Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolutely not, wind farms are a vital part, and need to be a bigger part, of our power grid.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I think there should be a motion that you can't be against renewable energy because 'it's ugly'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    I think there should be a motion that you can't be against renewable energy because 'it's ugly'.
    Why? Policy making is a normative process that includes criteria such as the aesthetics.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    A healthy mix of nuclear, tidal, solar and wind would be the perfect energy solution for the UK long term. Becoming energy independent and carbon neutral should be seriously prioritised for investment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    I think there should be a motion that you can't be against renewable energy because 'it's ugly'.
    There's nothing wrong with opposing some forms, (*cough* wind) of renewable energy because most people think it's nauseatingly ugly and a stain on the landscape. There's no point in preserving the earth if the cost of doing so makes it unbearable to look at.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    There's nothing wrong with opposing some forms, (*cough* wind) of renewable energy because most people think it's nauseatingly ugly and a stain on the landscape. There's no point in preserving the earth if the cost of doing so makes it unbearable to look at.
    While I agree that aesthetics are something people value and important to the democratic process, I've never understood why people find wind turbines ugly. I find them quite beautiful. There's a certain element of romanticism to them - a wind mill for a more modern age.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    If you want ugly look at the post war Diesel trains. Stream trains were a masterpiece of beautiful engineering and modern trains (Virgin) look quite pretty but they were awful.

    I agree, i quite like wind turbines and solar panels.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    While I agree that aesthetics are something people value and important to the democratic process, I've never understood why people find wind turbines ugly. I find them quite beautiful. There's a certain element of romanticism to them - a wind mill for a more modern age.
    They're anything but romantic in my eyes. Impersonal and utilitarian; couldn't be further from romantic, surely?!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    There's nothing wrong with opposing some forms, (*cough* wind) of renewable energy because most people think it's nauseatingly ugly and a stain on the landscape. There's no point in preserving the earth if the cost of doing so makes it unbearable to look at.
    I was being deliberately provocative but opposing a clean, green and sustainable method of energy production because you don't like the way it looks is loathsome. I could understand if it was a huge anaerobic digester or something but turbines aren't even that obtrusive. We need to actually sort out energy first and foremost, and then we can let Anthony Gormley have his way with the structures.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    They're anything but romantic in my eyes. Impersonal and utilitarian; couldn't be further from romantic, surely?!
    A windmill was both of those in its day.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by St. Brynjar)
    I was being deliberately provocative but opposing a clean, green and sustainable method of energy production because you don't like the way it looks is loathsome. I could understand if it was a huge anaerobic digester or something but turbines aren't even that obtrusive. We need to actually sort out energy first and foremost, and then we can let Anthony Gormley have his way with the structures.
    I disagree that it's 'loathsome' to oppose one form of renewable energy because of its impact on the visual environment. Wind energy is pretty measly compared to Nuclear (massively) and solar (which is far more reliable, for obvious reasons), and in my view the amount of energy produced does not justify their aesthetic blot on the landscape when there are more efficient and less aesthetically traumatising sources available. Sorting out energy doesn't have to involve wind power.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    A windmill was both of those in its day.
    That's obviously a matter of opinion, but I imagine most people, and surely also yourself, would not seriously equate the impersonality and aura of brutal utility of contemporary wind turbines with traditional wind mills.

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    That's obviously a matter of opinion, but I imagine most people, and surely also yourself, would not seriously equate the impersonality and aura of brutal utility of contemporary wind turbines with traditional wind mills.

    Why? In the era in which they were designed, wind mills had no purpose other than brutal utility - they provided the force sufficient to turn the millstone and grind wheat and so on. They were also certainly an impersonal process. In both of these respects they don't differ from the modern wind turbine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Why? In the era in which they were designed, wind mills had no purpose other than brutal utility - they provided the force sufficient to turn the millstone and grind wheat and so on. They were also certainly an impersonal process. In both of these respects they don't differ from the modern wind turbine.
    They had no purpose other than utility, but to say they were 'brutal' is a stretch and most would doubtless consider the traditional mills to be far more romantic and less of an eyesore than today's. The traditional mills had soul, which can't be said of the skeletal turbines blighting us today, hence the less impersonal part; the traditional mills grew like trees out of one place where people who relied on them to survive poured their hearts into their construction and function; today's are built in far-away factories and set up by temp builders. The traditional ones were also constructed entirely out of natural materials (stone, wood) which easily melted into the landscape, something that can't really be said of today's.

    Yes, like today's, the traditional ones were constructed to serve a purpose, but they certainly weren't brutal or impersonal (didn't say anything about the actual process, but their impression on the landscape) by comparison to ours.
    • Community Assistant
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    PS Helper
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    This petition is about trying to stop any wind farms, or individual wind turbines from being created using government money. Fair enough to petition this. Wind turbines are not an efficient source of green energy The amount of energy from a turbine is about 1/3 that of the wind that pushes it., they are ugly, depends on your perspective loud, even if it is noisy, they are generally quite high up and more efficient turbines are quieter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...wind-farm.html please watch will give some good perspective. widely opposed by the public source please. I think everything that changes is initially opposed by the local populace. The public want green alternatives but not near them. If they had a choice between a nuclear power station and a wind farm though I think - can't say for sure - would pick the wind farm. and have been known to explode. 10 recorded accidents here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_turbine#Accidents wikipedia is a fine resource. They also will not become Carbon Neutral until the year 2020. Neither of the other two options are better in this respect. They both have very energy intensive setups. There are many more viable green and other sensible energy producing options. There are lots of ways but don't ban one way. Therefore the money gained from this would be used to invest in other energy means, preferably tidal power, and investment into nuclear facilities.
    Point by point look through post.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    They had no purpose other than utility, but to say they were 'brutal' is a stretch and most would doubtless consider the traditional mills to be far more romantic and less of an eyesore than today's.
    Sure, but that's entirely subjective.

    The traditional mills had soul, which can't be said of the skeletal turbines blighting us today, hence the less impersonal part;
    What you're failing to see is that this is also subjective.

    the traditional mills grew like trees out of one place where people who relied on them to survive poured their hearts into their construction and function; today's are built in far-away factories and set up by temp builders.
    In the immediate future, we do rely upon wind power to survive - it provides 5.3% of our present energy consumption. A large amount of windmills used in the UK tend to be purchased from UK firms like Evance and Westwind Turbines; those that doesn't usually come from Vestas, which is only as far as Denmark.


    The traditional ones were also constructed entirely out of natural materials (stone, wood) which easily melted into the landscape, something that can't really be said of today's.
    Something doesn't have to meld into the landscape in order to beautiful. There is something to be said for the stark, the bleak, the imposing. Softness would have no meaning without hardness.

    Yes, like today's, the traditional ones were constructed to serve a purpose, but they certainly weren't brutal or impersonal (didn't say anything about the actual process, but their impression on the landscape) by comparison to ours.
    We'll have to agree to disagree. I think wind turbines are a monumental testaments to the capacity of humankind for ingenuity, titans standing against the winds which shape our world. Windmills? They're okay, I suppose, but the best they can do is turn a stone. There's no power there, no sense of immutability or dynamism. Wind turbines stand as titans to an electric future.

    Really easy to do this pretentious ****, huh? Truth is I like windmills, you don't. It's an aesthetic matter you simply won't be able to prove no much how you blather on about soul.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Sure, but that's entirely subjective.
    Yes, but the relevant part is that most people seem to agree with me. When the subjective is in the majority in a democratic system, that has significance.

    What you're failing to see is that this is also subjective.
    I haven't failed to see anything.

    In the immediate future, we do rely upon wind power to survive - it provides 5.3% of our present energy consumption. A large amount of windmills used in the UK tend to be purchased from UK firms like Evance and Westwind Turbines; those that doesn't usually come from Vestas, which is only as far as Denmark.
    Yes, but we were discussing the character of the objects relative to their immediate surroundings. Wind mills provided essential power for local families; wind turbines often produce energy for local estates. They have become more distant and less personable, which many people would consider as a facet of ugliness. The turbines may be made in the UK but they are still made in impersonal factories with little or no connection to the environment they are destined for. I think it's perfectly valid to say that this gives them less soul than the family-maintained traditional mills of old.

    5.3% is a fairly negligble contribution to our energy sustenance and could fairly easily be recouped with generous surplus in nuclear, tidal, hydroelectric and solar power, all of which are aesthetically preferable to most people, more reliable and more efficient.

    Something doesn't have to meld into the landscape in order to beautiful. There is something to be said for the stark, the bleak, the imposing. Softness would have no meaning without hardness.
    No, but for most people it's preferable. Towering metal skeletons, while attractive to some such as yourself, strike most as unattractively clashing to the natural environment. This should be clear in that protests against wind turbines are regularly organised by communities all over the country blighted by these monstrosities, yet no one seems to value them enough to organise similar efforts to support their continuation. To call my argument 'pretentious' when you're coming out with this is quite rich.

    We'll have to agree to disagree. I think wind turbines are a monumental testaments to the capacity of humankind for ingenuity, titans standing against the winds which shape our world. Windmills? They're okay, I suppose, but the best they can do is turn a stone. There's no power there, no sense of immutability or dynamism. Wind turbines stand as titans to an electric future.
    And a very valid perspective it is, one I disagree with. The point of this debate has been whether it is necessary to pursue wind power when there are alternatives which are more efficient and when many more people seem to find wind turbines uglier and noisier than these other alternatives. It strikes me as totally unnecessary.

    Really easy to do this pretentious ****, huh? Truth is I like windmills, you don't. It's an aesthetic matter you simply won't be able to prove no much how you blather on about soul.
    There's nothing pretentious about what I've said; I have been civil and reasoned and your choice to resort to abuse is to your discredit. It comes across as insecure. If I am guilty of arguing over subjective perspective, something I don't see anything wrong with, then you are equally. Similarly, your subjective viewpoint praising what you see as the beauty of turbines is unprovable no much how you 'blather on' about 'the stark, the bleak, the imposing'. At least I based my judgements about wind mills on hard facts like what they were made out of and their greater significance to the local community, not Roget's thesaurus.
    It's curious you feel the need to make this text smaller; it certainly is of tiny intellectual value here and very beneath an Oxford undergraduate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nebelbon)
    This petition is about trying to stop any wind farms, or individual wind turbines from being created using government money. Wind turbines are not an efficient source of green energy, they are ugly, loud, widely opposed by the public and have been known to explode. They also will not become Carbon Neutral until the year 2020. There are many more viable green and other sensible energy producing options. Therefore the money gained from this would be used to invest in other energy means, preferably tidal power, and investment into nuclear facilities.
    You've forgotten that offshore wind farms may be more costly, but are not ugly, loud and therefore not as widely opposed by the public. Nuclear energy also has the bad attribute of not being understood by scientists, and there is obvious logic not to use a type of energy we do not understand (shown in examples like chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island and many other incidents.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by nikkoch)
    You've forgotten that offshore wind farms may be more costly, but are not ugly, loud and therefore not as widely opposed by the public. Nuclear energy also has the bad attribute of not being understood by scientists, and there is obvious logic not to use a type of energy we do not understand (shown in examples like chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island and many other incidents.
    Fukushima occurred because a tsunami took out the cooling pumps; Three Mile Island was caused by a valve not opening; and Chernobyl was an old type of reactor that is not even used in the West. To suggest that nuclear power is "not understood" by scientists, based on those examples, or at all, is absolutely absurd.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Our approach to wind and solar power needs to become more like the Netherlands. Massive wind farms are rejected in favour of individual turbines and solar panels for each house. If we can make individual properties self-sufficient it'll take huge strain off the national grid and satisfy people opposed to big wind farms.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.