The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Sub-coal is not SIMEC 'technology' - it is supplied by a Dutch firm N+P. So good for them, not for SAE . All SAE have is a disused power station with no permit to operate and no planning permission, nor any prospect of getting it. The sooner they off-load that pile of rubbish the better
https://www.ecoprog.com/publikationen/abfallwirtschaft/siedlungsabfall-polen.htm
Revenue from waste collection in Poland is ~€100/te, and a DMG will take 25tpd. So HUI get €2500 per day, plus sales from recoverables (metals), and revenue from hydrogen sales, and PHE get there £50,000 annual licence fee. Seems like a win/win to me
Agreed - 3 year old news is irrelevant. More interesting would be SAE sell Usk to N+P (sub-coal people) to concentrate on tidal opportunities
the article is 3 years old. There does not seem to be any progress on the Normandy array so not sure why you posted this ?
According to Shell - SAF are 2 to 8 times more expensive than conventional fuels Jet fuel is currently ~70p/litre. However if EU add CO2 tax to jet fuel then cost is clearly more. EUAs are currently ~€70/te
see https://www.shell.com/promos/energy-and-innovation/v1/decarbonising-aviation-cleared-for-take-off/_jcr_content.stream/1632757263451/e4f516f8d0b02333f1459e60dc4ff7fd1650f51c/decarbonising-aviation-industry-report.pdf
If WG have decided a combustion plant does not fit with their stated policy of recycle and reuse then CC is irrelevant, because Uskmouth is still a combustion plant. Subcoal is a totally different, Dutch, company , and if the WG are successful in their recycle reuse strategy then the local fuel availability reduces such that Uskmouth would have to import 'waste' from outside Wales, which is clearly bad politics. SAE should forget Uskmouth and concentrate on tidal
I've just read the decision document & it seems reasonable to me. The approval of Uskmouth will contribute to the Welsh Government objective of improving rates of re-use and recycling, and if re-use and recycling rates improve as planned then Uskmouth will have to import waste from outside the region. They may have more joy in England, but burning stuff is probably not the way to go now - gasification seems to be the way forward = PHE, EQT
CO2 allocation in the EU is by installation. So in the case of Shell they will have submitted auditted emissions for each of their 'fixed installations' for a period of 5 years up to 2005 (I think) The EU then allocate an amount of CO2 to each installation and the allocation reduces over time driving the companies to become more efficient, as any extra CO2 emitted above the allowance has to be bought from the market & the current rate is ~60euro/te. Carbon offsets can then be used to offset the cost of buying more CO2 to meet the allowance if their efficiency improvements do not match the rate of reduction of the allowances. In Phase 4 of EU ETS (2021-2030) the allowances reduce at a rate of 2.2% per year. Last time I looked the CO2 allowance for USK had lapsed and the new allocation applied for by SAE was somewhat less than the original allowance. All allowances for all fixed installations in the EU are in the public domain
Phyl - the fuel pellet production is not part of the application - that says they will be brought in by rail and kept in silos. Production looks like it will be in the NE - production capacity there is 250ktpa of pellets and USK needs 900ktpa at full capacity, so seems like they may have to import pellets if USK is commissioned sooner than fuel capacity is available (somewhat unlikely !) Pity they can't get the pellets from Wales - that would sweeten the planners
The document is 10 years old but assuming the principle is still valid that gives USK a permitted CO2 emission of ~670ktpa, vs the ~1000ktpa emissions from the waste pellets, so some where along the line they need to abate ~300ktpa. Clearly that's not going to be needed until they get the 2nd line running, but the obvious route is to burn a bit more biomass.
The EIA says Usk will burn 1000ktpa of pellets for 200 MW. Most EfW facilities make 1000kg CO2eq per tonne of waste burnt, so CO2 requirement for USK will be a nice round 1Mtpa = £50m, less the 1% biomass that is also proposed. I guess
they'll start with just one line - so £25m initially - if it ran for a full year, which it won't. My guess would be ~£10m in CO2 allowances for the 1st year.
DA - I see you're lowering yourself to throwing insults again - shame on you. Regarding DMG technically you're both right. At the time of the RNS referred to PHE were still using the term Gasification. Subsequently they changed the G to Generation - presumably due to gasification sounding less 'green.
Changing the subject I see PI have an interview with TY on the PHE media page dated today
exactly the same picture as 6 months ago
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/plastic-waste-to-hydrogen-company-powerhouse-energy-begins-work-on-facility-appoints-new-board-member/
Show us a real picture of something happening ??