Re: Re: Domestic wind turbine

[Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<ot>

It's all a pointless argument anyway - even if the world cut fossil fuel
usage by 50% (an improbbable figure), we'd just burn through it all in
200 years instead of 100.  One way or the other its all going into the
air in the end.  Better to spend the cash on dealing with the effects of
global warming (or cooling - who knows for sure?) rather than trying to
stop it.

Anyway, the sooner it's all gone, the sooner we'll be rid of trucks and
buses spewing choking fumes all over the place.

</ot>

Mal


Phil Harris wrote:

>>noel_pilot wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>That sounds about right, so on those figures, 600kWh per year
is gonna
>>>save him £42 a year, its going to take him 47 years to get his
£2000
>>>back assuming that he has no maintenance costs in the meantime!
>>>
>>>Am I thinking this the right way? I think its a great idea, I'd
love
>>>one but it would have to make financial sense!
>>>
>>>
>>Manufacturing the wind turbine probably created more CO2 than it'll
save
>>in its lifetime...
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>
>Bloomin' lentil-eatin' sandal-wearin' treehuggers!
>
>I *AM* however a firm believer in not using fossil fuels for
electricity
>generation...
>
>...we should use nuclear and save the fossil fuels for what God
intended.
>
>(Powering the biggest "weekend toys" available.)
>
>Bring on global warming I say ... My winter gas bill is too high and I
>live 263ft above sea level (according to my Garmin) so I don't care if
the
>seas rise! :-D
>
>Phil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>