Now, I know we argue with the economics we have got, not the ones we want, so no slight towards the writers of the report or afew's excellent summary.

That said: Gah! No no no!

Sure you can count how many digital claims the state needs to create, then subtract how much those are re-used and finally add the benefit of people working to receive the claims but it misses the real world. We do not have a lack of claims nor a real lack of things to be done, just a stupid economic system that manufactures a lack of claims and then demands people to be unemployed instead of working.

The real costs of production are in materials (renewables, reusables and finite), labor and environmental stress. That something takes a lot of man-hours to be done is not a good thing really. Neither is the economic activity in pumping up limited resources that pollute the planet. It is materials, labor and environmental degredation you want to minimize, not the money!

</rant>

Ok, with that said I guess the reason UK gets less GDP from wind is because they import much of the stuff needed, so it is done elsewhere (where then the money spins around instead). If so the Net Costs says something about trade and how local the production is. Which can be relevant, for example UK might want to build windmill factories of its own.

But don't let the Commission know! They hate that free trade stopping, tree-hugging hippie crap about local production.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se