNIP**
In 2011, BrightSource had several other proposed projects on the table in the California desert. All of them would be much larger than Ivanpah, with more intense solar flux. Environmental activists started asking tough questions during hearings on these projects. For example, what would happen to birds, bats and insects that fly into that flux?
An answer came in late 2013 at Ivanpah. Mortalities from solar flux had been noted since testing began in March of last year. In October, a startling number of dead migrating birds on the site led federal wildlife biologists to a sad conclusion. The bright solar flux likely attracts insects, which attract small birds, which attract raptors: an entire food chain drawn into a zone of lethal solar flux. This ecological trap’s effect on migrating birds was especially troubling. Birds migrating from the Arctic to Central America pass through the Mojave: Ivanpah could conceivably depress bird populations across half a continent.
(Excerpt) Read more at earthisland.org ...
Who cares whether some bald eagles or golden eagles are killed by Green Energy producers, but kill a little minnow in a creek? Perish the thought, they’d rather you die that the minnow.
Well that was an excellent investment. /s
ah..
“fallow land”....that birds don’t fly over?
“THEY” the Sierra Club, and the Population Control crowd DO OPPOSE IT ALL!
Not to mention that we could NEVER build enough of these solar farms to be more than a 5% solution for our energy needs.
I suspect the real solar flux is the change in attitude about solar energy within the ecological fanatics themselves.
I’m still puzzled over how desert tortoises can be harmed by this, whatever their numbers. Tortoises don’t fly and if they manage to crawl under a giant mirror they’ll only be gaining some shade.
Unless they are drawn to the shade in huge numbers so that maintenance personnel can’t avoid them, are they truly endangered by this site—or is championing the cause of the desert tortoise just another attempt by the eco-Nazis to bamboozle the EPA?
“How much energy does that gadget crank out at night? Perhaps we need to adjust Daylight Savings Time some more?”
Indeed. One extra hour of daylight every day isn’t enough to save this turkey. Now, TWO extra hours of daylight, then maybe we’re on to something here! And the beauty of doubling the extra hours of daylight is it really doesn’t cost anything since the time-shifting infrastructure is already in place!
I spent a lot of time on these issues and you don’t know what you are talking about.
Even from a conservative perspective you should favor solar to get us off foreign oil imports.
Not every issue is defined by a strict liberal vs conservative construct.
Thank you for stating that so much better than I did. Timeshifting, yeah, that’s the ticket.
My 1980 Grad Thesis was on Energy Policy through 2005.
” my chemical pesticide use.”
I think that’s why I haven’t seen many butterflies and moths in the last several years. Too wide-spread use of lawn chemicals.
Is there no concern about the biotic environment on those hills behind the heliostat — the ones blasted by solar flux from misaligned reflectors?
Shows one should not assume things about the people we converse with.
Okay, what is your view of Feed In Tariffs on distributed solar? I suspect we agree. Our point of disagreement so far is that conservation groups are automatically in favor of large scale solar - which they are not.
Put in some wind turbines upstream.
Low cost, shredded, cooked poultry to feed the starving victims of the Obama Depression.
conservation groups - Depends on what that means?
Clearly in this case some “conservation groups” don’t like solar.
If we use 2005 as our base reference for power consumption in the U.S., I contend that we can’t build solar fast enough to keep up with growth and provide more than 5% of our power needs. (no matter who pays for it, or how)
Simple conservation at my house without solar cut our consumption by 50%. If I could get paid for solar generation by putting panels on my roof the profit motive would motivate me to cut our energy consumption more.
That represents a consumer savings and you may have better data from your studies but I think your number of 5% is low.
BTW, I’m enjoying this conversation. Sorry if I started out a bit persnippidy.
Always rewarding to be collaborative.
In my thesis, I advocated standardizing a couple nuclear reactor designs, such that we could leap frog improvements in design, and save approval time. Transition to Breeder reactors, use natural gas generators in more remote locations, and to replace coal over time. Supplement w Wind/Solar as technology advances.
One of my professors, Dr. Roger Burke, JPL/USC, worked on the original solar power RFPs, as they had pioneered much of the science and technology. The objective was to produce solar cells capable of producing electricity at 50 cents/kWh in 1970 dollars, by 1980. (from memory)
(CalTec/JPL was not selected.....because they knew too much...???)
New Vegas?
University Professor: Climate Change Deniers Should Be Jailed
WHO’S MORE ANTI- SCIENCE: Global Warming Skeptics or Pro-Choice Ideologues?
Greenpeace co- founder testifies there is no climate crisis
Studies: Increased CO2 emissions are greening the planet
Global Warming on Free Republic
But doesn’t it make you feel good to just do something to stop climate change, even if it doesn’t work, even if it costs all of our wealth and destroys our economy, even if it destroys all the flying creatures in desert areas?
We can tell future generations (who will be living short miserable lives in caves because we shut down all of the fossil fuels) that at least we tried, and they should be grateful for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.