What to do?

I was reading Ian Bell's piece in The Herald on t'internet this morning and found that he neatly encompassed my own views on renewables and, in particular, wind-farms. I love the sight of them just after Stirling when I find myself on my way to Perth from Glasgow. I remember driving, or rather being driven, up the Pacific Coast Highway between San Diego and LA and seeing a wind-farm out in the desert and being struck by how much more attractive they were than the unsightly concrete warts on the landscape that was San Onofre nuclear power station. The reason why I couch the discussion in terms of aesthetics is due to it being the over-riding concern of many who object to wind-farm construction. Of course, there is good reason for this - in the Highlands in particular amenity is the lifeblood of many communities, being as it were the primary reason for tourists to visit the place. Consequently this has to be taken into consideration when plans for wind-farms are being discussed. But, given the choice between wind-farms which are easily removed and a nuclear/coal/oil-fired/biomass power station which is not, it seems to be the rational choice (along with wave and solar, in time). Of course, there are problems with wind-farms but their environmental footprint is far less intrusive than the alternatives. Indeed, their environmental impact in terms of pollution is also far far less offensive as well. Perhaps localised energy production is the answer? Rooftop solar and wind generators? The money we've spent chasing foreign misadventures could easily have been channelled into this with far far more pleasant results for everybody.

But in saying all that, I do disagree with Bell on one thing: I actually love the sight of Grangemouth. It looks like a vision of Dante's inferno located right by Falkirk. I also have a passing fascination with power stations and appreciate their own unique brand of brutalism. Huge cooling towers are a favourite - massive hulking constructions that look like quite unpleasant bouncers on the door of a club. Wind-farms are positively birdlike in comparison. Then you have our other form of energy production and consumption, oil. Offshore oil platforms, in the UK built and repaired in Nigg Bay north of Inverness, are massive constructions that float out in the middle of nowhere pumping the lifeblood of the British economy and society into the mainland. They're hardly attractive, and even less so when you consider the pollution they bring to country, albeit necessarily so. Remember the brouhaha over the Brent Spar platform when Shell wanted to junk it and scuttle it? Few people complain about their lacking aesthetic qualities or ruining of amenity when they are being tugged along Nigg Bay to be fixed up or sent back to sea. In saying that, we could have ended up with something like Oil Rocks in the Caspian Sea:




Yes, a veritable city built in the middle of the sea about 40km offshore from Baku. There's a library and a hospital as well as anywhere between 2000-5000 people living there making their way around 200km of roads built on stilts in the middle of the sea. Many of the roads are completely submerged having sunk into the seabed and the water levels reach up to the second-floor windows in some buildings. So I suppose Grangemouth isn't quite as bad in comparison.

Of course this is a simplistic analysis of the pros and cons of power generation, but not completely without merit. The strike at Grangemouth (which I personally have absolutely no problem with - the company are at it)(an oil company? at it? qualle surprise!), as Bell states, shows the fragility of the carbon economy that we have. Any attempts at moving that towards a more renewable-based model of production is fine by me. Preferably with the areas of amenity firmly intact of course. Easier said than done maybe.