Wind farms are shite — more evidence

close
more_vert
Eduardo E
Eduardo Aug 13, 2007 10:39:11
Replying to muddy knees

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.

M muddy knees
muddy knees Aug 13, 2007 18:10:42
Replying to Eduardo

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.