Politics
Out of context: Reply #17830
- Started
- Last post
- 33,467 Responses
- deathboy0
Clearly i meant the windmills in this instance are unsustainable and a waste. Savings of about ~3000 dollars a year probably wont even cover upkeep let alone intial investment. If you took that i meant all windmills are unsustainable due to a single instance than youre misunderstanding me.
Really they're not saving any money. That money has been spent. They're barely breaking even. Quite a risky gamble with other peoples money. And curious as too how much of that saving comes from spending on better insulation, windows, lightbulbs... if that is where the most energy being saved comes from...probably costed no more than a million (im speculating cost) . After seeing the million dollar for windmills im thinking a large portion of that 20 million was likely wasted on other high cost low output tech.
And didnt read the lightbulb link was jumping in the shower... 2008 isnt right i read an article on it a couple weeks ago. here is the one i read http://reason.com/archives/2012/…
These are emerging technologies. Their energy output will naturally improve with time and investment.... i think this is a fallacy. Time & money does not = better. Politicians cant buy into that nonsense or we'll be bled dry by everyone saying hey i have a green idea money pit. All it does to subsidize it is to promote new companies who try to excel in getting more subsidies and grants instead of creating cheaper better energy. I admire the intention but getting sick that people only think of the "good intentions"and not outcomes.