The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
A substantial difference with accelerated amortisation with windfall gains is that accelerated amortisation does not roll out more wind power capacity, and so does not have the same positive impact on Sweden's net exports.
I think you're tacitly assuming that the "seeded" farms have a lower required rate of return on equity than the "seeding" farms. After all, if the "seeded" farms make sense on a seeding basis with constant cost of equity, then they should also make sense on an accelerated amortisation basis, assuming that you have available, equally priced, equity from other sources. As long as wind is a small(ish) fraction of total real capital investment, the latter does not strike me as an unduly unreasonable assumption.
And since a substantial share of the boom and bust falls to German capital goods industry.
Yes, if you allow a boom-and-bust cycle, you'll keep production in Germany. But if you have stable onshore demand, you'll get onshore industry (the economics of transporting windmills relative to transporting the raw materials say that the manufacturing will relocate to the vicinity of the demand). That's why you want to avoid a boom-and-bust cycle in the first place.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 22 3 comments
by Oui - Sep 23 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 10 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 14 16 comments
by gmoke - Sep 19 1 comment
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 40 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 57 comments
by gmoke - Sep 24
by Oui - Sep 239 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 223 comments
by gmoke - Sep 191 comment
by Cat - Sep 1416 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 105 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 740 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 257 comments
by THE Twank - Aug 3110 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 2757 comments
by Cat - Aug 2222 comments
by Cat - Aug 2225 comments
by Cat - Aug 185 comments