# Wind Turbine vs. Protected Eagles -- Who to root for? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427 "2013-03-31T14:27:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/41 "2013-04-02T05:59:36Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > This is one of those costs that are not as cut and dried as would be useful. PV solar cell costs have come down dramatically recently due to Chinese manufacturing. It’s possible to build a 1 mw system out of the box. But when using solar thermal you have the added benefit of tying natural gas into a steam turbine system. So the backup to solar thermal is cheaper. And I believe the power output consistency of solar thermal is greater than PV. Can’t find a good source with numbers. Don’t know about the life expectancy is of solar thermal is but I suspect it is something that can continually be maintained as opposed to a solar cell which has a life expectancy. > > It’s not an easy question to answer. Well, solar thermal uses a ‘battery’ of molten salt, while PV modules use a battery of… batteries. On a large scale that will be flow batteries or some other system, but I think the costs and benefits are fairly predictable in such cases. I think PV modules are already practical, on a cost basis, in some locations, and the set of practical locations is growing all the time for reasons already identified. I agree that thermal solar can be practical, and wouldn’t mind tying it to natural gas generation if the producers of that resource exhibited less arch-criminal behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/42 "2013-04-02T06:29:55Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I guess you’d have to demonstrate that the wind turbine folks were negligent. It has been asserted in this thread that the wind turbines were set up ‘in good faith’, which I am assuming includes the notion that the planners did not ignore foreseen risks. In good faith with whom? If you look at it from the environmentalist side of it they should have studied the golden eagle in the area for years before building. From the same cite Bricker gave: "Critics say the problem is fundamental. “The increasing golden eagle mortality at Pine Tree clearly points to wind turbines built in the wrong location,” said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. The utility needs to redesign its 250-megawatt Pine Tree network and Kern County needs to put a moratorium on construction of nearby wind farms to prevent deaths, Anderson said. Garry George, renewable energy project director for Audubon California, said the best solution is to devote years of research into golden eagles’ behavior in an area before deciding where to erect turbines. “If you don’t … you wind up with a Pine Tree,” George said." ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/43 "2013-04-02T09:24:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Bricker implied that the process is expensive. The take permits themselves (or as I like to call them Eagle indulgences) are $500 to $1000 each. He didn’t imply it, he said it. And then in the same sentence explained exactly what he meant: that the expense came from mandated changes to the machines to make them safer for the eagles. The $500-1000 is just a filing fee, and I doubt the power company would see it as a serious expense. > [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe it’s just me, but I read that as saying they plan to submits the permit application in the future, using the survey results from a survey that hasn’t yet happened. > > What excuses them from failing to have done this already? Sounds like they’re giving windfarms some leeway while they develop mitigation methods and study what the exact dangers are to the birds. The permit was only created in 2009, (the Tehachapi Pass windfarm started in the 80’s) and the problem of what the windfarms effect on bird population is or how best to make them safer for birds is obviously not a simple one. What do you think they should do? ---
**Author:** ![JBDivmstr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b4bc9f/32.png) [@JBDivmstr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JBDivmstr)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/44 "2013-04-02T13:43:32Z")
Look! Up ahead! Could it be a… It looks like a… OH, MY OG! It’s a train wreck! :smack: D&R ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/45 "2013-04-02T13:55:12Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I guess you’d have to demonstrate that the wind turbine folks were negligent. It has been asserted in this thread that the wind turbines were set up ‘in good faith’, which I am assuming includes the notion that the planners did not ignore foreseen risks. > > In a way that is water under the bridge though. Knowing what we know _now_, are there steps we can take to reduce raptor turbine deaths? Do those steps include not building wind turbines at all? Or, in the stated case, are wind turbines and their ‘cost’, for display example, of 100 raptor deaths per year a great alternative to Several Destroyed Areas of the Earth for Oil? I think the quotes **Magiver** offered up from my original link are the answer I’d give as well: the general problem of federally-protected birds being killed by wind farms was well-known before this particular installation was built. So at a minimum, the installation managers should have applied for a take permit from the beginning of the permit’s existence – and had they done so, they then would have become aware of the steps necessary to mitigate the number of such deaths. I argue that they did not simply forget: they looked at the requirements ahead of time and concluded that they were too costly to meet, so they decided to forgo compliance. This is inference, of course. But what other inference is more plausible? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/46 "2013-04-02T13:58:35Z")
Nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/47 "2013-04-02T14:49:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think the quotes **Magiver** offered up from my original link are the answer I’d give as well: the general problem of federally-protected birds being killed by wind farms was well-known before this particular installation was built. > > So at a minimum, the installation managers should have applied for a take permit from the beginning of the permit’s existence – and had they done so, they then would have become aware of the steps necessary to mitigate the number of such deaths. > > I argue that they did not simply forget: they looked at the requirements ahead of time and concluded that they were too costly to meet, so they decided to forgo compliance. > > This is inference, of course. But what other inference is more plausible? Sounds like there might be some negligence after all. Maybe some people need to be fined. I’m not sure what department handles issues like this- does it have sufficient staff anymore to enforce environmental regulations? But to the question of who to root for, I think wind still wins. I haven’t seen any numbers for eagle deaths at wind farms, but it looks like [pipeline leaks have the same effect](http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA5D4CF01%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011): > [@](#): > > a couple of dead ducks and 10 live oily birds were found after an ExxonMobil pipeline ruptured last week. > Dodson said he expects a few more oily birds to turn up in the coming days. Apparently pipeline leaks like this are fairly common, something like an average of 300 major spills a year. Dead eagles seems like the worst-case scenario for wind. For pipelines, there is [much, much more to say](http://www.motherjones.com/files/stansbury-worst-case-keystone-spills-report-summary-key-findings.pdf) (PDF warning): > [@](#): > > A major spill from the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on the Platte River in Nebraska could spill 5.9 million gallons of toxic, corrosive tar sands oil and spread pollutants such as carcinogenic benzene in excess of federal health standards hundreds of miles downstream, contaminating drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people as far south as Kansas City, Mo. Even a small, undetected leak from an underground rupture of the pipeline in the Nebraska Sandhills could pollute almost 5 billion gallons of groundwater with benzene at concentrations exceeding > safe drinking water levels – enough water to form a plume 15 miles long, posing serious health threats to anyone using the underlying Ogallala Aquifer for drinking water or agriculture. And > a worst-case spill at the pipeline’s crossing of the Missouri or Yellowstone Rivers in Montana could spill well over 5 million gallons of tar sands oil, contaminating drinking and recreational water in North Dakota with harmful levels of benzene and other chemicals. This is just a summary of one category of oil/gas disaster. The problems with wind deserve to be addressed (say with zoning), but they don’t hold a candle to the problems caused by oil and gas. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/48 "2013-04-02T15:24:55Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’ve never understood the right wing’s taking joy in the problems with the environmental movement. Because that is how morons process information. They think in absolute terms of “good” and “bad” and are unable to make nuanced analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/49 "2013-04-02T15:26:27Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > This is just a summary of one category of oil/gas disaster. The problems with wind deserve to be addressed (say with zoning), but they don’t hold a candle to the problems caused by oil and gas. Oh, no doubt. And of course the key problem with oil and gas is we’re using them up faster than more oil and gas are being created, a problem that doesn’t go away no matter how much safety we mandate. But while admitting I don’t know the details of the Arkansas leak, I haven’t heard anything that suggests the company did anything wrong: that is, they operated in compliance with all extant regulatory mandates – so far as I know – and suffered an accidental leak. We, as a society, permitted them to operate under these conditions. It’s a good time to perhaps re-assess whether our current regulatory scheme is sufficient, but I don’t think the company acted improperly. But the wind turbine people seem to have acted improperly, in that they knew they were a danger to federally protected birds but failed to obtain a take permit. And I think I know why: if they had chosen to act properly, I’m guessing they would have incurred unacceptable costs. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/50 "2013-04-02T15:36:17Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Because that is how morons process information. They think in absolute terms of “good” and “bad” and are unable to make nuanced analysis. Knock it off. See **tomndebb** ’s earlier mod note (post #36). ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/51 "2013-04-02T18:31:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, no doubt. And of course the key problem with oil and gas is we’re using them up faster than more oil and gas are being created, a problem that doesn’t go away no matter how much safety we mandate. > > But while admitting I don’t know the details of the Arkansas leak, I haven’t heard anything that suggests the company did anything wrong: that is, they operated in compliance with all extant regulatory mandates – so far as I know – and suffered an accidental leak. We, as a society, permitted them to operate under these conditions. It’s a good time to perhaps re-assess whether our current regulatory scheme is sufficient, but I don’t think the company acted improperly. > > But the wind turbine people seem to have acted improperly, in that they knew they were a danger to federally protected birds but failed to obtain a take permit. And I think I know why: if they had chosen to act properly, I’m guessing they would have incurred unacceptable costs. I mostly agree, as far as it goes. Exxon will probably not be found negligent, but OTOH I don’t think they are exempt from the Clean Water Act and other environmental rules for this the way frackers are exempted. Expect Exxon to pay fines in the millions of dollars. Meanwhile, the wind farm guys may be liable for fines of… $20k? It is hard to guess because I don’t know how many protected birds we are talking about. But yes, they very well could be found negligent. So what is your point? We can’t exactly stop using oil and gas tomorrow, even though they are far more destructive than wind and solar whether or not anybody in any field is negligent or not. Wind farms killing eagles can probably be prevented, but oil and gas are will always be problematic. If we are rooting for them like for sports teams, it looks like oil/gas have 50 guys on the field to wind/solar’s 1. If it were the other way around I don’t think the drillers in North Dakota would be allowed to flare and vent tens of millions of dollars worth of natural gas without being deemed ‘negligent’. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2013, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/52 "2013-04-02T20:54:05Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > He didn’t imply it, he said it. And then in the same sentence explained exactly what he meant: that the expense came from mandated changes to the machines to make them safer for the eagles. The $500-1000 is just a filing fee, and I doubt the power company would see it as a serious expense. He implied it because because the article implied it. There were no costs listed. As an example of a mitigation cost it helps to slow down turbines at low wind events because bats don’t like high wind conditions. Bats (because of their lungs) cannot take the sudden change in pressure of a passing blade. This mitigation doesn’t interrupt the power output of turbines by any substantial amount. > [@Bricker](#): > > Oh, no doubt. And of course the key problem with oil and gas is we’re using them up faster than more oil and gas are being created, a problem that doesn’t go away no matter how much safety we mandate. for all practical purposes, we have an unlimited supply of natural gas and it’s certainly a good short term replacement for the older/dirtier coal plants. Not sure why we’re driving oil around in a pipe but that’s a different discussion. > [@Bricker](#): > > But the wind turbine people seem to have acted improperly, in that they knew they were a danger to federally protected birds but failed to obtain a take permit. And I think I know why: if they had chosen to act properly, I’m guessing they would have incurred unacceptable costs. I’m not sure you can make this statement. You can’t just pull up to a location and build a wind turbine. Anything bigger than a decorative sidewalk path requires a permit. A wind turbine is going to come with a variety of permits ranging from aviation to environmental studies and reviews. Given the number of living things on this planet there is an infinite number of combinations of problems a structure like a wind turbine could create. It could interfere with a rare fly or a gazillion other living things. I would expect one of the studies they had to provide involved bird migration issues (which is the focus of laws regarding migratory birds). This doesn’t appear to be a migratory problem. Just because they have a higher incidence rate (with one bird species) than another wind farm doesn’t mean that due-diligence wasn’t performed. It could be that there are 10 times the number of Golden Eagles in one area over another or that it takes a number of years for the birds to learn and adapt. It’s not within the capacity of the wind turbine owners to understand the environment. They can only be expected to construct them within the law and cooperate within financial reason if a problem arises. ---
**Author:** ![JLRogers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce73a5/32.png) [@JLRogers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JLRogers)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/53 "2013-04-03T11:27:37Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > There is no celebration of the failures of the environmental movement. We invented the EPA. That isn’t an excuse to spend money poorly. When an alternative energy company is estimated to fail in 6 months if we throw tax money at and we fund it anyway then it’s not a celebration when it fails in 6 months. It’s a huge WTF were the people who did this thinking? **If a bank CEO squanders hundreds of millions of dollars they are brought up before congress.** When a politician does with public money nobody blinks. This is just precious. As far as our AG is concerned bankers and other powerful members of the financial sector are a protected species. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/54 "2013-04-03T14:26:00Z")
> [@JLRogers](#): > > This is just precious. As far as our AG is concerned bankers and other powerful members of the financial sector are a protected species. what’s precious is that Congress created derivatives and Fanny Mae and then ignored the problems with both when it was brought to their attention. They own every bit of the financial mess they created. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/55 "2013-04-03T15:07:50Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > He implied it because because the article implied it. There were no costs listed. As an example of a mitigation cost it helps to slow down turbines at low wind events because bats don’t like high wind conditions. Bats (because of their lungs) cannot take the sudden change in pressure of a passing blade. This mitigation doesn’t interrupt the power output of turbines by any substantial amount. > > for all practical purposes, we have an unlimited supply of natural gas and it’s certainly a good short term replacement for the older/dirtier coal plants. Not sure why we’re driving oil around in a pipe but that’s a different discussion. > > I’m not sure you can make this statement. You can’t just pull up to a location and build a wind turbine. Anything bigger than a decorative sidewalk path requires a permit. A wind turbine is going to come with a variety of permits ranging from aviation to environmental studies and reviews. > > Given the number of living things on this planet there is an infinite number of combinations of problems a structure like a wind turbine could create. It could interfere with a rare fly or a gazillion other living things. I would expect one of the studies they had to provide involved bird migration issues (which is the focus of laws regarding migratory birds). This doesn’t appear to be a migratory problem. Just because they have a higher incidence rate (with one bird species) than another wind farm doesn’t mean that due-diligence wasn’t performed. It could be that there are 10 times the number of Golden Eagles in one area over another or that it takes a number of years for the birds to learn and adapt. > > It’s not within the capacity of the wind turbine owners to understand the environment. They can only be expected to construct them within the law and cooperate within financial reason if a problem arises. I see. But… NOW, what’s the reason for failing to seek a take permit right now? After all, even under your…er…generous interpretation, the problem is readily apparent right now. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/56 "2013-04-03T15:16:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I see. > > But… NOW, what’s the reason for failing to seek a take permit right now? After all, even under your…er…generous interpretation, the problem is readily apparent right now. I wasn’t aware they were refusing to do this? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/57 "2013-04-03T16:45:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > I wasn’t aware they were refusing to do this? Their claim – that they have not obtained or applied for one yet, but will seek a permit at some point in the future – was documented above. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/58 "2013-04-03T17:48:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Their claim – that they have not obtained or applied for one yet, but will seek a permit at some point in the future – was documented above. OK. Then everything is as it should be. The question is, if a bird hits my car do I have to have it identified and then permitted based on species? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/59 "2013-04-04T14:22:36Z")
I’ve learned that the Pegasus pipeline that burst in Arkansas was originally designed to flow the other way, to carry light crude at a rate of 65,000 barrels a day. They were forcing heavy crude (tar sands) through it at a rate of 95,000 barrels a day. Even if there turns out to be no permit or law one could point to that was violated, at some point we have to note that unsafe practices are exactly that, regardless of how your cartel captures the regulatory structure of its industry. Point being, maybe \*\*Bricker \*\*spoke too soon in saying Exxon was not negligent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/60 "2013-04-04T14:27:53Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > OK. Then everything is as it should be. The question is, if a bird hits my car do I have to have it identified and then permitted based on species? Well, my contention is that they should be applying for the permit NOW, today, this very instant. So the fact that they have not means things aren’t as they should be. Now, your car is not (so far as i can guess) killing any federally protected species. Is it? If it’s regularly killing protected birds, and you know this, then you should also be applying for a take permit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427.md?page=4)