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.
Hi Sea',
By all means check it over, I've made mistakes before. I've gone over it twice and can't seem to find much wrong with it. Maybe the turbine blowing around for half the year was too generous? If anyone with appropriate electrical energy and power over time experience could kick me in the goolies and let me know that would be great.
Well done McBF. Inclined to check your maths or maybe it’s just tea time....... Let’s see if he responds?
From memory I think they are doing pretty well but recent results were down on margins. More importantly they’ve been tarred with the green brush. All this talk about bubbles etc. I used to hold Vestas (made me a lot of money in truth) and they would probably be a good investment now following the dip but I tend to stick to this country.
(cont')
A 10 MW turbine is blown round for 50% of the year (4380hrs) producing 10*60*60*4380= 157,680,000 MW.
For 8 hrs a day it is used for peak energy demand and the majority of the rest is wasted.
.24-8= 16 hrs, but let’s be kind say 12 hrs is wasted energy potential.
157,680,000 MW / 2 = 78,840,000 MW unutilised potential energy
10 * 60 * 60 = 36,000 MW produced in an hour = 10MWh. Wind cost $70 per MWh so $700.
78,840,000 MW / 36,000 MW = 2190 * 10MWh or 21,900 MWh.
$700 * 2190 = $1,533,000 lost revenues per annum because there is no way to store it!
Even at 30% overall efficiency $1,533,000 / 100 * 30 = $459, 900
Including the 50% lost due to H2 conversion back into electricity by fuel cell that is $459, 900 per annum saved per turbine. Considering ITM’s projection costings of roughly £500k per MW capacity by 2023 means £5,000,000 per turbine.
Today’s £- $US valuation = £ 1 – 1.39
Lifetime of a turbine of up to 30 yrs
$459,900 / 1.39 = £330, 863 * 30 = £9, 925, 899 product created over the lifetime of the turbine, - £5,000,000 = £4,925,899 extra revenues over the lifetime (exc’ inflation and any interest) per turbine.
Currently possess 24.1 GW of turbines in the UK (10,930 turbines) with only half their energy utilised. That number will expand to 50 GW by 2030
1GW = 1000MW
10MWh @ 30% efficiency = £4,925,899 over turbine life
100 * £4,925,899 = £492, 589, 900 saved per GW over 30 years.
£492,589, 900 * 50GW = £24,629,495,000 revenues over 30yrs.
This figure includes the installation of the electrolysers, not inflation, not loan interest and as far as I’m aware not the required storage capacity for the gas. Though the inflation, H2 storage + CO2 storage and loan interest will be factors for CCS anyway.
Furthermore, the staggered nature of the roll out, increased efficiency of turbines electrolysers and homes etc over the next 30 years has not been taken into account.
For now that’ll do.
Later I wish to discuss a chicken and egg scenario.
The UK has millions of 2 up 2 down Victorian terraces that make up the bulk of homes. They are generally very cramped and only possess room enough in a cellar or roof space for a heat pump.
Thanks for all your patience,
I'm also writing an irritated email to Prof' Cebon.
I’m a devotee of hydrogen and an architectural technologist by education.
Before the parliament website crashed I watched with interest at your seeming counter argument to the conversion of large amounts of electricity to H2.
You cited the inefficiency of the green H2 process (around 30%) and I do not dispute this.
Hinkley nuclear power station is projected to cost £22bn and took a decade to commission. Then there is the legacy issue of such tech’, management of toxic waste and decommissioning costs (again multiple billions). So until fusion becomes viable the cost per MWh for nuclear is prohibitively expensive at around $125. Yet it is seen as an essential part of the energy mix because of it’s high-power at short notice capabilities.
In March 2021, Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that "Renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation. It is now cheaper to build a new solar or wind farm to meet rising electricity demand or replace a retiring generator, than it is to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant. ..
If this is the case what happens when there is a lull in energy need (at night etc’)? The turbines keep turning and there is currently no energy storage solution for all that 100% wasted energy. So what to do? Do we put it into Tesla batteries that have rare earth element associated political and toxic issues; yet with greater energy density. However, from what I can tell, batteries have increased weight, limited charge cycling and will need to be replaced more often.
Given, the lessons learnt from nuclear meltdowns and BP oil spills we should think more long-term about the environmental legacies left after we are gone. Not just the pound for pound efficiency ratios. The notion that H2 creates a little N2O, water and O2 when it explodes is surely a much better legacy than lithium ions or cobalt leaking into the rivers.
The EU have released their advice about H2 suitable pipes and a particular kind of FRP plastic has been chosen. Storage is not an issue in a gas network. My street’s pipes have already been upgraded in the last few months.
The proper long term solution is for that green wasted energy is to be turned into H2. The multiple x cheaper cost of installing turbines instead of nuclear more than makes up for the loss in H2 storage efficiency; nuclear MWh for Fuel Cell MWh. You said 70% is energy lost, yet cost of wind is around $70 per MW and nuclear is $125 MWh.
As turbines only sell part of their actual generation to the grid (when it is needed) that is not really a true representation of their potential output and eventual per MW cost. Once an energy storage solution is provided then that cost would slide still further.
Infrastructure costs are minimal as you say because of the capability to transport H2 around the gas grid at will.
A 10 MW turbine is blown round for 50% of the year (43
Seaangler thank-you good points. Ref Vestas....any idea why their share price has plumeted in the recent weeks ?
A few more of these:
https://fuelcellsworks.com/subscribers/france-hydrogen-station-in-cherbourg-en-cotentin-open/
in the right places and you have a useful network for freight and buses. Cars will follow eventually, or sooner if enough sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/561614
Also he is assuming the requirement is for us to be self-sufficient in all the electricity/energy we need. We are lucky to have such a large potential for offshore wind, but he should consider cases for countries that cannot be self-sufficient in electricity. How then would he suggest they heat homes and drive around? Yes, many can expand grid connections and import electricity over wires, but you're so dependent on the good will of your neighbouring countries for that solution. One of the reasons Japan is still progressing with hydrogen for vehicles is that they determined they can't generate enough domestic electricity since they abandoned their nuclear journey. The proposal to import hydrogen as fuel from Australia (and others) seems like a good solution to me, but I'm sure Prof Cebon would still disagree. I'd like to know what his solution is for Japan.
I suspect his calculations are suspect SKC. Vestas are launching a 15MW turbine as I write. I wonder how that would affect his calculations? Each one is able to power 20,000 homes from memory which is pretty staggering. I reckon that 135m x 135m area could get shrunk a fair bit.
Seaangler thank-you, good debate & I want to get a good grounding on the issues under debat from last night so that we can all move on, so more than happy to be corrected. The issue on using off demand green energy was rebuked by Cebon last night as insufficient as you apparently need a 135miles by 135 miles sea of wind turbines just to drive the nations long distance trucks. So to heat the homes that electric heat pumps cant reach will require massive wind power investment ( & that's the right thing to do) but the outstanding question is can the grid heat homes by direct electrification using low tech storage heaters cheaper than generating green or blue hydrogen & pumping this into the domestic supply. BTW I like the Tesla payee .....I though exactly the same.
This is just one witness of 5 witnesses to that session (there are more) to that select committee on the role of hydrogen yesterday morning. Prof Cebon is a heat pump enthusiast much quoted by the ground source heat pump association (I do not know if he is a paid consultant to them), and has long been a critic of hydrogen (there are exceedingly few critics to call upon). The clerk will have chosen him as a witness for the purpose of balance, or he may have written to the clerk suggesting he give evidence (I know that people do that; also you can write to the clerk and suggest a good witness for a current selcom enquiry, with a few notes as to why). If you look at the notes to the budget yesterday you've got good hydrogen plans for two of the freeports, Felixstowe and "East Midlands" (which is well inland at Ratcliffe, and not a port at all !). The only reason to try and import some significance to the one witness who is anti-hydrogen and pro-heat pump is if you want to buy some more ITM shares, and need them down.
Professor Sebon thinks we can do everything in terms of decarbonising home heating and personal transport with EVs and heat pumps, but the size of the street cable and final transformer is 1.5 kW per home (maximum demand after diversity rating). The average home draws 10 kWh per day of electricity on average. The average EV outside of covid used as a real working person's car needs 10 kWh to charge per day PER EV (most homes will end up with more than one), and a heat pump when it replaces a 35 kWh a day gas boiler average, draws 10 kWh a day, and rather more in winter. The cost of upgrading all those last mile DNO assets is £80b, and the last DNO price control ending 2023 didn't fund any DNO last-mile-assets upgrades. Yes, hydrogen is going to have a role, as it is for storage of surplus electricity from unreliably-intermittent wind and solar. Prof Cebon entirely omits all the electricity network-related limitations on just electrifying everything.
https://committees.parliament.uk/event/3882/formal-meeting-oral-evidence-session/ - the video is painstaking to view but the transcript should go up in a day.
Hydrogen production will get cheaper. “They” said exactly the same about wind power. Green energy goes to waste at times of low demand. These occasions will increase as more green projects come on stream. Hydrogen produced from these ‘occasions’ can be put straight in to the grid. Ignore transport and all the other potential uses , this grid opportunity is a massive step to aid carbon reduction. The focus on efficiency is of course relevant but it some ways it is over complicating things when in theory wind and solar power sources are inexhaustable. Delay green H2 adoption and the result is a delay in the demise of FF’s. I presume the Prof didn’t factor in any climate catastrophe costs? Dangerous man/fool/Tesla payee.
Trader 87, I'm with you I fully bought into the green credentials of Hydrogen & you are right that there is no cleaner fuel. The problem is the manufacture of Hydrogen is so expensive & inefficient.
I am quoting Cebon here so take this with a pinch of salt
"A green hydrogen solution would consume six times more electricity to heat a house than an electric heat pump. A blue hydrogen solution would dramatically increase natural gas imports and prevent net zero being reached because of fugitive CO2 emissions from the carbon sequestration process."
The only thing missing from last nights Parliamentary discussion was the comparison of hydrogen heating vs straight old tech electrical storage heating. If green or blue hydrogen for that matter, cannot fiscally undercut electrical storage heaters then I struggle to see a viable market for hydrogen in the domestic heating market. Happy to be corrected...believe me.
On trading view I have noticed every day at 1635 (which is weird as market shuts at 1630) massive whale investment. About 300k-700k shares boughtbin bulk right at the end of the day and soldnoff in batched early on next day. I dont know why or how it would manipulated the market but it doesn't seem legit.
Feels like that idiot is doing itbon purpose on parliament TV. He isn't giving a fair representation. There is no fuel as clean as hydrogen. Me personally im quite highly invested and I believe in itm. Just these massive daily dips hurt. So I'm gonna take emotions out of it. Believe in itm. And diamond hands this sucker till 2027. Parliament to need tonget GC on to give an actual presentation
Surely the likes of Shell etc. (depending on where they pay their tax) should see the 130% write off as the prime opportunity to get Hydrogen refuelling forecourts across the uk. This would drive a massive uptake in demand for Hydrogen vehicles. The only barrier stopping me getting one is the lack of refuelling range. Until then I'm running my petrol pollution spewing one into the ground as its the least carbon intensive thing to do apparently (*how ethical are bananas? book.)
I don’t know what he has said but if even if we spent billions converting appliances to run on hydrogen the gas supply network has only 25 percent of its current capacity bc of the lower cv . Frankly hydrogen has a place in storage blending and transportation. Electricity cannot supply our heat and massive insulation is a must . In reality we will need fossil fuels beyond 2050 imv.
I totally agree with you Boaty. I think CCS should be the gateway to going fully green. I think it is unfortunate that there is much force against the idea following the opinion that once you start CCS then the greater transition will never come and we'll be forever leaking CO2. That inflexibility to accept the gateway I fear simply leads to neither implementation and accidentally continuing as we are today with raw fossil (at least for too long at any rate).
It's true that CCS will play a part in the initial phase of development in the H2 economy. But I find that Prof Cebon also hasn't reckoned with the implications of installing large Heat pumps into the millions of Victorian 2 up 2 down terraces in the UK. Where will you put them in the roof? Heat pumps alone aren't enough to counter the woeful levels of insulation in these homes. They would need multiple billions of government funds to become useful. Chicken and egg. Nonetheless, this direct electricity for the home argument seems redundant.
You will still want to store H2 as the economy transitions. You can't use massive batteries to store petrol stations worth of energy because of toxicity/ rare earth element sourcing and weight. You've all felt the weight of a car battery now imagine 10,000 times that under a forecourt and only useful for 2000 cycles. Heavy transport will use H2 again because of weight.
So H2 is needed is to create a better overall balanced grid.
CCS does not solve the problem but buys us a little more time to convert. Coal, Gas and fossil-fuelled power stations will die out and nuclear is too expensive.
The same 1.74m share volume as yesterday and an 8% fall in SP. Some concerted effort by the powers that be to manipulate the price down. If only we could find out exactly who?
As for this Cebon character, if he is truly a Professor without corporate lobbyist backing he would also recognise the almost infinite nature of the sun and wind also. At least another 4.5 bn years of sunshine to power the weather systems of the Earth. Not to mention that plants get by on 22% efficiency and they still manage to feed every lifeform on the planet.
He does not grasp the economies of scale, that the shear capacity of renewables far outweighs the initial investment costs. Nuclear plants need building and decommissioning every 50 years or so and that costs tens of billions to do. Hinkley is currently projected to cost £22bn to build and will take decades to achieve how much will it cost to decommission? Then how much to manage the toxic waste for thousands of years?
Whereas wind takes up to a year to install and can produce energy in a much shorter time period. No toxic legacy as most of the parts can be recycled, each turbine motor lasts up to 30 years. Also, what really irritates me about the 70% loss in energy Cebon neglects to mention is the fact that we currently have no inter-seasonal energy storage whatsoever! In that case I think we can improve our standards of living with 30% efficiency. Plants make do with lower than that and manage to feed more or les every lifeform on the planet! Everyone in that room recognises blue and grey hydrogen will not solve the problem at least.
Although I didn't like listening to Cebon, the Bloomberg witness endorsed his opinion & no other parliamentary witness directly contradicted him about the significant running costs for blue or green hydrogen into houses or into cars. The Bloomberg rep advised transportation costs from solar super powers (Africa - Australia...etc) where green hydrogen would be comparatively cheaper would have to be piped due to the excessive refrigeration costs by marine transportation, hence leaving the politically unsure North Africa area as the only realistic pipe option. The only markets that Cebon left alone to hydrogen was marine & aviation travel & fertiliser manufacture. I'm holding on waiting for some expert contradiction of Cebon shortly.
Last one out turn off the lights....free falling? Well done Rishi....more stimulus in a nuns panties!
Cebon is hard to listen too. The comment about heating your room with a small fan then the one about it being dangerous to fill up at the pump was enough listening to him. No level argument just some expert waffling ****.
Free falling... £3.50?
Ah well you know what the say about most "experts" they are generally a has been twit under pressure"
The whole sector is getting slammed
https://bit.ly/2OjQzOX