Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
My argument for a multiplier of three for wind power related energy and transport infrastructure is that energy costs are a fundamental part of all economic activity, that wind power, due to the Merit Order Effect, tends to cap the cost of peak power and thereby reduce the overall cost of power, and that the cost of energy is like a tax in its effect on economic activity.

Providing the maximum feasible amount of wind power and supplementing wind with solar and other renewable energy sources that have no fuel cost has a more beneficial effect than providing a similar amount of tax relief, in that, RW propaganda to the contrary, taxes do provide many benefits to a country, ranging from insuring the value and acceptability of its currency to, if properly applied, providing an equitable division of wealth within society. And this is all in addition to the benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In my view the proper term over which to calculate the multiplier from such investments is the useful life of the asset. I believe the multiplier would be at least 3 even excluding avoided costs from the impacts of global warming, but including the expected increased costs of fossil fuels. More informed opinions may vary.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2012 at 01:54:25 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Top Diaries

Occasional Series