Monday, February 14, 2011

This sports complex in the UK gives new meaning to the term "Dead Heat"...Yikes!

The borough of Redditch in the UK estimates it can save $23,000 per year by heating a community sports complex with excess heat from a near-by CREMATORIUM...I am all for saving energy, but the creep out-give-me-the-willys-factor is too high for my taste...Sorry, but I would have to cut expenses elsewhere...

(Source: Wall Street Journal print edition---not on their website)


  1. If Soylent Green has taught us anything, it's that people make great energy sources. I personally wouldn't mind being heated by a crematorium, but it might raise some moral controversy. Is it ethical to use people to heat buildings? Yeah, that's a tough one.

  2. I understand why that may have some moral objection, but people will be cremated no matter what the heat is used for. If the people are going to be cremated anyway, why not use the excess energy go to waste?
    But is it worth it, in the long run for the UK to save only $23,000 if this will cause a large controversy? Maybe not.

  3. Wouldn't it smell? And I'm sure that this would decrease demand of the complex's services that would cancel out the saved $23,000 per year so I don't believe it is a wise business decision.

  4. Rebekah Gaisbauer 1AFebruary 17, 2011 at 10:22 PM

    No one would really no if they never told anyone. If it would save them $23,000 then I do not think it is a bad thing to consider. It is not like they are be in the crematorium itself.

  5. This situation is no different that many other moral situations we have in our society. There our two sides with their own arguments and convictions. In this case I believe that it is not a good idea to throw what is "holy to dogs" and find other means to apportioning the funds. Is there much debate on this subject in London? What if they used solar energy or another means of alternative fuel source.


View My Stats