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.
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 if only a project would be profitable, there will be investors.
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!
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 50 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 91 comment
by Oui - Jun 58 comments
by Oui - Jun 257 comments
by Oui - Jun 112 comments
by Oui - May 31118 comments
by Oui - May 3050 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2742 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 928 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2666 comments
by Oui - Apr 8108 comments
by Oui - Mar 19145 comments