mojojojo
|
Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 11:48
|
Whatever the rights and wrongs of nuclaer power, the decision to ruin Romney Marsh, a wonderful and unique place, like this is fucking appalling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/nuclear/article/0,2763,1602553,00.html
http://www.romneymarsh.org/article.asp?l=marsh&a=810
http://www.rspb.org.uk/england/southeast/action/romneywindfarm.asp
x
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 12:19
|
|
Of course, ruination is in the eye of the beholder.
|
PlateOfFood
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 14:22
|
> Of course, ruination is in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely. Surely I'm not the ony one who thinks that these things can add something to a landscape? I'm talking about the three-sailed ones here, they work much better aesthetically to me than the 2-sailed ones.
But of course the 2-sailed ones look better than electricity pylons, which are pretty graceless fuckers.
And in terms of the nuclear, as far as I understand it the problem with building more is not that no-one knows how to deal with the waste, for politicians are more than happy to leave problems like that to later generations, but simply that they are uninsurable? That they just can't be built because of the way finance legislation works these days? So the argument of 'nuclear vs wind' is a false argument - wind farms can be financed and built, nuclear stations can not, or at least not for decades and the introduction of some serious hardcore new legislation.
True, wind farms don't produce much power, but we're going to be damn grateful for what they do produce in a few years time.
|
mojojojo
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 14:35
|
I agree entirley. In the right environment they can look great. Just not on Romney Marsh.
x
|
Toni Torino
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 14:36
|
But in this case, it's not simply about the aesthetics....
From the RSPB site that mojojojo posted the link for....
"The windfarm planned for Romney Marsh is close to the Dungeness to Pett Levels Special Protection Area (SPA), which is internationally important for birds such as Bewick's swans. The fear is that the birds could collide with the turbines or be forced away from parts of the Marsh that they currently depend on for feeding."
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 14:45
|
|
I think I heard about this debate. Tom Golisano (who's attempted to run for New York governor the past few elections and might with the next one) has often talked about this...
|
mojojojo
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 16:59
|
That is my main concern, but it is also an aesthetic one. Romney Marsh is such a bleak, beutiful and untouched place.
x
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 19:45
|
|
Does it come out yr backside? ;^D
|
Lawrence
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 28, 2005, 19:46
|
|
Break Like The Wind!
|
Sootickle
|
Re: Nuclear vs wind
Oct 29, 2005, 20:56
|
|
Nah, his mouth
|
