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.
Setting up rules merely with view
better (I think)
Setting up rules merely with a (or the) view
energy policy goals -- be them sustainability better (I think)
energy policy goals -- be they sustainability
the Communication on prospects for the
(German capitalisation problems...) (-:
the communication on prospects for the
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that if only a project would be profitable, there will be investors.
A fundamental mistake is to assume: Only a profitable project attracts investors.
I don't know enough about California and the blackouts due to Enron and Energy de-regulation - but could that be a suitable warning to use as an example? (I like that you have mainly provided European examples)
Good work Nanne and DoDO!!!
On Communication, it is habitual in EU jargon to capitalise official EU documents and institutions.
The sentence with the 'mistake' isn't the prettiest, but I don't know if it contains grammatical errors. I'd reformulate it as 'It is a fundamental mistake to assume that profitability will automatically attract investors to a project'.
Though I do not know what the precise meaning of the sentence should be.
Perhaps it is better to write 'It is a fundamental mistake to assume that profitability should drive infrastructure investments'.
It has always been assumed that energy networks would be self-financing. To achieve this a clear and stable legal framework is the main precondition for stimulating private sector investment in generation and transmission/transport...
I.e., I meant to say that the market won't deliver just because a project would be self-financing. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that the market will always provide the capital for any project with a positive return.
Is that your meaning?
"It is a fundamental mistake to assume that some investors will always be willing to provide the capital for any project with a positive return." *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If some investors will not always be willing, then there is an implied second group of investors-the remainder-and what is their view? The uncertainty detracts from the clarity and force of your point.
Fixing it could be as simple as dropping the "some":
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that investors will always be willing to provide the capital for any project with a positive rate of return.
Or (which might or might not be closer to your original meaning):
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that an investor can always be found to provide the capital for any project with a positive rate of return.
??
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that any project with a positive rate of return will be able to attract investment.
?
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that a project with a positive rate of return will always be able to attract investment.
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that projects with a positive rate of return will always be able to attract investment.
I like the second one better...
I might be tempted, though, to insert "private sector", in order to make it really clear:
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that projects with a positive rate of return will always be able to attract private sector investment.
"3.3 Extension of TEN-E to oil infrastructure, CO2 sequesteration and other new networks"
sequestration
"Thus, it should not be beyond the scope of EU energy policy to consider the maintenance of the ownership and operation of energy grids in the public hand, or the construction and operation of certain load balancing plants."
Thus, it should not be beyond the scope of EU energy policy to consider maintaining the ownership and operation of energy grids, or the construction and operation of certain load balancing plants, in the public hand.
That's all I can think of.
It's really excellent, congrats, you guys!
That's a mistake I was scolded for before, by afew and Colman, but one apparently hard to un-learn... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 6 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 28 15 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 24 11 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 21 7 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 18
by gmoke - Jan 18
by Oui - Feb 9
by Oui - Feb 7
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 65 comments
by Oui - Feb 59 comments
by Oui - Feb 4
by Oui - Feb 33 comments
by Oui - Feb 35 comments
by Oui - Feb 112 comments
by Oui - Feb 11 comment
by Oui - Feb 1
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by Oui - Jan 29
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 2815 comments
by Oui - Jan 281 comment
by Oui - Jan 27
by Oui - Jan 267 comments