Re: Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works Shooting for 100 MW Fusion Prototype by 2017

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/22/2013 6:19 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF:
> http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/02/lockheed-martins-skunk-works-shooting-for-100-mw-fusion-prototype-by-2017/
>
> [excerpt quote="
> He says they hope to be able to create a 100 MW prototype plant in
> five years and in ten years hope to build a commercial 100 MW plant,
> which he says is decades ahead of the projections of the ITER project.
> At this point, however, Chase does not mention whether they have been
> able to achieve a thermonuclear reaction.
> " /]
>
> YES! How awesome would that be?
>
I have been reading about fusion power since about the early 1960's, and
it has always been '20 years away', and still IS, 50 years later. It's
much like artificial intelligence, and reliable speech recognition.
Always seems to fade into the future, never here, and now. I'll believe
it when it lights my lights, and runs my car.
]

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
2/22/2013 6:05 PM:

True, just like I'll believe a lot of the stem cell hype once I see a
cure for baldness :)

As to the link, sure, as the speaker clearly indicated, it's been tossed
around since the early 50s; however, things change. If one is to believe
the speaker, they are making progress moving from the massive tokamak
reactor to a compact fusion one. This looks a lot more scientifically
plausible than either solar or wind technology and, of course, a lot
more environmentally friendly than oil or coal.

Will it happen? I can't say but I can say I'm encouraged.

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://www.projectit.com/

[Ron Hunter]

Texas gets about 11% of its electricity from wind power. I would call
that plausible. Really, all they need to do is ring Dallas with
windturbines, and the hot air could power the whole country! Grin.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/23/2013 2:34 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/23/2013 12:41 AM:

> One of it's primary proponents no longer thinks so:
> http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/262097-pickens-sells-stake-in-wind-farm
>
>
> Also, as to environmentally-friendly, you've apparently not seen too
> many wind turbine farms. Not only are they a blight on the landscape,
> they are the equivalent to a Veg-A-Matic when it comes to bird migrations.
>
More birds are killed by cats than by wind farms. Note that the areas
where they are located aren't really large bird habitats, except for
vultures. The problem with most wind farms is that they are located far
from where the electricity is needed, and the cost of power lines is
very high. Compared with hydroelectric power, they are cheap to build,
and maintain, and FAR less impact on ecology.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/23/2013 6:55 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/23/2013 4:23 PM:

> Cats don't kill very many migratory birds, methinks. Also, Pickens got
> out, saying that he lost he a$$ in wind energy. He's no longer a
> proponent for very good reasons, imo.
>
He is out for quick profits, not clean energy. Right now, the federal
subsidy is due to run out (or has already), and if Congress doesn't get
off their dead asses and DO something, lots of other things will come to
a screeching halt as well.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/24/2013 12:49 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/24/2013 1:07 AM:

> Puhleeaase! Wind power will always be a niche energy supplier since
> it'll never supply the type/amount of energy to power anything more than
> a small percentage of power to the grid needed for even a small
> community. It's also dependent on a capricious resource,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrOqRQQ9mg . And, for all that, this is
> the beautiful aesthetic we're presented with:
> http://groffoto.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/palm-25-2.jpg
>
> As far as the budget sequestration BS being thrown about, I can't
> believe that you, YOU of all people are buying into that claptrap about
> grinding the country to a halt:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/
>
>
It seems to have caused a lot of investors to buy into the idea. And,
in Texas, we don't out the windmills that close together, we have a LOT
of space.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/24/2013 2:28 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/24/2013 12:24 PM:

> Even in the great state of Texas, wind power will never almost to more
> than the low teens in terms of total energy supply.
>
The plan is to hit 20%. We shall see. OF course, loss of a federal
subsidy makes it less attractive for profit oriented companies. I have
noticed fewer trucks carrying windmill parts through the area lately,
though. The closest significant windfarm is west of Denton, and may
have been completed by now. Others are much farther west.

[James Silverton]

On 2/24/2013 3:28 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/24/2013 12:24 PM:

> Even in the great state of Texas, wind power will never almost to more
> than the low teens in terms of total energy supply.
>

Once in Hawaii, I was puzzled by hearing a clanking sound and the answer
was that there was a line of windmills on a nearby ridge. There is a
presumption that windmills are silent; these weren't!


--

James Silverton ( NOT not.jim.silverton)

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what James Silverton graced us with on
2/24/2013 1:25 PM:

Also very true.

[Ron Hunter]

I have never been that close to one, but even at a distance, there is a
'whoop' sound as the blades go by. Note that properly designed blades
wouldn't 'clank'.

[Ron Hunter]

Nothing that interrupts the airflow on that large a scale is going to be
silent, but clanking noises indicate something loose, which shouldn't
happen.

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Sailfish" <NIXCAPS...@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com>

>> Nothing that interrupts the airflow on that large a scale is going to be
>> silent, but clanking noises indicate something loose, which shouldn't
>> happen.
>>

> Could be. My guess is that they have less maintenance oversight than other
> energy-producing systems. Many of the ones I saw while driving through the
> area I depicted in the picture above had their props feathered.
>

A case of "Do as I say and not do as I do" ?

Your words...

"Whatever. If so, what you were discussing was off-topic; whereas, my
response was on-topic. It would be helpful to affix the "OT:" prefix in
the future if you want your response to be clearly understood as to
being a tangent to the current topic or, of course, start another thread."


--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/24/2013 8:15 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/24/2013 5:20 PM:

> Could be. My guess is that they have less maintenance oversight than
> other energy-producing systems. Many of the ones I saw while driving
> through the area I depicted in the picture above had their props feathered.
>

They really should last for years with minimal maintenance, but anything
mechanical will wear, and, eventually, break. They will also 'feather'
should the wind become too strong. That might happen near here today as
we expect gusts to 50mph.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/24/2013 11:47 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what David H. Lipman graced us with on
> 2/24/2013 7:16 PM:

>> From: "Sailfish" <NIXCAPS...@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com>
>>
>>>> Nothing that interrupts the airflow on that large a scale is going
>>>> to be silent, but clanking noises indicate something loose, which
>>>> shouldn't happen.
>>>>
>>> Could be. My guess is that they have less maintenance oversight than
>>> other energy-producing systems. Many of the ones I saw while driving
>>> through the area I depicted in the picture above had their props
>>> feathered.
>>
>> A case of "Do as I say and not do as I do" ?
>>
>> Your words...
>>
>> "Whatever. If so, what you were discussing was off-topic; whereas, my
>> response was on-topic. It would be helpful to affix the "OT:" prefix in
>> the future if you want your response to be clearly understood as to
>> being a tangent to the current topic or, of course, start another
>> thread."
>>

> Not at all, notice that I don't get all terse, cryptic and pedantic
> (aka, pissy-like) under similar circumstances, as in:
>
> Your words...
>
> "Fission Sapiens have done. Fusion has not been fully accomplished for
> any sustained period.
>
> Therefore what you posted is irrelevant."
>
These days, 'sustained period' is on the order of milliseconds. Grin.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/25/2013 4:07 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/24/2013 11:46 PM:

> In the instances I noticed there wasn't much wind at all, at least down
> on the highway level. Maybe there's some minimum wind velocity threshold
> setting that must be met before it's worth the cost of unfeathering them?
>
> Dunno.
>
It's a pretty low threshold. I have seen them turning happily when
there was no noticeable wind at ground level. Of course, there is a
speed limiter as well so they don't tear themselves apart in high
winds... I suspect that there is also a gearbox that multiplies the
speed to turn the generator faster.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

2/25/2013 3:06 PM:

That's what I would have thought which is why I scratched my head seeing
many of them feathered in such normal wind conditions.

[Ron Hunter]

Maybe the just didn't need the power that day. Energy management keeps
reserve generating capacity available at the flip of a switch. Some
generating stations are shut down for maintenance at any given time, and
other resources are brought online. In Texas, this is handled by a
group called ERCOT which manages the power generation resources for the
state.

[The Real Bev]

On 02/22/2013 07:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> True, just like I'll believe a lot of the stem cell hype once I see a
> cure for baldness :)

Baldness is supposed to be a sign of virility. And you want to CURE it?

--
Cheers, Bev
_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_|-_
When you stop bitching, you start dying.

[The Real Bev]

On 02/23/2013 12:34 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/23/2013 12:41 AM:

>>
>> Texas gets about 11% of its electricity from wind power. I would call
>> that plausible. Really, all they need to do is ring Dallas with
>> windturbines, and the hot air could power the whole country! Grin.
>>

> One of it's primary proponents no longer thinks so:
> http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/262097-pickens-sells-stake-in-wind-farm
>
> Also, as to environmentally-friendly, you've apparently not seen too
> many wind turbine farms. Not only are they a blight on the landscape,
> they are the equivalent to a Veg-A-Matic when it comes to bird migrations.

The first one I saw was near Tehachapi. We were riding our motorcycles
in the hills and came upon this totally astounding sight. Just us,
hundreds of these monsters, and the whoosh whoosh whoosh sounds they
made. I love them.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=tehachapi,+ca&hl=en&ll=35.051886,-118.390818&spn=0.025295,0.041714&sll=34.184471,-118.131809&sspn=0.204485,0.33371&t=h&hnear=Tehachapi,+Kern,+California&z=15

Do they still call it the Skunk Works and is it still in Burbank?

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what The Real Bev graced us with on
2/26/2013 9:11 PM:

Yes but it's the official alias for Advance Development Programs (nee,
Advance Development Projects).

Lockheed Aircraft left Burbank years ago soon thereafter bought out
Martin-Marietta and is now called Lockheed Martin. Most of the white
programs went to Georgia and the black programs (ADP) went to Palmdale.

REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Corporation

[excerpt TMI="
*Lockheed Corporation*

The Alco Hydro-Aeroplane Company was established in San Francisco in
1912 by the brothers Allan and Malcolm Loughead. In 1916, the company
was renamed the Loughead Aircraft Manufacturing Company and relocated to
Santa Barbara, California. 1916 was also the year that then 20-year-old
Santa Barbara native Jack Northrop became interested and took his first
job in aviation working as a draftsman for the Loughead Aircraft
Manufacturing Company. The company proceeded to design and construct the
Model F-1 seaplane, which debuted on March 29, 1918, and set the
American non-stop record for seaplane flight by flying from Santa
Barbara to San Diego.
" /]

[The Real Bev]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/2367134530/in/set-72157604271787610/lightbox/

Shows the camouflage on the Burbank plant. Allen lived nearby in 1947,
at which time it was still up.

--
Cheers. Bev
==========================================================
It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament
to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they
met too much resistance.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/26/2013 11:04 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 07:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>
>> True, just like I'll believe a lot of the stem cell hype once I see a
>> cure for baldness :)
>
> Baldness is supposed to be a sign of virility. And you want to CURE it?
>

Not a problem here.

[Ron Hunter]

Well, the survivors of those flocks will be the ones with sense enough
to not fly too low, and next generation will not have the problem.
Animal populations are pretty adaptable.

[Daniel]

The Real Bev wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 07:27 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>
>> True, just like I'll believe a lot of the stem cell hype once I see a
>> cure for baldness :)
>
> Baldness is supposed to be a sign of virility. And you want to CURE it?

Did you hear the joke about the different forms of male baldness??

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:19.0)
Gecko/20100101 SeaMonkey/2.16 Build identifier: 20130207001007

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

2/27/2013 12:17 AM:

REF:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny

[excerpt quote=\"
*Eagle death at Nevada wind farm brings federal scrutiny*

A single dead eagle could spell trouble for a White Pine County wind
farm that sells power to NV Energy.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an investigation after
a golden eagle was killed in late February at the Spring Valley Wind
Farm, about 300 miles north of Las Vegas.

San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, which owns the 152-megawatt wind
energy project, reported the dead bird and turned it over to federal
authorities within 36 hours of its discovery.

�They did all the things they were supposed to because of an eagle
death,� said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife
Service in Nevada.

Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it
does not hold a federal �take� permit that would allow the incidental
death of a golden or bald eagle.
\" /]

It won't take too many more of these types flock-thinning episodes to
put the big kabosh on future growth plans of the wind power industry,
methinks.

[Mark Filipak]

On 2013/3/26 2:02 PM, Sailfish wrote:
-snip-

> [excerpt quote=\" *Eagle death at Nevada wind farm brings federal
> scrutiny*
>
> A single dead eagle could spell trouble for a White Pine County wind
> farm that sells power to NV Energy.
>
> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an investigation
> after a golden eagle was killed in late February at the Spring Valley
> Wind Farm, about 300 miles north of Las Vegas.
>
> San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, which owns the 152-megawatt wind
> energy project, reported the dead bird and turned it over to federal
> authorities within 36 hours of its discovery.
>
> �They did all the things they were supposed to because of an eagle
> death,� said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife
> Service in Nevada.
>
> Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it
> does not hold a federal �take� permit that would allow the incidental
> death of a golden or bald eagle. \" /]
>
> It won't take too many more of these types flock-thinning episodes to
> put the big kabosh on future growth plans of the wind power industry,
> methinks.

There's good reason to be very skeptical of these types of reports. I doubt that this eagle collided with the blade of a wind turbine. After all, the blade is 'riding' the wind just as the eagle is 'riding' the wind. Those blades do not turn fast. They are no more dangerous to birds than are the branches of trees. I have no doubt that, when the full story is heard, the owner of the wind farm will not be found liable.
--
The Insect Hall of Fame:
Thunderbird Bug 121947 - 11 years and counting.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on
3/26/2013 11:19 AM:

REF:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny

[excerpt quote=\"

In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than
203 birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.
\" /]

Why *very* skeptical? From that same article, the developers
acknowledged the as many as 400 flying critters would die each year?

[»Q«]

> “They did all the things they were supposed to because of an eagle
> death,” said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife

> Service in Nevada.
>
> Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it

> does not hold a federal “take” permit that would allow the incidental

> death of a golden or bald eagle.
> \" /]
>
> It won't take too many more of these types flock-thinning episodes to
> put the big kabosh on future growth plans of the wind power industry,
> methinks.

One eagle isn't a big deal.

In 2007, the Altamont wind farm was killing over a thousand raptors a
year, including seventy golden eagles.[1] That was kind of a big deal,
and under pressure from the Audubon Society and others, they agreed to
a mitigation plan that involves newer, more bird-friendly turbines and
better placement. I think the work is ongoing.

1
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/green-energy/4222351

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 3/26/2013
12:18 PM:

1 does not make a trend, agreed, but if a trend does develop; especially
for federally-protected Aves class animals, I suspect public pressure
will weigh very heavily expanding this energy alternative.

Additionally, having to pay our $200K a pop at a couple/year may be able
to written off as CODB but more than that and things get a but more
problematic.

[Ron Hunter]

Oh, yes, shut down 10% of the power source in the state because of one
eagle.. Sounds like good thinking...

[Ron Hunter]

Birds, even predatory ones, aren't near the top of the animal
intelligence pyramid. I have seen dozens of dead birds because they ate
mulberries that had fermented in the Texas heat, and became intoxicated,
and flew headlong into buildings.
So, we should take down all the buildings, and live underground, and get
rid of mulberry trees. Makes the same kind of sense.

[Ron Hunter]

They don't care, the consumer pays for it....

[GerardJan]

That is the way Navaho indians live(d), in a hole in the ground, that is what I
have seen in Tucson...

sincerely

sincerely

--
~gertjan
http://vinkestijn.info
mailto:g.j.f.vi...@hotmail.es
home:http://www.ciudadpatricia.com
Fedora Linux Version 18

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/26/2013 1:01 PM:

Not so, they sell their power to the companies that own the grid at
whatever the prevailing rate is. If the prevailing rate doesn't cover
the costs of producing the wind power, tough love for the wind farmers.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/26/2013 12:56 PM:

I never suggested that.

[Ron Hunter]

It is implied by the fine being so high. Imagine if a whole flock of
eagles flew into the side of a building in Seattle. Would they fine
them several million dollars? I doubt it. As for smaller birds, I am
sure predation by cats accounts for more birds than all the windmills in
Texas.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/26/2013 2:12 PM:

Your words:

"Oh, yes, shut down 10% of the power source in the state because of one
eagle.. Sounds like good thinking..."

Your words showing where I even remotely suggesting what you wrote?
Crickets.

[Mark Filipak]

After reading the Las Vegas Review-Journal article, I'm still very skeptical. The picture caption says: "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife is conducting a criminal investigation", but Mr. Brean's text leaves out the word "criminal". I sincerely doubt it's a criminal investigation. If the lawyers are involved - and why wouldn't they? - then Fish & Game's Office of Law Enforcement would be involved. That doesn't mean much. The decider is going to be the federal judge who okayed the project last year. I think we can relax and allow the lawyers to work it out. Environmental protection means protecting the environment. There may be some costs, but it's what the people and the Congress have mandated. The alternative costs, even if they can't be measured in dollars, are just too high.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on

3/26/2013 2:57 PM:

So, now you're changing your skepticism from "eagle colliding with
turbine" to skepticism over the "criminality of the occurrence"? Surely,
you're not suggesting that killing a bald or golden eagle isn't a
criminal offense, right? If we agree on that, then there appears to be
exceptions made if, as Mr. Brean states:

"Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it

*does not hold a federal 'take' permit* that would allow the incidental
death of a golden or bald eagle." {emphasis mine}

The way I read it is they broke the law if they hadn't acquired a
federal 'take' permit; irrespective of their culpability in the event.

[clay]

They just buy the permit to avoid the fine... something they should have
already done. Clearly someone didn't do their homework.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 3/26/2013
3:19 PM:

While I'm not familiar with the permit process, I suspect there's more
to it than, say, applying for a fishing permit. I suspect there are a
couple of bureaucratic approval levels that need to be signed off on. As
I recall, not even native Indians are allowed to hunt bald & golden eagles.

[Mark Filipak]

On 2013/3/26 6:14 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on
> 3/26/2013 2:57 PM:
>> On 2013/3/26 3:11 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with

-snip-

>> After reading the Las Vegas Review-Journal article, I'm still very
>> skeptical. The picture caption says: "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife is
>> conducting a criminal investigation", but Mr. Brean's text leaves
>> out the word "criminal". I sincerely doubt it's a criminal
>> investigation. If the lawyers are involved - and why wouldn't they?
>> - then Fish & Game's Office of Law Enforcement would be involved.
>> That doesn't mean much. The decider is going to be the federal
>> judge who okayed the project last year. I think we can relax and
>> allow the lawyers to work it out. Environmental protection means
>> protecting the environment. There may be some costs, but it's what
>> the people and the Congress have mandated. The alternative costs,
>> even if they can't be measured in dollars, are just too high.
>
> So, now you're changing your skepticism from "eagle colliding with
> turbine" to skepticism over the "criminality of the occurrence"?
> Surely, you're not suggesting that killing a bald or golden eagle
> isn't a criminal offense, right? If we agree on that, then there
> appears to be exceptions made if, as Mr. Brean states:
>
> "Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because
> it *does not hold a federal 'take' permit* that would allow the
> incidental death of a golden or bald eagle." {emphasis mine}

That is Mr. Brean's notion, not news. Brean is practicing "creative reportage." Some could say he's pandering to the alarmists.

> The way I read it is they broke the law if they hadn't acquired a
> federal 'take' permit; irrespective of their culpability in the
> event.

I doubt that a 'take' permit is actually in the law. It sounds like a workaround so companies can get dispensation.

[»Q«]

> >>> “They did all the things they were supposed to because of an eagle
> >>> death,” said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish and

> >>> Wildlife Service in Nevada.
> >>>
> >>> Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000

> >>> because it does not hold a federal “take” permit that would allow

> >>> the incidental death of a golden or bald eagle.
> >>> \" /]
> >>>
> >>> It won't take too many more of these types flock-thinning
> >>> episodes to put the big kabosh on future growth plans of the wind
> >>> power industry, methinks.
> >>>
> >> Oh, yes, shut down 10% of the power source in the state because of
> >> one eagle.. Sounds like good thinking...
> >>
> > I never suggested that.
>
> It is implied by the fine being so high.

The story implies there may be no fine at all. Sound like good
thinking?

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on

3/26/2013 3:36 PM:

And your response above is your opinion which, I might add, provides no
evidence to support your claim and even goes to the extreme of stating
that it's not even part of the law:

REF: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/permits/

[excerpt quote=\"
/Incidental take permits/ are required when non-Federal activities will
result in take of threatened or endangered species. A habitat
conservation plan or "HCP" must accompany an application for an
incidental take permit. The habitat conservation plan associated with
the permit ensures that the effects of the authorized incidental take
are adequately minimized and mitigated.
\" /]

Time used to find: less than 30 seconds.

[»Q«]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:14:03 -0700
Sailfish <NIXCAPS...@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on
> 3/26/2013 2:57 PM:
> > On 2013/3/26 3:11 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> >> My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with
> >> on 3/26/2013 11:19 AM:
> >>> On 2013/3/26 2:02 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> >>> -snip-
> >>>> [excerpt quote=\" *Eagle death at Nevada wind farm brings federal
> >>>> scrutiny*
> >>>>
> >>>> A single dead eagle could spell trouble for a White Pine County
> >>>> wind farm that sells power to NV Energy.
> >>>>
> >>>> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an investigation
> >>>> after a golden eagle was killed in late February at the Spring
> >>>> Valley Wind Farm, about 300 miles north of Las Vegas.
> >>>>
> >>>> San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, which owns the 152-megawatt
> >>>> wind energy project, reported the dead bird and turned it over
> >>>> to federal authorities within 36 hours of its discovery.
> >>>>

> >>>> “They did all the things they were supposed to because of an
> >>>> eagle death,” said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish

> >>>> and Wildlife Service in Nevada.
> >>>>
> >>>> Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000

> >>>> because it does not hold a federal “take” permit that would

They may or may not have been required to get a permit. The guidance
at the FWS site indicates that you need a permit if you are building a
wind turbine project within three miles of a nest, because the project
may cause "non-purposeful take". If no nest is that close, then you are
not required to get a permit, but you have to contact FWS if you ever
accidentally kill an eagle or if eagles subsequently build a nest
within three miles.

<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/EaglePermits/baeatake/wind2.html>

<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/EaglePermits/baeatake/wind3yes.html>

<http://www.fws.gov/midwest/MidwestBird/EaglePermits/baeatake/wind3no.html>

If they didn't need one before, I guess they'll need one now that their
operation has caused a take.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 3/26/2013
4:21 PM:

So, presumably, that may be what the investigation is all about, to
determine if none of those turbines were built within 3 miles of a nest
(and, perhaps, to determine if one was, was it there before the turbines
were built)?

[Ron Hunter]

How about your last statement?

It won't take too many more of these types flock-thinning episodes to
>>>>> put the big kabosh on future growth plans of the wind power industry,
>>>>> methinks.
>>>>>

And that was sarcasm.

[Ron Hunter]

We have entirely too many people who think that that animals have more
rights than people. Holding up dam construction to bring a better
standard of living to millions, because it might cause a 2 inch fish to
become extinct, is just plain DUMB.

[Ron Hunter]

If you kill it INTENTIONALLY, as in shooting, trapping, or beating it to
death, then yes, it would be criminal, but to fine you $200,000 because
the dumb bird flew into the side of your house is pretty ridiculous.

[Ron Hunter]

I believe they can in Alaska, to a limited extent.

[Ron Hunter]

I wonder who they fine if the bird just flew into a tree and broke its neck?

[Ron Hunter]

Sounds like more government bureaucracy to me. And WE pay for it.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/26/2013 5:50 PM:

Nope, "too many more" sounds like "this one PLUS others" no?

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
3/26/2013 5:52 PM:

Having seen both Washington State clear-cut forests and wind farm
hilltops turned into environmental blight, I prefer solutions that leave
the scenery of our country as beautiful for the next generations as it
was for ours. Nuclear and other emerging technologies are much better
sources for, reliable and higher energy density in addition to
minimizing the impact on our environment.

[»Q«]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:58:30 -0500

I wonder what makes you wonder that.

[»Q«]

We pay for it because we think it's a good idea to protect the eagles.
If you find it unpalatable, you can always let your representatives
in Congress know that you'd like to have the Golden and Bald Eagle
Protection Act repealed.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
3/26/2013 5:53 PM:

Not if you built your twirling house within 3 miles of a nest and didn't
apply for a 'take permit'. Hello? They are birds of prey! They forage
for food from high and it shouldn't be held against them that they were
too dumb to know what a twirling house is.

[»Q«]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:53:28 -0500
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:

> On 3/26/2013 5:14 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> > My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on
> > 3/26/2013 2:57 PM:
> >> On 2013/3/26 3:11 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> >>> My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with
> >>> on 3/26/2013 11:19 AM:
> >>>> On 2013/3/26 2:02 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> >>>> -snip-
> >>>>> [excerpt quote=\" *Eagle death at Nevada wind farm brings
> >>>>> federal scrutiny*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A single dead eagle could spell trouble for a White Pine County
> >>>>> wind farm that sells power to NV Energy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an
> >>>>> investigation after a golden eagle was killed in late February
> >>>>> at the Spring Valley Wind Farm, about 300 miles north of Las
> >>>>> Vegas.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, which owns the 152-megawatt
> >>>>> wind energy project, reported the dead bird and turned it over
> >>>>> to federal authorities within 36 hours of its discovery.
> >>>>>

> >>>>> “They did all the things they were supposed to because of an
> >>>>> eagle death,” said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish

> >>>>> and Wildlife Service in Nevada.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000

> >>>>> because it does not hold a federal “take” permit that would

They didn't build a house; they built a lot of wind turbines.

And no one has threatened them with a $200,000 fine. That number
appears in the story because it's the maximum fine allowed by law for
an organization convicted of a misdemeanor. Note that there's no
indication from the government that a misdemeanor charge is coming, let
alone that they'd seek the maximum fine for one.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/26/2013 5:58 PM:

Simple. Whoever swung the tree at it. :_)

[»Q«]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:29:19 -0700

Sailfish <NIXCAPS...@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 3/26/2013 5:56 PM:

> >> signed off on. As I recall, not even native Indians are (s/b
> >> aren't) allowed to hunt bald & golden eagles.

> >>
> > I believe they can in Alaska, to a limited extent.
> >

> I know some can acquire and keep the features ... I'm not sure they
> are allowed to hunt the eagle, though?

No hunting. They can't even collect feathers in the wild. (I guess
allowing that would encourage disturbing nests).

They can get dead eagles and eagle parts from the Federal Eagle
Repository in Colorado, which is probably where the carcase in the
story was sent. Waiting lists are long.

More recently, like in the last 5-10 years, tribes have been
establishing their own aviaries (with permits, of course), dedicated to
rehabilitating injured animals, which give them a more convenient
source of feathers &c.

I'm sorry, I didn't save the links for all this; it's stuff I ran
across this afternoon.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 3/26/2013

9:13 PM:

Okay, thanks. The no hunting part jells with my last reading of the
subject (also never saving any links to it.)

[Ron Hunter]

So, how many would it take? If the maximum fine were imposed for each
of 5 such incidents, the windmill farm would suffer quite a monetary
loss, to no benefit for the eagles...
While eagles fill a useful niche in the ecology of a region, they aren't
the only type of bird that serves that same purpose. There are very few
eagles in my area, but plenty of other predatory birds that hunt the
same prey.

[Ron Hunter]

I agree, for some environments, but they don't do any harm to the rather
ugly scenery in parts of Texas, with stark mesas, and wide open,
treeless vistas. Probably why Texas leads the country in wind power.

[Ron Hunter]

Well, they seem to want to fine someone because a bird was dumb enough
to fly into a windmill.. Birds are usually smarter than that.

[Ron Hunter]

Protection is one thing, but outrageous fines are pretty much a way to
take money from people who earned it, rather than a reasonable way to
protect the eagles.

[Ron Hunter]

Saving links is great, but they go stale after a while, like old bread...

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/27/2013 12:10 AM:

Who's to say. It would depend on circumstances and the subsequent furor
from the public.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/27/2013 12:13 AM:

It doesn't seem like rows and rows of metal windmills would be a more
aesthetic view, maybe if they could surround them with humongous theme
and water parks?

[Ron Hunter]

Well, Texas is rather large, and the areas where most of the windfarms
are isn't exactly scenic, unless you like brown, treeless, expanses
interrupted by flat mesas, stretching for hundreds of miles. I have
some pictures, if you are interested in that kind of thing... The
windmills are more aesthetic than the landscape, at least in my opinion.
Windmills aren't new. Holland has had them for about 1000 years, and at
one time, had over 1000 of them.

[Daniel]

Sailfish wrote:

<Snip>

> REF:
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny
>
>
> [excerpt quote=\"
> In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than
> 203 birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.
> \" /]
>
> Why *very* skeptical? From that same article, the developers
> acknowledged the as many as 400 flying critters would die each year?

203 + 193 = 396 which, I think, is somewhere under 400!!

--
Daniel

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101
SeaMonkey/2.17 Build identifier: 20130320191715
or

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:20.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 SeaMonkey/2.17
Build identifier: 20130320191715

[Ron Hunter]

On 3/27/2013 7:08 AM, Daniel wrote:
> Sailfish wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>> REF:
>> http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny
>>
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than
>> 203 birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Why *very* skeptical? From that same article, the developers
>> acknowledged the as many as 400 flying critters would die each year?
>
> 203 + 193 = 396 which, I think, is somewhere under 400!!
>

Does that count dragonflies, mosquitoes, and flies? Why should insects
be less important? Too many honeybees lost, and fruit and vegetable
yields fall off. Does that all begin to sound a bit far-fetched. I
think so.
I call it the 'snail darter syndrome'.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 02:15:27 -0500

You're assuming that outrageous fines are imposed. I haven't seen
anything to indicate that they are.

[clay]

Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 3/26/2013 5:56 PM:

>>> I recall, not even native Indians are (s/b aren't) allowed to hunt bald & golden

>>> eagles.
>>>
>> I believe they can in Alaska, to a limited extent.
>>

> I know some can acquire and keep the features ... I'm not sure they are
> allowed to hunt the eagle, though?
>

Last time I was up there (last August) it was illeagle (see what I did
there?) to take an eagle feather, unless you were native indian.
The ranger said nothing about whole eagles...

[clay]

Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 3/26/2013
> 3:19 PM:
>> Sailfish wrote:
>>> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 3/26/2013
>>> 12:18 PM:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:02:02 -0700
>>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPS...@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

>>>>...

>>>> One eagle isn't a big deal.
>>>> In 2007, the Altamont wind farm was killing over a thousand raptors a
>>>> year, including seventy golden eagles.[1] That was kind of a big deal,
>>>> and under pressure from the Audubon Society and others, they agreed to
>>>> a mitigation plan that involves newer, more bird-friendly turbines and
>>>> better placement. I think the work is ongoing.
>>>>
>>>> 1
>>>> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/green-energy/4222351
>>>>
>>> 1 does not make a trend, agreed, but if a trend does develop;
>>> especially for federally-protected Aves class animals, I suspect
>>> public pressure will weigh very heavily expanding this energy
>>> alternative.
>>>
>>> Additionally, having to pay our $200K a pop at a couple/year may be
>>> able to written off as CODB but more than that and things get a but
>>> more problematic.
>>
>> They just buy the permit to avoid the fine... something they should have
>> already done. Clearly someone didn't do their homework.
>
> While I'm not familiar with the permit process, I suspect there's more
> to it than, say, applying for a fishing permit. I suspect there are a
> couple of bureaucratic approval levels that need to be signed off on. As

> I recall, not even native Indians are allowed to hunt bald & golden eagles.
>
You've already done the research but I'd also offer that the whole
permitting process/requirement is just another ploy the government uses
to justify its bloviated existence.
No realistic amount of "fees" could cover the administrative cost of
permits.
No animals are preserved by requiring or issuing the permits.
Government jobs are preserved by requiring the permits and dreaming up
new things to permit.

[»Q«]

The permit fees don't cover the costs, true. But if a project
endangers animals, the permit process requires the developers to take
measures (designed in co-operation with the FWS and paid for by the
developers) to protect the animals, so I can't buy the claim that no
animals are preserved by requiring the permits. I suppose it's
possible, but that would mean that all the FWS employees working in
this area are frauds, which seems unlikely.

[GerardJan]

Mark Filipak wrote:
> On 2013/3/26 3:11 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> My bloviated meandering follows what Mark Filipak graced us with on 3/26/2013
>> 11:19 AM:
>>> On 2013/3/26 2:02 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> -snip-

>>>> [excerpt quote=\" *Eagle death at Nevada wind farm brings federal
>>>> scrutiny*
>>>>
>>>> A single dead eagle could spell trouble for a White Pine County wind
>>>> farm that sells power to NV Energy.
>>>>
>>>> The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducting an investigation
>>>> after a golden eagle was killed in late February at the Spring Valley
>>>> Wind Farm, about 300 miles north of Las Vegas.
>>>>
>>>> San Francisco-based Pattern Energy, which owns the 152-megawatt wind
>>>> energy project, reported the dead bird and turned it over to federal
>>>> authorities within 36 hours of its discovery.
>>>>

>>>> �They did all the things they were supposed to because of an eagle
>>>> death,� said Jeannie Stafford, spokeswoman for the Fish and Wildlife

>>>> Service in Nevada.
>>>>
>>>> Even so, the wind farm could face a fine of up to $200,000 because it

>>>> does not hold a federal �take� permit that would allow the incidental

>>>> death of a golden or bald eagle. \" /]
>>>>
>>>> It won't take too many more of these types flock-thinning episodes to
>>>> put the big kabosh on future growth plans of the wind power industry,
>>>> methinks.
>>>

>>> There's good reason to be very skeptical of these types of reports. I doubt
>>> that this eagle collided with the blade of a wind turbine. After all, the
>>> blade is 'riding' the wind just as the eagle is 'riding' the wind. Those
>>> blades do not turn fast. They are no more dangerous to birds than are the
>>> branches of trees. I have no doubt that, when the full story is heard, the
>>> owner of the wind farm will not be found liable.
>>

>> REF:
>> http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"

>> In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than 203
>> birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Why *very* skeptical? From that same article, the developers acknowledged the
>> as many as 400 flying critters would die each year?
>
> After reading the Las Vegas Review-Journal article, I'm still very skeptical.
> The picture caption says: "The U.S. Fish and Wildlife is conducting a criminal
> investigation", but Mr. Brean's text leaves out the word "criminal". I sincerely
> doubt it's a criminal investigation. If the lawyers are involved - and why
> wouldn't they? - then Fish & Game's Office of Law Enforcement would be involved.
> That doesn't mean much. The decider is going to be the federal judge who okayed
> the project last year. I think we can relax and allow the lawyers to work it
> out. Environmental protection means protecting the environment. There may be
> some costs, but it's what the people and the Congress have mandated. The
> alternative costs, even if they can't be measured in dollars, are just too high.

58 emailtjes gotten from Mozilla.org, seems enough for me...

regards

--
~gertjan
http://vinkestijn.info
mailto:g.j.f.vi...@hotmail.es
home:http://www.ciudadpatricia.com
Fedora Linux Version 18

[Ron Hunter]

First you pass laws to prohibit something, then sell permits to allow
it. What a racket!

[»Q«]

The alternatives are to prohibit it entirely or to allow it entirely.
WRT killing golden and bald eagles, which would you prefer?

And what about one of your favorite subjects, concealed carry of
firearms. Without a system of permits, which is IYO a racket, should
it be legal for everyone to carry or legal for no one?

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

3/27/2013 3:47 AM:

Sure, but they didn't swarm areas of land like what is done with these
wind metal monsters.

/sigh/ Even Don Quixote wouldn't consider tilting with these things.
There exists nothing romantic in them.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 3/27/2013
5:08 AM:

> Sailfish wrote:
>
> <Snip>
>> REF:
>> http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny
>>
>> [excerpt quote=\"
>> In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than
>> 203 birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.
>> \" /]
>>
>> Why *very* skeptical? From that same article, the developers
>> acknowledged the as many as 400 flying critters would die each year?
>
> 203 + 193 = 396 which, I think, is somewhere under 400!!
>

Forgive me, I took literary license and mathematically rounded up so as
not to sound pedantic!!

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 3/27/2013
8:36 AM:

What some rangers choose to do and whether it's within the rule of law
often don't form two equal and concentric Ven diagrams.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what clay graced us with on 3/27/2013
8:54 AM:

In many cases, I would agree. In this case, where we are attempt to save
the national emblem of the country from extinction, I think not.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
3/27/2013 10:36 AM:

I'd rather have laws with leeways than zero tolerance ones.

[Ron Hunter]

Vermont has had that for many years. No problem.

[Ron Hunter]

Well, they might seem romantic in 300 years.. Who knows? I was
watching a show where someone had restored one of the windmills, and the
blades came within a foot or two of the ground. Seemed like a danger to
children, adults, and large dogs to me.

[Ron Hunter]

From what I have seen, they aren't in danger of extinction, but aren't
common throughout the country. I have seen them in Florida, and Alaska,
and in Washington. Haven't spotted one in Texas, but understand there
are a few.

[Ron Hunter]

So would I, but not intended to make money, rather than achieve a
rational purpose.

[Daniel]

Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Daniel graced us with on 3/27/2013
> 5:08 AM:
>> Sailfish wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>>> REF:
>>> http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/eagle-death-nevada-wind-farm-brings-federal-scrutiny
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote=\"
>>> In 2010, the developers of the wind farm said they expected fewer than
>>> 203 birds and 193 bats to die each year from turbine encounters.
>>> \" /]
>>>
>>> Why *very* skeptical? From that same article, the developers
>>> acknowledged the as many as 400 flying critters would die each year?
>>
>> 203 + 193 = 396 which, I think, is somewhere under 400!!
>>
> Forgive me, I took literary license and mathematically rounded up so as
> not to sound pedantic!!

Sorry, Sailfish, I thought you quoted "the developers of the wind farm
said they expected ..." and then you typed "the developers acknowledged
...", So I didn't think *you*, Sailfish, did/said anything!!

[»Q«]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:57:09 -0500

Vermont had guns or eagles?