Migratory birds run afoul of green buildings

[XemaSab]

On an autumn day in 2009, special agent Julia Meredith found ten tiny bodies on the ground, right in front of the Chicago offices of the FBI.

An investigation showed the killer was the 10-story building itself. Migratory birds were flying into the windows and falling, dead or injured, to the foot of the building at 2111 W. Roosevelt Rd.

Meredith found it ironic that the FBI building is certified as a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) structure, and had received a platinum rating for its environmental friendliness, the highest possible. Yet it wasn't safe for birds, who during the spring and fall were crashing into the windows at a rate of at least 10 a day.

"Here this little bird weighing less than an ounce is flying thousands of miles from Central and South America only to be smeared against a window," Meredith said. "I thought this was crazy. We had to do something about this."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/ct-x-c-fbi-birds-20110413,0,4666884.story

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. I've heard about transparent, but reflective, plastic sheets that can be

applied to those windows, which the birds see as a near-solid lattice, so they don't try to fly through them. They are not noticeable from the inside.

Don't remember reading how effective they are.

[catgirl]

2. There are stickers made specifically for this

and they are very effective.

[Rabblevox]

3. Blaming it on LEED certified. buildings is disingenuous at best...

Birds have been smacking into skyscrapers since there have been skyscrapers. (actually they've been smacking into clear glass windows since there have been clear glass windows.)

I see this becoming a freeper/RW talking point..."SEE, green buildings are bad for da birdies!"

[kristopher]

4. Interesting bit of trivia about the relationship of energy efficiency and centralized power

Those who build large-scale centralized thermal generation like nuclear or coal do not like to encourage energy efficiency because it cuts into market growth for them. They have a "perverse incentive" to drive increases in energy consumption unless very specific regulatory policies are used to counteract that perverse profit incentive.

Those attempts at regulatory control *usually* fail.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. There are those who think that LEED certification is basically green washing

and they have some good points.

[kristopher]

6. There are those who think bashing energy efficiency measures is good for the fission reactor biz

and they have some good points. Energy efficiency measures make fissioning radioactive toxins to produce electricity even less economically viable than it already is.
This is Citigroups analysis of the effects of energy efficiency on the prospects of market based fission reactors in the UK:

2. Energy efficiency is likely to become a bigger driver as technology advances and as awareness rises. It is important to highlight that such measures also fall under the Climate Change agenda of governments, which has been one of the driving forces behind the renaissance of new nuclear.

<snip>

Therefore under very conservative assumptions on renewables, we can reliably expect an extra 330TWh of electricity to be generated by 2020, leaving a shortfall of 16TWh to be made up by either energy efficiency or new nuclear.

There are currently 10GW of nuclear capacity under construction/development, including the UK proposed plants that should be on operation by 2020. If we assume that energy efficiency will not contribute, that would imply a load factor for the plants of 18%. Looking at the entire available nuclear fleet that would imply a load factor of just 76%. We do believe though that steps towards energy efficiency will also be taken, thus the impact on load factors could be larger.

Under a scenario of the renewables target being fully delivered then the load factor for nuclear would fall to 56%.

(Bold in original; underline is mine)

Citigroup Global Markets European Nuclear Generation 2 December 2008


BTW, new nuclear is being sold by making claims based on load factors of 90% PLUS.


That is why the CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees said in 2005, using better numbers than are in place now, that:

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk is that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. So those wanting higher and more effective standards are pro nuke?

That is quite a stretch. You are aware of what it takes to be a LEED certified designer? You are aware of who is suing them and why? The concern is that LEED is in many ways little more than greenwashing and is not providing the savings and effectiveness promised.

Fail on your attempt to make the strawman that those pushing for higher standards as being pro nuke...

[kristopher]

8. You have it backwards.

I don't need to make the strawman that those pushing for higher standards are being pro nuke. What I can offer instead is a pattern of behavior by those who are overtly and unabashedly encouraging increased deployment of nuclear fission. Having "a" discussion of how to improve our approach to energy regulations is fine, but when it consistently disparages nuclear competitors for entirely fictional or very minor shortcomings, while overlooking, excusing and pooh-poohing concern over events on the level of multiple reactor meltdowns, there isn't much left to the imagination.