# 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:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**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, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/61 "2013-04-04T14:32:33Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > 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. Maybe; I’d be interested in learning a bit more before I agree. Specifically, by analogy I might say that a road was designed to take 22,000 cars per day at 55 mph. But that doesn’t mean it’s unsafe to drive that road at 70 mph. Or maybe it does: the question is independent of what the road was “designed for.” If the road’s curves and banking are also sufficient to handle 70 mph traffic, that’s all we care about. So I’d be interested in seeing not what the pipe was designed for, but what the design of the pipe was capable of supporting, and whether 95,000 barrels of crude per day exceeded that threshold. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/62 "2013-04-04T18:35:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. are you then contending that absent this immediate action the turbines should be shut down? > [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I have no idea if the birds who struck my car were federally protected. ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/63 "2013-04-04T18:38:12Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > are you then contending that absent this immediate action the turbines should be shut down? I’m saying the FWS should prosecute the turbine farm for violation – i doubt the penalty is shutting down, but there’s a fine involved. > [@](#): > > I have no idea if the birds who struck my car were federally protected. How many birds have you killed with your car? ---
**Author:** ![stw004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@stw004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stw004)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/64 "2013-04-04T23:03:21Z")
IME, The bulk of the costs of obtaining take permits for protected species is not tied up in cash payments to USFWS. It is mostly associated with the mitigation measures The Service will force an organization to undergo before they will issue the permit. This can range from changing the cut in speeds of the turbines to purchasing habitat mitigation acres (I’ve seen ratios as high as 10:1 for wetlands) to outfitting the entire windfarm with radar systems to detect incoming migratory birds and shut the turbines down ahead of time. All of these things are pricey, but an absolute worst case scenario would be having to move turbines that have already been installed. Posted from a mobile device ---
**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 5, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/65 "2013-04-05T03:17:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe; I’d be interested in learning a bit more before I agree. Specifically, by analogy I might say that a road was designed to take 22,000 cars per day at 55 mph. But that doesn’t mean it’s unsafe to drive that road at 70 mph. Or maybe it does: the question is independent of what the road was “designed for.” If the road’s curves and banking are also sufficient to handle 70 mph traffic, that’s all we care about. > > So I’d be interested in seeing not what the pipe was designed for, but what the design of the pipe was capable of supporting, and whether 95,000 barrels of crude per day exceeded that threshold. At this time I only have some leads; I can’t answer you directly because I don’t know either. [Here](http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/6_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_arkansas_oil_spill_partner/) is an article from Salon about the spill. Key quotes: > [@](#): > > [re the Kalamazoo spill:] While most conventional crude oils will float on water, the bitumen began sinking into the river as the diluents evaporated, leaving a sludge of submerged oil that defied traditional cleanup methods. … > > Earlier this month, the EPA ordered Enbridge, Inc., the Canadian company that owns the pipeline, to dredge sunken oil from the riverbed. The cleanup has cost more than $820 million to date and could top $1 billion once the order is carried out. > [@](#): > > [re externalized costs loophole]In a January 2011 memorandum, the IRS determined that to generate revenues for the oil spill trust fund, Congress only intended to tax conventional crude, and not tar sands or other unconventional oils. This exemption remains to this day, even though the United States moves billions of gallons of tar sands crude through its pipeline system every year. The trust fund is liable for tar sands oil spill cleanups without collecting any revenue from tar sands transport. If the fund goes broke, the American taxpayer foots the cleanup bill. > [@](#): > > tar sands pipelines pose even more risks than conventional oil. “TransCanada’s first Keystone pipeline leaked 12 times in its first 12 months,” wrote Sierra Club’s Michael Brune. “Because tar sands must be pumped at higher pressures and temperatures than conventional oil, it corrodes pipes faster. They recommend reading [The Dilbit Disaster](http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008EKH5F6) for more information about the nature of tar sands as disaster. I still can’t say for sure if Exxon was negligent in this case. But it is clear that tar sands oil is more viscous and challenging to pipe, and creates a far worse mess when it spills. My 2 cents? We are already creating an environmental disaster fracking the Bakken Shale. It isn’t going to stop, so mitigate the damage there and use the output to completely displace tar sands oil. Canadian oil sucks- they need to build a refinery in Canada and export the finished product, not build an XL pipeline. To import tar sands at all borders on negligence. And, root for wind and solar to displace as much oil as possible; dead eagles are nothing compared to what oil is doing to us. ---
**Author:** ![stw004](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@stw004](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stw004)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/66 "2013-04-05T03:43:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. It’s a safe assumption that 95% of any birds you have hit with your car are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Unfortunately, incidental take permits cannot issued for birds under MBTA. USFWS has prosecutorial discretion, and very rarely ever prosecutes indivuals for incidental take under MBTA. An Incidental Take occurs when a species is taken during the course of an activity that would otherwise be legal. (example: Driving on your commute to work and a Black-capped Vireo gets plastered to your windshield.) It should be noted, that one needn’t kill a protected species for it to be a “take”. “Take” is defined under the Endangered Species Act as either harming OR harassing 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 5, 2013, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/67 "2013-04-05T03:48:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m saying the FWS should prosecute the turbine farm for violation – i doubt the penalty is shutting down, but there’s a fine involved. and how does that help anything? > [@Bricker](#): > > How many birds have you killed with your car? 1. definitely not eagles but couldn’t tell you beyond that. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2013, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427/68 "2013-04-05T04:10:25Z")
> [@stw004](#): > > It’s a safe assumption that 95% of any birds you have hit with your car are federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Unfortunately, incidental take permits cannot issued for birds under MBTA. USFWS has prosecutorial discretion, and very rarely ever prosecutes indivuals for incidental take under MBTA. An Incidental Take occurs when a species is taken during the course of an activity that would otherwise be legal. (example: Driving on your commute to work and a Black-capped Vireo gets plastered to your windshield.) > > It should be noted, that one needn’t kill a protected species for it to be a “take”. “Take” is defined under the Endangered Species Act as either harming OR harassing a protected species. Saving the universe from co2 is not only legal but a noble activity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wind-turbine-vs-protected-eagles-who-to-root-for/654427.md?page=3)