4 ms·
>>> The government or a wealthy investment group would need to subsidize building and cover significant cost overruns... If you think that cost and cost over r
by zer00eyz 3y ago
>>> The government or a wealthy investment group would need to subsidize building and cover significant cost overruns...
If you think that cost and cost over runs stop this sort of lending your dead wrong. Commercial lending loves to hand out money assuming that a) it can get a high enough rate of return and b) that if you fail it gets all its money back.
The latter portion, the insurance portion, is where these deals fall apart. NO one wants to take on the bonds to insure these deals. No one. The risks of nuclear are unpalatable to those markets post Fukushima.
- 7952 3y agoAnd you don't even get an asset you can sell. You own an expensive pile that needs nuclear engineers to dismantle.
- wakawaka28 3y agoWho says you can't sell a nuclear power plant?
- 7952 3y agoIf the project is successful then it makes money and doesn't have to be sold. If it doesn't make money then there is no reason to buy it. The business model is locked in regardless of who owns it on paper.
- wakawaka28 3y agoJust because someone owns a thing that makes money doesn't mean they don't need to ever sell part or all of it. They could need money somewhere else in their dealings. Generally utility providers have stable values but that is beside the point.
- 7952 3y agoI am talking about a situation where a developer is unable to repay their debts due to an unsuccessful project. The assets may still have some value, but probably far less than the debt. And any buyer would have to believe that they can succeed where the original developer failed. That may still be possible but the list of potential buyers is very limited. Also, the amounts of money are so vast that they would stretch most companies. Without massive cash reserves you are back to raising capital and the problems discussed.