geoff wrote:
In message , judith
writes
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000, "john"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
cynic wrote:
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country
stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in
a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A
relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being
passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone
above the roofs and suffer scordingly.

If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and
cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant
would
cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid
for the hydro installations...

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand
times
more memory.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not
hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses,
factories and
shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power
factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for
industrial
applications.

Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels.

The holy grail of renewable energy came a step closer yesterday as
thousands of mass-produced wafer-thin solar cells printed on aluminium
film rolled off a production line in California, heralding what
British scientists called "a revolution" in generating electricity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy


do keep up at the back ...

I posted that last week


And its as much crap today as it was then.