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.
What is not standardised about a unit of energy?
Because what you're offering to trade is not units of energy, but units of energy production capacity. It's like saying that you can go buy bread with units in wheat fields: not gonna happen.
I am proposing "ownership" of productive assets in trust on behalf of the communities, with production shared equitably as between those responsible for bringing it about.
You keep on saying "equitably" but you never once say what is equitable.
The existing model is equitable: the manufacturer gets paid for machinery and agreed warranties. The operator gets paid the first slice of revenue for making the equipment function correctly and generate revenue. Banks get paid next for providing the initial funding, and require an amount which is likely to be available even with low prices and lower than average wind, providing low but stable revenue to them and their capital. Investors get the rest, which is very volatile but is expected, on average, to produce a higher return on their initial investment - with the risk however that they will be wiped out if something goes wrong.
Tell me who takes what risks in your model. Who, what, how? Not grand words like equitable. concrete numbers for my turbine, please.
leasing the way you are accustomed to doing it does not share risk. I believe that it is possible to confugure things differently, through partnership arrangements.
Please define leasing, then before telling me how I'm accustomed to doing it. Leasing, for me, simply means that you don't own the asset, and you pay some form of rental to use it. Rental obligations can vary widely, from the way payment amounts may vary, how long the lease lasts and how it may, or may not, be interrupted, and who ends up with the asset in the end. So I'm not sure what I'd be accustomed to do. Please provide your definition. You cmplain about my use of "ridiculous" but you sprinkle your comments with casual insults that are all the more annoying that you don't even bother to define what you claim I know nothing about.
you base it on a manifestly unsustainable financial paradigm which is even now - as you yourself document - breaking down around us.
It's not the financial paradigm which is breaking down, it's banking without risk analysis which is, as it always has been, unhealthy. It's not quite the same thing, as it is very much possible to have banking systems that do not drive all economic activity, because they are regulated differently.
But the point is that the toxic combination of Debt and shareholder value "Equity" combine to ensure that they do not "work" other than to concentrate ownership of resources in fewer and fewer hands.
Meh. It's bank lending that has allowed nobody hippies, local farmers or cooperatives to build their windfarms using "toxic" credit instruments. Color me skeptical of your grand claims.
You mistake tools for how they are used. The utopian tools you have in mind will get misused just as easily as current banking tools are.
In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 18 63 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 13 33 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 7 60 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 8 82 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 4 18 comments
by Bernard - Aug 27 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1863 comments
by Luis de Sousa - Sep 1333 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 882 comments
by ARGeezer - Sep 760 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 418 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3014 comments
by Bernard - Aug 275 comments
by gmoke - Aug 27