No, you can\’t build dams either

So, when a country decides that it\’s going to go gung ho for renewable energy, going to tap its hydro-electric potential, what happens?

Turkey\’s Great Leap Forward risks cultural and environmental bankruptcy

Turkish government\’s rush to build dams, hydro and nuclear power plants angers villagers and environmental campaigners

Yup, the Greenies complain again.

You\’ve got to start thinking that they don\’t actually want a solution to climate change really, that they\’re much more ionterested in imposing a life of agrarian, peasant, stupidity upon us rather than anything else.

8 thoughts on “No, you can\’t build dams either”

  1. You are getting there Tim and helping others to understand.

    Green is the new age anti-everything griper.

    Don’t try to placate, there is nothing you can do. Off at a tangent experts who when you invalidate a point of view pull up another question.

    ‘I suppose you think BP should be allowed to drill where it wants?’

    ‘Ok, so you like nuclear disasters?’

    ‘Why do you want to destroy rain forests?’

    It’s great, you never have to be coherent.

    On the news this morning, I saw the German Environment Minister (I think) announcing that all nuclear power stations are to be shut by 2022. He then proceeded to wobble off pathetically on a bicycle. All due to the nuclear disaster in Japan???

    The greens have said it is too late. Must go 7 years earlier.

    I wonder what the German business associations think?

    I’m looking forward to being richer than a German.

  2. Tim

    Whilst I agree with the general argument, dams can be very damaging to the environment. The problem in Turkey is that the government has not seen a hydro project that it didn’t like.

    No doubt there are many greenies who are against projects for which the cost /benefit analysis is firmly on the benefit side, but when the pro side sees no cost in flooding historic sites or major ecosystem damage for small generating power, then the whole idea falls into disrepute.

  3. I’m looking forward to being richer than a German.

    Didn’t work out too well last time, did it?

  4. They’re complaining, as far as I can see, about people being evicted from their homes. As a libertarian you’d be with them, no?

  5. Serf and BenSix – the problem is that there are so few options for renewables. There aren’t many suitable sites for hydro (the US was fully developed for any worth doing decades ago, same in many parts of the world) so if you really want to replace fossil fuel generation by a significant amount you need to grab anything you can – even the marginal sites. And build lots of nuclear plants. Irrespective of ecosystem damage, historic sites, or who is living on or near them.

    If you decide that CO2 reduction is more important than anything else, then these are the consequences. I think Tim’s point is that too many people are complaining about what happened to their free lunch. They believed you could just switch to renewables and because they are ‘clean’ and ‘free’ there would be no impact. Welcome to the real world.

  6. As an example, Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens (due to take over the balance of power in the Upper House in a matter of weeks, God help us) got his start in politics opposing a hydro project in the 80’s. A good resource, not iffy, but it got killed off. No one wants to build dams here anymore. But he’s still out there demanding renewable energy investment, including large scale solar.

    My problem is – is solar on a sufficient scale for baseload power (let’s assume molten salt storage works and has been scaled up to gigawatt levels for the sake of the argument) really that wonderful for the environment? What are the effects of shading several square kilometres of desert, runoff from washing the panels and reflectors, disposal of toxic chemicals from the heat transfer system? There must be a lizard or spider or two that will be endangered by it.

    How long before the same people are campaigning against these wonderful new plants?

  7. MikeinAppalachia

    “You’ve got to start thinking that they don’t actually want a solution to climate change really, that they’re much more ionterested in imposing a life of agrarian, peasant, stupidity upon us rather than anything else.”

    “Start”???????? Finally you notice?

  8. “imposing a life of agrarian, peasant, stupidity upon us”

    Slightly better than their actually preferred solution – population reduction.

    Perhaps we should start thinking about HOW they intend to achieve that ? Try googling “population control”.

    Alan Douglas

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *