On 10 Jan, 12:20, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
wrote in message

...



On 9 Jan, 20:04, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Roger Mills" wrote in message

...

...

Even if he is, it's a very valid question - and one that seems to be
ignored by the government when thrusting these token green measures on
us.
Just as your average suburban domestic windmill will take more energy
to
manufacture it than it will ever generate in its lifetime.

Evidence?

Well you could try asking someone who's got one.

An owner doesn't usually know the energy cost of manufacture.


It is a difficult question to answer. For my own purposes, I assume
10% of the final cost to me, unless the item is manufactured in an
economy where energy and labour is cheap, where I assume 20%. So, a
1000ukp turbine will have to produce 200ukp of electricity, or 2000kWh
of electricity before it fails to energetically pay for its
manufacture. At 5 quid a year, not very likely.

The trouble is there
is nowhere near enough wind in most urban/suburban settings. It's a
bit old hat - even the most credulous innumerate greenies now accept
they don't work where there are trees and buildings.

Nobody is thrusting windmills on anyone.


I don't agree. The grants available, the extra points on your home
energy assessment, the example set by our betters (eg David Cameron),
domestic generation inducements from electricity suppliers etc. add up
to a very strong encouragement bordering on coercion.

I do plan to install one however, especially if I can get the taxpayer
to pay for part of it.

T