Austrian Town Sees the Light

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."

Comments

Rattenberg?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see, Ratten means rats and Berg means mountain.
So we have a town here called Ratsmountain that doesn't get any sunlight during winter time and worst off all, it's Austrian ;-D

Now if that doesn't sound like a great place to spend your winter holidays...

All good until...

[intmainvoid]

I'm sure it'll all go well, til some kid stares at the mirror for too long and goes blind, and sues the pants of someone.

(never mind that the kid probably would have been just as happy staring at the sun...)

Re:All good until...

[drstock]

This is in Europe, not USA. You can't sue the pants of anyone here, especially not for your own stupidity.

If you can't stand the heat...

[Anyd]

Doesn't this fall into the category of "don't live there?" I'm not saying it wouldn't suck to live in an area without sunlight, but to knowingly move into said area, and then use taxpayer's money (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm assuming EU money = EU taxpayer's money) to change that... in the tone of millions... just seems stupid. It just seems that our global community should spend $ on better things than trying to cram people into every possible nook and cranny on earth!

Re:If you can't stand the heat...

[vidarh]

Not millions. $1.2 million to improve quality of life for around 400 people. In other words around $3000 per inhabitant, or far less than most of them are paying in taxes in a single year. Combined with the fact that this project serves a dual purpose of helping this town and also of growing interest for the EU based mirror manufacturer's business worldwide, and it's likely economically a good long term investment - Both promoting growth in a town that's currently in decline as well as increasing exports from the company involved and boosting taxable revenue that way.

Re:If you can't stand the heat...

[vidarh]

Oh, and I guess you missed the part of this town being built in the 1300s, and currently being in decline because people are moving OUT of it, not in... Most people currently living there have lived there all their lives, and now they are getting what could be a significant improvement in quality of life at a small fraction of what they've paid in taxes over those years.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck off already! you're saying that people shouldn't use technology in order to improve their quality of life in a particular environment - come off it!!

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!

Re:If you can't stand the heat...

[Moderatbastard]

It's not an entire country on the march. The population of one small town is going to have an insignificant effect on the housing market in Austria, let alone the whole EU. Unless they all choose to move to the same, equally small, town. But that would be silly.

Re:If you can't stand the heat...

[Timbotronic]

Ever been to the Austrian Alps? Think ski lifts stretching to the horizon in every direction, hot Austrian babes, great beer and 13th century villages that you ski into for lunch. It's a *nice* place!

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:If you can't stand the heat...

[PhraudulentOne]

Yeah its like that darn New Orleans. I mean, people know its going to flood, right? But they move there anyway and expect tax money to help them out. And like.. New York city, you know, it can't support all those people natively. You need tax payers money to like, make sewers and stuff. Why wouldn't people just move away and poop in the bush?

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...

[drsquare]

It won't even do anything for anyone's quality of life. A few 'hot spots' that will probably give less sunlight than walking ten minutes round the mountain for free.

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.

being an EU citizen

[myc_lykaon]

I cannot (well - I do believe) the EU is paying up for a scheme to redirect sunlight into a town that:

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.

Re:being an EU citizen

[ChristW]

a) was badly positioned in the first place;

It's excellently placed... All their crops get the most sunlight, and the village is quite cool in the summer...

Don't like it? Too bad

[EtherealStrife]

"But the young folks are moving away."

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:Don't like it? Too bad

[Vellmont]

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:Don't like it? Too bad

[thesandtiger]

Lemme guess - you don't own a home? Don't live in the same area your parents, their parents, and their parents lived? Don't have any sense of community or history where you reside? If any of the above are true, then let me ask you this: what the fuck are you smoking, and may I please have some?

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:Don't like it? Too bad

[thesandtiger]

It's not a matter of smoking anything. In the U.S. (at least in my experience), all of the college-bound students try to create at least some distance between themselves and their parents, usually on the order of a three-hour drive at least. Many just move across the country.

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: .002735 euros (or dollars, or whatever the unit in discussion is)

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.

Not the brightest idea

[Greg Hullender]

The EU wants to spend millions of dollars to light up a few percent of a town of only 400 people?

I guess they can't laugh at our bridge to nowhere anymore . . .

--Greg

Re:Not the brightest idea

[TheRaven64]

First, the EU is not spending millions of dollars, it is spending $1.2 million. Secondly, this works out at $3000/person - probably around what the town paid the EU in taxes over five years. The existence of the mirrors will probably spark tourism, and the proof-of-concept demo will probably benefit the company, providing more jobs (both at the company and up the supply chain), which means more tax money. It seems like a fairly good investment.

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.

Tourist landmark

[SpaghettiPattern]

I live in a country neighboring Austria. When the mirror is up I definitively will pay a visit and spend between 5 and 100 EUR in the town. Just because I and my family like trips. And, if we like it, we might return.

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

[famebait]

There was this project about a decade back - to light up scandinavian countries (or is it Greenland), to bring light the same way. The environmentalists raised a stink.

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.

I live in switzerland too

[theolein]

Here in switzerland they face the very same problem, i.e. the real problem - mountain villages dying out - and they combat it in almost the exact same manor, i.e. the Bund or government pays millions every year for isolated little villages in Engadin in Graubünden that otherwise would have died out already. And what about Rumantsch? The language descended from the Romans spoken only in Graubünden in Switzerland that is rapidly dying out? There are only about 50'000 speakers left despite the language being given a standardised written form and many millions in subsidies etc by the government?

Should they drop all of that as well?