When birds die due to oil or chemical exposure at an oil company's storage or waste-water facility, the company may be prosecuted for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Exxon-Mobil, for example, recently pled guilty to killing 85 birds protected under the MTBA. The oil giant will pay $600,000 in fines, and several million more to implement a compliance plan to prevent bird deaths in the future.
Exxon-Mobil's not alone. Electric utilities are also prosecuted when protected birds are killed by poorly insulated transmission lines. And yet not all power produces are prosecuted for the accidental killing of protected birds.
As the Entergy Tribune's Robert Bryce detailed in the Wall Street Journal, wind power kills more protected birds than Exxon-Mobil's refineries, and yet gets a free pass.
A July 2008 study of the wind farm at Altamont Pass, Calif., estimated that its turbines kill an average of 80 golden eagles per year. The study, funded by the Alameda County Community Development Agency, also estimated that about 10,000 birds—nearly all protected by the migratory bird act—are being whacked every year at Altamont.The problem of bird kills from wind power are well documented. A 2001 report on avian mortality by the National Wind Coordinating Council estimated wind power was responsible for 33,000 bird kills per year, the vast majority of which are protected under federal law. The American Wind Energy Association estimates bird mortality rates are, on average, "one to six per year or less" per megawatt of wind power capacity in the United States. Given the U.S. had 25,000 megawatts of installed wind capacity in the U.S., wind power could be responsible for as many as 150,000 bird kills per year. How many will die if wind production increases ten-fold or more to meet proposed renewable energy mandates? (And will we consider that actual wind output can be far less than installed capacity.)Altamont's turbines, located about 30 miles east of Oakland, Calif., kill more than 100 times as many birds as Exxon's tanks, and they do so every year. But the Altamont Pass wind farm does not face the same threat of prosecution, even though the bird kills at Altamont have been repeatedly documented by biologists since the mid-1990s.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is highly variable. And biologists believe Altamont, which uses older turbine technology, may be the worst example. But that said, the carnage there likely represents only a fraction of the number of birds killed by windmills. Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy estimates that U.S. wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds per year. Yet the Justice Department is not bringing cases against wind companies.
Wind power is hardly the only thing that kills birds. Bird kills are a problem with many tall structures, and other energy sources are hardly without their problems. All things considered, wind may be preferable to available alternatives (even if it cannot provide base load capacity) and could be an important part of America's energy supply in the future. Yet it seems clear that when it comes to killing protected birds, traditional energy companies face federal prosecution, while wind energy gets a pass.
One reason for the special treatment is that it is easier to reduce bird kills at traditional energy facilities than a wind farm. In Exxon-Mobil's case, netting can keep birds away from potential contamination sources. There's no comparably easy fix for wind farms -- at least not yet. So federal prosecutors may target enforcement efforts where they can maximize the environmental results. It's also possible that there's no political benefit to going after "green" energy.
That comes a little late in the presentation, I would think.
The mortality was 85 birds in five different states over a five year period. There isn’t a trucking company that kills fewer migratory birds than that. For that matter, most people’s homes —if tracked and recorded— would give that record a run for the money. Realistically a small housing subdivision, complete with pets [cats kill one billion birds nationwide] kills more protected species per year than Exxon-Mobil’s entire US operations over a five year period.
Daniel Chapman asks, “Did anyone argue that Exxon should be given the same free pass as wind farms?”
Not yet, but don’t be surprised when a non-wind energy corporation demands equal treatment.
Although realistic treatment (corporate versus non-corporate penalties) isn’t to be obtained from this law, corporations should expect equal treatment. Assuming that bird-strike figures are within an order of magnitude, wind-energy is ‘worth’ upwards of $2 billion per year in fines.
IIRC these installations require a massive amount of space --- I'm recalling off a mental picture of a mock proposal here -- and also I believe the discusson about using molten salt to store energy has been linked more to improving the efficiency of nuclear reactors.
Not off the hook, but perhaps it could be suggested that they receive equal treatment under the law. Selective prosecution of persons or corporations that are perceived as bad is just plan unfair. And everyone recognizes the unfairness of selective prosecution even if only when they are caught while the guy next to them gets a pass.
When politics can decides economic winners and losers, you will end up with this sort of behavior.
I've heard of using molten salt to store heat for solar heating of homes and other buildings. But using that heat to generate electric power runs into a huge thermal efficiency problem unless you can get the stuff to sit around at temperatures similar to the inside of a coal furnace or nuclear reactor. I'm skeptical.
The problem is, of course, that wind can never be expected to supply more than a small percentage of our energy needs. Going long on direct solar would seem to offer more hope, since the collectors are getting more efficient and the costs are coming down.
Responding to another comment: It's true of course that lots of birds are killed by cars and trucks and cats, but probably not a high proportion eagles and other protected species, as compared with the proportion that would be killed by wind turbines on otherwise undeveloped mountaintops.
Exxon's the notable exception (They have really tried to concentrate on their core business, natural gas and oil) but most other majors hold pretty significant interests.
Anyone citing Altamont as typical gets a double minor, but then again, this is typical.
Who cited Altamont as typical? The article says it may be the "worst example," and both it and I cite data from the wind industry, hardly a source likely to inflate the numbers.
JHA
because cat owners would start killing politicians, nothing in the world is quite so crazy as a cat owner.
@Cato the Elder: I actually rather like this blog. It tends to generate interesting debate, following interesting posts. I know of no blog on my side of the Atlantic that has similarly mature conversation. I hope you're not suggesting that I'm not allowed to have an opinion about US public policy?
My snark this morning was just based on a) me being in a bad mood for reasons unrelated to this blog, and b) the increasing tendency of some conspirators to blog about things that aren't only not law, but also cliché conservative. (Adler today posted twice about creationism/evolution and once about toy safety laws, in addition to his post previewing the new SCOTUS term.) I would very much appreciate it, for example, if David Bernstein could take his flame war with Human Rights Watch somewhere else.
Someone should put in a word in defense of bats.
Since the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species list in 2007, and wind turbines were never established as major contributors to prior population declines, it seems reasonable (though not conclusive) to infer that there never existed any significant danger from wind turbine installations.
Not folks who have passed a course on thermodynamics, I trust. On its face this is a monumentally stupid idea. You get the energy from a windmill as electricity, i.e. pure useful work. The idea is then to destroy this work, convert it to heat, then push the heat into the salt, put up with your thermal losses (the salt not being perfectly insulated), and then run a heat engine from the hot salt, putting up with another layer of thermodynamic losses (most heat engines being at most 30% efficient)?
As opposed to just putting the electricity in a battery, where you can get nearly all of it back? Madness.
The problem here is your cat's name. Just as Pee Wee Herman was compelled to demonstrate his non-PeeWeeness, so "Muffin" must counter the charge of 'Muffin-ness' by wreaking great slaughter. Rename him "Tiger" and have done.
Situations where people create apparently general rules and then simply ignore them where they don't like the result are all too common. In some cases rules were never intended to have the claimed reach. But this is not one of them.
You might have heard that batteries are expensive.
One method of storing excess wind energy is pumping water up from a lower reservoir to an upper one at night, when demand is low, then using that stored potential energy to drive turbines to supplement peak demand during the day.
Sort of like saying David Bernstein's cutting off of comments when he attacks some one may be the most disreputable tactic on Volokh.
Maybe
Relative to what? Wind turbines? Ha ha.
Besides, I thought the New Firm was all about energy efficiency over everything. If you want to go all 20th century and start talking about the most economical way to generate electricity -- well, it ain't wind, that's for sure.
Besides, economic efficiency is exactly the kind of question the free market sorts out very well, and then where's the need for a government czar to issue mandates and policies and set the benighted country on the path of righteousness, huh? Get with the program!
I'll see your illeism and raise you a nosism:
Eli, we are not amused.
Solar thermal has manay advantages over solar PEV in many scenarios. Short version: use mirrors to concetrate sunlight / heat. Use the heat to run traditional setam turbine or run a Stirling engine.
In this scenario, molten salt stages the heat for later use in generation. There is, AFAIK, no windto electricity to thermal store back to electricity system, which would have many of the inneficiencies as suggested above.
For a quick non-technical overview:
MIT Review on Spanish Solar
One house cat in England, carefully tracked by intrepid researchers, killed 140-160 songbirds each and every day - just for fun. House cats, which are a non-native introduced species,are definitiely more harmful to migratory birds than anything Big Oil has been able to come up with.
Eli,
you seem to confuse the specific and the general. The point of the article Adler quotes is that Exxon got fined and Altamont did not. It is irrelevant whether Altamont is representative of the wind industry insofar as that equal protection argument goes (martinnned: you do understand that equal protection is a legal concept. Of course administrative law has made complete hash of the concept and deference to agencies unequal enforcement is virtually universal, so I don't expect the courts to do anything about it, although they should. There is a much stronger legal argument for just treatment that mandates court interference here than in Mass. v. EPA context) If Altamont were a coal plant, people would be screaming that they be shut down, or forced to adopt the BAT (best available technology) without regard to cost, i.e. tear all the windmills down and put up slow turning ones.
Both Adler and the linked article point out that Altamont is not necessarily representative. So I gather your argument is that it is a cheap shot as evidence of the general proposition. But the article is equally clear that bird kills in open oil facilities had been considered a much larger problem. Even if the industry has much improved its practices, FWS did not seem inclined to give a pass on small numbers of subsequent kills at Exxon facilities. So the obvious question remains, even if new turbines are better, why do they get a pass?
I tend to think the bird issue with windmills much overplayed. But when you look at them fining Exxon for 85 bird deaths, like that is something that matters in the scheme of things, then there is no excuse for not going after wind, except bias.
Remember most of the statutes make no provisions for common sense or possible abatement of the risk of a take. Damn straight it might be harder for wind turbines, but of course the laws don't take that into consideration. Only bureaucrats playing favorites do that.
Brian
Has nobody in England ever heard the expression "belling the cat"?
It reminds me of the story of the time that Bono was giving a concert in Glasgow. At one point he clapped slowly for a few seconds, and then said, "Every time ... I clap my hands ... a child in Africa ... starves to death ..." To which a (possibly drunk) heckler responded, "Stop f***in' doing it, then!"
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.