Let’s Watch The Environmentally Friendly Ivanpah Solar Plant Incinerate Birds And Insects

When most think of something that’s environmentally friendly, they think that it doesn’t pollute, doesn’t hurt wildlife, and doesn’t damage the environment. When members of the Cult of Climastrology think of the environment, they think only of “carbon pollution”, an unscientific way to say carbon dioxide. Let’s see this in action

(Daily Caller) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released video footage showing how the intense heat generated by the Ivanpah solar plant incinerates thousands of birds and bats.

“At Ivanpah, evidence of flying animals impacted by intense heat near the solar towers had been observed,” according to new USGS research. “The new study showed that although birds and bats were occasionally seen near the towers at Ivanpah, most observations involved insects.”

Ivanpah is a federally-backed solar power plant that uses more than 170,000 mirrored heliostats to direct sunlight at tall boilers towers to generate electricity in California. The concentrated sunlight creates an intense field of heat, called a solar flux, around the facility that’s “enough to cause injury or death” to birds or anything else that flies through it.

Ivanpah reportedly incinerated over 6,000 birds in 2015. Warmists will say “yeah, but fossil fuels kill more!!!!!”, forgetting that solar plants are positioned as being environmentally friendly. It’s not environmentally friendly if it is incinerating birds and insects.

Interestingly enough, most Warmists do not want solar projects near where they live. Same for wind. Go figure.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

18 Responses to “Let’s Watch The Environmentally Friendly Ivanpah Solar Plant Incinerate Birds And Insects”

  1. Jeffery says:

    “Environmentally friendly” is your term. Solar and wind are intended to supplant fossil fuel power reducing carbon-based pollutants such as CO2.

    And yes, coal and gas fired power plants kill more birds each year, directly and indirectly.

    Billions (yes, billions!) of birds die flying into tall and short buildings each year. Do you oppose all above ground human structures?

    Is the manner of death (burning) that upsets you?

  2. john says:

    Teach really you must try to read more carefully the articles you cite. According to that Daily Caller article about 1145 birds were “incinerated”
    That is about 3 birds per day in an area of 4000 acres.
    The article also does NOT say that the cause of death was from intense heat
    It does say that MOST of the fatalities were from collision with the tower
    As for the most do not want solar and wind near where they live…… well since most Americans live in urban areas I am unsure if that would in fact be the best place to put wind turbines. Putting solar on rooftops ??? well I certainly haven’t heard a huge outcry over THAT
    Putting a huge solar array in NYC’s Central Park???? Well you got me there Teach ! I think that would be a terrible idea.
    When/if all the roof tops in NYC were solar equipped it would DOUBLE the total amount of solar electricity now generated in all of the USA
    Solar costs are continuing to fall the march of technology can’t be held back.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/science/earth/16solar.html?_r=0

  3. jl says:

    “Solar and wind to supplant fossil fuel, reducing carbon-based pollutants..” But that’s not “environmentally friendly”? Nice try, J. Hence, the hypocrisy.

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    I know the guys who did the environmental impact study on this site.

    The resulting conclusions is that essentially this plant is very environmentally friendly given a set of conditions.

    1. The plant needed natural gas to operate hence the location had to be built within a set parameters of locales which would be conducive to existing Natural gas pipelines….hence the location on the Nevada Border.

    2. Two ground water wells would need to be used in order to provide WATER for both steam and cleaning of the panels as well as combating fire in case of any type of fire emergency.

    3. Diesel generators are used to fire up the turbines and to maintain the turbines even after the plant is shut down during times in which the solar output would be non conducive to the extent of which the plant’s parameters are not met conditional upon other existing infrastructure needed to pick up the slack from the loss of transmission.

    4. The existing waste water created by the operation of the plant would need to be treated and fed into a stream to provide a means to ensure the stability of the existing ground water.

    Lastly this plant should produce 400 megawatts of electricity. Extremely cost ineffective.

    For example hydro-electric damns can produce up to 29,000 MW of electricity. The typical Gas fired power plant that uses that awful fossil fuels produces around 1000MW-2500MW of electricity.

    Hence the need to produce about 7 of these plants just to replace ONE Gas fired electric power plant.

    However as I have noticed that Jeffery has changed his pitch from REPLACE TO SUPPLEMENT….I guess if the USA tax payer wants to pay 2.5 billion dollars for a power plant that works 12 hours a day and produces barely enough electricity to fuel a small town…..go for it.

    As Ive said before I care not WHO Makes the money….I only care that the world has power.

    Try looking at the CONGO project….now thats an impressive undertaking.

  5. john says:

    Gee Liam for someone who has “friends” involved I am surprised that you are not giving us more upto date info.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility
    In its 2nd year of operation Ivanpah hit 652 MW-h
    which was about 70% of its rated nameplate output. That was an increase of about 20% from year one.
    This year, the third, they are doing better than ever may hit 85% of rated output which is about 1000MW-h

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    Hey, retard!


    The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is a concentrated solar thermal plant in the California Mojave Desert, 64 km (40 miles) southwest of Las Vegas, with a gross capacity of 392 megawatts (MW).

    The stupid it burns.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Gee john you should read your own citations before spouting off and looking silly:

    Lack of published performance data has caused speculation that the plant is not meeting expectations.

    And….

    The project received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the United States Department of Energy.[40] The estimated construction costs for the project ($5,561.00 per KW) fall between the construction costs for coal and nuclear power plants, according to Synapse Energy Economics,[41][42] but this does not account for the less favorable capacity factor of solar power.

    It was reported in November 2014 that the investors in the plant were applying for a $539 million federal grant to pay off their federal loan.[11]

    So the plant is under-performing, is costing more than expected, is killing wildlife at a much higher than predicted rate, is a aviation hazard and you think it is great.

  8. Liam Thomas says:

    Wow John I don’t know what to say.

    Do you even understand what a 100 mw/h power plant means?

    The Ivanpah plant has 3 phases. Two producing 100 mw/h and One producing 200 mw/h.

    Now for a little Thermodynamics lesson.

    MW stands for megawatt, which is a unit of power. A 393 MW power plant is capable of producing up to 393 MW of power, on an ongoing basis.

    In simple terms, that’s how much power you expect the plant to be able to generate at any given time.

    This is generally the design rating: how much it’s designed to handle under normal conditions.

    Plants can generally be operated below their design limit (though there’s a limit to how low). There are also margins of safety in the design. It’s usually possible for plants to operate at higher power than their design, but that would risk damaging equipment and possibly create safety hazards, so they’re usually prohibited from doing so.

    The numbers you quote are roughly 20 percent of the estimated design ability of the plant.

    Spend some time studying John and less time just trolling anything anyone says.

  9. Jeffery says:

    What Laim claims I typed:

    Jeffery has changed his pitch from REPLACE TO SUPPLEMENT

    What I actually typed:

    Solar and wind are intended to supplant fossil fuel power

    Look up supplant. Apology accepted, now go and spin no more.

    The Ivanpah site is producing 70% or so of capacity. A few thousand birds a year are killed. Much less CO2 is produced, not to mention less non-CO2 pollutants. Building costs are more than a gas plant, less than a nuclear plant.

    There will always be trade-offs with energy production. Always.

  10. jl says:

    “Much less CO2 is produced. Which does nothing. So, we’re spending millions to kill thousands of birds. Sounds like a liberal plan.

  11. Jeffery says:

    j typed:

    Much less CO2 is produced. Which does nothing.

    We had almost forgotten how backward trumpy you are! How quaint.

    Remember that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which keeps some of the re-radiated infrared radiation from exiting the atmosphere and making it into space. The increased CO2 (from fossil fuel burning) is causing the Earth’s surface (land, oceans and atmosphere) to warm rapidly. So, if we start reducing the CO2 we add to the atmosphere, the less will be in the atmosphere, see?

  12. Liam Thomas says:

    The resulting conclusions is that essentially this plant is very environmentally friendly given a set of conditions.

    This was the opening to my original post. I find it amusing that the two trolls immediately jump on verifiable set of facts, spin them and then try to have a debate with me.

    Its actually quite comical. The facts remain that it would take 7-10 Ivanpah Plants to replace on gas, coal or oil fired power plant.

    The simple facts are that this plant will cost more then any Nuclear power plant and be dwarfed by projected tidal power in northern china or the Congo hydro plant being planned as we speak.

    As for Supplant or supplement….no Im pretty sure you have consistently talked about the need to slowly wean off fossil fuels once it dawned on your lame brain that you cant feed 7 billion people with windmills.

    So no apology from me is forth coming….you should be the one apologizing to anyone whom you might have influence over for your inability to rationally have a plan that would sustain the worlds population without throwing THEM into the dark ages over fear that the planet will warm 2 degrees in the next 100 years.

    Fuking laugable….actually.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Apology accepted.

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    Apology accepted.

    NONE was ever offered. Unless and Until you see fit to actually have a coherent discussion of YOUR PLAN to feed the world without fossil fuels. Unless and UNTIL you can convince me that Wind/solar/Battery operated vehicles is a viable means of replacing fossil fuels then I find you a rather amusing spectacle on this sight.

    In fact it is only because of you and John there that I even bother to comment here at all….because I prefer to bring facts to the table and let readers be informed rather then spun by your intricate set of lies.

    The new orange for the Warmists now is to stay on message and to not be swayed by the Denialists using Alinsky tactics on them….However as a pawn of the multi-billionaire globalists who stand to inherit the world from your leg work………

    Your a joke in every post you make about global warming. And Every Ivanpah that goes up is a monument to the futility and vanity of mankind believing they can actually alter global climate.

    I find you rather amusing. I would never apologize for a good laugh.

  15. Jeffery says:

    I accepted your laim apology. Move on, please! Your obsession is embarrassing.

  16. Liam Thomas says:

    Come on Jeffery lets talk specifics. Whats your plan to feed the planet bud? How are windmills going to S U P L A N T fossil fuels?

    Come on buddy…….you gotta have a plan somewhere in that garbled communist mind.

  17. Jeffery says:

    Still stewing over SUPPLANT? I’ve let it go. I was only ridiculing your smugness.

    Of course renewable energy sources will supplant fossil fuels. But not tomorrow or even by this time next week you silly goose. Will we be flying battery powered airliners over the oceans? I doubt it.

    And I don’t need to feed the planet. As a market capitalist I understand that people need to feed themselves, but with less dependence on fossil fuel energy; and with that transition to non-fossil fuel sources ideally being driven by market forces.

    Do you really think that a tax on fossil-fuel carbon will cause mass starvations?

    Obviously, the transition was going to happen anyway over the next century or so as we deplete our cleaner fossil fuel resources, but CO2 driven global warming has pushed the timeline.

  18. Liam Thomas says:

    transition

    I could give a flip what you pretend to think you have said…..when I first started asking you for a plan….once again you have NONE…..

    You simply say that the market will dictate a transition to alternatives. This is exactly what Conservative DENIERS have been saying for decades. Let the Market decide.

    I think a tax on fossil fuel will tax the middle class as everything the left does PUNISHES the middle class……you know that group you all pretend to want to help and be the champion of?

    I think the rich do not pay taxes and the poor do not pay taxes and any carbon tax will POUND the middle class.

    Any tax on corporations will be passed on to the consumer. Its how taxes work in a consumer driven free market society.

    See what you fully fail to comprehend is that in America we are not a market capitalist…..we are a consumer driven free market economy……there is a huge, huge, huge difference. In your world you make a supposed drug, then sell it for exorbitant prices to recoup your r&d. If you did not then only one thing can be happening….you are subsidized by the government, because in a consumer driven free market the consumers DECIDE what sells and what doesnt….they decide the fates of WARDS and NEWBERRYS and BELL and Bell and Howell and Edison and packard bell and so on and so on and so on.

    Consumers drive the market and you want them to feed themselves? LOLOLOLOL….moron. You don’t even understand your own business model which again makes me believe your a muslim communist working as a janitor for the company you claim you are the CEO of.

    LOLOLO fuking L.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9621 access attempts in the last 7 days.