Wind turbines kill 650,000 - 750,000 birds a year.

[WVPATX]

And solar farms are not much better.

Trump’s Interior Secretary Calls Obama-Backed Solar Project A ‘Sphere Of Death’ For Birds

MICHAEL BASTASCH


10:06 AM 06/21/2017


Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he’s not against any one form of energy, but still took the time during a recent speech to highlight how green energy from solar panels and wind turbines comes with an environmental cost.

“You know wind chops up around 650- or 750,000 birds a year,” Zinke said at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday. “Wind comes at a cost. If you’re a fisherman, offshore wind isn’t particularly enamored with because it prevents you from fishing which is an important part of our economy.”

Zinke also said a massive government-funded solar thermal plant in the Southern California desert was a “sphere of death” for insects and birds and looked like something out of the movie “Mad Max.”

“Solar. If you’ve been outside of Las Vegas and looked at that solar field, it kind of looks like a scene from Mad Max,” Zinke said, referring to the Ivanpah solar plant, which was partly funded by the Obama administration.

The Ivanpah solar plant uses 170,000 mirrored heliostat panels to point solar rays to boilers atop three tall towers to generate electricity. Ivanpah got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, and then a $539 million federal grant to pay off its federal loan.

“Is that the future of having these three or four eighty foot towers with reflector cells the size of garage doors where it makes this cone — this sphere of death — so as birds go through it they get zapped,” Zinke said.

Auditors estimated the Ivanpah plant killed 6,185 birds in 2015, including about 1,145 birds that were incinerated by the the intense heat coming off its many mirrored heliostat panels.

“And, they invent new language for it. It’s called a streamer. A streamer,” Zinke said of the incinerated birds. “And, then what happens is the bird gets zapped and of course bugs become a part of it and then it draws more birds. So, there’s a few problems with that too.”

Zinke’s point was that replacing coal-fired power plants with wind and solar has an environmental cost. He said coal can be burned more cleanly over time, and it’s unlikely that we can immediately replace it with wind and solar energy.

“We’re not against any energy,” Zinke said. “We’re all the above but certainly fossil fuels and coal is going to be a part of our energy mix, and I’ll go back to what I talked about at the very beginning. It is better to produce energy here under reasonable regulation than let it be produced overseas with no regulation.”

 

[bornaneer]

Birds don't count.....Only Silver Darters do.

 

[Op2]

That's less than 0.1% as many birds as cats kill, who kill between 1.4 and 3.7 billion per year according to my google.

There are ways to check for someone BSing when making an argument and one of them is to generate large numbers of bad things by using the entire country or world as a baseline. But of course you also get large numbers of good things too by using such a large baseline. (And another way people BS is by using the large number of good things from using such a large baseline and concluding "Thus it's good.")

Everything is cost-benefit. And when you have a large number of people or animals or windmills or whatever you're going to have a large number of good results and a large numbers of bad results. Weighing them all in total and then assessing things is the way to go.

ETA: The above is fine as far as it goes but with regards to solar panel or windmills, not only do we have to count up the number of good and bad things but we also have to estimate how many good or bad things would happen by using other means of energy creation. The choices aren't "Either generate X gigawatts of energy with Method A or do nothing" but rather is "Either generate X gigawatts of energy with Method A or instead with Method B or instead 50-50 using both X and Y, etc."

 

[WVPATX]

That's less than 0.1% as many birds as cats kill, who kill between 1.4 and 3.7 billion per year according to my google.

There are ways to check for someone BSing when making an argument and one of them is to generate large numbers of bad things by using the entire country or world as a baseline. But of course you also get large numbers of good things too by using such a large baseline.

Everything is cost-benefit. And when you have a large number of people or animals or windmills or whatever you're going to have a large number of good results and a large numbers of bad results. Weighing them all in total and then assessing things is the way to go.

Nice try, but 750,000 birds is a lot of birds especially for PETA and other liberal groups. How many of those birds were endangered? And this number does not include the thousands killed by solar farms. All in all in looks that over 1,000,000 birds killed annually. That is a lot of birds.

I agree with cost/benefit. Get rid of all subsidies to all energy sources. Let the marketplace decide based on a cost/benefit analysis.

 

[Boomboom521]

Nice try, but 750,000 birds is a lot of birds especially for PETA and other liberal groups. How many of those birds were endangered? And this number does not include the thousands killed by solar farms. All in all in looks that over 1,000,000 birds killed annually. That is a lot of birds.

I agree with cost/benefit. Get rid of all subsidies to all energy sources. Let the marketplace decide based on a cost/benefit analysis.

Regurgitated talking points. I wonder if you even care about the crap you throw up?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.us...cking-order-energys-toll-on-birds?context=amp

Although I think those numbers miners are far inflated.....Oil and coal kill more

 

[WVPATX]

Regurgitated talking points. I wonder if you even care about the crap you throw up?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/08/22/pecking-order-energys-toll-on-birds?context=amp

Although I think those numbers miners are far inflated.....Oil and coal kill more

LOL. Coal mining kills millions of birds due to global warming? OMG.
We can count the birds killed by wind farms as they lay on the ground. I admit it is hard to count incinerated birds due to solar farms.

Bottom line, I agree with OP. Cost/Benefit. Cut all subsidies to all forms of energy. Let the marketplace decide.

 

[Boomboom521]

LOL. Coal mining kills millions of birds due to global warming? OMG.
We can count the birds killed by wind farms as they lay on the ground. I admit it is hard to count incinerated birds due to solar farms.

Bottom line, I agree with OP. Cost/Benefit. Cut all subsidies to all forms of energy. Let the marketplace decide.

Global warming was not mentioned

 

[WVPATX]

Global warming was not mentioned

You need to read what you post:

His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

 

[moe]

LOL. Coal mining kills millions of birds due to global warming? OMG.
We can count the birds killed by wind farms as they lay on the ground. I admit it is hard to count incinerated birds due to solar farms.

Bottom line, I agree with OP. Cost/Benefit. Cut all subsidies to all forms of energy. Let the marketplace decide.

So you want to count up all the costs with each form of energy? Is that it? Solar and wind will start looking very, very good.

 

[WVPATX]

So you want to count up all the costs with each form of energy? Is that it? Solar and wind will start looking very, very good.

Cost/Benefit, I am all in favor. If solar and wind is cheaper for homes and businesses, I would switch in a heart beat.

 

[Boomboom521]

You need to read what you post:

His estimate, however, included everything from mining to production and climate change, which together amounted to about five birds per gigawatt-hour of energy generated by coal.

Climate change isn't global warming.....warming is a part of climate change, and not necessarily a part of the assessment here.

 

[Boomboom521]

http://blog.arcadiapower.com/7-ways-coal-impacting-wildlife/

There are many ways coal impacts wildlife negatively

 

[moe]

Cost/Benefit, I am all in favor. If solar and wind is cheaper for homes and businesses, I would switch in a heart beat.

You can forget about coal as coal struggles to compete when most of its costs to society and the environment aren't even added in.

 

[WVPATX]

Climate change isn't global warming.....warming is a part of climate change, and not necessarily a part of the assessment here.

Libs change the term from global warming to climate change. The reason is that no one can deny climate change since the climate has always been changing and always will be. But make no mistake, climate change = global warming in reality. I use global warming since it is a more accurate term for the "problem" alarmists are trying to solve.

 

[WVPATX]

You can forget about coal as coal struggles to compete when most of its costs to society and the environment aren't even added in.

I am talking about real costs, not intangible costs. Cost to the environment are far too hard to actually measure with any degree of accuracy. If one believes in man made global warming, the cost would be high. If one does not believe in man made global warming, the cost would be much lower.

Our air is much cleaner today than decades ago without a huge uptick in green energy. The EPA Power Plant regulation which was deemed unconstitutional used phony benefits in its analysis. I want real numbers backed up by fact, not conjecture or projection.

 

[moe]

I am talking about real costs, not intangible costs. Cost to the environment are far too hard to actually measure with any degree of accuracy. If one believes in man made global warming, the cost would be high. If one does not believe in man made global warming, the cost would be much lower.

Our air is much cleaner today than decades ago without a huge uptick in green energy. The EPA Power Plant regulation which was deemed unconstitutional used phony benefits in its analysis. I want real numbers backed up by fact, not conjecture or projection.

To take wind and solar to task over environmental costs that you can't even put a dollar amount to is pure comedy. Billions of dollars are spent annually on cleaning up abandoned mines, cleaning up power plant emissions, black lung benefits, fly ash disposal and groundwater contamination due to leaching fly ash landfills, damage to above ground structures due to mine subsidence, other health related expenses due to mercury and particulate emissions from coal fired power plants. That's just a short list of some of the environmental costs of coal power electricity.

 

[WVPATX]

To take wind and solar to task over environmental costs that you can't even put a dollar amount to is pure comedy. Billions of dollars are spent annually on cleaning up abandoned mines, cleaning up power plant emissions, black lung benefits, fly ash disposal and groundwater contamination due to leaching fly ash landfills, damage to above ground structures due to mine subsidence, other health related expenses due to mercury and particulate emissions from coal fired power plants. That's just a short list of some of the environmental costs of coal power electricity.

We all know you hate coal. BTW, WVU will receive about $9M less from the state this year, I wonder why? As for cleaning up abandoned mines, it is the owners responsibility to do so unless Obama regs bankrupted those companies. Right? It is the utilities responsibility to clean up power plant emissions, right?

Please provide links on the direct costs to the country (taxpayers) on the other issues above and not from some "green energy" or liberal publication with an agenda.

Again, make sure these links focus on direct costs to the American taxpayer.

 

[Boomboom521]

To take wind and solar to task over environmental costs that you can't even put a dollar amount to is pure comedy. Billions of dollars are spent annually on cleaning up abandoned mines, cleaning up power plant emissions, black lung benefits, fly ash disposal and groundwater contamination due to leaching fly ash landfills, damage to above ground structures due to mine subsidence, other health related expenses due to mercury and particulate emissions from coal fired power plants. That's just a short list of some of the environmental costs of coal power electricity.

But he STARTS a thread about how wind and solar kill birds????? Make sense to you?

 

[Boomboom521]

We all know you hate coal. BTW, WVU will receive about $9M less from the state this year, I wonder why? As for cleaning up abandoned mines, it is the owners responsibility to do so unless Obama regs bankrupted those companies. Right? It is the utilities responsibility to clean up power plant emissions, right?

Please provide links on the direct costs to the country (taxpayers) on the other issues above and not from some "green energy" or liberal publication with an agenda.

Again, make sure these links focus on direct costs to the American taxpayer.

#ccj

 

[Op2]

Nice try, but 750,000 birds is a lot of birds especially for PETA and other liberal groups. How many of those birds were endangered? And this number does not include the thousands killed by solar farms. All in all in looks that over 1,000,000 birds killed annually. That is a lot of birds.

I agree with cost/benefit. Get rid of all subsidies to all energy sources. Let the marketplace decide based on a cost/benefit analysis.

BTW, if you're against subsidies for energy sources I assume that means you're against the sellers of gasoline cars trying (and sometimes succeeding) in banning direct sales of cars from the company to buyers, bypassing dealerships. Such a ban is a de facto subsidy of gasoline cars at the expense of electric cars.

ETA: In addition to effectively subsidizing a certain kind of energy, forcing car sellers to use dealerships is a pointless regulation that is inherently anti-free market. If forces a car company to use a middleman.

ETA Again: There is nothing inherent about the ban that damages electric cars. But the de facto reality is that the main company being hampered by this (Tesla) sells only electric cars and thus the effect is to favor one energy source over another.

 

[WVPATX]

BTW, if you're against subsidies for energy sources I assume that means you're against the sellers of gasoline cars trying (and sometimes succeeding) in banning direct sales of cars from the company to buyers, bypassing dealerships. Such a ban is a de facto subsidy of gasoline cars at the expense of electric cars.

ETA: In addition to effectively subsidizing a certain kind of energy, forcing car sellers to use dealerships is a pointless regulation that is inherently anti-free market. If forces a car company to use a middleman.

ETA Again: There is nothing inherent about the ban that damages electric cars. But the de facto reality is that the main company being hampered by this (Tesla) sells only electric cars and thus the effect is to favor one energy source over another.

You've gone off the deep end. Someone selling a car to another person does not hurt Tesla. By the way, eliminate all Tesla subsidies.

 

[Shirley Knott]

And solar farms are not much better.

Trump’s Interior Secretary Calls Obama-Backed Solar Project A ‘Sphere Of Death’ For Birds

MICHAEL BASTASCH


10:06 AM 06/21/2017


Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he’s not against any one form of energy, but still took the time during a recent speech to highlight how green energy from solar panels and wind turbines comes with an environmental cost.

“You know wind chops up around 650- or 750,000 birds a year,” Zinke said at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday. “Wind comes at a cost. If you’re a fisherman, offshore wind isn’t particularly enamored with because it prevents you from fishing which is an important part of our economy.”

Zinke also said a massive government-funded solar thermal plant in the Southern California desert was a “sphere of death” for insects and birds and looked like something out of the movie “Mad Max.”

“Solar. If you’ve been outside of Las Vegas and looked at that solar field, it kind of looks like a scene from Mad Max,” Zinke said, referring to the Ivanpah solar plant, which was partly funded by the Obama administration.

The Ivanpah solar plant uses 170,000 mirrored heliostat panels to point solar rays to boilers atop three tall towers to generate electricity. Ivanpah got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, and then a $539 million federal grant to pay off its federal loan.

“Is that the future of having these three or four eighty foot towers with reflector cells the size of garage doors where it makes this cone — this sphere of death — so as birds go through it they get zapped,” Zinke said.

Auditors estimated the Ivanpah plant killed 6,185 birds in 2015, including about 1,145 birds that were incinerated by the the intense heat coming off its many mirrored heliostat panels.

“And, they invent new language for it. It’s called a streamer. A streamer,” Zinke said of the incinerated birds. “And, then what happens is the bird gets zapped and of course bugs become a part of it and then it draws more birds. So, there’s a few problems with that too.”

Zinke’s point was that replacing coal-fired power plants with wind and solar has an environmental cost. He said coal can be burned more cleanly over time, and it’s unlikely that we can immediately replace it with wind and solar energy.

“We’re not against any energy,” Zinke said. “We’re all the above but certainly fossil fuels and coal is going to be a part of our energy mix, and I’ll go back to what I talked about at the very beginning. It is better to produce energy here under reasonable regulation than let it be produced overseas with no regulation.”

Maybe the gov=a=ment could erect bird crossing signs like they do deer crossing signs, Then the birds would know how to navigate The turbine fields. sk

 

[Op2]

You've gone off the deep end. Someone selling a car to another person does not hurt Tesla. By the way, eliminate all Tesla subsidies.

Do you even know the issue? In some states, car companies are FORBIDDEN from selling their cars directly to customers. They are REQUIRED to use a middle man (a dealership that SOMEONE ELSE owns).

The issue isn't Tesla being hurt by someone else selling a car, rather the issue is Tesla being hurt because they are FORBIDDEN from selling their cars themselves. Nobody that is actually for free markets can be in favor of such an arrangement.

 

[Mntneer]

Do you even know the issue? In some states, car companies are FORBIDDEN from selling their cars directly to customers. They are REQUIRED to use a middle man (dealership).

The issue isn't Tesla being hurt by someone else selling a car, rather the issue is Tesla being hurt because they are FORBIDDEN from selling their cars themselves. Nobody that is actually for free markets can be in favor of such an arrangement.

WV is one of those dumb states.

 

[WVPATX]

Do you even know the issue? In some states, car companies are FORBIDDEN from selling their cars directly to customers. They are REQUIRED to use a middle man (a dealership that SOMEONE ELSE owns).

The issue isn't Tesla being hurt by someone else selling a car, rather the issue is Tesla being hurt because they are FORBIDDEN from selling their cars themselves. Nobody that is actually for free markets can be in favor of such an arrangement.

Still trying to understand. So in some states, Ford is required to sell first to a dealership and can't sell directly to a customer?

This practice is true of many products that use middlemen and don't sell directly, but this is normally due to their business model and not some state law. Personally, I would certainly be in favor of avoiding the dealership if I could. Perhaps since the dealership is required to support the warranty, these states have decided on that kind of law.

You example sounds like all car companies are treated equally, however.

 

[Op2]

Still trying to understand. So in some states, Ford is required to sell first to a dealership and can't sell directly to a customer?

This practice is true of many products that use middlemen and don't sell directly, but this is normally due to their business model and not some state law. Personally, I would certainly be in favor of avoiding the dealership if I could. Perhaps since the dealership is required to support the warranty, these states have decided on that kind of law.

You example sounds like all car companies are treated equally, however.

Yes, in some states Ford and Tesla and every other car company are required to sell to a dealership and can't sell directly to a customer.

I have said on here before businesses get big and in the process get power and then use that power to give their business a systematic advantage. This is a case of that. The big car companies already have their system in place (and the requirement of having dealerships wasn't a hindrance to them long ago when they got going because things were different then). They have a vested financial interest in not permitting car companies to sell directly to customers because doing so prevents other car companies from competing with them. They are preventing competition and are anti-free market.

This means that the entrenched car companies in effect are receiving a subsidy. A systematic advantage that helps you and hurts potential customers and other car companies trying to compete with you is in effect a subsidy.

 

[WVPATX]

Yes, in some states Ford and Tesla and every other car company are required to sell to a dealership and can't sell directly to a customer.

I have said on here before businesses get big and in the process get power and then use that power to give their business a systematic advantage. This is a case of that. The big car companies already have their system in place (and the requirement of having dealerships wasn't a hindrance to them long ago when they got going because things were different then). They have a vested financial interest in not permitting car companies to sell directly to customers because doing so prevents other car companies from competing with them. They are preventing competition and are anti-free market.

This means that the entrenched car companies in effect are receiving a subsidy. A systematic advantage that helps you and hurts potential customers and other car companies trying to compete with you is in effect a subsidy.

These car companies don't benefit from the huge subsidies that Tesla receives. You argument is with those states and they treat each car company the same. Tesla has dealerships in those states. Maybe not as many because they are not nearly as big. All start ups face these kinds of issues. The best survive and even thrive.

It is interesting that a lib is complaining about government regulations and interference in businesses.

 

[Op2]

These car companies don't benefit from the huge subsidies that Tesla receives. You argument is with those states and they treat each car company the same. Tesla has dealerships in those states. Maybe not as many because they are not nearly as big. All start ups face these kinds of issues. The best survive and even thrive.

It is interesting that a lib is complaining about government regulations and interference in businesses.

Other car companies benefit from plenty of subsidies. Tesla isn't the only company receiving subsidies, directly or otherwise. The EV subsidies Tesla gets are awarded to other companies that sell EVs too. And of course there's the trillions of dollars in defense money over the years and the thousands of servicemens lives we paid to subsidize the ICE model.

Tesla does not have dealerships in every state BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED BY LAW! All start ups don't face these kinds of issues but some start ups do face issues of established competitors using the political system to prevent competition. It is INHERENTLY ANTI- COMPETITION.

Your problem is that you conflate the noun version of business with the verb version of business. The noun version is a specific business (or company) like Tesla or Ford or whotever. The verb version is the ACT of doing business...markets...competition...that sort of thing. You are pro-noun version if it's a business (company) you like and anti-noun version if it's a business (company) you don't like.

But that makes you by definition anti-verb version of business. You are anti-business (anti-competition, anti-free market, etc) because you're not in favor of a fair set of rules that applies to all (noun versions of) business. You pick the (noun) business you want to win and then adjust the rules of (verb) business so that they are at an advantage. That is anti (verb) business.

 

[WVPATX]

Other car companies benefit from plenty of subsidies. Tesla isn't the only company receiving subsidies, directly or otherwise. The EV subsidies Tesla gets are awarded to other companies that sell EVs too. And of course there's the trillions of dollars in defense money over the years and the thousands of servicemens lives we paid to subsidize the ICE model.

Tesla does not have dealerships in every state BECAUSE THEY ARE PREVENTED BY LAW! All start ups don't face these kinds of issues but some start ups do face issues of established competitors using the political system to prevent competition. It is INHERENTLY ANTI- COMPETITION.

Your problem is that you conflate the noun version of business with the verb version of business. The noun version is a specific business (or company) like Tesla or Ford or whotever. The verb version is the ACT of doing business...markets...competition...that sort of thing. You are pro-noun version if it's a business (company) you like and anti-noun version if it's a business (company) you don't like.

But that makes you by definition anti-verb version of business. You are anti-business (anti-competition, anti-free market, etc) because you're not in favor of a fair set of rules that applies to all (noun versions of) business. You pick the (noun) business you want to win and then adjust the rules of (verb) business so that they are at an advantage. That is anti (verb) business.

I am no problem whatsoever from Tesla. I don't like government subsidies of any kind because they distort the market (verb version of business).

How is Tesla prevented by law from opening dealerships in certain states. Please provide a link of the states that have banned Tesla dealerships.

In Texas, Southwest Airlines was prevented by a federal law from flying to any state other than a neighboring state from which they could then fly on to other states. This meant that if you were not flying to a neighboring state, you had at least two stops to make. Crazy and anti-competitive. It was called the Wright Amendment (after Dem Congressman). Despite this absurd restriction, Southwest thrived. Thanks goodness that Amendment is no longer law.

 

[Op2]

I am no problem whatsoever from Tesla. I don't like government subsidies of any kind because they distort the market (verb version of business).

How is Tesla prevented by law from opening dealerships in certain states. Please provide a link of the states that have banned Tesla dealerships.

In Texas, Southwest Airlines was prevented by a federal law from flying to any state other than a neighboring state from which they could then fly on to other states. This meant that if you were not flying to a neighboring state, you had at least two stops to make. Crazy and anti-competitive. It was called the Wright Amendment (after Dem Congressman). Despite this absurd restriction, Southwest thrived. Thanks goodness that Amendment is no longer law.

Here is a link and if you don't like this one google "tesla not allowed to sell cars in some states" or something like that and you'll get a thousand other returns.

https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/

Here's another one.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/tesla-denied-license-michigan/
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/tesla-denied-license-michigan/
Here's a paragraph from it. Note that this comes from the website of fortune.com.

"Dealerships, which are major campaign contributors in local and state politics, have been a primary lobbying force against Tesla. In October 2014, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill initiated and backed by the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association that effectively bans Tesla from selling directly to consumers in the state. Automaker General Motors has also backed efforts to prevent Tesla from doing business in Michigan and other states. In February, Indiana legislators were considering a bill backed by GM that would ban auto manufacturers from directly selling their vehicles to consumers and instead require them to use the franchise dealership model used by traditional automakers. The so-called “Kill Tesla” bill was sent to a summer study committee, effectively putting it on hold."

 

[WVPATX]

Here is a link and if you don't like this one google "tesla not allowed to sell cars in some states" or something like that and you'll get a thousand other returns.

https://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/

Here's another one.

http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/tesla-denied-license-michigan/
Here's a paragraph from it. Note that this comes from the website of fortune.com.

"Dealerships, which are major campaign contributors in local and state politics, have been a primary lobbying force against Tesla. In October 2014, Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill initiated and backed by the Michigan Automobile Dealers Association that effectively bans Tesla from selling directly to consumers in the state. Automaker General Motors has also backed efforts to prevent Tesla from doing business in Michigan and other states. In February, Indiana legislators were considering a bill backed by GM that would ban auto manufacturers from directly selling their vehicles to consumers and instead require them to use the franchise dealership model used by traditional automakers. The so-called “Kill Tesla” bill was sent to a summer study committee, effectively putting it on hold."

You said that opening Tesla dealerships was illegal in some states.
But I found this statement in the article:

The state held an administrative hearing Sept. 7 on whether to deny a dealer license to Tesla. "The license was denied because state law explicitly requires a dealer to have a bona fide contract with an auto manufacturer to sell its vehicles. Tesla has told the department it does not have one, and cannot comply with that requirement,"the Michigan Department of State said in a statement that.

So it seems that Tesla does not want a 3rd party dealership as all other car companies have. It's an easy solution. Tesla needs to sell dealerships to third parties as other car companies have done. Not sure why Tesla would be opposed to this if they want to sell cars in those markets assuming the demand is there.

This is not unusual in business. My brother and I owned a small business in manufacturing (120 employees). We could market in some states but not in others because our products did not meet the specifications required in those states for our products. Our competitors lobbied those states to keep firms like ours out of their markets. Again, this is a government issue and one of the reasons why I see that government if quite frequently a huge hurdle to business and competition. We also could not expand where we wanted due to other factors like existing competition and capital requirements.

 

[Airport]

And solar farms are not much better.

Trump’s Interior Secretary Calls Obama-Backed Solar Project A ‘Sphere Of Death’ For Birds

MICHAEL BASTASCH


10:06 AM 06/21/2017


Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he’s not against any one form of energy, but still took the time during a recent speech to highlight how green energy from solar panels and wind turbines comes with an environmental cost.

“You know wind chops up around 650- or 750,000 birds a year,” Zinke said at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Tuesday. “Wind comes at a cost. If you’re a fisherman, offshore wind isn’t particularly enamored with because it prevents you from fishing which is an important part of our economy.”

Zinke also said a massive government-funded solar thermal plant in the Southern California desert was a “sphere of death” for insects and birds and looked like something out of the movie “Mad Max.”

“Solar. If you’ve been outside of Las Vegas and looked at that solar field, it kind of looks like a scene from Mad Max,” Zinke said, referring to the Ivanpah solar plant, which was partly funded by the Obama administration.

The Ivanpah solar plant uses 170,000 mirrored heliostat panels to point solar rays to boilers atop three tall towers to generate electricity. Ivanpah got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, and then a $539 million federal grant to pay off its federal loan.

“Is that the future of having these three or four eighty foot towers with reflector cells the size of garage doors where it makes this cone — this sphere of death — so as birds go through it they get zapped,” Zinke said.

Auditors estimated the Ivanpah plant killed 6,185 birds in 2015, including about 1,145 birds that were incinerated by the the intense heat coming off its many mirrored heliostat panels.

“And, they invent new language for it. It’s called a streamer. A streamer,” Zinke said of the incinerated birds. “And, then what happens is the bird gets zapped and of course bugs become a part of it and then it draws more birds. So, there’s a few problems with that too.”

Zinke’s point was that replacing coal-fired power plants with wind and solar has an environmental cost. He said coal can be burned more cleanly over time, and it’s unlikely that we can immediately replace it with wind and solar energy.

“We’re not against any energy,” Zinke said. “We’re all the above but certainly fossil fuels and coal is going to be a part of our energy mix, and I’ll go back to what I talked about at the very beginning. It is better to produce energy here under reasonable regulation than let it be produced overseas with no regulation.”

How many were white doves vs black birds?

 

[WVPATX]

How many were white doves vs black birds?

Identity killings, like identity politics, is very important to consider. I wonder if the doves that were killed were treated better than the black birds and if their is a civil rights case to be had? Holder would be all over this.

 

[Airport]

Identity killings, like identity politics, is very important to consider. I wonder if the doves that were killed were treated better than the black birds and if their is a civil rights case to be had? Holder would be all over this.

Operation dead and delirious

 

[Op2]

You said that opening Tesla dealerships was illegal in some states.
But I found this statement in the article:

The state held an administrative hearing Sept. 7 on whether to deny a dealer license to Tesla. "The license was denied because state law explicitly requires a dealer to have a bona fide contract with an auto manufacturer to sell its vehicles. Tesla has told the department it does not have one, and cannot comply with that requirement,"the Michigan Department of State said in a statement that.

So it seems that Tesla does not want a 3rd party dealership as all other car companies have. It's an easy solution. Tesla needs to sell dealerships to third parties as other car companies have done. Not sure why Tesla would be opposed to this if they want to sell cars in those markets assuming the demand is there.

This is not unusual in business. My brother and I owned a small business in manufacturing (120 employees). We could market in some states but not in others because our products did not meet the specifications required in those states for our products. Our competitors lobbied those states to keep firms like ours out of their markets. Again, this is a government issue and one of the reasons why I see that government if quite frequently a huge hurdle to business and competition. We also could not expand where we wanted due to other factors like existing competition and capital requirements.

You're completely full of it. Yeah, all Tesla has to do is hire a middleman to sell their product. Completely fair. Yeah, right. This is way out there even for you.

A completely arbitrary requirement that unfairly benefits some companies at the expense of others (and hurts consumers in the process by limiting their choice) and you're completely fine with it. Oh and on top of that it protects a group of people (car salesmen) that are famous for being sleazy and trying to rip people off.

No more railing against socialism for you because we know where you stand on business.

It's easy to google why Tesla doesn't want to have a middleman dealership and I started to link to them but then I figured what's the point because you're not going to read it anyway. It's very easy to google it if you really want to know.

 

[WVPATX]

You're completely full of it. Yeah, all Tesla has to do is hire a middleman to sell their product. Completely fair. Yeah, right. This is way out there even for you.

A completely arbitrary requirement that unfairly benefits some companies at the expense of others (and hurts consumers in the process by limiting their choice) and you're completely fine with it. Oh and on top of that it protects a group of people (car salesmen) that are famous for being sleazy and trying to rip people off.

No more railing against socialism for you because we know where you stand on business.

It's easy to google why Tesla doesn't want to have a middleman dealership and I started to link to them but then I figured what's the point because you're not going to read it anyway. It's very easy to google it if you really want to know.

You've obviously never run a business of any size at all. This kind of stuff happens all the time. The business needs to decide if it is willing to engage in that territory and do what it takes to adhere to state law and regulations or not. This is Tesla's decision. It is not unique in any way to Tesla. It happens to businesses all the time.

Again, it is rare for a lib like you to complain about government. Maybe you're becoming more conservative and want to keep government from over regulating and over legislating, but I somehow doubt that. But I think you're being hypocritical in liking most of what government does to impact businesses except for those businesses like Tesla that you like. And then you turn conservative. Interesting.

I don't like laws like this at all. They distort markets. I wish they weren't so but I am consistently against stuff like this. My guess is that you aren't.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You're completely full of it. Yeah, all Tesla has to do is hire a middleman to sell their product. Completely fair. Yeah, right. This is way out there even for you.

A completely arbitrary requirement that unfairly benefits some companies at the expense of others (and hurts consumers in the process by limiting their choice) and you're completely fine with it. Oh and on top of that it protects a group of people (car salesmen) that are famous for being sleazy and trying to rip people off.

No more railing against socialism for you because we know where you stand on business.

It's easy to google why Tesla doesn't want to have a middleman dealership and I started to link to them but then I figured what's the point because you're not going to read it anyway. It's very easy to google it if you really want to know.

So Tesla has to follow the same rules as everyone else?

 

[moe]

We all know you hate coal. BTW, WVU will receive about $9M less from the state this year, I wonder why? As for cleaning up abandoned mines, it is the owners responsibility to do so unless Obama regs bankrupted those companies. Right? It is the utilities responsibility to clean up power plant emissions, right?

Please provide links on the direct costs to the country (taxpayers) on the other issues above and not from some "green energy" or liberal publication with an agenda.

Again, make sure these links focus on direct costs to the American taxpayer.

The Republican legislature cut higher education and WVU's budget fwiw. Nat gas prices are bankrupting coal companies particularly those in Appalachia which have higher costs to bring coal to market, met coal is the only one holding its own. Taxpayers ultimately pay to clean up abandoned coal mines. Utility companies just ask for a rate increase (falls on tax payers) when they have to add scrubbers to reduce emissions.

 

[moe]

It is interesting that a lib is complaining about government regulations and interference in businesses.

It's only interesting to you. Your mind is so bound up with preconceived notions and you tell everybody about them every day on here. Try having an original thought today, something to consider.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Utility companies just ask for a rate increase (falls on tax payers) when they have to add scrubbers to reduce emissions.

Right, that's kind of those 2nd and 3rd order of effects I've tried to explain to you all. A business is not going to lose money due to legislation changes. It's not a subsidy, and it's not tax payers. It's consumers of a product and an operating expense. Operating expenses go up, so does the cost of the product. I'm not sure whose logic is more ideologically driven and fvcked up between you and Op2.