Slashdot Mirror
US Issues 30-Year Eagle-Killing Permits To Wind Industry
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Lindsay Abrams reports at Salon that the Obama administration is offering wind farms 30 years of leeway to kill and harm bald and golden eagles. The new regulations, which were requested by the wind industry, will provide companies that seek a permit with legal protection, preventing them from having to pay penalties for eagle deaths (PDF). An investigation by the Associated Press earlier this year documented the illegal killing of eagles around wind farms, the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute such cases and its willingness to help keep the scope of the eagle deaths secret. President Obama has championed the pollution-free energy, nearly doubling America's wind power in his first term as a way to tackle global warming. Scientists say wind farms in 10 states have killed at least 85 eagles since 1997, with most deaths occurring between 2008 and 2012, as the industry was greatly expanding. Most deaths — 79 — were golden eagles that struck wind turbines. However the scientists said their figure is likely to be 'substantially' underestimated, since companies report eagle deaths voluntarily and only a fraction of those included in their total were discovered during searches for dead birds by wind-energy companies. The National Audubon Society said it would challenge the decision."
I'm as green as anyone, but lordy that was some one-sided summary Hugh.
Can I at least ask for some other numbers, such as the number of bird kills resulting from pollutants dumped out by the big coal fired plants in Ohio?
Three Squirrels
There is no perfect solution here. I'm not saying companies should erect wind turbines in the middle of nesting areas, but the truth is, there is no risk-free, cost-free, environmental-damage-free answer to the problem of power production. Coal mining is wretched for the environment and coal miners have a nasty habit of dying of black lung. Nuclear power has risks (and I'm a nuclear proponent). The long-term cleanup and environmental repair is very costly if something goes wrong. Solar power is expensive. Wind turbines kill birds.
At a certain point, the question is "What's an acceptable loss ratio?"
Windmills: The Politically Correct way to kill eagles.
The simple rebuttal is that getting people from point A to point B is much more important than your frivolous sensibilities. Now it might be that CO2 is enough of a threat or oil becomes expensive enough to warrant some restructuring of transportation to reduce that.
But to complain because cars weigh only a few dozen times more than the precious cargoes they transport? I can't be bothered to care.
It's crazy.
The environmentalists don't appear to have anyone on their team who understand the amount (or even the magnitude) of the energy consumed globally to make it all work. That, or their desire for renewables is biased by an anti-capitalist desire to collapse the economy. I don't know.
Brass tacks: We need -massive- amounts of energy, we will need even more, and there are two options - hydrocarbons and nuclear.
The governments of the world should all have Manhattan-style projects to solve nuclear fusion, alternative fission reactors, and solve the battery storage problem - be it super-cap technology or something else.
Instead we waste time dicking about with windmill foolishness. Sigh.
Keep it up. Go team.
..don't panic
How about a more balanced view? How many eagles would really die? How does that compare to the dangers from CO2, from other technologies? What about the habitat ruined by oil wells, natural gas wells, fracking, etc.? It's really not at all as simplistic as this posting implies.
When we don't want to burn fossil fuel, and turn to Nuke, we end up having radioactive waste that can last very very long time.
Yes, but that can be reprocessed and reduced down to almost nothing, and what is left can be placed in double sealed barrels, stored on 6 foot thick concrete platforms raised 20 feet in the air, monitored by video cameras 24/7 posted online so everyone in the world can see they aren't leaking (and scream very loudly if they are).
Stick the barrels out in the middle of the West Texas desert and no one will bother them for 10,000 years.
You can't do that with CO2 and other crap released from burning dead dinos.
What about all the eagles killed by trucks, trains, cars and high buildings?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The *real* simplest solution is to put the stuff that lasts a Very Long Time, into a Very Deep and Stable Place.
THAT is the simplest solution. Not your fantasy of getting a few billion people to live the backwards lifestyle you won't even accede to yourself (oh wait, that was supposed to apply to you and not just the peasants?).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"The luxurious seats are stuffed with eagle down and the dashboard inlaid with the beaks of a thousand eagles. Also, there are some eagles under the floorboards."
"Do we need to turn our home into a greenhouse every winter ?"
As someone who just spent the last month with stiff joints, various other extremities issues, little sleep, etc., due to a 68 degree house in a 30 degree outside environment and now has no problems with the temperature at 78 F inside while it's minus 5 F with a blizzard going on outside I say YES!!!!!
"A much more simple way is to cut down on our wasteful lifestyle."
When self-torture is in and being wasteful isn't comfortable and fun then maybe. Until then:
Fuck off you politically correct panty waist.
I learned long ago that it's not worth fucking yourself up if you don't have too.
I doubt the birds killed vs number of structures ratio is much worse for turbines.
Also the bird kill on structure rate is about the same for human kill driving. The cause is also the same, they where both tweeting while moving at high speed.
Posting as Anonymous Coward for obvious reason.
My truck weighs 5,700lbs, or about 3 tons. You probably think that is insane. Maybe it is... but it is my right to own it because I like it...
No, it's your right to own it, because you can afford it, and don't believe in taking any personal responsibility for common resources, even when it would not decrease your quality of life (a more sensible car would actually improve your quality of life, most likely).
Because you want.
Why do we need heavy cars? Who cares? We want them. We're natural and what we want is natural. Our natural desires for comfort and safety trump your irrational desire to "save the planet"...
You, sir, are a complete and utter fucktard. Go eat a bowl of dicks.
I'm as green as anyone, but lordy that was some one-sided summary Hugh. Can I at least ask for some other numbers, such as the number of bird kills resulting from pollutants dumped out by the big coal fired plants in Ohio?
I'd be fine with the number of deaths as a percentage.
Wikipedia says (with citations) that there's 100,000 Golden Eagles in north America and that large raptorial birds suffer a 5% mortality rate per year.
By my reckoning that's 5,000 dead birds per year, 75,000 since 1997.
85 of those were due to wind turbines? That's statistical noise.
(Just like all other reports of bird deaths due to wind turbines...)
No sig today...
So why bother with the exemption. If the number is so few, what possible difference can the equally small fine really amount to. If their is concern about wind turbines and bird deaths, couldn't the result of those fines, plus additional funds be put into vertical wind turbines which are far safer and quieter.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The article offers a ray of hope that Europe might establish a process where permits are granted in three and a half years with only one court about to stop the process:
Of course imagine the outrage if this short-circuiting of the right of protest and judicial review were granted for other types of energy projects ...
The wind industry is just making itself look bad by attempting to indemnify itself, but considering the completely nuts figures jurys come up with in America, not entirely surprising.
Bald eagle pop' est 200,000, conservation status is 'least concern'.
Golden eagle pop' est 170,000 to 250,000 conservation status is 'least concern'.
Farmers, game keepers, egg collectors and tourists disturbing feeding areas are the biggest causes of bird death or nest failure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Eagle#Threats
'the Obama administration's reluctance to prosecute' Perhaps because without intent, there is actually little to prosecute for?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit Bald Eagle sitting in tree (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization. Rewards are provided for information leading to arrest and conviction for violation of the Act.
In other news (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3033412/posts), an Indiana man was charged this week with the unlawful possession of a bald eagle, which the man says he cared for and rescued from the mud pit in which it was trapped. The former Department of Natural Resources employee, Jeffrey Henry, could face up to 60 days of jail time and a $500 fine as part of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Law is the will of the powerful.
In general birds are more likely to fly into the window of a skyscraper than the blade on a large windmill. The most practical thing you can do to help birds is put a bell on your cat's collar.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Okay, I will probably be modded down for this, but it's worth saying. And for the record, I'm opposed to needlessly killing animals.
The first time I heard about eagles being killed by windmills, I imagined one being cut down while flying from point A to point B, not noticing that there was this lethal windmill in its path. Then, I saw a video on a website of an actual eagle death by windmill (and I apologize for not being able to find & post the link here) and was very surprised bu what I saw. Basically, the eagle was "dancing" with the windmill, repeatedly flying around it over and over. Like a moth flying around a flame. Eventually, the two paths intercepted, and the eagle was hit by the blade.
So part of me wanted to scream "stupid eagle!" and make the natural selection comment. But maybe there is something hypnotic going on that makes the bird want to investigate this strange whirling object?
Maybe a solution to the problem isn't to grant power companies "permits" to kill eagles, but to find a way to repel them rather than attract them.
- Mike
So why bother with the exemption. If the number is so few, what possible difference can the equally small fine really amount to.
Because killing eagles is illegal and there's thousands of the lawyers who'll just see "free money" and make people's lives miserable.
No sig today...
... vertical wind turbines which are far safer and quieter.
Turbines aren't noisy. They're not motor-driven propellers, they move *with* the air.
No sig today...
You know, I get associated with right-winged conservatives all the time (probably for good reason), but I found this article stupid, and just another effort to blame the Obama Administration for something else.
Do you have any idea how many wind turbines there are in California alone? Add to that all the wind turbines in Texas, plus all those strung out over the other 37 states that have wind power, and the fact that ONLY 85 eagles have been killed by them over 15 years is a pretty darn low number. I was expecting to read something like 100 per year. (Okay, granted, Texas isn't really the home of bald eagles)
I get it, I am a patriot, and the hearing that any eagle are killed doesn't sit too well with me. But seriously, 85 over 15 years?
How about an article saying how many animals are ALIVE from us going to windpower and reducing the amount of pollutant in the enviornment?
The Obama Administration issuing permits to wind power companies protecting them from prosecution because a bird is stupid enough to fly into a turbine sounds like a logical move to me.
Now if we were talking hundred or more birds killed a year in the same area, the argument could be made to disassemble some turbines in a given area. But these incidents sound pretty remote. The Altaria Wind Farm in California has 490 turbines. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States ). I am too lazy to go and look at how many turbines there are total near eagle nesting area, but once again, the numbers reported are really low. (The article does state though that not all deaths are reported, so I can accept that hese numbers may be higher).
Now if the poster can think of a way to get clean energy without any side effects, please tell us, and we will consider you for a Nobel Prize.
Always ignorant of their hypocrisy.
"If you don't like it, move to China" ring a bell?
Because killing eagles is illegal ...
In fact, even doing things that adversely affect their health is ill eagle.
No left turn unstoned.
Because, while it may be just "statistical noise" now, what is it going to be when wind power accounts for half (or three quarters) of our electrical need? How many wind turbines do we have now compared to how many we need? How many eagle deaths are you willing to accept?
They still make noise. It's a quiet, but persistent thunk-thunk-thunk. Just because the air moves them doesn't make them silent any more than leaves on a tree are silent in the wind.
Source: I've been around some goddamn wind turbines.
And Al Gore wants a huge mansion, because he wants one ... so you're all over him too, right?
I would be, if I were talking to him. Him being a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether it's moral to own a big truck when you don't really need one.
For what it's worth, my standard on what sized vehicle is in any way justified is the amount of stuff it carries on a regular basis: Landscaper owns a pickup so he can stick all his tools, mowers, leaf blowers, etc in the back? Fine. Software developer owns a pickup so he can feel manly when driving to work? Luxury. Soccer mom owns an SUV to haul around 4 kids all day? Fine. College girl owns SUV because mom and dad think that will make her safer than driving a sedan? Again, luxury. And actually the most virtuous thing for an office worker going to work alone would be a motorcycle, since they can put a Prius to shame in the fuel efficiency department.
So it's not a class thing. What is actually going on is that without carbon taxes, the free market doesn't price the cost of CO2 emissions into pricing, so you don't end up making economic decisions based on it. Of course, if you don't think CO2 emissions matter at all, than nothing I can write about this will move you in any way whatsoever.
I am officially gone from
When we don't want to burn fossil fuel, and turn to Nuke, we end up having radioactive waste that can last very very long time.
Waste that is relatively tiny in volume compared to that generated by fossil fuel burning power plants while at the same time being far far easier to contain. Oh, then there's the potential for the 'waste' to be used again. I'm sure there's also a reliability argument to be made against 'renewables' as well.
I agree with you on efficiency. Using less to get the same effect is never going to be a bad thing. However, efficiency alone will not solve our problems. Coal/oil/gas is still being burned to produce the electricity whether you use it or not.
By the way, about the cars, when did cars in the US start getting so much bigger than in other places?
riding motorcycles to work is too dangerous, what with all those college girls in SUVs and software developers in pickups careening about the roads.
If the Fan Industry didn't put guards on fans.......
The solution is so obvious I should not have to spell it out.
I'm afraid the SUV does make the college student safer. There was a good Consumer Reports article on it:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/suvs-are-safer-than-cars-in-front-crashes-but-there-is-more-to-the-story/index.htm
I'm not sure that would help eagles. I believe they rely on sight more than sound when finding and targeting small mammals as prey.
The most practical thing you can do to help birds is put a bell on your cat's collar.
I doubt that applies to large eagles. Though it might help them find the meal for today, in case you wanted to get rid of your cat anyways.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Preventable in what manner? If both coal power and wind power kill birds as a byproduct, what are humans supposed to do to generate electric power?
Oh really?
If you buy for fuel efficiency, you can put a smug Prius driver to shame. At a very reasonable price. Simple physics explains why: bike+rider is about 700 pounds, car+driver is about 3500 pounds, so you need much less force to move the bike, which more than offsets the less efficient engines and aerodynamics possible on bikes.
I am officially gone from
No, that's "Jerry Gallow", with a "G".
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I agree with you on the 1Hz sound being extremely unlikely to harm humans a mile away. BUT, bats flying close to the blades can die from internal injuries WITHOUT being hit by the blades-- apparently flying into the low pressure bubble just behind the turbine blade can cause blood vessels to pop in the bat's lungs.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-turbines-kill-bats
First off, it's my wife's cat.
Second, ... uh ... what size bell works the best?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Why a cowbell of course.
The local Fish & Wildlife office here in Florida has a freezer in their meeting room that is specifically for storing dead bald eagles, if they ever happen to find one in the wilderness, or if one is killed by a vehicle on the road.
I read the page of instructions of how they are to be handled and preserved, and which agency they call to collect the remains, for them to be distributed to the Native American tribes. Everything was very detailed, which was weird considering they are talking about roadkill.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Really the main advantage of the Prius or other hybrids is their in city mileage, otherwise you should get a small diesel (from europe :( ) which beat pretty much all those bikes.
Two bells.
One bell doesn't make much noise. Two bells bang together loudly. That's the experience with my cats, anyway. Cats sneak when hunting - if you want the bell to be effective when the cat is trying to be quiet, it'll have to be a constant annoyance to anyone around when the cat isn't sneaking.
I've seen a lot of collars come with decorative, silent bells.
No. Put the bells on the turbines.
Or, put those "deer whistles" on each and every blade...multiple places. Sure, It'd cost millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man hours, but what the hell, that's never stopped the EPA before.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
This is no joke. While working at a DOE energy lab, one of my coworkers was riding his motorcycle and put into a vegetative state when a teenage girl was texting and plowed into his motorcycle at speed with her SUV. I've also been onsite at DUI crashes within minutes afterwards.
We can argue all day about driving skills, vehicle weight, etc. In 10 years or so, its going to be self-driving cars for everyone, because no insurance company would ever insure a human over refined software and precision sensor packages.
Most SUV deaths are due to rollovers or loss of control, as people driving an SUV get a false sense of security.
Not antique. Still manufactured by Aermotor Windmills right here in the good old USA, and still the best way to get water out of a well in thousands upon thousands of places. http://www.aermotorwindmill.com/
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
FAIRNESS matters.
The oil inudstry where I am kills less birds than the wind farms in the area, and the amount killed by wind farms is already quite small, yet the oil industry is required by law to be fully liable for all bird deaths and must, at their own expense, install countermeadures to drive birds away from hazardous areas (scarecrows, air cannons, supersonic noise makers, etc). Even if only a few dozen birds die in a year, and even though none are endangered they are rightly held fully accountable in that respect, as are all industrial operations in my juristiction.
So, tell me why being "carbon neutral" gives a wind farm a free pass to kill animals and destroy habitat?
To get rid of the cat? I think this size should work:
http://www.capecentralhigh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/First-Presbyterian-Church-Bell-11-31-1965-10.jpg
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org