I find it interesting that "groups" want sustainable clean energy produced in California but the same "groups" complain when land is needed to produce that energy.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_ ... 4293c.html
Brew
Solar vs Tortoises
-
reptilist
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:43 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
- Location: Eastern Arizona
- Contact:
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
Accommodating an overpopulation of human beings without harming other life forms is a difficult task. I think it is better to contribute to the brain storming of beneficial ideas than it is to indulge in cynical jabs.
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
I second the motion Terry.
Brew, I have supported protecting the tortoise from the effects of OHV use. It is ridiculous the way our public agencies allow such irresponsible use of irreplaceable habitat areas. I likewise oppose the proposed relocation of tortoises from a 5 square mile solar energy plant.
I do support the use of sustainable energy such as rooftop solar and wind generators.
What's your feeling about renewables?
Brew, I have supported protecting the tortoise from the effects of OHV use. It is ridiculous the way our public agencies allow such irresponsible use of irreplaceable habitat areas. I likewise oppose the proposed relocation of tortoises from a 5 square mile solar energy plant.
I do support the use of sustainable energy such as rooftop solar and wind generators.
What's your feeling about renewables?
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
10:01 PM PDT on Tuesday, October 19, 2010
By DAVID DANELSKI
The Press-Enterprise
The number of desert tortoises living in the path of the nation's first large-scale solar energy project on public land is proving to be more than expected.
Since the BrightSource Energy Co. broke ground Oct. 8 in northeast San Bernardino County, wildlife biologists walking ahead of heavy construction equipment on a small portion of the project site have found 17 tortoises, according to a company consultant.
RELATED
Native Americans object to energy projects
Federal biologists say they are surprised by the early numbers, because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 32 tortoises live in the entire 5.6-square-mile site. This estimate was used to support the conclusion that the development would not cause significant harm to the reptiles, a threatened species.
Further environmental analysis may be required if tortoise numbers are far higher than expected -- possibly leading to delays or changes in the project.
BrightSource spokesman Adam Eventov said the company is monitoring the tortoise situation closely.
"At this point, it's a snapshot," Eventov said. "It's too early to know how many will be moved until we spend more time in the field."
The project, in the Ivanpah Valley near Primm, Nev., is favored by the Obama and Schwarzenegger administrations because it will provide clean electricity for as many as 140,000 homes and help reduce global warming.
Story continues below
Silvia Flores/The Press-Enterprise
Biologists expected the whole solar site to have some 32 tortoises, but 17 have already been found one just one small portion of the land.
Opponents
Some environmental groups oppose the development and say renewable energy projects should be built on former farms and other land that doesn't have value as wildlife habitat.
The Ivanpah Valley is proving to be better habitat than previously believed. Surveys commissioned by BrightSource in 2007 and 2008 found only 16 tortoises within the entire 5.6 square miles, and company officials have said only a small number of tortoises would be affected.
The surveys, done by the Colorado-based CH2M Hill engineering and environmental consulting firm, were later were used by Fish and Wildlife to estimate that 32 tortoises lived in the project's footprint. The higher number took into account tortoises that may have been in underground burrows during the counts.
Based on the estimate of 32 animals, Fish and Wildlife found that the development would not "impede the survival or recovery of the desert tortoises in a measurable manner," a conclusion required for BrightSource to move forward.
The finding, called a biological opinion, will become void if more than 38 tortoises have to be relocated, said Brian Croft, a Fish and Wildlife senior biologist. If that occurs, a new analysis will be required to determine whether the project puts the species in jeopardy. A jeopardy finding could delay or limit the development.
Story continues below
Biologists working for BrightSource so far have focused on a swath being cleared for fencing around the southern third of the solar development. Tortoises found in the way are outfitted with radio transmitters for tracking before being placed outside the fence.
The 17 animals already found will not count toward the total, because they can be moved a short distance to safety, Croft said. Tortoises found in the interior of the site, farther from the fence, will have to be relocated.
Those tortoises will be held in pens for the winter and then moved to the base of the Clark Mountains northwest of the project property.
Mercy Vaughn, a lead biologist under contract to BrightSource, said various factors could have contributed to the low tortoise counts in 2007 and 2008. Among other possibilities, those surveys were done during drier weather and in spring when males are less active, she said.
Tally expected to rise
Larry LaPre, a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the area leased to the Oakland-based solar developer, said he was surprised by the early numbers and expects the tortoise count to go up.
Other biologists said the century-old creosote bushes that dominate the valley provide shade for tortoises and harbor plants the animals eat during the spring.
Environmentalists have filed a petition asking the California Energy Commission to withdraw its approval of the project. They contend the tortoises in the Ivanpah Valley have unique genetics that have allowed them to adapt to higher-altitude habitat. That trait is expected the help the species survive global warming, said Beatty, Nev., resident Kevin Emmerich, of Basin and Range Watch.
The commission is scheduled to consider the petition on Tuesday.
Reach David Danelski at 951-368-9471 or ddanelski@PE.com
By DAVID DANELSKI
The Press-Enterprise
The number of desert tortoises living in the path of the nation's first large-scale solar energy project on public land is proving to be more than expected.
Since the BrightSource Energy Co. broke ground Oct. 8 in northeast San Bernardino County, wildlife biologists walking ahead of heavy construction equipment on a small portion of the project site have found 17 tortoises, according to a company consultant.
RELATED
Native Americans object to energy projects
Federal biologists say they are surprised by the early numbers, because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 32 tortoises live in the entire 5.6-square-mile site. This estimate was used to support the conclusion that the development would not cause significant harm to the reptiles, a threatened species.
Further environmental analysis may be required if tortoise numbers are far higher than expected -- possibly leading to delays or changes in the project.
BrightSource spokesman Adam Eventov said the company is monitoring the tortoise situation closely.
"At this point, it's a snapshot," Eventov said. "It's too early to know how many will be moved until we spend more time in the field."
The project, in the Ivanpah Valley near Primm, Nev., is favored by the Obama and Schwarzenegger administrations because it will provide clean electricity for as many as 140,000 homes and help reduce global warming.
Story continues below
Silvia Flores/The Press-Enterprise
Biologists expected the whole solar site to have some 32 tortoises, but 17 have already been found one just one small portion of the land.
Opponents
Some environmental groups oppose the development and say renewable energy projects should be built on former farms and other land that doesn't have value as wildlife habitat.
The Ivanpah Valley is proving to be better habitat than previously believed. Surveys commissioned by BrightSource in 2007 and 2008 found only 16 tortoises within the entire 5.6 square miles, and company officials have said only a small number of tortoises would be affected.
The surveys, done by the Colorado-based CH2M Hill engineering and environmental consulting firm, were later were used by Fish and Wildlife to estimate that 32 tortoises lived in the project's footprint. The higher number took into account tortoises that may have been in underground burrows during the counts.
Based on the estimate of 32 animals, Fish and Wildlife found that the development would not "impede the survival or recovery of the desert tortoises in a measurable manner," a conclusion required for BrightSource to move forward.
The finding, called a biological opinion, will become void if more than 38 tortoises have to be relocated, said Brian Croft, a Fish and Wildlife senior biologist. If that occurs, a new analysis will be required to determine whether the project puts the species in jeopardy. A jeopardy finding could delay or limit the development.
Story continues below
Biologists working for BrightSource so far have focused on a swath being cleared for fencing around the southern third of the solar development. Tortoises found in the way are outfitted with radio transmitters for tracking before being placed outside the fence.
The 17 animals already found will not count toward the total, because they can be moved a short distance to safety, Croft said. Tortoises found in the interior of the site, farther from the fence, will have to be relocated.
Those tortoises will be held in pens for the winter and then moved to the base of the Clark Mountains northwest of the project property.
Mercy Vaughn, a lead biologist under contract to BrightSource, said various factors could have contributed to the low tortoise counts in 2007 and 2008. Among other possibilities, those surveys were done during drier weather and in spring when males are less active, she said.
Tally expected to rise
Larry LaPre, a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the area leased to the Oakland-based solar developer, said he was surprised by the early numbers and expects the tortoise count to go up.
Other biologists said the century-old creosote bushes that dominate the valley provide shade for tortoises and harbor plants the animals eat during the spring.
Environmentalists have filed a petition asking the California Energy Commission to withdraw its approval of the project. They contend the tortoises in the Ivanpah Valley have unique genetics that have allowed them to adapt to higher-altitude habitat. That trait is expected the help the species survive global warming, said Beatty, Nev., resident Kevin Emmerich, of Basin and Range Watch.
The commission is scheduled to consider the petition on Tuesday.
Reach David Danelski at 951-368-9471 or ddanelski@PE.com
-
gordon
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:47 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
My concern with moving these early tortoises or any for that matter to locations outside the fence is whether they will survive until they can reestablish burrows, and territories. If the areas they are moved to already have residents establishing themselves may be difficult if not impossible.
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
It's been very quiet in this forum for awhile. My post was to initiate some discussion..........even it it was slightly cynical. At least it's a topic not centered on OHV use.reptilist wrote: I think it is better to contribute to the brain storming of beneficial ideas than it is to indulge in cynical jabs.
Brew
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
I'm all for the concept of renewables, but:Sal wrote:
I do support the use of sustainable energy such as rooftop solar and wind generators.
What's your feeling about renewables?
One of the problems with rooftop solar and/or wind generators is that most folks and business's still need to be hooked up to the power grid to supply energy when the solar and wind can't.
Currently there is little capital venture money being given out for solar energy engineering. I know an engineer that works in the solar cell type power generating system industry. Last year the company she worked for closed its doors due to a lack of funding and the company she's at now is getting low on cash. One company, Solyndra, in the bay area did get a huge bundle from the government late last year or early this year. But if you look at their website http://www.solyndra.com/about-us
you will see that they manufacture LARGE systems. For power out versus $$, the large systems are more effective.
I'm not familiar enough with the steam and turbine solar generating systems to know if they are a closed water system. If not, I could see where lots of water would be needed. Water that is in scarce supply in the desert regions.
Oh well, that's a start to the discussion.
Brew
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
I share Brew's sentiment and cynicism. Like Sal, I am very much for protecting the desert tortoise. I am also for public access to public land, and combining the two of these can be a tricky business. Personally, I think dirt bikes and tortoises can get along better than large scale power plants and tortoises.
The reality of Green Energy is it's not very good for the environment. From the mining and transportation of heavy metals for batteries to the bulldozing of tortoise habitat for solar farms, the environment is heavily affected by just about every form of "green" energy. I think the main reason "green" energy is so popular is most people won't SEE the effects. You can't see the open pit mine, the bladed habitat, or the miles of power line access roads when you're on your way to Starbucks. It's politically-driven feel-good environmentalism, and it sells like hot cakes.
Wanna be green? I mean REALLY green? The roof top solar panels Sal mentioned are a good suggestion. Only trouble is the power companies can't make money that way, and that's what the green in Green Energy is really all about.
Tortoise Fun
In the article Sal posted, it was found that the number of tortoises originally thought to be in the 5.6 square mile area was actually only half of what a later study discovered. I wonder if this is true for the rest of the Mojave, that the actual number of tortoises could be double what we think? This certainly can't be the case, but it is a bit thought provoking!
Lee
The reality of Green Energy is it's not very good for the environment. From the mining and transportation of heavy metals for batteries to the bulldozing of tortoise habitat for solar farms, the environment is heavily affected by just about every form of "green" energy. I think the main reason "green" energy is so popular is most people won't SEE the effects. You can't see the open pit mine, the bladed habitat, or the miles of power line access roads when you're on your way to Starbucks. It's politically-driven feel-good environmentalism, and it sells like hot cakes.
Wanna be green? I mean REALLY green? The roof top solar panels Sal mentioned are a good suggestion. Only trouble is the power companies can't make money that way, and that's what the green in Green Energy is really all about.
Tortoise Fun
In the article Sal posted, it was found that the number of tortoises originally thought to be in the 5.6 square mile area was actually only half of what a later study discovered. I wonder if this is true for the rest of the Mojave, that the actual number of tortoises could be double what we think? This certainly can't be the case, but it is a bit thought provoking!
Lee
-
Desertroad
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:57 pm
- anti-spam detector: No
- The middle number please (4): 4
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
When I first read the Press Enterprise article, I then read the reader comments.
I was on the floor peeing my pants laughing that someone posted under the user name "Miranda Veracruz de la Hoya Cardenal"
Just too damn funny!
Currently, I am against the construction of large-scale solar power facilities in the California desert. I agree with the position that solar power could be built on urban and other previously developed lands. There are serious infrastructure issues with doing that on a scale large enough to meet the demands in Southern California, however.
I am of the opinion that the existing business models of many power companies are flawed. At the same time, I am against government-run power - maybe - a little. I do feel strongly that critical infrastructure like power generating facilities should be public, kinda like Fire and Police departments, but the two-party system pervading all levels of our public institutions is too dysfunctional to be trusted with critical infrastructure.
Hmmm...big energy too greedy, government too broken. What are we to do?
Voting Libertarian and Green Party by absentee ballot via pony express from my wigwam may be the only recourse for this old rascal... (sigh)
Desertroad
(No - I do not really have a Wigwam...)
I was on the floor peeing my pants laughing that someone posted under the user name "Miranda Veracruz de la Hoya Cardenal"
Just too damn funny!
Currently, I am against the construction of large-scale solar power facilities in the California desert. I agree with the position that solar power could be built on urban and other previously developed lands. There are serious infrastructure issues with doing that on a scale large enough to meet the demands in Southern California, however.
I am of the opinion that the existing business models of many power companies are flawed. At the same time, I am against government-run power - maybe - a little. I do feel strongly that critical infrastructure like power generating facilities should be public, kinda like Fire and Police departments, but the two-party system pervading all levels of our public institutions is too dysfunctional to be trusted with critical infrastructure.
Hmmm...big energy too greedy, government too broken. What are we to do?
Voting Libertarian and Green Party by absentee ballot via pony express from my wigwam may be the only recourse for this old rascal... (sigh)
Desertroad
(No - I do not really have a Wigwam...)
Re: Solar vs Tortoises
Sal said, "Brew, I have supported protecting the tortoise from the effects of OHV use. It is ridiculous the way our public agencies allow such irresponsible use of irreplaceable habitat areas. I likewise oppose the proposed relocation of tortoises from a 5 square mile solar energy plant."
This brings to mind the Fort Irwin expansion, where 110,000 acres (if I remember correctly) of prime tortoise habitat was turned over to the Army so they could plow through it with tanks. When the "experts" did the tortoise relocation, many of the animlas were promptly eaten by coyotes in the new habitat (which was inferior to where they had been before). Be it large scale solar plants or tanks, the end result is destroyed habitat.
Lee
This brings to mind the Fort Irwin expansion, where 110,000 acres (if I remember correctly) of prime tortoise habitat was turned over to the Army so they could plow through it with tanks. When the "experts" did the tortoise relocation, many of the animlas were promptly eaten by coyotes in the new habitat (which was inferior to where they had been before). Be it large scale solar plants or tanks, the end result is destroyed habitat.
Lee