• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The problem with eco-nazis: or there is no free lunch

kevin 714

kevin 714

New member
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Location
Mugello
Moto(s)
LOLWUT?
http://abcnews.go.com/International/mutiny-land-wind-turbines/story?id=19653322

Germany plans to build 60,000 new wind turbines -- in forests, in the foothills of the Alps and even in protected environmental areas. But local residents are up in arms, costs are skyrocketing and Germany's determination to phase out nuclear power is in danger.

Still, he finds the wind turbine behind his garden fence harder to cope with. The tower is 180 meters (590 feet) high, and the whirr of the blades and grinding of the actuators are clearly audible.

"When I leave my local bar in Heilbronn, 15 kilometers from here, I find my way home by heading for the turbine," he quips.

But he can't think of anything else positive to say about the turbine. "It's dreadful," he says. "And it's split the village. It's war here."

The wind turbine, an Enercon E-82, has been there for over a year. When it was inaugurated, the local shooting club, the "Black Hunters", fired their guns in celebration, and the local priest delivered a sermon on protecting God's creation.

But not everyone is happy. Some are angry at the way the landscape, celebrated by German Romantic poets such as Hölderlin and Mörike, is being butchered. The opponents protest with images of the Grim Reaper holding a wind turbine rather than his traditional scythe.
Click to expand...


one of my main issues with a huge part of the enviromental movement is that basically no one wants any actual solution. no nuclear power? ok lets build wind turbines. cant do that, its ugly. ok lets do geo thernal, cant do that, causes earthquakes(doesnt actually). build a dam for water power, but youll destory an eco system erhamgerd. everyone hates fossil fuels yet many dont support viable alternatives because of drawbacks they dont like.

why does it seem a large portion of the enviormental movement, thinks there is some sort of fantasy power source with zero drawbacks, just waiting in the wings to be discovered?



yes I know the story is from germany just got me thinking is al. its something that has bothered me for YEARS.
 
It is the price of progress. People somewhere are always butthurt when they are even slightly effected negatively. Also, the NIMBY and mob mentalities help facilitate the hate.

People just dont like it when the status quo is changed, even if it is for the better. It is "different" and therefore bad.
 
Hydro-electric is the way to go. Sure, the immediate habitat is destroyed, but a new habitat is created. On top of that, there is potential revenue from recreation. It's as close to win-win as we're going to get, imo.
 
It's the whole NIMBY mindset. They want it, they don't want to see it or have it encroach on their precious lives.

No different for those who vote for more prisons but get up in arms when it'll be near their town.
I think we'll find ways to have cheap, small, unobtrusive alternative energy sources in the future, but we can't just sit around until that happens. It's not like oil and gas isn't affecting communities. Just ask those living around the Gulf of Mexico, or up in Alaska. Ask all the people who deal with fracking, or how the people in the Finger Lakes are going to have to live with natural gas being stored in the underground caves there and all the trucks and development that comes with it. Everywhere there is a nuclear power plant, oil rig or energy source, there was something untouched there before.

But hey, it's not in our backyards. It's not visible from Germany, so they'll just bitch about how they'd rather remain dependent on more wasteful energy sources as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.
 
+1 on the NIMBY problem.

Wind is a great example of NIMBYism in action. Nuclear also, but maybe to a lesser degree.

But as was said, there is no do-all solution. Each powerplant technology has its own advantages and drawbacks, and the pros and cons aren't even consistent from location to location. There was a PNAS paper that was just published in regards to where solar and wind technologies would work optimally:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...=wheres-the-best-place-to-put-a-wind-13-07-14
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/06/19/1221978110.abstract

The results aren't what you'd expect. For example:
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University totaled up the health and environmental benefits of renewable electricity across the U.S. Such benefits range from decreased respiratory disease thanks to less soot all the way to mitigation of climate change.

And when you consider all those factors, a solar panel in New Jersey delivers more overall benefits than photovoltaics in far sunnier Arizona.
Click to expand...

Providing for our future energy needs is a complex matter, and the eco-nazis don't seem to be willing to acquaint themselves with the science and engineering of it.
 
in a few hundred years when the earth can't support the number of people living (because it's currently growing exponentially), it'll be interesting to see what happens to the population.

you might only be allowed a certain number of children (like china today).
you might not get medical treatment after a certain age, or maybe the government will just executed the old and infirm.
maybe it'll be self regulating - the lack of basic necessities will prevent people from having children and the old will die off.

it's amazing we're straining the earth's resources so much today; most of this consumption started due to the industrial revolution a short 300 years ago. we won't last another 300 years at this rate - something has to give.
 
I would have trouble with Wind turbines. Not by the looks, but by its killing Birds. As much as Wind Turbines cost, add a protective netting around the turbine. Netting that doesn't hinder wind flow. Long lasting in the environment.

Eco vs Eco extremists, like PETA vs Renewable clean energy.
 
Bronto said:
I would have trouble with Wind turbines. Not by the looks, but by its killing Birds. As much as Wind Turbines cost, add a protective netting around the turbine. Netting that doesn't hinder wind flow. Long lasting in the environment.
Click to expand...

Wazzu in 3...2...
 
isn't the bay area the king of NIMBY?

Oh the outrage :laughing
 
The best path is conservation. A lot of eggs are cracked to make the omelette of 'green energy".

The mistake is to lump all environmentalist into one basket. They want different things and they are different extremes. Some are not practical at all.

I like wind energy a lot, but you don't want to live by the big ones at all. And the bigger the better as far as energy and ROI. The problem is the low frequency sound and shadow flickers can make you go insane.

That does not mean we should not use green energy because fossil fuels will always be nasty and they get dirtier every single day as it gets harder to get.
 
mike23w said:
in a few hundred years when the earth can't support the number of people living (because it's currently growing exponentially), it'll be interesting to see what happens to the population.
Click to expand...

I'd say 50 years not a few hundred. We're already at the breaking point.
 
I just did some research about Wind Turbine Syndrome, an alleged disease caused by infrasound emanating from wind turbines. Turns out it's not only bullshit, but that symptoms can manifest merely by the power of suggestion. Freaky-deaky.
 
byke said:
Hydro-electric is the way to go. Sure, the immediate habitat is destroyed, but a new habitat is created. On top of that, there is potential revenue from recreation. It's as close to win-win as we're going to get, imo.
Click to expand...

Zero CO2 emmissions as well.

Killroy1999 said:
The best path is conservation. A lot of eggs are cracked to make the omelette of 'green energy".

The mistake is to lump all environmentalist into one basket. They want different things and they are different extremes. Some are not practical at all.

I like wind energy a lot, but you don't want to live by the big ones at all. And the bigger the better as far as energy and ROI. The problem is the low frequency sound and shadow flickers can make you go insane.

That does not mean we should not use green energy because fossil fuels will always be nasty and they get dirtier every single day as it gets harder to get.
Click to expand...

How does this work? Does not technology affect "fossil fuel" energy as well. Fact is, all energy production continues to get "cleaner" with technological advances.
:cool
 
blrmaker said:
Fact is, all energy production continues to get "cleaner" with technological advances.
:cool
Click to expand...

Not true. Much of the easy-to-get coal, natural gas, and crude has already been extracted. We have developed techniques like ultra-deep water drilling, mountaintop removal, and hydraulic fracturing to get the hard-to-reach energy. It takes more energy to extract by these methods, and the risk of releasing toxic byproducts is greater.

The reason why the middle east crude is so prized is because it's easy to extract, contains less nitrogen and sulfur impurities, and therefore is easier to refine than the hydrocarbons we get from deep water wells and shale.

The technology available is not as advanced as most people are led to believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top