A new study by Trinomics, in collaboration with DTU Wind, shows that strategically earmarking EU funding for wind innovation and industrial scale-up delivers major economic and security benefits for Europe. By 2040, each €1 of public funding for wind generates €7 in annual economic returns, while significantly boosting the EU’s jobs, exports, and energy security. […]
  • NABDad@lemmy.worldEnglish
    19·
    6 months ago

    That’s why 'Muricans don’t want to invest in wind power: they don’t want all that money going to Europe!

  • kunaltyagi@programming.devEnglish
    111·
    6 months ago

    Wind needs all this public funding because it doesn’t work.

    You know what works? Private funding right into politicians pockets to double down on oil and gas.

    Also, ppl need to grow up. Windmills are clearly some man-child’s fantasy because they liked how their colorful windmill looks while sitting in a gas powered car

    /s

  • Ooops@feddit.orgEnglish
    4·
    6 months ago

    But how many € get delivered into the pockets of the fossil fuel industry our politicians are working for? See… there’s the reason why it won’t happen.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      24·
      6 months ago

      Is it? Seems pretty reasonable. If you includes the reduction in costs for health and safety because of fossil fuels it should give you a lot of net plus.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          4·
          6 months ago

          so the added value is only the cost of imported gas or uranium or whatever,

          Except, if I’m not mistaken, wind also doesn’t need much labor, meaning there’s actually a proportional amount of labor is available to be used elsewhere in the economy, so in effect you’re getting (more or less) free energy and free labor. And don’t forget the economic value of not being tied to political upheavals in the Middle East or Russian war crimes in Ukraine and the lower bar for economic undertakings due to cheaper energy a la Jevon’s paradox. Now I don’t know enough about economics to coneifm or deny the €7 number, but you’re underselling the impact here.

        • dubak@feddit.orgEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Unsure,what is crappy or unsound corpo bullshit because the economic models used by EU to allocate resources and to drive fiscal decisions are even less complex than those proposed by the scientific community, because they ignore climate change.

          Rule of thumb: direct investments from government have a multiplier ratio roughly between 1 & 5 depending on the economic situation.

          EU Commisions economic models currently assume that every Euro of investment generates just 0.6 Euro of economic activity. Renewable energy projects are the only investments with coefficients above 1. Source

            • dubak@feddit.orgEnglish
              1·
              6 months ago

              .6 is a multiplier. It’s a loss of 40 cent per Euro.

              There are numerous studies assessing the return on investment, but I wouldn’t say that some are more correct. They are working with different assumptions regarding the environmental costs, which can lead to huge differences in the cofficient estimates. Currently, the goal is to convince EU commission to include the environmental costs in their economic models. The precise math isn’t that important, it’s the step towards better models that matters. The study by Trinomics is part of this effort and shouldnt be discarded, even though it comes from industry and though it claims large multipliers.

    • Caveman@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      To be fair, the headline is super weird, I read the report and can’t find where they pulled that number from. The report says “wind fund good, with wind fund 2040, without wind fund 2040” stuff but never mentions how big it is.

      But also it sounds plausible that a 1m subsidy could make or break 7m project.