Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
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.
The reductions in health can’t be predicted as a ratio on wind only, they depend on the overall switch to renewables, and what source is being offset to wind.
Plus the numbers given are all completely off, they are just adding everything they can together without regards to tradeoffs (e.g. 1W of wind electricity is offset by 1W of non wind electricity so the added value is only the cost of imported gas or uranium or whatever, the jobs are not added but reassigned, the export value provided is wishful thinking…).
Wind and solar with storage are a very good idea, I’m all for it. But these numbers are just corpo bullshit.
Rule of thumb: direct investments from government have a multiplier ratio roughly between 1 & 5 depending on the economic situation. 5 is extreme, applicable only in big recession with money being spent directly towards the poorest.