SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AP reports that wildlife investigators who watched as birds burn and fell at the Ivanpah Dry Lake Solar Tower Plant are urging California officials to halt the operator's application to build a still-bigger version until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand "streamers" by the plant operator to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group. Those statistics haven’t curbed the enthusiasm of the Obama administration for the solar-power plant, which granted Ivanpah a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee. The deaths are "alarming. It's hard to say whether that's the location or the technology," says Garry George, renewable-energy director for the California chapter of the Audubon Society. "There needs to be some caution." Federal wildlife officials say the plant might act as a "mega-trap" for wildlife, with the bright light of the plant attracting insects, which in turn attract insect-eating birds that fly to their death in the intensely focused light rays.
The $2.2 billion plant at Ivanpah Dry Lake near the California-Nevada border is the world's biggest plant to employ so-called power towers. More than 300,000 mirrors, each the size of a garage door, reflect solar rays onto three boiler towers each looming up to 40 stories high. The water inside is heated to produce steam, which turns turbines that generate enough electricity for 140,000 homes. While biologists say there is no known feasible way to curb the number of birds killed, the companies behind the projects say they are hoping to find one — studying whether lights, sounds or some other technology would scare them away, says Joseph Desmond, senior vice president at BrightSource Energy. Power-tower proponents are fighting to keep the deaths from forcing a pause in the building of new plants when they see the technology on the verge of becoming more affordable and accessible (PDF). When it comes to powering the country's grids, "diversity of technology ... is critical," says Thomas Conroy, a renewable-energy expert. "Nobody should be arguing let's be all coal, all solar," all wind, or all nuclear. "And every one of those technologies has a long list of pros and cons."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 21 2014, @11:50AM
Actually my impression of the people fighting this solar plant is they're ultra right wing anti-environment people. They want to kill the technology and are making a mountain out of a mole hill to have the plant dismantled before anyone can even look into what's causing the issue and how it can be resolved. Same story was on the CBC last week and the comments people were leaving defied all logic. Found the story I was looking for earlier BrightSource solar plant sets birds on fire as they fly overhead [www.cbc.ca]
A few choice comments I found particularly funny and a little ironic.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by rfree on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:38PM
Btw, There is no left or right wing actually, it's an oversimplification used by powerful in political systems where idiots rule (e.g. in democracy) to trick voters.
You can have economical freedom "every man works for himself" or not "you all, you go to work and feed the poor and me!".
You can have questions of moral freedom in various aspects.
And other topics come up.
They are different issues usually.
Maybe your theory that this is a movement to stop the oil/coal-fobs is correct. That is quite funny then.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:14PM
Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment. It definitely is an oversimplification and people can be both left and right leaning on different issues, but left and right politics are a thing and it's been around for a long time. Adding "wing" just indicates the left or right stance is to the extreme. I'm definitely a moderate or centrist, with a slight left leaning, but those with a "left wing" stance see me as extreme right and can't register people more right than I am. Both sides, in the extreme, are idiots and definitely play up the us vs. them for those of us that could really go either way at the polls. Knowing that is what their doing is important to keep yourself from blindly taking one side or the other. If you pretend it doesn't exist you're leaving yourself open for manipulation.
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BasilBrush on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:31PM
There is no left or right wing actually, it's an oversimplification used by powerful in political systems where idiots rule (e.g. in democracy) to trick voters.
Of course there's a left and right wing. Ever since the term appeared in 18th century France, where the people of the two ends of the spectrum sat in the left and right wings of the house. People who watch Fox News for anything more than shits and giggles and actually agree with it are most certainly right wingers. And those that identify themselves as socialists are certainly left wing.
Left/right is most certainly one of the axis on which political opinion is identifiably arranged. The other most common one being libertarian/authoritarian.
This FUD is much the same as the "Wind Turbines cause too many bird deaths" FUD, and mostly comes from right wingers, that simply hate environmentalism on the basis that they associate it with left wing ideas. They may self identify as "conservationists", but never as environmentalists.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0, Troll) by rfree on Thursday August 21 2014, @03:17PM
While of course many issues can have opposite sides, they should be called like side 1 and 2 or A and B.
What does left mean? It's not decided (globally).
For example:
leftists - is what many people call the lazy people who want to rip income tax out working middle class as "YOU go work so that we call can feed the poor".
an opposite view is for example agorism, which says that what you earn is yours and you should pay others only if you both voluntary agreed, and rather not be forced to be king/majority/who-ever. and yet that opposite view is also called LEFT by many.
On the other hand right is often used to mean paying taxes, supporting gov and gov enforcement of various restrictions.
And yet RIGHT can also mean party (like KNP in Poland) that fights taxes (especially on income) and over-blown beurocracy and instead proposes economical freedom and free trade with minimal regulation.
So the words "left" and "right" have no clear meaning.
If you say "right" above it was mean as demonizing
- oh no you do not care about mother earth
- oh no you want to kill all the black people or something
- oh no are you from the government
- oh no do you want police to with force kick butt of all eco guys?
while to me it means many other things in some contexts.
Therefore this L/R words are quite useless.
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Thursday August 21 2014, @07:27PM
My kingdom for mod points!
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:37PM
We don't have to speculate on the basis of comments to a news story. We can read the story and find that the opposition to the project on this basis comes from "federal wildlife investigators" and the Center for Biological Diversity (take a glance at the staff [biologicaldiversity.org], does that look like ultra-right wing anti-environment people to you?).
And of course, only ultra-right wing anti-environment people would oppose a project like this on the basis that it kills a bunch of birds.