Re: Energy saving better than alternative energy.
- From: Conor <conor_turton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:29:05 +0100
In article <ae6a806b-a68d-4cc0-a376-47f57a556ff9@
73g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
Told you so!
Not really, we already knew. It's hardly rocket science.
"Solar panels are one of the least cost-effective ways of combatingSo in fact you've got it wrong again, Doug. The article has nothing to
climate change and will take 100 years to pay back their installation
costs, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics) warned
yesterday..."
"...Solar panels for heating and power and wind turbines generating
between 3kW and 5kW merited two stars. Smaller 1.5kW turbines of the
type installed on roofs paid back in 25 years, received a three-star
rating.
By contrast, cavity wall insulation had a five-star rating: spending
£440 would save £145 a year in fuel bills, paying back in three years,
while an investment of £325 in extra loft insulation would save £60
annually, paying back in five years..."
do with emissions saving and everything to do with the time it'll take
to recoup the monetary value which should ideally be the secondary
consideration.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Gollum on wikipedia - your help is required
- Next by Date: Re: Energy saving better than alternative energy.
- Previous by thread: Re: Energy saving better than alternative energy.
- Next by thread: Re: Energy saving better than alternative energy.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
