Wind farms are shite — more evidence

close
more_vert
muddy knees M
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.

R Rhiannon
Rhiannon Aug 13, 2007 18:32:52
Replying to muddy knees

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.

M moss
moss Aug 14, 2007 08:00:25
Replying to muddy knees

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

E Eduardo
Eduardo Aug 14, 2007 08:20:04
Replying to muddy knees

We'll have to leave out-of-box thinking to smarter individuals than me, I'm afraid, I'm more yer practical type!

In the UK, all our coal-burning & nuclear power stations are reaching the end of their useful lives. Many of them are way beyond the time they were designed to operate over. What do you suggest we replace them with, or are you saying that you think we can reduce our energy consumption by 65% over the next 10 years?

The point the Guardian article was making was that windpower is detrimental to the landscape, & misleadingly correlated MW with land area. Compare with the open-cast lignite mines in europe, or ask the Radley lake protestors about what didcot is doing to their landscape. Drive past Trawsfynydd in North Wales whilst remembering that hideous eyesore hasn't generated a single watt in over 16 years (without resorting to anti-nuke knee-jerk crap, such as the well-documented exceptionally high levels of cancer in the traws area. Google it if you're really interested...)

It could be argued that are visually obtrusive. But they are environmentally benign, & tread lightly on the landscape. So long as they are implimented responsibly, where's the problem?

P PMM
PMM Aug 14, 2007 09:49:59
Replying to muddy knees

Thanks. You certainly know how to make friends and influence people.

I have a fucking big windfarm on my doorstep.

Good. I'm glad I don't have a fucking big nuclear power station there.

Nuclear is a finite, non renewable resource too, by the way. If we used uranium to replace the declining supply of gas and oil, we would se supplies peak and fall into decline in around 50 years according to the figures I've read.

Some other points. Gas is needed to do much more than just heat our homes and provide electricity. It also is vital for the production of fertiliser. The more renewable electricity we can produce, asap, means longer before we have to make a choice between heating our homes and feeding people.

I'm sure others have responded much more eloquantly than I have, so I'll leave it there.

C CraigR
CraigR Aug 17, 2007 14:32:05
Replying to muddy knees

"I had rather hoped to move the debate along from nimby-ism and anti-nuclear knee-jerks"

I am very, very sorry..........

"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".

Oooooh get her.........!

"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'!"

What box. Everyone keeps banging on about this fucking box. Where is it? Do I need to take a 'helicopter view' to see it?

"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."

As previously pointed out, reduction is indeed an issue which needs to be addressed, but how so? I always thought people were held 'responsible' by their account billing, you pay for what you use. I am currently responsible for the sustainability and environmental issues on a large site which my company is rebuilding over the next 5 years. The new builds going up are BREEAM top of the class, all the M & E is the most energy efficient available etc, so how do I continue to reduce energy consuption when I have hit a bottom line? You see reduction is finite too!