Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
No, that's not the meaining I intended :-) I tried to allude to this part in the Green Paper's intro:

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.

by DoDo on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 10:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can't think of a good formulation, though... can someone help?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sun Mar 29th, 2009 at 10:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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?

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 11:48:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes! But, I would like to tweak it some more -- is the following version clear enough and good English?

"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.

by DoDo on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 12:25:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The use of "some" in English can be quite tricky, now that I think about it.

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.

??

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 01:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On re-reading, I don't like "can be found".  There's a possible confusion between the literal and idiomatic meanings, and the ambiguity makes for an ugly sentence.  Sorry.

It is a fundamental mistake to assume that any project with a positive rate of return will be able to attract investment.

??

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 02:07:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...or...sufficient investment, perhaps?
by Sassafras on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 02:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that any project with a positive rate of return will always be able to attract investment.

?

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 02:13:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Better already. What do you think about deleting 'any' and writing 'projects'? Or just replacing 'any' with 'a'?

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...

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 03:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So do I.

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.

?

by Sassafras on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 03:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm your private sector, a sector for money...
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 03:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is a fundamental mistake to assume that a positive rate of return is always a sufficient condition for a project to attract 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 afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Mar 30th, 2009 at 04:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series