8 ms·
I hate the large scale turbines. I'm sure small scale or other designs are OK. But screw the large turbines. Where I grew up they outsourced the jobs and then w
by giantg2 2y ago
I hate the large scale turbines. I'm sure small scale or other designs are OK. But screw the large turbines. Where I grew up they outsourced the jobs and then we were left with ugly giants ruining the once beautiful mountains. It's on par with strip mining (aesthetically).
- cr__ 2y agoI like em.
- giantg2 2y ago[flagged]
- thinkingtoilet 2y agoWhere do you think coal and oil comes from? It's ok as long as other people's environment is destroyed for non-renewable energy but not your environment for renewable energy?
- giantg2 2y agoLol, they used to mine coal under that very mountain (until it was outsourced). It's not like we have some insular life. The region is economically depressed. People would rather have jobs while destroying the environment than not have jobs while destroying the environment and recreational value simultaneously.
- kibwen 2y ago[flagged]
- roenxi 2y agoHave they ever used that technique in the UK? I don't think the UK has mountains suitable for mountaintop removal - they are famous for their underground operations. I've always filed mountaintop removal mining as one of those "weird things Americans do" approaches. Probably associated with unusual geology or something.
- giantg2 2y agoI think the UK had the none-mountainous version of strip mining - open pit mines. I think there aren't any in operation currently, and I'm unsure if they were for coal or just other commodities.
- nkali 2y agoEven if not, the collieries in Wales, built on top of coal shafts, were quite industrial-looking/landscape-runining. https://museum.wales/articles/1260/Nantgarw-Colliery---once-the-deepest-coal-mine-in-south-Wales/ https://museum.wales/articles/1260/Nantgarw-Colliery---once-...
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 2y agoWe used the technique until we ran out of mountains, hence current lack of mountains.
- giantg2 2y ago[flagged]
- marliechiller 2y agoand all of them are horrendously bad for the environment, the end.
- giantg2 2y agoAs are the wind turbines with there non-recyclable blades and bird kills.
- triceratops 2y ago> People would rather have jobs Who do you think puts up windmills and solar panels?
- giantg2 2y agoIn the case I personally know of, they brought in offshore workers. It also only generates reasonable numbers of jobs during initial construction.
- triceratops 2y ago> offshore workers Also people who need jobs. And that's just the case you personally know of. Maybe people should retrain instead of pining for jobs of the past. And we should support them in the transition as much as possible . > only generates reasonable numbers of jobs during initial construction We're gonna need a lot of initial construction though.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoSure why not? Maybe it's a geographical/cultural difference, but there are so, so many mountains in the western US. it's a good part of why the game Oregan Trail was made. Before carving roads around and through mountains it was a truly treacherous journey. US also jury has so much land to begin with. We can certainly afford to retrofit a few mountains without fundamentally disrupting the ecosystem. We're very bad at moderation, sadly.
- triceratops 2y agoWhen is that?
- alabastervlog 2y agoThey're one of the only pieces of technology that I think often (not always) improve the appearance of a landscape. Maybe also lighthouses. Sometimes.
- giantg2 2y agoLighthouses have only become aesthetic because of their rarity rendering them as quaint or nostalgic. Modern versions and their impacts would be largely protested.
- Nasrudith 2y agoI suspect the real reason behind objections to technology being visible is basically "It makes me feel old by highlighting that I came from a time before X and now everyone will just become accustomed to X!".
- Propelloni 2y agoAnd I'm like "whoa, I'm living in the future!" It's awesome!
- walthamstow 2y agoPeople forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.
- dontlaugh 2y agoEcologically, it is basically barren.
- xaldir 2y agoWhat? Pastures? Grassland are actually good for biodiversity.
- Myrmornis 2y agoI'm sorry you're saying people think agricultural fields are natural vegetation?
- walthamstow 2y agoYes. The gently rolling fields of grass, sheep, rape and wheat are considered a national symbol of our natural environment in need of protection from dastardly human creations such as wind turbines. This is the 'green and pleasant land' that William Blake wrote about.
- rsynnott 2y agoI’m not sure anyone consciously thinks that, but the kind of nostalgic “old England” thing is big on fields and grass, not so much forest.
- milesrout 2y agoThe "natural landscape" is a pretty meaningless concept in Britain. Are moors not natural landscapes because they were formed hundreds or thousands of years ago? Is it natural when animals do something but not when humans do it? Or is it natural when hunter gatherers do something but not when agriculturalists do it? Or is it natural when non-industrial people do it, but not when industrialists do it? And why does your chosen definition matter? Is the natural landscape better than human-modified landscapes? Is a change always fine if the starting point was created by humans? If you replaced the ancient figures carved into the chalk in England with wind farms would that be fine because they arent natural features?
- lenkite 2y agoAren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone every year
- triceratops 2y agoAnd the Exxon Valdez and the Deepwater Horizon were good for birds? Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all.
- zdragnar 2y agoIt's usually the types of birds that are affected that upset people. Many ideal locations for windmills (in particular mountainous regions, dunno about offshore) happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. Likewise, there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement, especially among whales. It'd be nice to know that we're not replacing one disaster with another, though I'm out of date on my personal research as to whether any of these concerns still warrant further investigation.
- triceratops 2y ago> Many ideal locations for windmills...happen to also be ideal places for threatened or endangered large raptors. The person I replied to was making a quantity-of-birds argument. Not an endangered species argument. > there's the (unproven) connection with noise generated by offshore wind farms disturbing wildlife migration and movement Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? I don't see much of a movement to ban those. It's almost like people decide the things they want to have for themselves (undisturbed views), then make up whatever noble-sounding reasons (whales, birds) will preserve those things.
- zdragnar 2y ago> Bringing up bird welfare to oppose wind turbines is bullshit. If people cared about birds or wildlife we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Your comment seems to be a blanket opposition to bird welfare in general, not a limited critique of quantity harmed. I do think the distinction remains important, hence why I made my post. > Do they make a lot more noise than giant cruise ships? Luxury yachts? Given that the ships are itinerant and their turbines are much smaller, I do believe the type of noise pollution they generate is qualitatively less harmful. I imagine the scale is something along the lines of: 1. windmills 2. sonar 3. marine vehicle engine and turbine noise Windmills take the top spot for being a constant barrage over a large area. Sonar gets the second for the extreme volume some ships (esp. military) are capable of producing, though there are far fewer of them. Marine vehicles come last. There's a greater danger of animals being hit by fast moving boats (for example, manatees) than discombobulation from engine and turbine noise.
- hermitcrab 2y agoI disagree. I think they are rather pleasing to look at. Especially compared to a coal fired power station.