Member Info for Boffin

The UK governments problem with Plutonium is that it has an estimated 40 tons of it that it has no uses for.

There is a very good analysis of the state of play with SMR's around the world which has been updated this month.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

One I would draw your attention to is Tokamak energy which has made astonishingly fast progress with a novel approach to fusion reactors. Long seen as the holy grail of energy production but vast projects running years late and over budget such as the unit at Cadarache have lowered expectations. But just maybe this program could deliver big time and as the article above discloses they have recently been awarded significant funding from the UK government .
https://www.tokamakenergy.co.uk/

Just in case anyone wants to see what we have bought here are some photos and a video.

https://www.realestate.com.au/property-other-vic-nagambie-700137510

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--phvBthCRY&ab_channel=HughLawrenceRealEstate

Until the next generation fuel cells are available with proven life I think there is an issue of power density. I know all ships vary but for example a "typical" P&O cross channel has four Wartsila 4.8Mw engines ie virtually 20Mw of power. That would require over 100 of the 180Kw AFC systems plus ammonia cracker(s) and ammonia storage. And that's just to generate the electricity. Very large electric motors would also be needed. I think it will altogether take up too much space. Once the mooted 2Mw solid phase systems are fully proven then it may just be possible but that may take quite a while yet before they will be accepted for use on ships.

The following location on Google Earth seems to show some similarities to the photos of the land on the estate agents website. Its just beyond the viewable part of Brewing lane but no number given

https://earth.google.com/web/search/Creswick+VIC,+Australia/@-37.41776168,143.93086388,534.8483437a,425.85700577d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=CigiJgokCZ7iWk6H1ipAEbM9z7Y0lUrAGd-ddTSqW1hAIQ4KWdCyc2XA

Whilst pleased I am a bit bemused.

Normally contracts of this kind are signed by at least one if not two executive directors of a company.

At the moment though PHE doesn't have any!

Legally non-exec directors aren't employees of the company and thus wouldn't normally be accepted as duly authorised signatories on behalf of the company to make binding agreements like this.

I would really like to see the legal advice on this

I haven't bothered much re deferred publication lately but the question has provoked me to look further. There is a table towards the very end of a series of EU instruments which gives delay times vs trade sizes which appears to cover what used to be a rather clearer xls spreadsheet attached to the LSE rulebook prior to MiFID 11

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2017/587/oj

Lutra

Well the facility for deferred publication of large trades is outlined on page 47 of the London Stock Exchange rules.

Its detail is buried in MifID 11 but a summary can be found in the FCA handbook

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/techstandards/MIFID-MIFIR/2017/reg_del_2017_583_oj/chapter-iii/012.html?date=2021-01-01

Its all a bit vague compared to a decade or so ago when detailed rules on the size of trade vs the normal daily activity vs the time allowed for delay was clearly spelt out in the Stock Exchange rules. Its a classic EU fudge as they wanted common rules but different markets around the EU had different preferences so they set it up so that each local market regulator could interpret it as suited them.

Now you can take two views on this. The MM's and the regulator say that its to ensure there aren't short term stampedes one way or the other.

The alternative view is that it helps MM's keep their big "wholesale" clients happy in preference to us small "retail" investors.

Take your pick!
Its a bit like one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist

I think its important to always understand the whole supply chain process and costs otherwise its very easy to make poor strategic choices. A simple example, how often do we see the costs of compressing hydrogen discussed or taken into account? The kind of pressures, circa 500kg/sq cm, required to give a reasonable power density storage for a H2 tank in a car actually need about 35% of the energy contained in the hydrogen. Thats on top of what it took in energy and cost to make it in the first place. If you use liquid hydrogen for bulk storage ( as they do in Japan) that requires almost twice as much energy as compression. To me ammonia seems a much better bet for situations where massive compression will otherwise be needed. However Hydrogen replacing some or all of the methane in our gas grid for domestic heating etc, where it has very little compression required, may well be a good way to go.

Either way its a win for AFC as it can use H2 from almost any source but its important to vision out the options and not try to mislead consumers ( who will be paying for it all one way or the other) in the way to me that the Mercedes advert does.

Which rather begs the question "Hydrogen Generators using what as a primary source of power?" Its rather the same issue as to the "colour" of Hydrogen that is being proposed to reduce CO2 emissions. Unless the primary source of energy in the Hydrogen supply chain is fossil fuel free then there will be CO2 to be dealt with somewhere. Especially since the Green conversion technology physical infrastructure that needs to be built will almost certainly require substantial amounts of CO2 generating energy in its materials of construction.

I find the recent Mercedes ad claiming their factories will in the future only use renewable energy a little disingenuous. Notice they don't say cars!. The steel and other metals, wiring, plastics, wheels, tyres etc and most other items are of course all bought in. ie the CO2 generating bit is all outsourced.

Until you understand the whole supply chain ( including building the required replacement cars, boilers, grid infrastructure etc) in getting to the end product you just don't know that you have truly reduced greenhouse emissions.

£6k a month seems excessive but in the end is probably cheaper and much less waste of management time and legal costs than an unfair dismissal case even if in the end PHE won.

In the light of the revelations in the latest court case published last month where the judge slammed his duplicity and of acting in bad faith I suspect he was told he had to go.

Well as judges have noted in several court cases TY has on numerous occasions quite wilfully misinformed others, including shareholders, in pursuit of his own self interest and position.

So in response to your comment "Makes you wonder whether they know they're talking bollx even as they sign the report off!" his previous track record suggests TY may not even care

Well that seems to me to be rather a large number of expensive board members and senior managers for a small company with minimal revenues. And I can't recall when I last came across a CFO in a listed company who wasn't a board member. Let alone a board of directors with just one executive position, the rest being non execs. I know they are looking for a CEO as well but that will just make the company even more top heavy for its size.

Mucksy As it happens I have a PhD in biochemistry and was when I retired VP of R&D in a major pharma company. Admittedly I'm not a specialist in viruses but I do know antibiotics rather well and the position this author takes whilst not entirely ludicrous is rather flawed. Try taking a look at the following as it saves me writing out a load of stuff.

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/doomsday-prophecy-dr-geert-vanden-bossche

Always try to read around a bit, there is so much nonsense & disinformation out there from various factions whose motivations are quite a mystery to me.

DW--I don't disagree with you at all. Estonia has a lot to offer.

My point, perhaps not clearly explained, was that future sales/deployments will likely be to places which don't have hydrogen "on tap". So assembling a unit which can demonstrate to customers its adaptability to various fuel sources and where it can be deployed would be a very good thing to do early on

Good to see a deployment to a commercial operation. They don't mention the source of Hydrogen though. It would have been good to hear if this was ammonia feeding a cracker.

However there is obviously a fuel cell production issue at AFC as they have announced they can't attend the BMS.

Bit of a mixed RNS to me

Surely the majority, if not all, the money was paid to Ms McCarthy to acquire her share of the company? However its still not clear to me how that results in PHE owning 48% of Engsolve and PE 50%. Just what the original shareholding was and how the transaction results in the declared final stockholding proportions isn't explained in the RNS

A good question. Before I retired I was VP of R&D of a division of a major Pharma company. We had a strong awareness that "the inventory goes out the front door every evening". ie make sure you keep your top talents happy and motivated to come back in the door tomorrow.

Quite how PHE taking a stake in Engsolv keeps its talented people ( I have no idea how many of them there are) engaged, motivated and not looking for other options rather escapes me. Paul Emmitt of course excluded as he gets a salary from PHE as well.

Sorry Oggs but that isn't correct. The last sentence of the following cut and paste makes it clear that possession or awareness of price sensitive information such as a significant commercial transaction

"As a result of the implementation of MAR, AIM Rule 21 was replaced by a requirement for AIM-listed companies to implement a share dealing policy which complies with a set of minimum requirements. The definition of a close period (redefined as a ‘closed period’) was also amended to be the 30 days prior to the release of financial results. The restrictions on dealing while in possession of unpublished price sensitive information remain."

I have no idea if Pauline MCCarthy has any technology skills to add value to Engsolve or whether she was basically a "placeholder" for David Ryan to avoid conflict of interest problems when PHE contracted consultancy work from Engsolve.

This acquisition though looks to me to be removing any potential for David Ryan to influence work being done for PHE.