-
That makes the angle on this case only slightly different. The state decides they want to offer X (renewable energy) and simultaneously cuts off a company from offering Y (nuclear). It is perhaps a further complication that the phasing out makes sunk costs unrecuperable, but I reckon we're still in the same area ethically.
How about the sunk investment in mephedrone labs that won't be recuperated after Miaow Miaow got banned?
If Vattenfall gets a single cent out of this then any incentive for businesses to be sensitive to public opinion goes out the window. -
Isn't the Vattenfall one more to do with the issue of spending billions on a facility with a long payback period only to have the government forcibly close the facility before the capital expenditure of building it has been recouped due to post-Fukashima fears?
Some like that, very broadly speaking. The fact that it was a policy u-turn also.
This is quite a good primer - http://www.tni.org/files/download/vattenfall-icsid-case_oct2013.pdf
You are reading a single comment by @Ramsaye and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
starfish&coffee
h2o
@Ramsaye
Isn't the Vattenfall one more to do with the issue of spending billions on a facility with a long payback period only to have the government forcibly close the facility before the capital expenditure of building it has been recouped due to post-Fukashima fears?