Eeyore wrote:

Jim wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
David Hansen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:10:11 +0100 someone who may be Eeyore
wrote this:-

I've yet to see any example of 'alternative energy generation' make as
much as an ounce of financial sense for anyone 'on-grid'. Every single
time, it'll
be massively outperformed by equivalent energy efficiency and insulation
measures when total energy requirements are examined truthfully.
I have yet to see a publication by say Friends of the Earth on
energy which does not say that one must first reduce energy
consumption by things like insulation and only then consider
"alternative" methods of generation.

Your point is moot.
It's highly relevant to the wider issue of building expensive alternative
energy generation when half our homes aren't insulated to the the latest
standards.

The money should be spent on *giving* us the insulation for free or at
notional cost IMHO.
The money shouldn't be spent by the govt. It should be spent by the
people who want whatever it is; alt. energy, or more insulation. Otherwise,
you have a Nanny State.

Because the 'Average Joe' can't be relied upon to do sensible things, I regret
that occasionally the state does need to provide some incentives.


The average joe CAN in his sphere of influence: No one would e.g.
actually burn expenisve furniture if they could e.g. sell it and buy
more fuel than is in the furniture.. global warming is a bit like
that..we are burning the global furniture because it is plentiful and free..

We don;t need legislation, we need taxation.

If the trip to Tescos cost £50 you would think twice about getting in
the car to do it.

Heck, you could afford to pay a *rickshaw* to do it for you, at that price.






Yes, it seems a little 'nannying' may be in order.

Graham