[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Sorry Willow but your maths are a bit wrong or may be the article that you've read it from has been a bit misleading. They have added in the factor of the additional purchase cost and they still save £13,250 per year. They will pay for themselves in 10 years.

I'm not quite with you Gayle. Can you explain how they have arrived at this figure?

This is a direct quote from the LT

TWO wind turbines are being set up on Blackpool's promenade to help power the resort's illuminations. In May, a third will join the pair, which cost £147,000 each, and together it is hoped they will cut £13,250 from the town's annual energy bill. They will sit on the front close to the Sandcastle Water Park, and are expected to have a 25 year lifespan.

It actually only says 'hoping' to cut the annual bill by £13,250 - o it's even possible they might not save that much, and 'expected' to have a 25 year lifespan. They may possibly not even last 25 years. I don't see how the cost has been factored in to the projected savings. Nevertheless the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. They just don't sound very cost efective.

Originally Posted by entwisi

Theres more to environmental friendly than money. They are reducing teh carbon footprint and greenhouse gases that would have been spewed out by the power station. Also teh 25years is a min expected lifespan, if they carry on for 40 years they are well in credit

Have they taken into account the carbon footprint for creating the windmills and installing them?

I actually like them and think we should have more of them. The only thing that does concern me is that birds apparently fly into them but apart from that I can't understand why people object to seeing them on hillsides because to me they do not look ugly at all as some claim.