The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
"David Cebon, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Cambridge, said: “If you use green hydrogen it takes about three times more electricity to make the hydrogen to power a car than it does just to charge a battery.”"
It takes 3 times as much energy to get from fossil fuels to deliver to the road but that doesn't stop us all using fossil fuels. Efficiency is never a focus, price is. Having fossil fuels like methane fixed at 1/3 the price of electricity ensures that fossil fuels never lose out. That 1/3 is not a commercial calculation just a mandate from government.
Agreed Wig1, but looking at the list a fair amount of them were just at 0.5 or below already. I guess it could be the 0.49% and 0.5% making up the difference with Helikon still at 2.68%.
Anyhow good to see it dropped a bit again.
Shorts below .49 aren't reported.
It had gone from 3.21% to 3.71% due to AQR Capital, I cannot see clearly who lowered their short by 0.5% to bring it back to 3.21%
I take this as very good news. Totally take your point about FIDs and no guarantees but it certainly puts ITM in the top spot for this « multi- hundred MW » contract should it materialise.
Momentum seems to be with ITM currently and I like their focus- more so than plug and Nel, their main competitors.
They mentioned a couple of years ago that they would now only produce an rns for materially significant news. So small orders and low revenue news won't be rns, but at least they are sharing on X which is good. Today's FEED announcement is positive but it's no guarantee that either the project gets FID or that ITM would be the ultimate supplier. If both of those outcomes end up happening then we'd here about that in an RNS for sure.
Fair comment. Onwards and upwards!
Basically because these two events are not significant in the eyes of the board.
I agree that shipping a Neptune is not significant, receiving the order may have been, shipping no.
I suspect this design work is not especially costly, hence not significant. Multi hundred MW could be 2.
Agreed, baffled as to why this wouldn't be worthy of an RNS.
Thanks for sharing E_AL.
I don't understand how this is not an RNS? and add in you shipped a Neptune unit the other week.
I am sure someone can explain?
Thanks
We are pleased to share that ITM has signed a contract for a FEED (Front End Engineering Design) for a multi-hundred megawatt (MW) electrolyser project in Europe.
Tim Calver, VP Commercial: "We are committed to working flexibly with customers & EPC integrators to optimise the plant design around ITM’s leading PEM electrolyser. Engagement in design stages of large projects of 100MW+ scale is important in the deployment of our technology.”
https://x.com/itmpowerplc/status/1756942786543096019
Yes, Human Industrial Development.
Exponentially !
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0lOtdvqyg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxqvwkmTNy8
This causes climate change. All capitals.
Climate Change, rather than climate change, is caused by human industrial development.
OMG - All these eminent Scientific Associations must have it all wrong that human activity is the primary driver :
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I guess some people just believe what they want to believe, no matter what evidence exists.
Forget the ad hominem ... specifically what's incorrect ? :-)
LOL
lots of people like to avoid their responsabilities. :-)
2024 IS A PEAK SOLAR ACTIVITY YEAR IN THE 11 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE. THIS CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE, NOT CO2. WHAT CAUSES THIS CYCLE?
Jupiter exerts a gravitational pull on the Sun. Jupiter's full solar orbit is 11.85 years long. From Earth we experience and observe a regulae cycle of Solar intensity increasing and peaking then waning of 11 years. This is Jupiter plus all other planets combined exerting a regular pull of the Sun towards us. This 11 year pull also increases solar activity on the Sun's surface. We can see this increased activity manifest through more Sun Spots.
We can see this 11 year cycle in tree rings on planet Earth going back millennia. Just like the Moon exerts a pull on the Earth's Sea which manifests in high and low tides, Jupiter exerts a pull on the Sun's surface which manifests in increased Sun spot frequency and intensity. This is what creates the 11 year Schwabe cycle, as well as the the 178 Jose cycle as all the planet orbits realign with this duration, as the planet orbits are always changing due to the pull of the planets on each other.
The changing solar activity due to the changing orbital distances and combined gravitational solar and planetary pulls is what causes both solar activity to vary according to even longer regular cycles, including the 1,000 year Eddy cycle. CO2 change is the effect of these combined gravitational changes which cause warming and cooling, it is not the cause. This is because sea water releases CO2 when it heats up, and absorbs CO2 when it cools down. The sea heating and cooling is caused by the Sun heating and cooling the Earth's atmosphere, as well as the Sun's cyclical influence over the Earth's cloud cover.
Volcanic activity is also determined by proximity and activity of the Sun and its gravitational pull over the Earth's molten core. Earthquakes are also timed and linked with Solar gravitational pull and activity.
https://twitter.com/robinmonotti/status/1756586688334233737
My thoughts
1) Republicans are screaming that the US cannot afford the debt that is funding the green deal. Luckily no one is listening
2) Subsidies to fossil fuels mean that grey hydrogen will be cheaper than green. (.)
3) setting the cap on methane at 1/3 of the cap on electricity charges means that heat pumps will always be more expensive than domestic boilers (which is why local town heating is the main uptaker of heat pumps)
4) Agree that turning off wind farms is crazy, but implementing massive energy gas storage is a critical solution to this. "Oh no we closed our last big gas store.... oh let's store CO2 in it". Scientific thinking seems to be disconnected in Westminster.
5) The reality is we cannot afford to go green, but also we cannot afford to not go green. This dilemma seems to be a problem in Westminster, We can never afford to solve our future problems right now in this tax/charges environment, but if we change the tax/charging environment we will see that we have to change our futures right now.
I don’t know if you saw the statistic that more than half our renewable energy projects are owned by sovereign wealth funds. No reason UK plc can’t get in on the act.
Not sure whether it will be good or bad for our current renewable companies- Greencoat uk wind, ORIT to name a couple of the smaller ones.
They aren’t doing too well at the moment with 70% tax and unable to write off new green investment against profits, unlike fossil fuel companies. To coin a new labour song/phrase « things can only get better ».
Very sad indeed !
At least Labour have a plan regards a new publicly owned energy company :
https://labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-plan-for-gb-energy/
There is a conundrum here that I have not seen properly modelled.
We talk about the levelised cost of green hydrogen 3,5, 10 years in the future and different models come up with fairly wide range of estimates. $ 5-15 per kg and compare these with grey hydrogen and estimate £ 3-5 roughly though there were times in the last 2-3 yrs when green was cheaper.
What I haven’t seen modelled is the cost of grey hydrogen if we continue on the same trajectory with wars and political shenanigans causing price shocks with ever increasing demand but no increase in supply. I think the US government did the maths,ran it through some big computers and came up with what they have aptly called « inflation reduction act ». They didn’t call it a green deal but hard $ has driven their decision making. EU similarly pumping some fairly hefty cash, though perhaps per capita 1/3 of USA and in the uk zero ambition. Calls of « we can’t afford it ». No calls if we can’t not afford it. That is before you even start to estimate the costs of global warming to uk, EU and internationally.
We deserve better politicians, higher level political debate and greater ambition. We still have some top companies in green energy - ITM and ceres with world beating tech. Sadly stuck with a government that has been navel gazing for years.
Yes, since start of 2023 cost £590m adding £40 to the average consumer bill and increasing to £180 by 2030.
Off topIc but its small beer compared to the amount wasted elsewhere re: incompetence, fraud etc.......
Perhaps if those in charge actually put a stop to the spending waste then people's hard earned cash would go further. The wind energy curtailment payments are literally paying out bill-payers money to generate no energy - what a waste. That same money would have already paid for enough electrolysers to replace 10% of UK grey hydrogen with green from the excess wind. It may be hard to quantify exactly how that makes things more affordable for hard-working people, but I can't help but feel getting something for your money rather than nothing just has to be better.