Meet California's New Death Ray

Source

This is the continuation of a previous post of mine (Wind Energy Is Killing More Than Carbon Emission's: Bird Fatalities)

Ok, fine it's not a death ray... but it's close.

Looks like a bunch of solar panels, right? Surprise, they're not. Meet the Ivanpah solar thermal power system, an alternative energy system located in the Mojave Desert (Southern California) that uses 300,000 software controlled mirrors to concentrate sunlight on boilers that sit on 459 foot tall towers.
The concentrated sunlight boils water which turns into steam and powers a generator which in turn produces electricity.

An incredible feat of engineering, and, might I add, very environmentally friendly.

Brightsource has gone extraordinary lengths to ensure environmental compatibility, claiming that they:
- Efficiently use the land (or at least less than competitors)
- Low carbon emissions and air pollution (yay)
- Low water usage (the water they use for the boilers is kept in a closed system), a majority of their water usage will be for cleaning the mirrors (I would hate that job)
- And a low impact on the land (keeping most of the lands natural landscape, using low impact pylons which allows vegetation and natural land contours)

The Problem
When building this facility, Brightsource acknowledged the risk of introducing concentrated solar flux to the air and the impact it could have on birds, but had no idea what the casualties would be. So, RESPONSIBLY,  they 

[asked the] U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) [...] to examine the causes of bird mortality at three solar energy facilities in California, including the Ivanpah project. The OLE biologists found that “significant avian mortality is caused by the intense solar flux that produces feather singeing.

Because of this, Ivanpah received MAJOR backlash from "drama" writers: example a, example b. These article throw around numbers left and right but none of their "estimations" are supported by any evidence....

But, a few more clicks led me to the actual Fish and Wildlife Forensics lab report. 

This report may look a little gruesome (mostly because of the pictures), but other than that, the findings are not as severe as the above drama writers make it out to be. In fact, the report even states that the collection of carcasses was opportunistic, and that they were making no attempt to quantify the deaths which would include carcasses taken by predators and scavengers. The only attempt to quantify the amount of bird casualties was done by Ivanpah, which according to them, only 321 avian fatalities were found between January and June of 2014, stating that only 133 were related to solar flux. Is this true? Who knows, we'll have to trust their methods I guess. 

Obviously Ivanpah is going to defend their practice, what good business wouldn't, especially when it has so many benefits.... Brightsource brings up a great argument for the justification of a few bird deaths at alternative energy's expense:

When considering the impact our technology has on birds passing through the concentrated sunlight, or solar flux, it is important to keep in mind the leading man-made causes of bird deaths:ii

• An estimated 1.4-3.7 billion birds are killed each year by cats;
• As many as 980 million birds crash into buildings annually;
• 174 million birds die from power lines every year;
• Up to 340 million birds perish from vehicles/roads;
• Approximately 6.8 million birds die flying into communications towers;
• As many as one million die annually in oil and gas fluid waste pits; and
• Up to 330,000 die each year from wind turbines 

Fine, you win this time... It's hard to argue that they shouldn't be allowed to continue their practice when there are much larger causes of avian murder (and suicide). It's hard not to jump at businesses over their impact of thing that we love, but this is the wrong battle to fight bird enthusiasts... another time, another place....

An Open Letter to California, the FDA and Those on the Bandwagon of GE Salmon Opposition

Background: I am currently taking a class that addresses native american culture. In this class a lot of discussion has been circling the idea of genetically modified food (most prevalently modified crops). I find it highly concerning that today, in a world that has unthinkable intellectual capabilities due in part to the invention of the internet, we take the NEWS as a primary source and in most cases the only source for our information before jumping to conclusions (as opposed to reading first hand information and making decisions for ourselves). 

This post will address the overwhelming and unjustified opposition to the California bill that addresses genetically modified salmon.

To California, the FDA and GE Salmon Bandwagoners,

I suppose I can understand your concern, BUT AquaBounty (a company that has submitted an application and who has been awaiting approval from the FDA for over two decades) has gone great lengths to ensure that concerns (which are not localized to California) namely interbreeding and competition, are addressed and controlled properly. 

AquaBounty has stipulated that they would only produce sterile female GE Atlantic salmon by a process which manipulates salmonid reproductive biology. The production of monosex salmon is considered to be 100% effective. In addition, pressure treatment of the eggs induces triploidy (an extra set of chromosomes) which results in sterility. When done on a commercial scale, batches of eggs are on average 99.8% triploid and rates greater than 98% are expected for most inductions. All-female lines of triploid fish are considered to be one of the best current methods to insure nonbreeding populations of GE fish. Therefore, the risk of an independent breeding population of
GE salmon is considered to be extremely low. “ Link

Not only this, but their proposed plan doesn’t even include the state of California:

The AquAdvantage salmon would be produced and imported into the United States under specified conditions proposed by AquaBounty. AquaBounty would produce eyed eggs at a specific facility on Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada. Eggs would be shipped to Panama and reared to market size in land-based facilities. The grow-out facility would be based in the Panamanian highlands to reduce the risk of salmon escapes and interactions with wild salmon populations. Salmon would be processed in Panama before being shipped to the United States for retail sale and no live fish would be imported into the United States.” Link

I just think California is being a little overzealous in their opposition.

AB 504 extends a prohibition on spawning, incubation or cultivation of transgenic salmon in the Pacific Ocean to all waters of the state. It bans hatchery production and research for commercial production and puts safeguards on such research activities in general, requiring that they be conducted in a “closed system” without access to the state’s waters.

Where is their justification? The first of two papers I have found that openly express concern oddly has nothing negative to say regarding AquaBounty's proposal for "genetic containment". The second paper adequately addresses concerns of hybridization, but is unable to support California's concerns because a key component in the reproduction equation is missing; a fertile parent. AquaBounty set's a prime example of what a "responsible" GMO is by addressing environmental concerns preemptively, why are we shutting down their efforts?

In a country that has continually impressed me with their growing concern for environmentalism, facts such as "Population declines [of natural atlantic salmon] have been caused by overfishing, dams, and degraded environmental quality of rivers. The remaining Atlantic salmon runs in Maine are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§1531-1543) (Link) ", really break my heart. 

It’s questionable that supporters and the government are so heavily concerned with research pertaining to commercial applications, but turn their head when it comes to environmental regulations.

Here’s an interesting article even though it’s an opinion piece, Zohar brings up a point of view I’ve never thought about. 

Like any other animal or plant crop, fish and seafood must be produced through farming -- or aquaculture -- and the wild stocks should be protected so they can recover. 

This brings a new/interesting spin/perspective on the idea of “protecting the environment”. Can we allow the “natural” environment to “recover” by decreasing our dependency on it? 

I also want to add that I love how they call the GE salmon “frankenfish”. It gives it a monster like connotation. But to my understanding the native and GE salmon are not much different besides their growth rate and digestion efficiency "Although AquAdvantage salmon grow more quickly, they do not reach an overall larger size than non-GE Atlantic salmon" Link. 

I’m sure there’s more behind this mess.. probably even articles/papers with more righteous justification for their opposition. But the thing is, these were not readily available to me so i find it safe to assume the average consumer would be unaware of these as well. 

I am worried that the bandwagon will destroy an admirable opportunity for change. For example, it’s unfortunate that "Kroger, Whole Foods, Safeway, Target and Trader Joe’s, committed not to sell genetically modified seafood if it is allowed on the market.” This could be the future of nutrition for our (and other countries) growing populations, you never know. And by flat out telling the companies you will not sell their products, you are limiting expansion of an animal population and market that is dwindling due to human intervention. 

Let's have the future in mind and become more informed before we send "the Food and Drug Administration... two million comments" in opposition. 

And FDA; give us a supported statement on these practices (YOU ARE THE EXPERTS).

Furthermore, get off your high horse America, if you're opposed to this then quit being a hypocrite and oppose the rest of the GMO's (plants) because currently it is "estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves – from soda to soup, crackers to condiments – contain genetically engineered ingredients". 

Sincerely,
A concerned American
ETM