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.
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."
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.
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.
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:
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 (PDF warning):
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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’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.