Hacker News Reader

Comment by grumpydba | Hacker News Reader

Probably the ugliness. I've seen great landscapes being heavily damaged by wind turbines.

Which is a subjective notion, of course. I look at a landscape full of wind turbines and I see the beauty of a species recognising it needed to change.

Arguably, but then arguably a landscape covered in mines and coal fired power stations is also beautiful; mountains being moved in aid of making people's lives better, the foundations of centuries of human progress, etc, etc. A 10km by 10km concrete grid could be a beautiful monument to a species that has recognised it needed to master concrete (fantastic stuff concrete, a miracle substance really).

Windmills are a bit of an eyesore compared to a great natural scene.

Ditto, they make me feel like I’m living in a near-future sci-fi film. And let’s be honest, whatever natural beauty once existed in the UK was largely destroyed over the course of millennia.

Yeah so let's destroy pristine nature landscapes with ugly turbines (which kill a lot of birds and cost an arm to decommission). I've seen wild landscapes in Brittany completely ruined by still wind turbines. It's a disgrace.

I'd rather go nuclear in select ugly places.

What is beautiful is good. He who creates ugliness is evil.

There is no wilderness in Brittany that I am aware of. Very little anywhere in Europe actually. My point being, man have altered the landscape in that part of the world on a continual basis for thousands of years. Heck, people have been building windmills, the very object you object to, on this land for that long. It seems a bit rich to suddenly stand on principle and proclaim No! This should be banned! What is there left to despoil? Virgin Amazon or Boreal forest? Sure. Brittany? C’mon.

Indeed you are not aware as you have not been there. It's in a border of an old forest. It's known that it kills bird. The visual pollution is really important and those who value technology and convenience over beauty have already done disastrous things to my country. It needs to stop.

I have been. You are referring I suppose to Brocélien. It is an old forest but not in any way wild. (Sa histoire: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forêt_de_Paimpont#Histoire). By "wild" I mean "untouched by man". Those places are worth saving, but there are not very many remaining, and certainly almost none in continental Europe. We should respect our forests and other open spaces, but some windmills is much less of a problem than the alternative.

>What is beautiful is good. He who creates ugliness is evil.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed and I do not think Anglo Saxon protestants make correct beholders in this regard. Totally subjective I admit. However I stand for my views on aestetics. I think it's an important matter and that it is open for discussion.

Also, I have a deep aversion for relativism.

If we don't destroy the pristine landscapes, were sure as hell going to destroy the pristine planet.

Nuclear is better, though, in the short term.

That's why inland wind is basically banned in the UK. I totally understand the argument and if it wasn't for the fact that the climate disaster will end us I would agree.

However what 2+ degrees of warming will do will dwarf anything that the turbines will do.

There are also arguments about birds dying and the such. Only that's a BS argument considering that glass buildings kill 10x as many birds and are ubiquitous.

So why not do nuclear?

Really? Hinkley Point C, that's why not. In the U.S., Vogtle. These are the only nuclear power plants under construction in the UK and US. They each cost over 20 billion dollars, are heavily subsidized, and are badly behind schedule and over budget. If and when they are ever completed, the energy they produce will be more expensive than unsubsidized wind and solar in their respective regions.

It's too expensive to do now and has been killed in the past by the same NIMBY. Given the impact of failure I actually understand the NIMBY in relation to nuclear.

Why not both?

Also, nuclear has the whole radioactive waste and potential meltdown thing, which wind does not.

I'm in favor of both. There are lots of very stable locations in the US. Far from flooding and earthquakes that are suitable. Similar for wind. I think solar should be limited to existing rooftops for now though.

I don't find them ugly, though, and opinions from folks I know differ.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com