The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
Which one of those have you increased to 27k in?
If I were guessing I'd say either BHL or ALL
Isn't that just Quantitative Easing?
I don't know if it's good or bad but it's standard practice for Central Banks during crappy economic times to do so
"Boris is gone"
"FTSE gonna tank"
FTSE: +1.14% :)
Some might use that as a slight against Boris but the reality is while the UK is an important global market the Office of the Prime Minister is not. It is surprising really.
When the Japanese Premiere resigned in 2020 the markets tanked.
When Donnie J announced he COVID, the markets tanked.
The markets were volatile around the US elections and rallied when they ended and would have done so regardless of the winner.
But the markets don't seem to give a flying F about the UK Prime Minister. Go figure. Perhaps this has been overshadowed by wider economic issues?
Probably get more of a reaction if Andrew Bailey resigned as Governor of the Bank of England
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, the people who are going on holiday are not the same people as those worried about the cost of living? The 'unbiased media', as you put it, cherry picking busy airports isn't proof of anything other than some airports are busy and some are not.
Perhaps I am missing something but what is the relevance of people worrying about the cost of living here?
Remember when RR jumped to 110p+ and it fell back to 80-90p almost immediately after? People/fund managers will just take profit in the short term which is understandable given the state of the economy and markets at present. If the ITP sale causes another jump, expect the same as before.
For RR to be stable at 120p it will need to climb there over time and that requires economic stability which is in short supply at the moment. Is that possible this year? Yes, but don't hold your breath.
Given all the projects RR have between defence, civil nuclear and airspace they should see some pretty significant growth. RR is a long term investment. When it comes to investing 'long term' tends to mean years not months. Do your research and decide whether or not you want to wait.
I haven't seen this article but based on what's said here if the issue is with Co-60 then there is no issue at all.
Co containing materials are used in the core for wear protection on various components. There isn't that much within the core and many of these materials have excellent wear properties so the amount of debris that becomes activated is relatively small. Obviously there is enough to cause radiological concerns to maintenance and operating crews but that is easily dealt with by adhering to regulations regarding dose limits.
When it comes to decommissioning most active solid debris/waste will be captured in the filtration system. I imagine what the article didn't mention was that when decommissioning submarines, that waste is highly concentrated in a very small part of the system
Even with all that said, Rolls Royce and the MoD/Royal Navy have sorted the Co-60 problem by using a different material altogether. There are plenty of non-Co containing wear protection materials advertised for nuclear use that are available commercially off the shelf. It's unlikely RR will use a Co containing material for the SMRs.
Sounds like sensationalist nonsense meant to trick people not familiar with the subject.
If they want to advocate for more advanced reactor technology there are better ways to do it
There's the old advice "Buy the dip"
Sadly, ain't got no money to buy it with. Typical
There isn't much Li-ion battery recycling but it does exist though it does seem to be in its development phase.
Companies like American Battery Technology, Li-Cycle, Lithium Australia and some others.
Here's a video about it: https://youtu.be/dyDoOcBMAHw - this video features Li-Cycle
It doesn't seem like recycling a Li-ion battery is particularly easy but it is clearly possible and may become a necessity. Perhaps alternate battery chemistries will make recycling easier. Guitarsolo, being a chemist, might have a better idea about the feasibility of such things.
My limited understanding of Hydrogen Fuel Cells is that they are not efficient. Or, more accurately, the process of generating hydrogen then processing it to make it useable as a fuel is not very efficient. A significant amount of it is lost in that process and, on top of that, a Fuel Cell vehicle may still need a battery. Also, Hydrogen is a gas meaning it's not very dense so it has to be pressurised which is dangerous considering it's also explosive. However, storage technologies such as holding it in some sort of lattice/matrix may solve that but that too is outside my field of expertise.
At least in the UK, Fuel Cells have fallen out of favour due to lack of investment. There are only three places in the UK you can 'charge' a fuel cell car and they are all in London. That might change in the future but that could be a long time from now so batteries are the current market leader.
The biggest threat to Li based batteries is Na. It's cheaper and more abundant. CATL have developed a Na-ion battery vehicle and say that Na-ion batteries can be manufactured without change to existing Li-ion plants. It's also safer as it's less combustible. However, Na-ion isn't without its challenges. Na-ion has a slightly lower energy density than Li-ion meaning range is lower. Na is a bigger atom than Li which impedes electron flow. It's also heavier which further diminishes range. I don't know how easily Na is developed into other battery chemistries either, unlike Li. Another topic that requires a chemist or chemical engineer for further expansion.
I would imagine in the future vehicles will be built with a range of energy storage/propulsion technologies. Much in the way we classify cars now by engine technology, cars of the future may be classified by battery/energy technology.
I would expect Li has a big part to play for the next 20-30yrs. Just have to weather the current economic storm
The economy is in the toilet (and probably still waiting for someone to flush) for various reasons.
Expect institutional investors such as fund managers and the like to move away from traditional stocks to something else (probably commodities) until the economy starts to improve, whenever that will be...
Rolls Royce still has a lot of potential from current and future projects: they will still have engines to service when commercial flight picks back up but we're not going to know about that until it comes round in a financial report, they have SMRs, that 30yr deal with the USAF, 4x PWR3 and the associated instrumentation and support packages as well as continued support for PWR1 and 2, 32x MT30's and loads of other stuff.
Rolls Royce is not alone in its fall. Other normally high flying stocks such as Rio Tinto, JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Nike and Amazon are down over 20% YTD.
If I had to guess as to why RR has had such a hard time, it's probably because they've had the largest growth since they diluted in Oct 2020. People who had the sense to buy RR back then are still in profit. Sadly, it would seem many of us are not those people.
£650m would be a bargain if a larger company acquired BHL for that. RIO paid about that for Rincon Mining and their Salar del Rincon project which which, while large, could still be smaller than BHL's total potential. Time will tell on that front.
BHL's CEO seems like he wants to take BHL into production, which would be best value wise, but time will tell on that front too
The UK is basically two party and Labour is unlikely to go down a different path, especially in the current climate with electricity prices and when you consider there is no viable alternate for quick response base load. Corbyn has gone and even he isn't dumb enough to stop the SMR train so the political risk is non-existent
SMRs are safe. All RR need is time
A million billion?
RR may not own or operate them once built but they will likely, just as they do for aircraft engines and the Royal Navy plants, negotiate ongoing support, maintenance and training packages.
Don't hold your breath when it comes to this country's politicians as they are known incompetents. They made a pig's ear of the Nuclear New Build circa 2015.
However, SMRs have much more favourable economics than their full size counterparts and with the level of interest we've seen in the technology RR should have a very bright future indeed. Though, hopefully, a future that doesn't glow green
Nuclear is very likely to become RRs 'bread and butter' in the near future. They have 6 reactors to build now (2x PWR2 and 4x PWR3), the instrumentation and electrical generation to alongside them that expertise will then transfer to SMRs which will greatly increase the size of the pie
If you think the price is going to rise to 155p, why would you wait until then to buy instead of now in the 90-100p range
I think it's safe to say that iron**** doesn't know what he's talking about.
That seems to be a common theme on these boards...
Not sure how accurate chart fundamentals are when it comes to small companies like ZNWD
Surely that depends on what role RR are going to play in AUKUS pact.
RR's main contribution to nuclear submarines is the reactor, reactor instrumentation, training/simulation packages and, possibly, the propulsion train. Australia are receiving all that from the US and will likely be from the same company that provides the reactor technology for the US Navy's SSBN(X) and/or SSN(X) projects.
It's also worth noting that RR PWR3 is based on US technology.
I wouldn't expect AUKUS to have a large, if any, impact on the RR share price but we'll see. We're not privy to the details of the pact so only time will tell
£5 share price with 15b shares in issue, are you insane?
Interesting video that.
I like that the CEO has the relevant scientific/technical knowledge. Makes a nice change from some other twat CEOs out there
You're absolutely right on both points there.
The opinions of couple of MPs doesn't reflect the party's opinion as a whole but I was unable to find anything mentioning the party's general stance on Li mining, only those two quotes.
And being unable to speak Portuguese, we're stuck with whatever sources we can get, even if they are bottom of the barrel.
I also haven't been able to find any good arguments coming from any MPs or the activists against the mine. Only hyperbole and emotive language. Hopefully that will work in SAV's favour