Difficulty with nuclear is that we do not own the raw souce and where it is found it is difficult to mine and extract. If more and more nations develop nuclear power, then the rare source is bound to be subject to supply and demand prices. Originally there was a case for nuclear power stations because we could extract plutonium from them to make our bombs. But, we now buy all our weapons grade material from the United States, so that side line (but originally very important) has disappeared
Looks like they are ready to kick start fracking. ( according to the times ). They intend carrying out seismic surveys at most of their licensed areas in the North of England ( Scotland ?). The ramp up in operations will see drilling in 2017 and fraccing in 2018. Looks like they are going for it! Can somebody tell a certain Mr. Crane, as they may be taking on additional oil executives- he could certainly use the money! Oh, but don't tell the thirteen and the rest of the frack off people, you just know how *****y they get
Professor Mackay, previously a DECC advisor, died recently tragically young. BTW as well as being an energy expert he was partly responsible for the communication software used by Stephen Hawking.
His last interview is reported here at some length. Straight talking common sense. If you read nothing else, read this.
Prof MacKay was renowned in the energy world for his book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, which examined the potential limitations of renewable power, but said he had "always tried to avoid advocating particular solutions".
However in his final interview – in which he stressed he would be "content with any plan that adds up" – he set out for the first time his own recommendation for "the rational thing to do in the UK", explaining: "Maybe [as] the time is getting thinner, I should call a spade a spade."
"For the UK, I think we want a zero carbon solution and it has to work in the winter," he said.
The British public also seemed to care about the cost of energy, he said, so "we should be looking for a low carbon solution that is low cost".
Prof MacKay said: "If you just cost-optimise and say it has to keep working in the winter, even if there’s no wind for seven days at time and obviously no sun… the sensible thing to do for a country like the UK, I think, is to focus on carbon capture and storage (CCS), which the world needs anyway, and nuclear.
"Then if you ask, what is the optimal amount of wind and solar to add in as well? The answer is going to be almost zero."
Prof MacKay said he loved wind turbines, describing them as "the cathedrals of the modern age", but said that if the country managed to build enough low-carbon supplies to get it through periods of no wind or sun in winter, then there was "actually no point in having any wind or solar".
Wind turbines were a "waste of money" in that scenario since "when the wind blows you are going to have to either turn those wind turbines down or something else down that you have already paid for like the nukes or the CCS", he said.
While advocates of renewable technologies often cite the potential for electricity storage to deal with their intermittency, Prof MacKay said that balancing wind-based power supplies would require "hundreds of flooded valleys" for hydroelectric storage.
Powering the UK from solely solar and batteries would require "absurdly large" batteries, while the cost of battery technology would need to come down "by a factor of 100" for it to be a realistic option, he said.
"doing that at anything less than 135p would bankrupt him" - let me just clarify that point (for da lawyers!): I'm saying that if one decided to buy back your shares for 135p that are each now only worth 15.5p you may feel a bit poorer... I'm not saying that this would have actually bankrupted AA. It was just a turn of phrase. (I thank-you!)
From what I understand the Equities First agreement that AA had was different to the one that various shorters had seen so they kept incorrectly stating he would have to be margin called. AA insisted that per the agreement he had the absolute intention of buying the shares back in 2017 or whenever the 3 year loan time was up... except that doing that at anything less than 135p would bankrupt him and with the ability to cash in and walk away the 'absolute intention' looked to everyone like a weaselly way of getting around AIM rules and selling shares without looking like you'd sold them to cash in to the tune of £7.5 mil.
So in other words AA has sold the shares and since he is not on the list of majority shareholders there are no shares left to be dumped on the market. That will have happened in the weeks after the EF deal by Equities First that would have dumped them like hot rocks. The only reason AA looked to still have them is that he had voting rights attached to those shares as long as his promise to buy them back was there. Since he is no longer with the company he has, (I assume), decided not to bankrupt himself and instead is being spoon-fed fresh Beluga caviar in a champagne bubble-bath surrounded by bikini-clad Slovakian supermodels..... okay, maybe not, but if I had £7.5 mil that easy then that's where you'd find me!
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.