Probably relevant to DRAX if anyone has time to read.
The government is considering the appropriate legislative vehicle for introducing the
emissions intensity limit from 1 October 2025 and other measures required to implement it. As the introduction of the emissions intensity limit will
prevent unabated coal units entering into the Capacity Market auctions held in late 2021/early 2022 for the 2025/26 delivery year, and subsequent auctions for delivery years beyond that, the government will prepare the required legislation in good time before these 2021/22 auctions. A final Impact Assessment will be published
at that time
Should be no surprises for DRAX management.
A, off to buy another propane tank for next week, brrrr
I hope to buy back into these in the future, but it is au revior for now. Sold out a week or so ago and saw the price climb, but is now back to its 2009 level.
I'm afraid it is the fear of Corbyn and the continued bashing by the liberal leftie loons who can't grasp sustainable forestry or the carbon cycle.
Great little company, and I hope it does well, but the first rule of investing is still true; don't lose money!
What is particularly noteworthy is that AMPH have interests in Grid balancing and Battery storage.
The deal gives Drax just over 4% of the shares in this company, with almost half in total out of public hands.
One to keep an eye on me thinks...
Drax has agreed the sale of Billington Bioenergy (BBE) - a distributor of wood pellets in the UK heating market - to Aggregated Micro Power Holdings, an AIM listed energy company specialising in the sale of wood fuels and the development of distributed energy assets, including biomass boilers and battery storage. Drax said the consideration for the transaction was £2m, comprised of £1.6m of shares in AMPH and £0.4m of cash. Drax said the sale was aligned with its retail strategy, focused on the I&C and SME energy markets.
However, through its shareholding in AMPH, Drax would retain an interest in the UK heating market, while gaining exposure to the development of small-scale distributed energy assets.
Chief executive Dorothy Thompson said: 'We are pleased with the sale of BBE and our investment in AMPH.
'With their leadership in the UK wood pellet heating market, we believe they are the right partner to take forward and grow BBE, whilst supporting the UK's transition to a low carbon economy." 'We look forward to working with AMPH.'
Clip and paste from Power Engineering International:
"UK power giant Drax has submitted planning permission for what would be the worlds largest battery storage facility, and an equally ambitious gas-fired power plant facility, as it continues its retreat from coal-fired power.
The company wants has already converted three of its six coal-fired units in North Yorkshire to biomass, in its attempts to adapt to the UKs phase out of coal by 2025.
It said on Wednesday that it was considering building up to 200 MW of battery storage at the site, double the size of the current largest, the under-construction 100 MW Tesla facility in Australia.
In addition, the company wants to convert two of its remaining three coal units to gas. It would create up to 3.6 GW of gas power capacity, making it comfortably the largest gas plant in Britain, ahead of the 2.2 GW gas plant in Pembrokeshire.
Drax is now seeking a development consent order from the UKs Planning Inspectorate, a process it believes could take up to two years. A decision to go ahead with the project would then rely on the company winning a 15-year subsidy contract with the government. If it did decide to proceed, it envisages both facilities could be up and running by 2023. "
Three things stand out ...
1. It takes two years to get a development consent order, when the site is already a power station and Drax wants to make it cleaner!
2. "Converting" two of the (750Mw) units will (not!) produce 3.6Gw of power
3. Very happy indeed that they are trial running the fourth unit on biofuel.
4. Well, four things then ... Drax haven't put out any news item on their web site or made a stock exchange announcement, but probably don't need to. It would be nice to know!!!
I'm seeing quite a lot in the press today about Drax's plans to convert a fourth unit to biomass and rip out the last two units and replace them with gas turbines plus build a massive battery storage system!
Can't find anything from Drax about it, however. Does anyone have a link?
I invest in big oil, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and short-term lenders, so am probably well qualified to answer!
Short answer. If you think it is unethical and don't want to invest, then don't.
However, most of the stuff you quote sounds like it comes from (anti)biofuelwatch, who quote "scientists" and "experts", without saying who and from which peer reviewed publication this information comes.
I believe, having done as much research as I can, that Drax is a good thing and better than almost any other form of clean renewable in terms of reliability, quantity of energy produced and also from ethical sourcing of wood.
Dust may have increased since conversion, because it is operating again rather than sitting idle. People may or may not be suffering, but if they are it is a lot less than when all six of Drax's units were firing unabated coal.
Anyone bothered about the ethics of what Drax is up to? £500m pa of Gov subsidy to convert to a fuel that has dubious green credentials? Some scientists argue that biomass is worse for the planet than coal.
Recent report that dust emissions since biomass conversion have increased 135%
Claims health of local people is suffering as a result?
Does this impact on share price?
I am not a holder but considering buying-in if I can justify it to my own conscience.
Thank you, I was very guilty of 'generalising' , a bad habit.
I just wish we had the capability of designing and building our own big 'nukes' ,like in the 'old days'.
The AGR's may have been a bit over cost and time but some of that was simple dimensional
errors ( like boilers won't fit !).
Drax was the model for the 'once-through' boilers of Hinkley B.
First of all, can I please apologies for my previous post. I was a bit overwrought and used language I don't normally use. Very sorry.
I didn't think that two people died, in fact about 50 people died in the immediate incident. The two died in the blast.
There have been many incidents in the nuclear industry, but unsurprisingly about 70% of these are in the USA. Remember that Homer Simpson works at a nuclear power station ... says it all really. There are very few (very few, indeed) deaths. Compare with every (and I do mean any) other industry.
Nuclear power has an excellent safety record by every standard.
My family and friends work in the nuclear power industry and I briefly worked on the nuclear power systems for our nuclear submarines when I was an undergraduate apprentice back in the 60's! They are wonderfully safe!
Regarding Hinkley Point, the French and Chinese are paying and the more the cost increases, the more goes in to the UK economy!
If you believe only 2 people died fighting Chernobyl , that's ok.
But, in all the 'nuclear related' serious accidents the experts would have said , " maybe once in a thousand years". Funny how they've all come 'at once' don't you think ?
How to explain that ?
As for Magnox and AGR, they had/have a 'doomsday button' which would have killed the reactor,
never to work again, if worst came worst.
Just read, Hinkley costs have increased by £1.6billion already. Just hope it works.
MNKGV, Gosh, where to start. I know we now live in the post fact era where saying something makes it true, but really?
The Windscale accident was in 1957 and was and is the worst nuclear accident in the UK. It caused the deaths (estimated) of 100 people in the UK. This was a graphite pile reactor, built to produce nuclear material to go in the atom bomb. Hardly representative of a modern power station!
Fukushima used boiling water reactors, and the incident was caused by an earthquake and tsunami, so is hardly relevant to any new build in the UK. The disaster caused 10's of deaths, and this may rise.
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster the world has seen killed 2 people at the scene and 49 immediately after (including the helicopter crash) A UN study estimates that the number of premature deaths which could be attributable to Chernobyl could be as high as 4000. A very large number, of course, spread over many years.
In Great Britain there are about 1700 road deaths a year. A year!
But now for the big one. In the UK an estimated 40,000 people die per year as a result of air pollution, of which 23,500 are attributable to NO2 alone.
By any comparison with any other form of energy production, nuclear is outstandingly the safest. More people die in the hydro electric industry than in nuclear. Compare it with any other industry for that matter!
So, "Nuclear....safe....hmmm"? Yes. Absolutely.
You also said...
"Magnox and AGR were the safest of all the reactor designs but, guess what, everyone went for the cheap and cheerful PWR"
This is just not true by any standard. We only have one PWR in this country and it is the best and safest of any reactor built in the UK. We should have built more and decommissioned the dirty Magnox stations (built to support the hydrogen bomb project) years ago.
I know that facts and numbers and rational argument are not popular if they get in the way of a good story, but sometimes you have just got to do some research and go with the truth.
Nuclear....safe...... hmmm, not if you live near Fukishima,Windscale,Pripiat and a few more places..
Magnox and AGR were the safest of all the reactor designs but, guess what, everyone went for the cheap and cheerful PWR .
Agreed, nuclear is the way to go but we need to improve the safety record.
"It is no more "climate-friendly" to transport that increased yield from Louisiana to Yorkshire and burn it there than it is for Drax to increase that yield ... and then burn coal."
It is never climate friendly to burn coal. Not only do you need to capture and lock away "for ever" all of the CO2 it would release, but also the sulphur and nitrate/nitrite/nitrile products and all of the particulates it emits. It isn't possible to do this at the moment or probably ever.
It makes both environmental and economic sense to transport the wood pellets from Louisiana by sea and rail to Drax.
Wood, properly sourced and transported is a very clean and renewable fuel and is neither wind or sun dependent. It is the ideal fuel for large amounts of low carbon, renewable energy. A half converted Drax on its own produces about 5% of the countries energy needs, day and night, summer and winter, wind or calm, and unlike solar and wind, has a very small physical footprint.
There is more, much, much more to say, but I'll save it for another day.
" Increasing plantation yields with fertiliser or better management also yields climate-friendly biomass"
It is no more "climate-friendly" to transport that increased yield from Louisiana to Yorkshire and burn it there than it is for Drax to increase that yield ... and then burn coal.
What matters is that Drax (and anyone else claiming to be green) offsets whatever CO2 it emits, however it emits it, by growing the relevant amount of CO2 absorbing greenery ... or by pumping its CO2 deep underground in Yorkshire, thereby capturing the carbon emitted.
How anyone can believe it is anything but a completely insane idea to hump wood pellets
with a third of the thermal energy density of coal , with multiple land/sea/land transfers before being burned in a power station sitting on top of a coal -field, three thousand + miles away, , is beyond my comprehension.
Perhaps the same people who dreamed up the Northern Ireland scheme of paying for
using more energy than you need ?
But, as a Drax shareholder , I love to see those cooling towers wreathed in water vapour.
As long as the carbon credit scam is in existence Drax is secure.
Games, This issue was raised in a Daily Mail article some years ago as a scare story. I'm not sure where you got the quote from, but if is from where I think, then the article says ...
When trees grow they absorb carbon dioxide and lock it away in wood. If you chop down a tree and burn it, you cant possibly emit more than was absorbed in the first place, so the whole thing is effectively carbon neutral, or zero kilograms per megawatt hour.
And this ...
"If Drax is burning wood residues like twigs, small branches or sawdust that would otherwise have been burnt as waste, then the emissions will be below 100 kilograms per megawatt hour, or at least ten times lower than burning coal."
... and of course it is.
And this ...
"Burning wood residues instead of leaving them in the forest to rot is also generally low carbon. Increasing plantation yields with fertiliser or better management also yields climate-friendly biomass, as long as the rate of harvest does not increase.
If Drax burns wood from plantations that would otherwise have reverted to natural forest, or from regrowth forest converted to plantations then the carbon benefits are also significant, and emissions will come in at under 100 kg/MWh."
So it is possible to do it right, and Drax are doing it right.
""Facts don't care if you believe them or not. They are still facts. ""
No they don't I suppose!
"""Reducing the rotation rate of trees to boost forest output is also generally a bad idea for the climate and can lead to the production of biomass thats higher carbon than coal. Several other DECC scenarios also show that burning wood in UK power plants can be worse than coal. This includes harvesting wood from naturally regenerating forest, with emissions of up to 5,174 kilograms per megawatt hour a staggering five times that of coal."""
Games - but still governments and the EU will find new ways to justify such lunacy.
LK, you're wrong, and somewhere deep down I'm sure you know you are.
I'm not going to give you yet another physics lecture about global warming and the difference between biomass and fossilised carbon but I will if you like!
Facts don't care if you believe them or not. They are still facts.
Axel, I think that will be a divi of about 12.2p or about 3.5%. That sees a good starting position. With four OCGT's to build, and more investment in the supply chain to come, Drax will need to keep a good bit of cash in hand and maybe even convert one or more of the coal units to bio fuel over the next three or four years. I have no faith that Hinkley will ever be built so we will need more low carbon generation to meet the required CO2 emission target. We are currently way over on a normal day.
Trust those diesels not killing us with their NO emissions. Hey with £50m dividends promised by DRAX (?8p/share), you could invest in the bi-fuel conversion and burn gas.
You mentioned nukes. I saw something out of National Grid yesterday suggesting we pay nukes to not generate! Apparently with all these renewables the grid gets wobbly, they call it inertia, and so the cheapest solution is to reduce the largest possible fault (presently Sizewell) by turning it down. So you pay the nuke not to generate. The folks building Hinkley C which is an even bigger fault going to be amused by this, but I guess at £93/MWh for not generating what do they care.
A, bashing his head against energy policy wall..... again
It's fragile if one relies on a single source. However LNG is freely available from an increasing number of worldwide sources, so I'm chillaxed .... while maintaining a goodly supply of logs for the woodburner for when I'm in Blighty.
If one seeks to pinpoint supply fragility there is no need to look any further than future nuclear plants. Wouldn't it be gr8 if the electoral clusterfuck made Theresa think again about Hinkley Point? There's still time to build a few CCGT gensets and consign Hinkley Point to the dustbin where it belongs. Macron might even thank us.
LKH on the flybridge twin diesels purring away reliably
It is now 3 months since the Board announced a review with its shareholders on dividend policy. They should really announce the outcome of that review so that the market knows. At the moment all we have is a guess from Jeffries.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.