-
Yep, and the savings on capital investment overwhelm the spending in just 15 years.
Weirdly transport seems to have the best spend:saving ratio, while electricity doesn’t pay back as much as is spent (although this was done before the price of solar was dropping significantly below forecasts presumed).
(From here: https://twitter.com/JohnSpringford/status/1753730275371036730)
1 Attachment
-
slippers
-
I wasn't aware that the time period for investment return was so short.
If so, why the denial of evidence in the Labour hierarchy? Biden, in the US, has invested hundreds of billions in green tech. The EU has also followed suit. Are they hoping that the private sector will ride to the rescue with suitable financial guarantees? If so, then yet again the taxpayer will be on the hook for 'rent'. -
Doesn't that just show that operational savings will be at the same level as capital expenditure by 2050, so the balance will still be very negative at that point.
[edit]
so - a very different picture, if you look at cumulative budgeted versus cumulative projected savings. Even in 25+ years time, there's a negative balance of almost half a trillion. Not even taking into account the cost of servicing that debt.
That's quite a bit of money.
greytyke
NotThamesWater
The key word in the supposed £28 Billion Green Investment is 'Investment'.
This means that collectively we. as a nation, are acquiring an asset or assets.
Akin to a mortgage really. But hey fiscal discipline!