|
U-Know! Forum » Wind farms are shite - more evidence |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
muddy knees 11 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 08:09
|
||
|
Why is it taking everyone so long to notice the bleedin' obvious? We need to concentrate fully on REDUCING CONSUMPTION not generating more power! Its a bit like road building schemes innit - as soon as theyre open - theyre full! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2133896,00.html
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 08:49
|
||
|
That article keeps talking about 'landscape', but to me landscape is a completely manmade thing anyway, it depends on how you manage the land. Even landscapes that seem very wild aren't really at all, like the upland moors. What's more important surely is the biodiversity. And windfarms don't have to affect that, they are just little towers. Stuff can go on around them pretty much as usual. Which is completely different to how biofuels and dams and suchlike work. so I like windfarms me. And you can stick them out at sea. And if you get fed up of them you can take them down. And they're a darn sight less damaging than burning fossil fuels. And you don't have to wonder what to do with any waste for the next 10.000 years.
|
|||
|
muddy knees 11 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 09:26
|
||
|
Wind farms are NOT just little towers that dont damage the environment that you can just take down when you want to. Like you I used to think that wind farms were cool and looked great - everyone's happy! But when you scratch the surface and do the maths things are different. The idea of them is romantic but dosn't stand up to scrutiny - whether you like them or not is irrelevant. Living in a rural area (and with a postgraduate degree in Cultural Landscape Management) I fully understand the pressures on the landscape but farming has many issues to address in the next 50 years so lets not replace one monoculture (over grazing by sheep) with another one. |
|||
|
muddy knees 11 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 09:32
|
||
|
[quote="Rhiannon"]And windfarms don't have to affect that, they are just little towers. Stuff can go on around them pretty much as usual. I know this website has a campaign bias but it does sum up some of the salient facts - plus check out the excellent photo gallery for some stunning photos of the 'little towers'. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/ |
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 10:30
|
||
Aren;t a lot of that website's complaints about the visual aspects? also the concrete and roads, well they would be put in for any power station anywhere. The trees that were being removed were huge plantations of forestry trees. Nothing much living in there, I can assure you. So that isn't much of an argument? I think once the initial 'scars' settle in, there'll be less impact on the ecology than people think. There's some stuff about peat bogs being ripped up but I'm not sure how true that is - you wouldn't want to go building stuff on a peat bog. Also do you not have to have a wider view and think that the ends justifies the means - the greener energy (ie no CO2) offsetting the temporary disturbance.
|
|||
Eduardo 375 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 10:39
|
||
|
I think that's a crap article, part of the ongoing campaign to rehabilitate nuclear energy in public consciousness. As it happens I agree with you that reducing consumption is the best way to tackle climate change. But not many of us can live without electricity altogether. And we have to replace our ageing fleet of conventional power stations. Emissions aside, coal, oil & gas are finite resources - moreso than land - so that leaves you with nuclear, which contaminates the land for thousands of years & is f'king dangerous. Maybe you place such faith in science, safety procedures & national security that you disagree... We live in a post-industrial landscape - there's very little that's actually "natural". Windfarms are temporary structures (easily removed on the day they invent cold fusion) and quiet & safe. The real problem with them is intermittancy - which is why they can only be part of the fuel mx, never all of it. But they are a valuable part.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Aug 14, 2007, 00:18
Aug 13, 2007, 16:52
|
||
|
Right on. The arguments against wind sound reasonable until you compare it to all the other alternatives. And what's the matter with having wind AND conservation? I have to say that I find this NIMBY attitude (and Ted Kennedy, bless im, is guilty of this too) about how the turbines will ruin the view, cut a few roads, kill a few birds, etc, is like saying we shouldn't stitch up an open, bleeding wound in the world because somebody might be disturbed by the sutures. EDIT: Daily Show is running a piece on the hypocrisy of the Cape Cod set as we speak.
|
|||
|
muddy knees 11 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 18:10
|
||
|
Thanks for your reply Eduardo and others. .. but I am rather depressed now. I had rather hoped to move the debate along from nimby-ism and anti-nuclear knee-jerks the debate about renewable resources is not under question - and please, as a doctoral level landscape archaeologist I know about landscape, peat bogs, land use history and the fact that there are NO natural landscapes left anywhere on the planet - every inch has been largely affected by human action. I was trying to provoke some 'thinking outside the box' debate beyond the usual human trait of if 'it's broke - build some new bigger stuff'! New, massive industrial installations of any kind are not making individuals responsible for consumption. we need to be thinking about individual and community-scale production, but first REDUCTION.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Aug 13, 2007, 18:32
|
||
I think you might be on the wrong forum? I'm assuming you won't find many people here who wilfully waste electricity, laughing while they turn on all the lights. I think most people here probably try to buy energy efficient appliances, lightbulbs etc . If you want 99% of people to do more, like stop using fridges and televisions, I think you're fighting a very uphill battle. So in the meantime, until the population come round to your way of thinking (and I hope you've got a wind up laptop there), surely it's better to do whatever we can to reduce our impact on the world ie use clean renewable energy instead of co2 emitting types.
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Aug 14, 2007, 08:00
|
||
|
muddy knees wrote: I had rather hoped to move the debate along from nimby-ism and anti-nuclear knee-jerks New, massive industrial installations of any kind are not making individuals responsible for consumption. we need to be thinking about individual and community-scale production, but first REDUCTION. Wind farms are one of those thorny issues that we have to grasp if we dont want to bequeath to the future nuclear waste that stays in the soil for thousands of years. Like Rhiannon I don't mind wind farms but they do alter our view of what we see in the country. We live under the auspices of a 'free economy', free speech, free the right to do what you want! there are only a few ways out of the current mess, either introduce strong measures (taxation), put more money into renewables(something the government is'nt doing) or opt out and wait for armageddon (that is of course whether you believe in it). Some people are optimistic they create a more sustainable present time now, Germany is a good model, start creating your own energy and feed it back into the main grid........ What will probably happen is as energy gets scarce, and it does round winter when we get a cold snap, perhaps more people will take on board the fact that we are sailing towards a 'limited energy future' Transition towns are one way, something new out there..... Kinsale, Lewes, Totnes... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKY2H2yOcP8
|
| Pages: 3 – [ 1 2 3 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
