By John Tagliabue
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/world/europe/11norway.html?_r=1&ref=earth
This article discusses the multitude of feelings surrounding the installation of a high-tension power line across the fjords of Norway. The power company considers it necessary because in the cold winter, the existing power grid for the city of Bergen is stretched to its limits. Most people think that the 120-foot tall pylons that would support the wire would ruin the natural landscape, one of the most beautiful in the world. The alternative is a wire that would run along the floor of a deep valley, and through the water. While most people consider this an acceptable compromise, it would cost 4 times as much as the 150 million above ground wire. Others believe the wire is unnecessary, while supporters of the above ground wire consider it to be a necessary, but unfortunate, measure.
This article was published in the New York Times on November 10th, 2010
The article seems to have some subtle bias. When it mentions the opinion of the power company CEO, the author mentions that he is sipping coffee and munching waffles in his 153 year old wooden hotel. The people who the author interviews for opinions against the power line are artists, small family business owners, and farmers. The people who provide the opinions in the article are carefully chosen to paint the installation of the power line in a negative light.
I-C. Freshwater use
IV-B. Forestry
IV-D. Development, sustainable land-use strategies
V-B. Future energy needs
V-E. Hydroelectric power
VII-C. Maintenance through conservation
Even though hydroelectric energy seems to be among the most viable of alternatives in the fuel struggle, ideas like this that cost hundreds of millions of dollars are pretty wasteful. However, someone from the New York Times would be very careful to present all of his quotes to be anti-power line.
ReplyDeleteWith all of the development of beautiful areas around the world its getting kind of sad how much of earth's aesthetic qualities are going to waste. I think that it is very noble of this author to bring this situation to attention, and I support him in his bias. Although I don't know all the details, it seems that it would be worth running the line on the ground and through the fjord rather than erecting that tall power lines.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the power line on the ground would serve as an adequate compromise. If the taller line is erected, than the landscape will be permanently marred, and the extra cost is worth the beauty of the landscape. The loss of money is unfortunate, but the loss of the landscape harms a greater number of people and is a permanent change.
ReplyDeleteIf the ground-based powerline costs four times as much, shouldn't those who complain about it ruining the view be willing to pay for it? That seems acceptable to me.
ReplyDeleteEven though the ground level power lines cost four times as much as the above ground lines do, it seems that they are more preferred to the people living in that area. The 120 foot tall pylons would ruin the landscape. Like James said, if people care that much about putting in 120 foot pylons, they should be willing and ready to pay for the ground level lines to be installed.
ReplyDelete