4/27/12

Arrays of solar panels can be seen near some of Germany's most heavily guarded historical sites.


The medieval walled city of Rothenburg, Bavaria Germany is a short distance
from one of the largest solar fields in the world. I walked the top of the long wall around the city and at no time were the solar fields in my view. Aside from any economic and political considerations of Germany's solar energy, the Rothenburg fields had no impact on one of Germany's most heavily protected historical treasures and tourist destinations.



This is a small portion of the Rothenburg solar fields that are seen during a drive into the
historic German town.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

They almost completely cover the area, any room left for wildlife?

Anonymous said...

JLL, your commentary on solar, suggesting it may be a better fit for Cape Vincent, reminds me of Meryl Streep film "Sophie's Choice." To me the choice of which child to sacrifice seems to related, not exactly though, to the choices our leaders have to make regarding state and national pressures to go along with their renewable agenda.

Do any of us need another source of energy here in Cape Vincent? Maybe a cheaper source, but not another more expensive variety. This is about sacrificing our town to a "foreign" agenda, sacrificing it so Manhattanites can keep the lights on at night.

Clamoring that wind and solar are boondoggles that are a waste of taxpayer funds is the equivalent of Sophie shouting, "No, you cannot take my children, I love my children and you have no right to demand I send one to the crematoria." You will get the same response from an Article 10 siting board trying to ban wind as Sophie got from the Nazi who snatched her daughter and took her away.

What you seem to be suggesting that solar may be a more tolerable pill to swallow, if we are required by the State to take a pill, makes eminent sense. It is practical even if the pill is hard to swallow for some and is less valuable than a placebo.

The bottom line with industrial solar vs industrial wind for Cape Vincent is solar is 20 ft high vs 500 ft, no flicker, no sound, and a much smaller overall footprint. If casting our lot with industrial solar removes the threat of having 135 industrial turbines, then it is a rational choice - not a Sophie's choice.

TI said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TI said...

7:42 wrote,
"To me the choice of which child to sacrifice seems to related, not exactly though, to the choices our leaders have to make regarding state and national pressures to go along with their renewable agenda."

7:42,

Unless I misunderstand you, you are setting up a classic false dichotomy. The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when one claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities.

Sophie really had no choice - except in the most narrow and tortured sense. We as a society and a state do have choices.

We do not have to throw a human sacrifice into the volcano to appease the renewable energy gods.

We have choices that include neither utility scale solar or utility scale wind.

The economics of utility scale solar simply do not exist - particularly not at our latitude. BP is nasty but they are not completely insane. BP would have to be irrationally committed to extracting their pound of flesh from the people of Cape Vincent in order to build a utility scale solar project here. Such a project would need an even higher percentage of government subsidy than wind. Just like wind, it would require a PILOT to reduce their local taxes and a transmission solution to the grid that does not exist and would be very expensive and invasive to build.

I support the work that is going on to protect Cape Vincent and the area through smart and deliberate zoning law reform.

And I take the matter of Article 10very seriously. But let's not jump to any suggestion that our new zoning laws may not be sufficient to protect us from rape by Big Wind unless we are willing to live with some sort of exchange in return by accepting a lesser assault on our sensibilities (aesthetic and economic) in the form of a major solar project.

Please don't take as a given that "our leaders" (as you say) must make false choices to appease any pressure group. Our leaders don't have to make bad choices out of fear. (They often do but not always.) They are capable of being rational and prudent.

And speaking of leaders -- if you really want to shut down the threat of massive welfare fed Big Wind, let your vote in November reflect that priority. Know who your friends are and who they are not when you vote to send someone to Congress or the White House.

Anonymous said...

In the worse of battles there are never really winners but losers. Cape Vincent is in a horrible battle that was brought to us by high powers above and facilitated by local infiltration and treason by those who were willing to be paid off in silver, much like the story of Judas.

Perhaps a little over dramatic, but what RWiley's post brings to us is our own thoughts and discussions.

In the worst of battles there is always change and total restoration is never accomplished.

If we think the Cape will remain the same or escape entirely, we are being unrealistic. Cape citizens sold us to outside interest and we can't escape it all.

The United State exploited the Middle East to secure the oil. The damage they did to the people are of little consequence.

Big wind, mostly foreign, is exploiting third world like rural American towns and they will never go away.

Either way, it is all necessary to debate.

Anonymous said...

"If you really want to shut down the threat of massive welfare fed Big Wind, let your vote in November reflect that priority."

Shutting down wind subsidies is not the concern of the committees now working in Cape Vincent. The last thing on their minds is the national give-away scheme to renewables, however noxious that may be.

As mentioned before on this blog, the enemy is at the gate. False dichotomies or not, our mission is to keep the small-town quality of Cape Vincent from being industrialized by far-away political types with irrational ideologies.

With the loss of local control as the principal tool to protect our town, community leaders need to be adaptable and consider every option that becomes available to them even if some are onerous.

Consorting with the enemy to save the many is a story as old as human history, and if it can help save our town, people should consider it.

TI said...

"Shutting down wind subsidies is not the concern of the committees now working in Cape Vincent."

Of course not. Never said that and and I did say I support their work. I believe they have done well so far.

My point was that the way out of this mess is not to offer up some counter-proposal for a massive solar project. Would a solar project be less dreadful than a wind project? Certainly.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Is BP talking solar around here?

And - what is going on in Washington is having a direct bearing on the future of little old Cape Vincent. Only suggesting each of us has a (small) voice in that that we should exercise wisely.

Anonymous said...

TI A concern should be that if the "smart and deliberate" zoning law reform you speak of is too deliberate, or too measured,out of fear of Article X overrule, that it will not truly or adequately protect against this rape by big wind.

I agree with you -we do have choices. We just need conviction to make them.