3 ms·

Which claim? Regarding investments, from the world bank, "The pricing mechanism [a component of a PPA] is the primary mechanism for allocating revenue and marke

Which claim? Regarding investments, from the world bank, "The pricing mechanism [a component of a PPA] is the primary mechanism for allocating revenue and market risk in respect of the project between the public and private sectors and is central to the private project proponent’s and its lenders’ assessment of the commercial viability and bankability of the project." I believe Jigar Shah, the director of the Loan Programs Office at DoE, also talked about the importance of PPAs in attracting outside investment in his book Creating Climate Wealth: Unlocking the Impact Economy https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/energy/energy-power-agreements/power-purchase-agreements https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/...

pinewurst 2y ago
Again we’re not talking about an agreement to built a wind farm or solar or a big LNG turbine. A bank sees a PPA for any of those and knows if it cuts a check, it’ll happen with high probability. These tech PPAs are not much more than mutual handwaving by comparison.
- joshuamorton 2y ago
  This seems circular. "No one will invest in PPAs for nuclear because there isn't interest." "These PPAs in nuclear don't represent real interest because they're made with the understanding that the actual product will never develop." You're assuming your preferred conclusion and inventing a corporate conspiracy to support it.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    It would be circular if a single person was saying both of those. Are the people you're talking to in support of the first quote? I would expect them to say a lack of PPAs shows lack of confidence, or for them to barely care about the number of PPAs. Not to use it as evidence that there's no interest.
    - joshuamorton 2y ago
      Yes, the person I replied to was doing both, which is why I replied the way I did.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Oh, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "there isn't interest". I thought the disputed claim was that companies don't make nuclear PPAs because of lack of interest. In that case those claims would combine into a very flawed argument, but pinewurst isn't saying that. But if the actual meaning was that companies don't invest in the power plants needed to fulfill the nuclear PPAs because of lack of interest, then yes pinewurst was saying that, but that's not a circular argument anymore. "Nuclear PPAs don't represent real interest in power plants." and "There's negligible demand for nuclear PPAs for actual power because there isn't real interest in power plants." are compatible statements and not circular at all. The implication is simple: PPAs are a useless signal, and if you want to check for meaningful interest you need to check other signals. I don't know if I agree, but I think it's a reasonable position. And there's no 'conspiracy' needed.
psunavy03 2y ago
The claim that there would be no US aviation industry without British/French orders in WWII, which given US production for our OWN Armed Forces is a flat-out absurd thing to claim. France was overrun in 1940 and the RAF only used a few American designs compared with their own.

pinewurst 2y ago

Again we’re not talking about an agreement to built a wind farm or solar or a big LNG turbine. A bank sees a PPA for any of those and knows if it cuts a check, it’ll happen with high probability. These tech PPAs are not much more than mutual handwaving by comparison.

joshuamorton 2y ago
This seems circular. "No one will invest in PPAs for nuclear because there isn't interest." "These PPAs in nuclear don't represent real interest because they're made with the understanding that the actual product will never develop." You're assuming your preferred conclusion and inventing a corporate conspiracy to support it.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It would be circular if a single person was saying both of those. Are the people you're talking to in support of the first quote? I would expect them to say a lack of PPAs shows lack of confidence, or for them to barely care about the number of PPAs. Not to use it as evidence that there's no interest.
  - joshuamorton 2y ago
    Yes, the person I replied to was doing both, which is why I replied the way I did.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Oh, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "there isn't interest". I thought the disputed claim was that companies don't make nuclear PPAs because of lack of interest. In that case those claims would combine into a very flawed argument, but pinewurst isn't saying that. But if the actual meaning was that companies don't invest in the power plants needed to fulfill the nuclear PPAs because of lack of interest, then yes pinewurst was saying that, but that's not a circular argument anymore. "Nuclear PPAs don't represent real interest in power plants." and "There's negligible demand for nuclear PPAs for actual power because there isn't real interest in power plants." are compatible statements and not circular at all. The implication is simple: PPAs are a useless signal, and if you want to check for meaningful interest you need to check other signals. I don't know if I agree, but I think it's a reasonable position. And there's no 'conspiracy' needed.

psunavy03 2y ago

The claim that there would be no US aviation industry without British/French orders in WWII, which given US production for our OWN Armed Forces is a flat-out absurd thing to claim. France was overrun in 1940 and the RAF only used a few American designs compared with their own.