Austrian Town Sees the Light 339
pin_gween writes "The Austrian town of Rattenberg (a 10 minute walk from sunlight during the winter) plans to install a mirror on a mountain to redirect sunlight towards the town. The town was built in the winter shadow of Rat Mountain. The plan is to place heliostat mirrors to shine light in several locations around town, where villagers could 'congregate and get sunned up.' The EU is ponying up half the $2.4 million costs. The company installing the mirrors, Bartenbach Lichtlabor GmbH, is contributing $600,000, and hopes other communities will use their technology."
Rattenberg? (Score:0, Insightful)
So we have a town here called Ratsmountain that doesn't get any sunlight during winter time and worst off all, it's Austrian
Now if that doesn't sound like a great place to spend your winter holidays...
All good until... (Score:2, Insightful)
(never mind that the kid probably would have been just as happy staring at the sun...)
If you can't stand the heat... (Score:5, Insightful)
being an EU citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
a) was badly positioned in the first place;
b) has existed as such for hundreds of years without blowing up, dying or otherwise falling off the edge of the planet without this winter sun;
What about EU funds for my city - it's a bit chilly in winter. Has been for the last 5000 years. Everyone there knew it was chilly in winter and it hasn't blown up or fallen off the edge of the world because of this winter chill. I think the EU should pay for some weird underground heating to recompense us for this winter horror. Oh and a massive umbrella - it tends to rain a bit here.
Other than that - 'tis a cool piece of tech.
Don't like it? Too bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like the younguns catch on quick. If you don't like living there, then don't. Problem solved. Seems like they're better off than all the folks near the arctic circle, but you don't see/hear them complaining...
So once again the government/PTBs are footing the bill for people too lazy to move. *cough* New Orleans *cough* Florida *cough*
Besides, a few "lawn sized" patches of light aren't going to make the place any less bleak during the winter months...it might blind some folks looking in the wrong direction, though. Or did I miss the part where they add in some kind of diffusing lens?
The way things seem to be headed (based on TFA), just wait a few years. Give the old folks time to die off, and the younger group time to get fed up and leave. $2,400,000 saved.
Re:All good until... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:being an EU citizen (Score:5, Insightful)
It's excellently placed... All their crops get the most sunlight, and the village is quite cool in the summer...
Not the brightest idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess they can't laugh at our bridge to nowhere anymore . . .
--Greg
Re:Don't like it? Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
So once again the government/PTBs are footing the bill for people too lazy to move. *cough* New Orleans *cough* Florida *cough*
The question you seem to miss in all these cases is how much does it cost everyone in terms of lost jobs, damage to the economy, etc to just move an entire city? (especially in the case of New Orleans). If it's more cost effective to rebuild, you do it. In this case if it's cheaper to put in a big mirror to bring in light, (and it actually works to get people to stay) you do it. The cost is only 2.4 million dollars, and the EU only pays half of that. With 440 people in the town that's about $2250 per person.
The question you SHOULD be asking is is this an effective strategy (cost included) to stop stagnation and economic deday in a region and promote growth, vs just letting the city die (and puttting the money somwehere else)? It seems a bit crazy to me that a few lit up spots are going to make much difference, but then again I don't live in this town.
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's not about cramming people into every nook and cranny, but about maintaining and possible growing a settlement which already have an established residential area, that employ people, that have established infrastructure etc.
The likely cost to society of having these people put pressure on house prices etc. by moving elsewhere would likely easily outweigh the $1.2 million the EU is spending all by itself.
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:1, Insightful)
2.4 million is pretty cheap for this kinda thing really, and besides if you want to bash people for living in stupid places there are plenty of better choices for your disdain than these folks - how about New Orleans, "Any place regularly hit by tornados", vast-areas of sub-saharan africa, bangladesh, holland, the autralian outback - - in fact, better idea why don't we all just climb on top of each other and live in a few 'choice' spots, because everyone *knows* there wouldn't be any need for technology to help us live in that situation, it would just be a happy eden-like paradise where food 'appeared' and clear, fresh water would simply bubble out of the ground
get a fuckin' clue!
Tourist landmark (Score:5, Insightful)
Why build the Eiffel tower? Why build the statue of liberty (and give the ugly thing away?) Why were the funny looking Gaudi buildings built? Why did Linus do it? This list can get pretty long but the common factor is that at the beginning nobody really knew if it really was a good idea.
The truly strange thing is that this mirror thingy is referred to as a technology. Isn't that like calling a hamburger gastronomy?
Re:earlier (Score:3, Insightful)
That's different; they were lighting up latitudes that simply don't have sunlight throgh part of the year, and with wildlife being adjusted to that.
This village has normal dayligt for its region, it is just in the shade a lot. The mirror is just out of the shade, with normal dayligt hours, not up in space catching light when there should be night on the ground.
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not the brightest idea (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of thing is not that uncommon in the EU, and is known as objective one matched funding. If you have a project that will create jobs, then it is relatively easy to get the EU to pay for half of it, on the basis that the knock-on benefits to the economy will generate an overall benefit.
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there's a good chance the residents were born there. You often can't buy real estate in those tiny villages, it's just passed down the generations. I doubt they just moved in and started whinging.
So I say let them have their mirrors. It's nowhere near as expensive (and environmentally suspect) as air conditioning Las Vegas for example.
Re:Don't like it? Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as simple as "Hey, you don't like it? Move!" You're basically suggesting that people give up their history and property in order to spare ~$3,000 of THEIR OWN money per person (taxes) trying to fix a problem.
I find it really ironic that a comment modified as "insightful" suggests that, rather than spending a trivial sum, they should just let a community with roots fade into nothing.
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Tax payers money gets spent on a LOT of useless things (primarily killing, or "defense contracts"), but improving the quality of life is generally a good thing - as long as it doesn't harm the environment in a severe way.
Perhaps these people don't have the money to move, or they simply don't want to leave their homes. A lot of people that live out in small country towns and villages get to supply big tax dollars to the huge city infrastructure that they may not agree with. They do it anyway. It's no secret that cities are not self sustaining in any way, shape, or form. The country folk have to pay for the city, AND provide for the cities. Why should they pay for all those people who want to live jammed in together in a detrimental way (environmentally)? Why does so much money get spent to foster that kind of lifestyle?
If the money is spent on making people happy, and not hurting the environment, or other people, then I say it's a good thing.
IMO.
Re:If you can't stand the heat... (Score:3, Insightful)
And they wonder why people don't like paying taxes, and why people don't trust the EU to do anything other than piss money away.
I live in switzerland too (Score:4, Insightful)
Should they drop all of that as well?
Re:Don't like it? Too bad (Score:3, Insightful)
What relevance does this have to the topic at hand? I certainly won't debate that many people in the US choose to move away from their families when they go to college. I also wouldn't debate that many people prefer the taste of a flame broiled Whopper to a Big Mac. But so what?
Just because your morality has such a strong sense of community (which I could easily rephrase in more disparaging terms---try, perhaps, "tying down young people to the same backward lives as their parents"), that doesn't mean it should be the one to receive government funding. Lemme repeat: it is not the government's job to enforce your morality.
I could give a fuck if the young people move or stay. What I am talking about is people saying "You don't like where you live? Then move! Give up your property and your history and move!" and how that attitude is missing a rather large point.
That point being this:
3,000 people would be abandoning their land and homes if they "just moved." Who would buy thier land and homes? Nobody. So now you have 3,000 people in the EU who have given up the vast majority of their assets. Do you seriously think that economic fallout from 3,000 people suddenly being broke is going to be less, long term, than $1.2 million bucks? I daresay I'd be surprised if such a move didn't actually result in more expenditures on the part of other EU members than the mirror plan.
So even "just" economically, "move!" is a stupid idea.
Now add in the loss of history and community, and it becomes even dumber.
Furthermore, as the EU is paying, I'm pretty sure that it's everyone in the EU's money, not just "THEIR OWN" money. Now I don't know about you, but if I lived in, e.g., France, I'd be pissed that these random guys were getting some of my money to install a mirror to create "hot spots" around their town. (Of course, if I lived in France, I'd be pissed for a lot of reasons... but that's another topic). But IANAEUTL (EU tax lawyer).
Population of the EU: 457,030,418
Cost, per citizen of the EU, of this project:
Are you seriously suggesting that 2.735 thousandths of a dollar/euro/whatever per citizen is some kind of major expenditure? You do realize that the amount in question is likely flushed down the toilet hourly through random administrative seepage? Some clerk in Belgium gives his wang an extra shake while at the john and boom - 2.735 thousandths of a dollar/euro/whatever just got spent.
Given the choice between subsiding some beaurocrat rubbing one out during a coffee break or having a place I could visit that has ginormous mirrors, I'll take the mirrors.