The way to solve climate change, say those who think humanity is making the most difference to the world’s climate; and that it is more important than elderly people freezing to death in their own home or African children being born into a life of war, famine and prostitution, is to use micro-generating power stations.
So, in the spirit of this, Currys have recently announced solar panels and B&Q are now stocking wind turbines and solar water heating. And their literature points out that you can obtain up to 30% of the purchase price back in the form of government grants. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a good use of taxpayers money, but this money is not so easily received as you might have imagined.
Is it right (this is a question though you can take it rhetorically) that to save a small amount of money on the price of a wind turbine, you must pay a lot of money (more than the cost of the turbine)? In order to qualify for a grant for a wind turbine, for example, you must have 27cm (about 11 inches) of insulation in your loft; you must have cavity wall insulation (if you have cavity walls); you must use exclusively energy-saving lightbulbs (which are too dim in some circumstances) and you must have thermostats on each radiator.
I understand that the government want people to save energy in all ways (not just try and make it cheaply) but surely it is better that a household makes green energy and wastes a little than wastes a little and does not make green energy.
It is a false economy not to use energy saving lightbulbs, but it is true economy not to try and obtain a government grant for green energy sources.
Stupid.
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
