"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:12:23 GMT, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:


Here's a clue Henry - if you don't understand what you're talking about
perhaps you ought to study the subject beyond a wikipedia entry.

I guess that's why an article in today's online WSJ says that
wind-driven turbines (and geothermal generation) are both close to
being economically viable even without subsidies and that with
economies of larger scale production of the turbines and a reduction
in the current financing penalty paid on both, they both may be viable
in the near future - without subsidies.

Then by all means why don't you invest in them.

Ten barrels to make one - who did our math? Kind of reminds me of the
new ESPN commercial, the 'talking out of your ass' one.

Do you even understand what a wind turbine is? Can you spend one minute
explaining what they're composed of, what goes in to making one? What are
the maintenance schedules? How long before they're obsolete? How much energy
they return?

I really think you ought to put your life savings into wind turbines because
the WSJ said they're "close" to being "economically viable" even "without
subsidies".