Book Club
Tales of the City
Urban Design


What price, which environment?
Russell Degnan

There is an op-ed in The Age today by Ted Baillieu, the shadow planning minister on coastal wind farms. The basic thrust, that wind farms ruin their local environment. Mostly aesthetically, but also with surrounding infrastructure such as roads and power lines. The problem being, that the government and industry want to place them up and down the coast line where the wind blows best.

Now, obviously there is an environmental benefit to wind farms: they don't produce greenhouse gases being the main one. But the question is, what do we value more? Should we prefer a change - possibly negative - to the overall environment, and substantial degredation in the Latrobe Valley; or, significant changes and possibly damage along parts of the coastline environment; or, to even larger parts of our inland plains?

The 'market' can't decide. Not because it would be incapable, but because the integrity of the environment is not properly priced (an externality in other words). If it did, you would rarely develop on the coast. The supply of undeveloped coastlines is so low, and the demand for so high, that few, if any, projects would be deemed 'cost-efective'.

But what do you think, are our energy needs a purely political problem? Or is there a way to balance the environmental costs with the economic and social ones?

Environment 20th September, 2003 12:15:06   [#] 


No long term vision
Weeeell, certainly the state needs a sustainably viable form of energy production. The Latrobe Valley is so heavily polluted it just isn't funny. However, main arguement against the wind farms is their placement, which suggests that people aren't entirely focused on long term environmental protection per se'. Sure, we can keep digging up Yallorn ect ect for however much longer they care to, eating away at the fertile agriculture down there.
Wind farms don't do this. The only thing they eat up is 'precious' viewing space. It's a classic NIMBY situation really, and I don't believe that the Kilkunda tourist industry would suffer greatly from it.

Soooo, to answer your question, I'd be inclined to say that in this case, it's quite difficult to balance envi costs with economic and social ones due to the fact that our other main source of energy doesn't visibly impact on the landscape to such a degree as a beautiful windfarm would. Of course, when I say that, I'm making the assumption that the residents of the Latrobe Valley are used to seeing large amounts of chemicals pumped into the air everyday...

Tom  20th September, 2003 21:15:27  

Yes boys you both raise a very valid point. Tell the fuckers to shut up I say and lets try and restore a tiny bit of what we have fucked up already.
Anthony  24th September, 2003 20:26:22  

Touche' Reg, touche'...
To elaborate on Reg's...firm...uh...statement, no one has long term vision. Or rather, their vision is obscured by the stupid notion that a nice view is more important than the well-being of the earth! Talk about stupid fuckers; can't see beyond their noses.

J.C. Thomas Anderson  27th September, 2003 18:36:18  

Mi piace tue vocabulare Tom.
In a more decent frame of mind today. I'm not sure but I think Russell was telling me on Friday that he thought I was saying that I endorse the compulsory aquisition of land for the wind energy projects. This is not the case. There seem to be many landowners in the area who are willing to sell their land in order to facilitate the developers which I have no problem with. I am interested to speak with one of the Environment students, Jason Carter, as he said in one of our tutes last week that he hadn't decided on his opinion of this issue because he felt that there were better alternatives for renewable energy. But once again I concur with Tom by saying that this is a fantastic step towards the well being of our earth.
Anthony  28th September, 2003 15:37:03  

What were these alternatives for renewable energy you speak of Anth? I heard something along the lines of Thermal Boring being explored as a use for energy...however I couldn't find much on the net about it...so it may have just been all a fancy dream.

Not a bad idea though.
J.C. Thomas Anderson  28th September, 2003 22:37:21  

Other renewable energy sources
Probably the greatest problem with renewable energy is that it is normally inconstant. The sun only provides power for half the day, windmills need wind etc. Because we have no way of storing large amounts of power for extended periods of time (and if we did, all our problems would be solved), we need production methods that are more constant and controllable. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in renewable energy as it currently stands solving our energy problems.

Ultimately, all our energy has to come from either the sun, or from gravity (or both, such as hydro-power). Both of which are quite diffuse sources by themselves, so the trick is to concentrate them. Some of the new methods are, as you noted Tom, geo-thermal power and, very recently, tidal power. Whether they can generate a lot of power remains to be seen. Australia is very limited with the former becase we don't have any active volcanic regions. I'm not sure if it is possible to generate power from great depth, because the steam will cool as it rises.
Russell  30th September, 2003 12:28:56  

NIMBYs and renewable energy
There is an interesting post on Crumb Trail on renewable energy and local environmental movements. One problem with that, that I see is that, when the government controls the transmission lines, and prices them equally, there is no economic incentive to produce power locally. Therefore, the best result environmentally is to have power produced anywhere but where you live!
Russell  2nd October, 2003 12:07:32  

NIMBY Lunacy
Moon Power

Putting the windmills under water to be driven by tides rather than wind solves two problems. The power would be constant and the generators would be invisible. NIMBYs have a useful role in society in exercising sensibility tests on policies proposed by advocates with narrow perspectives. Governments, corporations and environmental groups become wedded to their solutions and unable to consider the big picture. NIMBYs, being less invested in particluar solutions, tend to have better BS detectors.
back40  5th October, 2003 05:21:01  

Power Generation and NIMBYs
back40: I agree. And I think it actually emphasises my previous point. In a situation where there is no (or little) incentive to have the industry in your local area, the decision will be made purely on political grounds, rather than from local input. So, the locality with coal will recieve a coal-power plant, the coast will recieve wind and tidal plants, etc. etc. Unless they are in a marginal electorate, in which case the NIMBYs will have sufficient political power to keep the advocates at bay.

Ultimately, and agreeing with Anthony, it would be better if NIMBYs were more than a reactionary political force. But there needs to be sufficient local benefits to having that industry there for that to be the case. And, conversely, sufficient disincentives to having local industries that adversely affect the wider region.
Russell  7th October, 2003 12:49:14  


May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015

Recent Comments

Optimal stop spacing and
      Russ, Tony Morton
Mode Choice and Rational
      Russ, Jason Murphy
The Gastronomic Pub Crawl
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCLIV,
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII
      Russ, Andrew
Monday Melbourne: CCXXXII


Scribbling on Bricks
Melbourne 2030 Portal
Melbourne on Transit
Save Our Suburbs
Sustainable Melbourne
Urban Creature


The Next American City
Andrew Blum
Architecture and Morality
Bright Lights Dim Beauty
       of Chicago

City Comforts
The City Desk
City States
Diamond Geezer
Forum for Urban Design
Me, My Life +

Progressive Reactionary
Rebuilding Place in the
       Urban Space

Urban Cartography
Urban Commons
Urban Planning Research

Design and Development

A Daily Dose of

Beyond Brilliance,
       Beyond Stupidity

Brand Avenue
CoolTown Studios
City of Sound
Curbed [LA] [SF]
The Ground Floor
Lebbeus Woods
The Measures Taken
New (Sub)Urbanism
Private Sector
       Development Blog

Reason Commentaries
Richard Green Sit Down Man, You're
       a Bloody Tragedy

Urban Planning Blog
Veritas et Venustas
Wow Flutter

Culture and Theory

2 Blowhards
Abstract Dynamics
Aesthetic Grounds
Anne Galloway
James Howard Kunstler
Junk for Code
Karrie Jacobs
Life Without Buildings
Martin Krieger
Place Space
Rough Theory
The Sesquipedalist
Side Effects
Space and Culture
Strange Harvest


Blog Like You Give a Damn
The Commons Blog
Environmental and
       Urban Economics

Impact Analysis
Jetson Green
Landscape and Urbanism
Muck and Mystery
The Perfect City
Web Urbanist
World Changing


cfsmtb in low
       earth orbit

Live from the Third Rail
Peter Gordon's Blog
Streets Blog
Train Blog
The Transportationist

Non Blogs

Planners Web
Project for Public

New Urbanism
American Planning

Polar inertia

Australian Policy

Liveable Places
Australian Transport
       Discussion Board

Urban Design Forum
Urban Residue
Environmental News
Metropolitan Transport