• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Yes, but something about electronics engineering.
 
Electronic engineering doesn't create non linear, non parametric undefined, unreasoned made up words that mean bollocks though. Allegedly.
 
http://www.greeninvestmentbank.com/...0m-renewable-electricity-plant-on-the-thames/

good to see the green investment bank doing what nimrod suggested and investing public funds in ownership of infrastructure assets rather than simply lending to private companies or guaranteeing debt payment whilst de-risking the projects for them.

it’s a shame that this has arisen as a result of the abject failure of privatisation to deliver capacity rather than from a proper value for money public ownership policy, but it’s better than what has been happening up to now.

given that when I suggested public ownership in this way the likes of johnny and frank slated it as socialist, communist and Leninist it’ll be interesting to see if they provide a similar critique of this use of public money. after all, i’m sure they wouldn’t want to appear to be massive hypocrites, though I recall they’ve had nothing to say about the government’s desperation for the Chinese communists to build our nuclear plants.
 
What's wrong with being Leninist?
 
Alan USA said:
What's wrong with being Leninist?
Click to expand...

you'd have to ask them. public ownership doesn't equate to any of the descriptions they give to it, but they label it as such to deflect away from the failures of the privatisation policy (eg in energy generation) that the UK adopted and presumably they support.
 
nimrod said:
you'd have to ask them. public ownership doesn't equate to any of the descriptions they give to it, but they label it as such to deflect away from the failures of the privatisation policy (eg in energy generation) that the UK adopted and presumably they support.
Click to expand...

Only your two posts are nonsense. The Green Bank is an investment bank for profit, it's funding, like the power station has to be matched by the private sector as per EU rules on government subsidies with public money.

The governments of Europe have been doing this for years and not just in energy. Indeed my own company has taken advantage of such a scheme.

So to claim this is public ownership is nonsense. It is public investment, which I happen to think is a very good thing.
 
it's public ownership for taking ownership risk, as opposed to public lending/guaranteeing & subsiding for taking ownership risk. there's a major difference. taking ownership is precisely what I indicated should we should be doing in post #528. if you're now agreeing with me as to which is the better option, many congratulations.

we know other countries do it johnny, that was the point. we haven't been.
 
We've done it for years Nimrod. And yes I recognise there is a difference between grants/ lending and investing in companies, and particularly those rules under the banner of the EU, which all government funding vehicles have to abide by, but thanks for pointing that out to me.

I know because the company I own (well, the majority of it) has an investment in the form of a government scheme, essentially I have the tax payers as shareholders. They are represented at board level by the administrators of the scheme, in my case a single VC, in the Green Banks case by a combination of VC's and commercial banks.

Again this particular form of investment has been running since Blair introduced it from the EU in the early 2000's and can be as small as my particular company or as large as the power station you have linked.

What any investment isn't is public ownership. It is public investment, there is a vast difference, especially as the facility will be run by a private company.
 
Johnny75 said:
We've done it for years Nimrod. And yes I recognise there is a difference between grants/ lending and investing in companies, and particularly those rules under the banner of the EU, which all government funding vehicles have to abide by, but thanks for pointing that out to me.

I know because the company I own (well, the majority of it) has an investment in the form of a government scheme, essentially I have the tax payers as shareholders. They are represented at board level by the administrators of the scheme, in my case a single VC, in the Green Banks case by a combination of VC's and commercial banks.

Again this particular form of investment has been running since Blair introduced it from the EU in the early 2000's and can be as small as my particular company or as large as the power station you have linked.

What any investment isn't is public ownership. It is public investment, there is a vast difference, especially as the facility will be run by a private company.
Click to expand...

it's direct ownership by GIB. read the article - equity and shareholder loans (the latter just to extract any excess cash) into the project company. simple, straightforward ownership. who owns the project company, who gets the ownership rewards?

just to put into context, that's not what happened with the drax project. for that project public money was used to guarantee debt payments so that the project could go ahead. the ownership rewards all go to drax, the public will get a fee for taking the guarantee risk. you could easily call that "public investment", but its not ownership. that's what I was critical of in #528, using public money to support/guarantee private ownership and being burdened with the risk.

if you taking ownership risk, take ownership rewards, as ESB are doing. it seems to me you're agreeing with me, but trying desperately hard not to admit it.
 
Visage said:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/30/tesla-powerwall-home-battery/

Very cool indeed.
Click to expand...
Affordable too. String a few of those bad boys together and you can easily power your house. You can run a family house on about 40-50kwhs if you monitor your power outlets and are careful with not leaving your devices on. I know that's possible because the science Q&A podcast guy Dr Karl in Australia does exactly that using a solar array on his roof. I think he said his house runs on roughly 42kwh per day.
 
nimrod said:
it's direct ownership by GIB. read the article - equity and shareholder loans (the latter just to extract any excess cash) into the project company. simple, straightforward ownership. who owns the project company, who gets the ownership rewards?

just to put into context, that's not what happened with the drax project. for that project public money was used to guarantee debt payments so that the project could go ahead. the ownership rewards all go to drax, the public will get a fee for taking the guarantee risk. you could easily call that "public investment", but its not ownership. that's what I was critical of in #528, using public money to support/guarantee private ownership and being burdened with the risk.

if you taking ownership risk, take ownership rewards, as ESB are doing. it seems to me you're agreeing with me, but trying desperately hard not to admit it.
Click to expand...

I think we are in violent agreement as they say. I did read the article fully and I do understand equity and loans as explained 3 times now.

For clarity, public investment is not guaranteeing anything or a grant/ loan to do anything. Investment is the acquisition of equity at a certain price, hence my reasoning.

To me public ownership in the traditional sense is that the public purse is the cash reserve and then the state runs it. My understanding of this may be wrong of course. This venture is public investment to me in that it will not be a private company that runs the power facility not the state.

As I say (and I think you agree with) I am in favour of public funds being used to invest into companies of all sizes and to reap those benefits, far more profitable than grants and lending with far better results. Of course I am biased in this as it's happened to me!
 
Johnny75 said:
I think we are in violent agreement as they say. I did read the article fully and I do understand equity and loans as explained 3 times now.

For clarity, public investment is not guaranteeing anything or a grant/ loan to do anything. Investment is the acquisition of equity at a certain price, hence my reasoning.

To me public ownership in the traditional sense is that the public purse is the cash reserve and then the state runs it. My understanding of this may be wrong of course. This venture is public investment to me in that it will not be a private company that runs the power facility not the state.

As I say (and I think you agree with) I am in favour of public funds being used to invest into companies of all sizes and to reap those benefits, far more profitable than grants and lending with far better results. Of course I am biased in this as it's happened to me!
Click to expand...

fair play. without promising anything I will try to be less provocative.

in this instance, anyone on the equity side will consider themselves an owner. they will jointly appoint a management team to manage out contracts so technically the plant won't even be run by the project company but by an outsourced o&m firm. the only objectives of the project company are to run the contracts, and manage the cash to service debt and pay equity returns to owners. it shouldn't have an executive team deciding what direction to take the company in. it's purpose is pre-established.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top