I fucking hate this argument. I neer really understood the notion tht some people think having a pretty view out of ther window is more important than not fucking up the planet. I say this, because (where I live at least) it's a perfect location for wind farms- hills and really fucking windy. Personally, in of the belief that we should be getting as many as possible down so that if/ when fossil fuels stop being easily accessible, we aren't going back to the dark ages. And fuck nuggets like those are basically against that because they want a nice view.

Similarly, I don't understand why 'listed buildings' aren't allowed solar panels. Who cares if it looks pretty? If every south-facing house in the country (Im on about Britain here) was able to produce more electricity than it used, that would be fucking great. But again, people seem to think things looking nice is more important than not fucking up for the next 100 years.

So, to add discussion value, why do you think of this? Do you agree with the whole "it spoils my view" thing or do you think that it's a load of crap that shouldn't be listened to? I'm of the latter.

Britain doesn't even look nice in the first place, so they really have no argument.

It does where I live. Probably because there's not that many people around.

I mean, I went to Manchester the other week for comic con. And London a few years before. Both were awful, I hope I never live in a city. Can't stand urban areas.

Well wind farms aren't exactly sustainable anyway so it kind of is a legitimate argument.

Elaborate.

They're highly inefficient, AFAIK. Nuclear is the way to go.

Inefficiency doesn't make them non-sustainable, does it? Unless they currently cost more to maintain than the energy they're putting out.

Quote from: Prime Headphase on August 14, 2015, 07:23:11 AM

Quote from: I regret participating on August 14, 2015, 07:07:53 AM

Well wind farms aren't exactly sustainable anyway so it kind of is a legitimate argument.

Elaborate.

They're highly inefficient, AFAIK. Nuclear is the way to go.

I'll agree there. But then there's the whole issue of what to do with the waste, and what happens if/ when we were to run out of uranium. Plus the risks of a chernobyl/ fukushima incident happening again.

Ideally, we could just build a gigantic mass driver and shoot the waste into the sun, but we don't have that option yet, sadly.

I do agree that renewable sources aren't exactly the most reliable, but they are also a thing that is a useful 'support' role to nuclear or fossils. They wouldn't work on their own, but that doesn't discredit their usefulness.

Quote from: Prime Headphase on August 14, 2015, 07:23:11 AM

Quote from: I regret participating on August 14, 2015, 07:07:53 AM

Well wind farms aren't exactly sustainable anyway so it kind of is a legitimate argument.

Elaborate.

They're highly inefficient, AFAIK. Nuclear is the way to go.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/september/wind-world-demand-091012.html
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/SatWindPot2012.pdf

And I don't have the source, but I'm pretty sure that the US Department of Energy itself once admitted that if wind turbines were fully implemented in just three US states, it could power the entire nation.

As horrifically inefficient as wind turbines are, I fucking hate NIMBY's. First they argue they run the view in the countryside, so the government puts them off the coast (where IIRC, they are far more expensive to put down, although slightly more energy is generated). Then, they complain that they ruin the view of the coast!! They're fucking miles away!

I'm with Meta on energy generation though, 6 Nuclear reactors can produce the same as 50,000 *consistently generating* turbines, and it's far easier to get 6 nuclear reactors built than several windfarms.

Quote from: I regret participating on August 14, 2015, 07:07:53 AM

Well wind farms aren't exactly sustainable anyway so it kind of is a legitimate argument.

Elaborate.

Compared to nuclear and oil they're practically non existent.

One argument against the implementation of wind farms is that they can disrupt the migratory patterns of birds. There have been cases of flocks being taken out by windmills (as funny as that is to imagine, it is a problem).

Otherwise I'm all for wind farms and personally I find them really cool. I've seen a handful of mills generate enough power for an entire city in southern Italy.

That's one legitimate reason for sure. Forgot to mention that one.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on August 14, 2015, 07:25:44 AM

Quote from: Prime Headphase on August 14, 2015, 07:23:11 AM

Quote from: I regret participating on August 14, 2015, 07:07:53 AM

Well wind farms aren't exactly sustainable anyway so it kind of is a legitimate argument.

Elaborate.

They're highly inefficient, AFAIK. Nuclear is the way to go.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/september/wind-world-demand-091012.html
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/SatWindPot2012.pdf

And I don't have the source, but I'm pretty sure that the US Department of Energy itself once admitted that if wind turbines were fully implemented in just three US states, it could power the entire nation.

Except that point is moot since the power would only be usable locally. So flaunting the idea of the power of windmills is pointless.

Have people taken advantage of hydroturbines along tides and currents?

Seems like that would receive less complaints and maybe even generate a bit more energy.

With the risk of fault from fish, litter and other shit being mushed up in it when the tide comes. Plus, it's more expensive to build underwater than to build a big tower.

What the pay off is in terms of energy, I can't say.

Quote from: Jocephalopod on August 14, 2015, 04:26:43 PM

Have people taken advantage of hydroturbines along tides and currents?

Seems like that would receive less complaints and maybe even generate a bit more energy.

With the risk of fault from fish, litter and other shit being mushed up in it when the tide comes. Plus, it's more expensive to build underwater than to build a big tower.

What the pay off is in terms of energy, I can't say.

The pollution aspect is pretty negligble, and tides are predictable/constant also, more energy can be produced at a lower speed underwater

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html

Britain doesn't even look nice in the first place, so they really have no argument.

You live in London.

Quote from: Solid Lemon on August 14, 2015, 10:08:17 PM

Quote from: challengerX on August 14, 2015, 05:15:26 AM

Britain doesn't even look nice in the first place, so they really have no argument.

You live in London.

Unfortunately.

Poor bastard

Actually, I'm laughing at you. But still, poor bastard.