Member Info for 13thmonkey

I accept there is the potential of loss, not that's not why I brought. Duh.

I wouldn't buy for potential loss, that'd be stupid.

Would you have held nyct whilst they were getting ready to sell? Isn't that the point to invest in potential, either potential growth or potential stability?

Chippyjo, I was thinking similar, not too much of an issue, landfills are filling up there's plenty of waste for a good while.

There are plans for sources of cheap green h2 that are cheaper than renewable (not sure how), and may kill off another problem.
https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/its-much-cheaper-to-produce-green-hydrogen-from-waste-than-renewables/2-1-801160

Just seen on the TV that a certain large consultancy has been sending the results to the wrong people, this is only a problem with long duration tests. I'd love to see the GDPR claim on that as that is protected information.

I mean I wish it did, I really do, but unless mice are volunteering...

Does it? Just says that they're injected volunteers.

Iain, is this just the RNS that was out this morning?

JDC2020, perhaps we won't become immune, we don't get immune to the common cold (another corona virus).

Had another thought, there's no inherent 'brokeness' to fix in the system, this may mean there's no niche, but I think this was starting to flourish anyway and had held up well, so will come out of this better than traditional energy perhaps.

Agree new energy will grow, but the main list of all the causes are all internal to the financial markets one way or another rather than an external forcing function. I'm just thinking it's something that needs a weather eye on as this might behave differently, I'm just not sure how, not an economist just an engineer. But as you say the outcome is the same.

Toneman, interesting, however is there a significant difference here? Those recessions and depressions all had causes inside the financial systems, i.e. overstretching and then an overcompensation, whereas this is an external function causing the decline. I can't think of another similar cause, a World War perhaps? but with this there may conditions that change the nature and speed of the recovery, in this case it might be faster and not allow for the new businesses to take over their environmental niches? Just a thought.

Deas, where that profit is likely to sustainable then yes some factor of profit is a basis for a valuation. But we are in uncharted territory here what's the valuation when the demand is limited to perhaps 1-2 years, and so that level of profit cannot be sustained (i'm sure there will be other lines coming up). How on earth do you value it then?

many trades, but not actually moving, any thoughts as to why?

It's not seasonal, seasonal would mean active in the northern hemisphere but not the southern, and it would mean that it would die down in summer, it's active everywhere at the same time, therefore no respite because of seasonality, but it'll still be here unless eradicated, which means every carrier sees it through alone and let's it burn out. Remember that a small number of carriers in the UK have led to 20k plus deaths in just over 8 weeks? So if anyone is left, with it's R0 number it will spread again very easily.
Apologies as this is in response to a question substantially down the list now.

I wondered who started the testing is all very well thread, I guessed right...

Bbtablet, workplaces count as a gathering...

I thought similar, been mostly in funds but my target was to beat novia at 2.25% pa after fees, that was during the rebound from 2008. So whilst you may not be great, you're probably better than some paid for services.

Yes Daz, Adam knew that there'd be a gobal emergency and raised those funds to keep paying himself. It's not that designing and building something requires a lot of collaboration and close working, that right now is not worth the risk.