Stakeholder #1

So, you're looking to build a solar power plant somewhere in California. It may not be for you, but for BrightSource Energy, it's what they do.

Stillings, Jamey "Mirrored Helistats" 10/27/12 via flickr. Public Domain

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words?

Perhaps the most important stakeholder in the Ivanpah controversy is BrightSource Energy, Inc., who is the primary operator of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert. Though headquartered in Oakland, California, their main presence lies within the Ivanpah Plant itself. This 3,900-acre plant lies 40 miles southwest of Las Vegas, and is littered with 173,500 mirrors, each producing a light bright enough to easily make you wince if you look at it. Besides the massive power plant that lies above, there is also a thriving wildlife scene with species such as the desert tortoise. Each day, around 80 employees make their way to plant to begin work producing energy for various California cities, with their primary customer being San Francisco. The immense heat takes it toll on the workers, and to the wildlife the immensely concentrated light being reflected by the solar mirrors can be deadly, causing the controversy at hand.

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder?

1. "Ivanpah reported 321 avian fatalities between January and June 2014, of which 133 were related to solar flux" (Source)
2. "There is no scientific evidence that birds are “vaporized” after traveling through solar flux" (Source)
3. "Ivanpah has one of the most comprehensive approaches to monitoring avian impact at a thermal energy power plant – renewable or fossil fuel" (Source)

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are?

Even though these claims are produced by the stakeholder who in my opinion has the most to lose, the claims do seem to be valid, and their claims are backed up by research by the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, along with other government agencies including the U.S. Department of Energy.The research into the avian mortality rates has been thoroughly reviewed my many different parties.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders?

Just like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the claims stated above show that despite the implications by the AP, there is a far lower risk of avian mortality than claimed. However, their claims go against the environmentalists whose claims of a vastly exaggerated death count look to damage the plant's reputation.