I have previously Posted about the scam that is currently being put forth and is the rage of certain Politicians----The falsehood that Wind and Solar are "green sources" of energy and that coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power are dirty polluting sources of energy................The fact is that outside of putting solar panels on every rooftop, constructing large scale Solar Farms in our deserts and farm fields as well as placing 300-500+ foot Wind Towers on those same farms and Mountain tops is anything but green.............Not only do they provide a fraction of the reliable power of the fossil and Nuclear sources of fuel, Wind and Solar farms equally desecrate and destroy our open spaces,,,,,,,,,,,,Yes, it sucks that we have to dig out coal mines, puncture the earth for oil and gas, but those "punctures have long been with us and realistically we would not be living the advanced lives we lead today without them..................To allow Politicians of a certain Party to claim that they are "green" because they support wind towers and solar farms is to be an Ostrich----You either just don't know the real facts about energy sources or you choose to be an Ostrich----Not wanting to "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil" even though it is self-evident that the panels and wind towers are destroying open space and biodiversity on land that just yesterday, was "God's Country"..............We need our best and brightest minds to truly come up with a non-destructive, non-invasive, non-planet scarring source of energy that is truly "green" in all manner, shape and size,,,,,,,,,Not allowing Politicians to manipulate, insult and pacify us with some B.S.. rhetoric about alleged green energy that is anything but green!

 IN YOUR HEART OF HEARTS, BE, HONEST AND TRY

NOT TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT IN YOUR RESPONSE,,,,,,,,,,

ARE ANY OF THESE ENERGY SOURCES IN THE PICTURES BELOW REALLY "GREEN",,,,,,,,,,,,,,

OR, ARE THEY ALL DESTROYING OUR OPEN SPACE AND KILLING BIODIVERSITY WHEREVER THEY ARE BUILT,

DUG AND MINED?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A solar power plant in California's Mojave Desert.
Credit: Worklife Siemens/flickr

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/solar-study-sees-ecological-risks-19568

Study Sees Ecological Risks as Solar Expands

publishhed: October 19th, 2015

Solar power development is big business in sunny California, fueled by low solar panel prices and the drive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle climate change. Some biologists, however, are growing concerned that the placement of new large-scale solar power plants in the Mojave Desert may harm the biological diversity found there.

A study published Monday shows that solar power developers in California have been using mostly undeveloped desert lands with sensitive wildlife habitat as sites for new solar power installations rather than building on less sensitive, previously developed open lands.

The study, by the Carnegie Institution for Science and Stanford University, shows the ecological footprint of solar power development could grow to more than 27,500 square miles — roughly the land area of South Carolina — if the U.S. were to adopt a more ambitious climate goal. When thousands of solar panels are built in undeveloped natural areas, the panels crowd out wildlife and destroy their habitat.

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in California.
Credit: Ken Lund/flickr

“Solar takes out a lot of territory, right? It obliterates everything,” University of California-Santa Cruz ecologistBarry Sinervo, who is unaffiliated with the study, said. “There is as much plant biodiversity in the Mojave as there is in a redwood forest. The key part of this is, do we want to tile out the last largest wilderness area that we have, which is the Western desert?”

The Carnegie study found that of the 161 planned or operating utility-scale solar power developments in California, more than half have been or will be built on natural shrub and scrublands totaling about 145 square miles of land, roughly the land area of the city of Bakersfield, Calif. About 28 percent have been built on agricultural land and 15 percent have been built in developed areas.

Areas that have already been developed and have little wildlife habitat would be better suited for solar development from an ecological standpoint, said study lead author Rebecca Hernandez, a postdoctoral fellow at University of California, Berkeley, and a former ecologist at the Carnegie Institution.

Hernandez said she was surprised to find that nearly a third of solar development is occurring on former cropland, perhaps because farmers are shifting from growing crops to using their land to generate electricity. California’s devastating drought may be responsible for farmers’ shift to solar, something one of the study’s co-authors is researching in more depth.

“We see that ‘big solar’ is competing for space with natural areas,” she said. “We were surprised to find that solar energy development is a potential driver of the loss of California’s natural ecosystems and reductions in the integrity of our state and national park system.”

Finding ways to resolve conflicts between renewable energy development and ecosystem protection may be critical if the U.S. is to rely on more solar power to displace fossil energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Assuming that 500 gigawatts of solar power may be needed to meet a future climate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, Hernandez’s team found that a region of California roughly equal to the land area of South Carolina may be needed to accommodate all the new solar power plant development.

There are caveats to that, however: Though a 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal has been adopted in California, the Obama administration’s current goal for the U.S. is to cut emissions by up to 28 percent below 2005 levels within 10 years. The study also does not account for increasing solar panel efficiency over time, something that is likely to reduce the amount of land needed to generate a megawatt of solar electricity.

“In light of advancing solar energy technologies, we will need less land in 2050 to generate 1 MW (megawatt) than we do now in 2015,” Hernandez said.

Hernandez’s team found that there are more than 8,500 square miles of land throughout California that is less environmentally sensitive than desert scrubland and agricultural land that would be best suited for future solar power development.

Just as important in reducing the ecological footprint of solar power is the expected growth of rooftop solar, which allows homeowners to generate electricity on site, reducing the demand on utilities’ solar power installations, she said.

Hernandez’s research emphasizes that there are sometimes significant tradeoffs between climate and energy policy and the needs of the natural environment, Cameron Barrows, a research ecologist at the University of California-Riverside, who is unaffiliated with the study, said.

“We can’t just throw them (solar installations) across a landscape and say biological diversity be damned,” he said.

“We have to find the right places to put these things,” he said. “If you’re in Washington or Spain or France and you just see this landscape that from a satellite looks like there’s nothing there, it’s hard for them to imagine why anyone would be upset about throwing 10 or 20 square miles of glass across this (desert) to produce solar energy. There are biological riches that are part of our natural heritage that we don’t want to lose.”

----------------------------------------------------

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjO3sOv7pHWAhUniFQKHWURBxIQFghHMAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsavetheeaglesinternational.org%2Fnew%2Fus-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html&usg=AFQjCNFica8t31PXv5ZS3IQxZO0hd-Cpug

Windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought

Red kite agonizing under wind turbine, Spain.
Courtesy of association of ecologists GURELUR, Navarre.

The Obama administration is issuing 30-year permits for “taking” (killing) bald and golden eagles. The great birds will be legally slaughtered “unintentionally” by lethal wind turbines installed in their breeding territories, and in “dispersion areas” where their young congregate (e.g. Altamont Pass).


By chance (if you believe in coincidences), a timely government study claims wind farms will kill “only” 1.4 million birds yearly by 2030. This new report is just one of many, financed with taxpayers’ money, aimed at convincing the public that additional mortality caused by wind plants is sustainable. – It is not.


Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually. This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago. Altamont is the biggest sinkhole for the species, but not the only one, and industry-financed research claiming that California’s GE population is stable is but a white-wash.

Eagles are not the only victims. Smallwood also estimated that Altamont killed an average of 300 red-tailed hawks, 333 American kestrels and 380 burrowing owls annually – plus even more non-raptors, including 2,526 rock doves and 2,557 western meadowlarks.


In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.


Extrapolating that and similar (little publicized) German and Swedish studies, 39,000 U.S. wind turbines would not be killing “only” 440,000 birds (USFWS, 2009) or “just” 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats (Smallwood, 2013), but 13-39 million birds and bats every year!


However, this carnage is being covered up by self-serving and/or politically motivated government agencies, wind industry lobbyists, environmental groups and ornithologists, under a pile of misleading studies paid for with more taxpayer money.


Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand has documented how areas searched under wind turbines are still confined to 200-foot radiuses, even though modern monster turbines catapult 80% of bird and bat carcasses much further. Windfarm owners, operating under voluntary (!) USFWS guidelines, commission studies that search much-too-small areas, look only once every 30-90 days, ensuring that scavengers remove most carcasses, and ignore wounded birds that happen to be found within search perimeters.


These research protocols are designed to guarantee extremely low mortality statistics, hiding the true death tolls – and the USFWS seems inclined to let the deception continue. In addition, bird mortality data are now considered to be the property of windfarm owners, which means the public no longer has a right to know.


Nevertheless, news has leaked that eagles are being hacked to death all across America. This is hardly surprising, as raptors are attracted to wind turbines. They perch on them to rest or scan for prey. They come because turbines are often built in habitats that have abundant food (live or carrion) and good winds for gliding.

Save the Eagles International (STEI) has posted photographs of raptors perched on nacelles or nonmoving blades , and ospreys building a nest on a decommissioned turbine. Moving blades don’t deter them either: videos show a turkey vulture perched on the hub of a spinning turbine, and a griffon vulture being struck. Birds perceive areas traveled by spinning blades as open space, unaware that blade tips are moving at up to 180 mph. Many are focused on prey. These factors make wind turbines “ecological death traps,” wherever they are located.


By 2030, the United States plans to produce 20% of its electricity from wind. That’s nearly six times as much as today, from three or four times as many turbines, striking more flying creatures due to their bigger size (even the mendacious study predicting 1.4 million bird kills recognizes this). Using the higher but still underestimated level of mortality published by Smallwood in 2013, by 2030 our wind turbines would be killing over 3 million birds and 5 million bats annually.


But this is shy of reality by a factor of ten, because 90% of casualties land outside the search perimeter and are not counted. We are thus really talking about an unsustainable death toll of 30 million birds and 50 million bats a year – and more still if we factor in other hide-the-mortality tricks documented by STEI.


This carnage includes protected species that cars and cats rarely kill: eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, condors, whooping cranes, geese, bats and many others. The raptor slaughter will cause rodent populations to soar. Butchery of bats, already being decimated by White Nose Syndrome, will hammer agriculture and forestry.

The U.S. Geological Survey says the value of pest-control services to US agriculture provided by bats ranges from $3.7 billion to as much as $53 billion yearly. These chiropters also control forest pests and serve as pollinators. A Swedish study documents their attraction from as far as nine miles away to insects that swarm around wind turbines. Hence the slaughter.


Wind lobbyists claim they need “regulatory certainty.” However, eagle “take” permits will also ensure extinction certainty – and ecological, agricultural, economic, social and health disasters that we cannot afford.


Note 1: our entire webpage was destroyed. We are reconstructing it. Given time, we will put back all the articles with all the links to reference material. If you need some urgently, please advise: save.the.eagles@gmail.com
Note 2: all comentaries were also wiped out. We explain that in the comentary below.