Green energy - don’t be blinded
By Primal Sneeze ~ July 18th, 2008. Filed under: Environment.
Burning oil is bad. Burning coal is bad. Travellers setting themselves on fire in Coolock is bad for the environment too.
What we need are alternative sources of energy. Girls Aloud chained up in the basement rubbing their thighs together is an option I would like to look at.
But I’m hesitant. What hidden dangers are there? Would I go blind? Probably.
Way back at the dawn of time man discovered fire. At elevenses he discovered coal. A few minutes past lunch, oil.
Hey, what’s the big deal? he may have asked. This gunk is just lying there. What harm if I burn some of it?
Now we know better. It is harmful. And we’ve just about burned it all.
So we have begun to harness other sources. Besides Girls Aloud, there is wind, solar, wave. The first tidal power system has just gone live on Northern Ireland’s power grid.
None of these can be harmful. Nothing is used up. Not like oil where you drain one well and move onto the next. These sources replenish themselves. They are renewable. Oil is renewable too if you wait around long enough, but these are instantly replenished. Therefore, they are safe.
Ask the scientists if there are any dangers and you would likely be met with a blank stare. It’s not something they’ve ever thought about. They assume they are safe. Not great science in my opinion.
We are learning a little. Slowly. People living close to wind turbines have complained of the noise. Others have suffered constant migraine. The fauna have deserted the area in cases.
Flaws with hydro power are easier comprehend - the ecosystem downstream can easily get thrown out of kilter. But what of tidal power? Does intercepting waves have a knock on effect at their intended destination?
What about an array of solar panels spread over large area? Isn’t the sunlight meant to hit the ground, not be blocked enroute? Does the heat and light not have a purpose; a role in the greater scheme?
See, we don’t know. We do know that if you want to mess with nature, you have to be very careful. Close to home, a Tidy Towns Committee set about stepping a stream. The mini-waterfalls they created were ever so pretty and praised by one and all. Within months the moss and algae had crept into the slower flowing waters. The fish died or moved on. They had unwittingly killed the stream.
I just think we need to look into these eco-sources more closely before blinding embracing them. Me? Well I’m off down to the basement to see how Girls Aloud are getting on. If I go blind embracing them at least we will have learned something.
I’ve tweaked my X10 lighting system to only respond and engage to Girls Aloud music sorta like the ol’ clap and the light comes on trick. ….Oh holy god I just said ‘clap’ and ‘Girls Aloud’ in the same sentence - may the saints forgive me.
@Quickroute - All Saints will forgive you.
Travellers setting themselves on fire isn’t good for the environment, no - but isn’t the amount of energy they release when compared to other fuel sources worth it?
When you go blind, will you come back and tell us about it?
I’d hate to think that Southland Tales (with its Tidal Power station) would come to be regarded as some of prophetic morality tale.
What excellent points Primal. It’s one of the many things that bother me about the whole eco-evangelism thing that is so fashionable at the moment. Remember what they said about DDT? Turned out to be bollocks and we killed half of Africa by banning it!
There is no real science here… it’s become a religion… politically motivated… the worst kind. The studies that are available are only as good as their funding sources, which can nearly always be linked to groups wanting a certain outcome. And as sceptical as I am, this is equally true of both sides.
As for Girls Aloud… ugh… gonna be hard to get that picture out of my head!
Great post. There’s something very Josef Fritzl-esque about the whole Girls Aloud thing.
Studies* have shown that Tidy Towns committees are bad for the environment. I think we should have them banned.
*Primal Sneeze, July18th 2008
We need to move to renewable sources of energy, no question. Oil and coal are too costly for both the environment and our purse. Unfortunately, because it took Shrub 8 years longer than almost everybody else -including 98% of accredited scientists in the field - to acknowledge global warming, America has not taken the lead in investing in alternative sources. China and India are perfectly entitled to cry hypocrite, when they now see us saying do as I say, not as we’ve been doing.
In this country, private industry is taking the lead. Vast areas of barren desert are being given over to solar panels, without any real impact to the environment unless you happen to be really fond of rocks and dust. The wind turbines are another matter and present their own problems, as does wave power. However, it seems to me, we no longer have the luxury of ruling out alternative fuel sources just because they’re not perfect yet. We have to move now if we want to prevent further damage. I reckon the future will see us using energy from a whole array of sources. Coal burning is filthier than oil burning and if the US alone could generate its electricity needs from sources other than coal, it would send a strong signal; it would say: it can be done (and it can); it is economically viable (after a meaningful initial infrastructure investment, the energy will be free, renewable and plentiful); there is the political will to do it (that’s growing). Plus it would be better for the environment.
Fauna may be affected by turbines, but we are already in danger of wiping out countless species of marine life, bleaching coral in warming waters, and losing the arctic flora and fauna altogether. Whatever wind-power’s deleterious effects they have to be more palatable than the havoc being wreaked in nature now.
Apologies for the numptyness of some of these sentences. I tried to edit but the editor won’t load for me!
@TheChrisD - I have no way of measuring the calorific value.
@Grannymar - Yes. Of course. And in graphic detail. Expect this blog to be closed by the censor.
@Dan Sullivan - Isn’t fact often stranger than fiction?
@Deborah - It’s all but impossible to strike the middle ground. Sometimes a group has to be evangelical in promoting a cause - the danger is the masses, once convinced, turn it into a religion.
@Mark - Ugh!
Actually the concept is taken from the Kenny Everett TV Show. Way before your time.
@Caro - Extra marks are awarded for environmental practices in the Tidy Town competition (pageant?). Unfortunately neither the judges nor the competitors fully understand what those practices should be.
@problemchildbride - Numptyness is allowed. This AJAXy stuff can be as predictable as a baby’s arse - I’ll check out the editor.
Anyway back at the ranch: Mr. Sceach pandered to the wishes of the industrialists, in this case the oil men, as all US primary plantlife does. Only when a second, potentially more powerful, cadre begin to emerge, in this case the environmental corporations, can he change tack in earnest.
Globally we are in a panic situation as regards energy. This may mean we simply do not have time to think about the consequences of the latest big thing and go at it like a pig at a spud. My gut feeling is telling me to make like a pig, but my analytical side is telling me to think first.
[Yep. Editor playing up. Will see what I can do]
If the sun is meant to shine on the ground then should we start by ripping up motorways that have covered vast acreages of soil, and heat the surface far more than sunlight on falling on oxygenating plantlife? Anyway, most solar panels in this part of the world are mounted on pre-existing buildings.
I’ve been in places deemed suitable for wind farming (upland heath/bog) and seen precious little fauna, except for those precious little fauna called midges. Resident birdlife is minimal. Windfarms at sea can usefully establish relatively protected new eco-systems on the sea floor - no bottom dredging is possible, for instance.
Even at this early stage there’s a backlash against ‘green’ energy, to the extent of suggesting that nuclear power is the way to go. I suspect it’s largely interest-driven, putting question marks in the public domain in order to create uncertainty is a tried and tested ploy, like using the term ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’.
Not the first encounter Cheryl has had with a beard!
“People living close to wind turbines have complained of the noise. Others have suffered constant migraine. The fauna have deserted the area in cases”
The rates of asthma and some cancers are higher in areas around petroleum plants and even around gas stations. Bush is arguing this week for opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve for drilling. Oil spills routinely decimate fragile ecosystems.
Whatever we do will have some impact on flora and fauna for sure. I just think the damage is less overall with wind-farms etc. than if we don’t act now and make every effort to get off fossil fuels. I think the time for being as cautious as we’d like to be was 20 years ago when nobody was paying attention. Now we don’t have the luxury of time.
What was it the bauld Myles said about scientists increasing our ignorance rather than our knowledge - because the shiny new stuff they come up with creates shiny new problems?
Certainly we need less impacting sources of energy. But more than anything else we need to stop being profligate with it. Insulating our houses better and stopping insane commutes would be a good start.
@flirty - She have as many encounters with mine as she wants. No - make that as many as I want.
@Conan Drumm & @problemchildbride - I am not proposing banning green energy sources. And I am definitely not proposing we adopt nuclear.
Didn’t your mammy tell you too much of a good thing is bad for you? That’s what’s nagging me. I know we don’t have the time to study the impact of these sources as well as we need to, but as we implement them, let’s thread as softly as we can afford to.
e.g. A couple of sea-based turbines is fine here and there. Are we sure a stretch of 50kms of them is? I suspect not. Would a few sea-based ones in conjunction with a few land-based nearby and some solar panels and whatever else generate the same power without doing harm? I don’t know. But the guys who make the panels will want to cover acres with them and convince us their product is best. The green corporates are becoming as strong as the oil ones.
@aonghus - An holistic approach would be best. The drive for that approach has to come from central government. However, they, like us, jump on the bandwagon that is the latest fad and drop everything else.
Fair point, Sneezy, human nature being what it is, the green corporations may well be as money-hungry as the oil companies. And we should tread softly, I agree, but I’ve read proposals from people who want 5-year impact studies done before any solar panel is ever put up anywhere. My argument is that we no longer have the luxury of time to do that.
I know we don’t have time, Sam. I’m just marking everyone’s card: In a few years we will have things screwed up in areas where we misused green technology. Right now, I get queer looks for using the term misuse in connection with green. No one wants to believe that it can cause problems. No one wants to even consider where those problems could arise. We are putting our faith (and fate) in this. Probably, as you say, because we have to.