Bella - no I don't think that any end of cost life charges are factored in. This is because there is little agreed global definition of what end-of-life means and whether the battery industry is obliged to clean up the mess it is creating as it goes along.
For example if you ask the eV enthusiasts about what happens to the Lithium-ion batteries in their cars when they no longer get 0-100km/hr acceleration in 2.35 seconds they blithely dismiss the problem with a hand, saying that those batteries can go to be used for stationary energy storage. They misunderstand the fact that stationary energy storage batteries actually get cycled MUCH more aggressively than a car battery which only hits maximum discharge rate for 3 seconds after sitting at the lights alongside a souped up mondeo.
There is also the territorial issue - some territories might oblige their installations to be fully recycled, or at least made safe at the end of life, others may allow their utilities to install batteries without a moments thought to what happens when they finish working, so that they can sit around to provide handy fuel for the next forest fire.
This is the problem with reading too much into LCOS analysis, which does not take into account things like this and therefore does not accurately represent the local issues at play in each energy storage project.
dubmaskullanga - different lithium-ion chemistries are more thermally stable than others. This does not mean that any of them are immune to thermal runaway, just that some chemistries are worse than others.
Having said that they are really only talking about the electrode makeup - the actual electrolyte in all these types of batteries is in the main Lithium Phosphorous Hexafluoride in an organic solvent. This is the stuff that produces large amounts of Hydrogen Flouride gas when it burns, which then turns into Hydrofluoric acid when it contacts water vapour, one of, if not the most, dangerous acids known to man.
The whole charge and discharge at the same time thing is rather a confusing angle put about by Robert Friedland (google it if you don't know who HE is).
The simple fact is that the concept of charging and discharging a battery simultaneously doesn't really make a lot of sense. I think what he was trying to get at is the fact that you can switch very rapidly from charge to discharge on a flow battery (sub millisecond if you really want to) and it is not as if the liquid flows one way when it is charging and another when it is discharging - it doesn't - it always flows in the same direction.
Sippmeister - the 50 minutes from minute 5 of the Energy Storage 101 video is a good summary:-
Alternatively if they cannot concentrate for that long then this one from Vanitec is good, and only 2 minutes long
Berserker - the legal document the other day was MUCH more important than people are giving it credit. It was not action taken against the shorter but action taken against the London Stock Exchange Group to force them to reveal the information needed to undertake further preparation of a case against the (alleged) shorter. If this succeeds then it will potentially allow many independent groups to follow suit and thereby take the initiative in starting private prosecutions. No longer will we have to sit and wait whilst the FCA do FA.
Indeed Sanchez - it is clearly aimed at trying to pick off large long positions held on spreadbet and CFD platforms. We've seen this a number of times before, including the day the first FCA letter was sent ( https://www.thebushveldperspective.com/blog/public-articles-1/post/fca-complaint-case-ref-205882095-422 )
Why they are doing this now ? it is quite possible that this is the last chance that they will get to do this as it would appear that the regular supply of Tame Seller's shares to the market has dried up, possibly because the SP is now too low, possibly because there are no more TS shares left.
Either way the market movements of the last few days are under very close scrutiny. Further legal action is being considered.
If point 3) is not sufficiently clear. If there is advance warning that Vaneck are going to be purchasing and then making funds available to short then Vaneck buys the shares, the SP appreciates strongly in the market where they are being bought, so Vaneck fundholders effectively get forced to pay the higher prices for the shares. Then Vaneck loans the shares to shorters who immediately short into this artificial rise in price and Vaneck fundholders immediately suffer a loss in their fund. This is why the answer to 1) is also critically important.
JD1972 - well that of course is the interesting point. I would like to know the answers to the following questions
1) When Vaneck loan shares out from their fund they presumably get paid some kind of loan fee. Who gets that ? Vaneck or does it get passed back to the fundholders.
2) Are fundholders made aware of which shares from the funds are being loaned out to be shorted? I am sure that they would consider that if they are not made aware of how the fund is operating they cannot be reasonably expected to decide whether to invest in the fund or not, especially given that this fund operates in illiquid markets where the presence of shorting activities can lead to large changes in stock price irrespective of company performance.
3) If fundholders were to discover that Vaneck have been in discussion with known shorting organisations to discuss when they are going to be changing their holdings and/or makeup of the underlying MVIS Index would they or would they not consider this a huge conflict of interest which might conceivably lead to legal action by fundholders and/or withdrawal of their holdings from the fund?
4) Do people here consider that this is potentially a scandal ?
Brad29 - a figure of $150M was put around as the figure to buy and install a completely new kiln. The Mokopane PFS probably has more detail on this. To determine the cost of an upgrade depends entirely on the state they start in and the state you want to get them to. All kilns require maintenance, even the new ones, and potentially an old kiln may have not had the maintenance that it needed before it was mothballed - so it might simply be a matter of doing the appropriate maintenance work.
transformative news lands. Share price does not respond. This is not news, this is AIM.
same number of shares (8960) but one at 22.40 the other at 22.70. Looks like one a buy the other a sell. So perhaps a rollover but normally these have at least a few seconds in between. To be quite so closely spaced is unsual.