Member Info for julianb1234

I think some people are getting confused with these terms and think that one or other means perpetual motion. They don't, and being self sustaining isn't unique, all it means is slicing off some of the products you produce from breaking down the plastics to generate the heat needed for the process, or reusing heat generated in exothermal stages for the stages that require heat. There is nothing new in that idea. That is not what PHE have patented. I believe the key patents lie around the feed process to make it continuous and to distinguish it from the batch process that most use, but I am sure there are others who are more au fait with PHE's process than myself who can clarify.

Trevor, point taken, the additional costs you refer to would appear to have been $10/kg in the past reporting period, and as far as I can figure out half of which is down to the cost off financing the debt, and the remainder should be significantly reduced following his cost cutting measures. So for breakeven moving forward we may be looking for something approaching $35/kg.

However.... As production continues to stabilise and increase due to our turnaround strategy, we anticipate a reduction in Vametco's costs in the second half of the year. We are targeting weighted average production cash costs for the Group of between $26.7/kg and $27.1/kg, with total Group production projected between 3,800 mtV and 4,000 mtV. So at least they predict close to breakeven at current prices.

I am sure I read a year or two back that China was even then putting a red light on Lithium BESS and moving to VRFB's. Not sure what happened if it is only now taking place.

Syngas / Gasification is nothing new so why would pilot not work. It's the algorithm that is key?

@Scooby Yes the basic process is nothing new, in batch form where you load up, close the hatches, run, get the gases, open up and scrape out the residues, then do it all again... My understanding is that PHE are trying to achieve continuous process on an production scale, not batch process, and that is where their patents come in. I can't find anything in their current literature to validate what I seem to recall, perhaps someone else can confirm or otherwise.

TW is renowned for spreading dirt, true or otherwise, to profit on short positions. I am inclined to think he is the market abuser.

Thanks for that cc, I will bear that in mind for the future. Haven't ever had to think about it before as I haven't to date done any buy backs soon after registering a loss.

Correction, I think I am wrong about about the B&B rules. But not convinced out tax losses.

I think you are confusing ISA B & B rules with standard capital gains rules. As far as I am aware you only have to sell to formalise a capital loss or gain.

I expect Lamps has smaller horizons than you. he was probably expecting the 20k to be the number of shares, not the price in £, and didn't see a 20k trade at that time. Had he applied a little logic and maths to the 892k reported at the same time you wrote your post though... So give the poor lad a break, now he is just going to be jealous :))

Not sure if this has been posted already, extract from the Telegraph a couple of days ago.

The China Electricity Council says the country will add 210 GW of solar this year, twice the entire solar capacity installed in the US to date.

It is not going to stop there. Carbon Brief says China’s output of solar panels was 310 GW in 2022; it will be 500 GW in 2023; and 1000 GW in 2025 – four times the total installation of new solar worldwide last year.

China is undoubtedly getting over its skis. The grid cannot yet absorb so much renewable power. Curtailment is a chronic problem. But it is equally obvious that China will not let that stand in the way. The grid will catch up.

The ramp up of battery capacity is even steeper: 550 GWh in 2022; 800 GWh in 2023, and 3,000 in 2025. That will alleviate the shorter end of intermittency.

@HarChris Fair enough, we might disagree on the merits of ICE vs EV's (at least in their current form for me) but we do agree on the merits of Li vs VRFB. Although to again be devils advocate it is possible that future iterations of Li or perhaps Sodium based batteries might change that equation to the detriment of this company. If so i hope it isn't in the near future but I keep a weather eye on such developments. At present I do remain confident that Li/sodium are only better placed for the instant switch on but very short term phase of battery back-up, and that VRFB's will remain better suited (even after developments in Li etc) to picking up from the instant on Li for the longer period back-up.

@HarChris.. The RAC report you quote was issued in March 22, the report I referenced was issued in Jun 22. So I am afraid that as far as up to date information mine is more recent. Both were carried out by respected organisations. So your assertion that EV pollution is a myth is not proven.

As for the cities that have embraced EVs having far less pollution? Do you mean the cities that have embraced ULEZs... you should note that those include all ICE vehicles post EURO6 emissions level... so not EV's, but all modern low polluting vehicles, including diesels, which nowadays can have better emissions than petrol cars.

With a new vehicle at the moment, the emissions are all low regardless of the vehicle type. The problems lie mainly with the millions of Euro 4 and earlier vehicles that remain on the roads, in particular the commercial vehicles of that era who do so much more mileage and thus produce much more pollution. Remove them from the roads (as in ULEZ and the problem disappears without going EV, but you cannot get rid of them overnight because most people drive second hand or older cars as that is all they can afford, and public transport is only really an option in the bigger cities, and not an option at all for the commercial vehicles that are a big part of the problem.

And because a petrochemical fire is easily put out, less fuel is usually consumed before the fire is extinguished.

Less fuel perhaps, but a hotter burn because of the oxygen supply

“Tyres are rapidly eclipsing the tailpipe as a major source of emissions from vehicles,” said Nick Molden, at Emissions Analytics, the leading independent emissions testing company that did the research. “Tailpipes are now so clean for pollutants that, if you were starting out afresh, you wouldn’t even bother regulating them.”

Other recent research has suggested tyre particles are a major source of the microplastics polluting the oceans. A specific chemical used in tyres has been linked to salmon deaths in the US and California proposed a ban this month.

“The US is more advanced in their thinking about [the impacts of tyre particles],” said Molden. “The European Union is behind the curve. Overall, it’s early days, but this could be a big issue.”

Guess what, EV's are heavier and produce more particulates from their tyres. So, still far from green, even leaving aside the production issues.

@bonxie Really.. little fuel !? since from now maybe in new cars (depending on the battery type) , but most that are already in cars contain carbon, and oxygen emitting liquids... so fuel and and source of pure oxygen.. a recipe for a very hot fire.. hotter and more difficult to put out than petrochemical ones. The result is more damaging to concrete.

A diesel Range Rover according to the fire brigade, it was still on the move at the time the fire broke out, video from a dashcam shows it. Probably a diesel leak onto the turbo. However the presence of EV's in the car park will have vastly exacerbated the fire itself and the impact on the structure.

Sentiment can change overnight given the right circumstances. if for example our govt made an announcement to say they were going to primarily use VRFB's it would change instantly. Getting the basics right is of course something that needs done anyway.

Share price is driven by sentiment, if VRFB's became newsworthy by becoming the gridscale battery of choice here, then the share price would rise.