29 Jan 2010
In terms of reducing CO2 emmision, it must be counter-productive - i.e. illusory - to provide big pay for "clean energy" UNLESS this pay is re-invested in GENUINELY clean energy systems.
"Genuinely" clean", must be defined in terms of the answer to the question "how many times as much energy does the system supply during its life, as is required to create it" If the answer is
1 then it's a harmles convenience
2, twice as much, then it's a genuine help
3, then it's a serious help, unless the time scales involved are too long to help the current time-scale of global warming
5 Utopia here we come !
6 Heaven !
7) Please see to your editor which is broken !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a simple example, suppose I can get 10% of cost returned annually from a good windy site where I can put my TADs, then if I need 50 leva/sedmits to live, I need to build 2500 / 0.1 leva-worth of them. 25k leva of BEZPLATNA Rabotna - unless some oil-burner subsidizes me