Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
After church this morning, we had a long discussion about a proposed windfarm just up the road from our village. 117 turbines, 300 feet high - and as my pro-nuclear neighbour stated, they will be an eyesore.  (even though he will not be able to see them, till he stands in front of them)
In the discussion with him I learned a new term Nimby (not in my back yard -ism) Very true.

But the opposition between Nuclear and Wind was made as well, I think it is as much a fight between a "scientific" and a "romantic" attitude to nature. which in a way is funny. because those that are against windfarms often say they are against them for aesthetic reasons. (since most of the other reasons are rubbish anyway.)

If he were able to see windfarms as a crop like forrest and fields, but I only spoke to my wife afterwards (who always has the better arguments anyway) so I could not use this in the conversation with him. next time...

Her point, was that the "natural" countryside is an industrially exploited artificial environment where ever you are. Even in areas of outstanding beauty, or where "nature" can take its course. There are no truely untouched areas, so you might as well harvest what you can on the land that you own. (even though, the farmers get £8,000 per turbine per year)

what do I mean by scientific and romantic? most proponents of Nuclear energy, who argue on a general knowledge level (I am excluding you here Jerome) approach this matter as: We humans are capable of exploiting this resource, and we humans can cope with the consequences, our human superiority will provide a solution for the storage in the cause of the next thousand years, there is no need to worry. Why should we not use a technology developed by the leading lights in our land and supported by the industry?
And they get especially rile up when the arguments against nuclear power, is brought up by tree-hugging, all-luvvy peacenics. I think the defense of nuclear power is often defended against those, environmental bastards, that just don't know what is better for them.

I don't know if that is a right observation, but it might explain, why nuclear and wind is played against each other and coal and gas are left out of the equation. It is the lobbies involved.

by PeWi on Sun Sep 25th, 2005 at 03:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
as my pro-nuclear neighbour stated, they will be an eyesore.

There is nothing accidental about this. There is a British anti-wind umbrella group, the Country Guardians, who are responsible for spreading this notion. This group is a nuclear lobby front, headed by an ex press secretary of Thatcher, and also heads a less publicly exposed prop, the Supporters of Nuclear Energy.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Sun Sep 25th, 2005 at 04:12:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series