Member Info for Mikemine

If anybody's interested, here's the planning application

http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/PlanningExplorer17/Generic/StdResults.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&SC=Applicant%20Name%20contains%20STATKRAFT&FT=Planning%20Application%20Search%20Results&XMLSIDE=/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/Liverpool_WIP/Menus/PL.xml&XSLTemplate=/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/Liverpool_WIP/xslt/PL/PLResults.xslt&PS=10&XMLLoc=/PlanningExplorer17/generic/XMLtemp/fd2myks22gnd0agpthckievj/2f8b0fe8-f851-40d6-a0f0-e5aa6faab885.xml

Good find. We have some collaboration set up with Statkraft so hope we are in there with them.

https://polaris.brighterir.com/public/redt_energy/news/rns/story/w3o93yw

The proposal, which has passed passed planning, is for lithium batteries on an enormous scale. The risks were discussed in the inquiry but the 7 separate measures, on top of the normal H&S requirements, the company said they would institute satisfied the Secretary of State about the safety risks which objectors highlighted. I contacted the objecting organisation with details of lithium battery fires and the qualities of vanadium. IES, at my request, also furnished them with information although I don't know what that was. The objectors are considering their next more which I suspect will involve the choice of battery.

More generally I contacted my MP and the the MP for Faversham, which includes Cleve Hill, and urged them to put pressure on Government to ban lithium battery use on sites like this which are near centres of population. We know that the risk of lithium battery fires is small, especially with additional measures in place such as here, but, with the growing use of battery storage, the risks multiply and, as with Grenfell Towers, if something can happen it generally will. At Cleve Hill the life of the site is planned for 40 years. That means that all the measures taken to mitigate fires will need to be maintained and monitored to the highest level for 40 years. Good luck on that. Cleve Hill is 900 acres but at a site in Cambridgeshire, can't remember the name, a 1200 acre site is planned so the growth is there and of course the risks multiply

Apart from our interest in IES, I think we should think seriously about what is about to happen nationally. Lots of us will be living within a dangerous distance of these sites of a fire breaks out. This particular danger could be eradicated immediately by substituting VRFB's and I urge you all to contact your MPs to outline the dangers of lithium and urge them to put pressure on HMG to formulate a national policy along the lines I have suggested whilst battery storage is in it's infancy in the UK.

Quanglewangle, you're wasting your time. They will always find some way to twist things in to a negative position. Happens on most boards. I don't what it is about the trolls, whether they get paid for replies or get some emotional satisfaction but it is quite unhealthy for them and us to bandy words with them.

Why not try a troll free thread
https://uk.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=45958073

Alfacomp, what does this mean?

" the capex per KWh of stored energy for a VRFB is around 40%+ "

40%+ of what?

Thats a fair summary Bluerill. My take over the last week is that the Market has woken up to the sector, the global money throwing that has been promised and the direction and potential of the company. I also feel that day traders are having a field day. I expect a choppy period but the direction is definitely upwards. I'm certainly hanging on to my shares for the next 6-12 months unless things change for the worse, in which case I'll reassess.

As far as I can see there are only 71 mn shares issued which values the company at around £78 mn to day, yesterday it was around £71 mn. If the top end of the forecast was reached, IES would be valued at around £710 mn.Even with the potential of the company being only partially realised this figure could easily be reached, especially as the whole world seems bent on throwing vast sums at renewable energy and therefore energy storage. Must be worth hanging on to your shares for the next 6-12 months unless some thing goes drastically wrong.

New to me. A very positive podcast after the RNS. This could be huge.

https://invinity.com/investor-resource/vsa-capital-podcast-trading-update-rns-15-june-2020/?utm_source=irnewsjun

I posted this on another BB but though it relevant on this thread as well.

"I'm minded of the dot com bubble, there have been other bubbles but this one stands out, where the future was seen to an era of websites devoted to this, that and other collecting enormous revenues because their ideas were so useful to mankind. Some were and are with us still today but investors went searching for the next big thing and lots of companies with shaky rationales became the darlings of the stock market. Valuations went through the roof as the frenzy took hold and companies with little more than an untested idea were valued at ridiculous levels.

So much for history. I can see a similar thing happening now. Renewables have long been attractive to investors as being a very profitable root to the future "Green" economy. The market for renewables seems inexhaustible as governments are wedded, some more than others, to reducing CO2 emissions via reducing fossil fuel use. So far so good but the next phase is becoming obvious. The sun doesn't shine all the time and the wind doesn't blow all the time so renewables become an uneven and unreliable source of electricity and that creates a problem for the Grid (balancing) and end users. Enter storage like a white knight (can I say that these days?) coming to the rescue and this is where IES is right now. Storage in the UK, and indeed most of the world, is in it's infancy and so is the realisation of how big and useful, not to mention the profitability, it will become. Energy storage could easily become the next dot com bubble as investors start searching for a vehicle in to this market. If and when this happens hang on to your shares."

I have been in a running conversation with my MP about these lithium fires which in case you are new to the dangers they can release toxic fumes that can travel with the wind and kill people and animals. There is a huge solar farm being planned near me that will include an also huge lithium battery storage element. The local residents' group is vehemently opposed to the whole project and especially the battery component. I have contacted the group and they have been impressed on the safety aspects of vanadium flow batteries and will be pressing for their use instead of lithium. My MP has not ventured an opinion on a preference but it was clear she had no idea about the combustibility of lithium batteries nor the qualities of VFBs. In fact I'm pretty sure she had never heard of vanadium at all.

I called for lithium batteries to be banned from use on sites close to centres of population such as this case but I also called for their ban to be instituted at national level. I noted the growing preference for storage to be used in the UK and the multiplication of risk as more and more lithium sites would come on stream. My MP contacted the supplier of the lithium batteries to the site in question and they sent a reply including this plan to mitigate and deal with any risk from fires or explosions.

The plan consists of
Procuring components and using construction techniques which comply with all relevant legislation
Including automatic fire detection systems in the development design
Including automatic fire suppression systems in the development design
Including redundancy in the design to provide multiple layers of protection
Designing the Development to contain and restrict the spread of fire through the use of fire-resistant materials, and adequate separation between elements of the BESS
Ensuring that KFRS recommendations and requirements are addressed to enable an adequate emergency response to a fire.
Work with KFRS to develop their Tactical Response Plan in case of an incident.

Thats 7 items they were planning to bring in because of the inherent risks of their batteries. It might work although its not guaranteed but the plan is dependent on the correct design, manufacture, implementation, monitoring and maintenance of such components not to mention the appropriate training of staff to oversee each item the plan. As the life of the solar farm is planned for 40 years I would say "Good luck on that."

Multiply this scenario over many sites and I would say you have a perfect storm waiting to happen and this why I kept pushing for national guidelines. My MP has forwarded my concerns on to the Department fo Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and I await their reply. Although you may not live near one of these sites at the moment, this is a national safety issue and I urge anyone that is concerned to voice those concerns to their MP who probably will never have heard of VFBs and maybe lithium fires.

Yes, with the SP going up around 80% in a week. IES must be getting ready to issue a RNS even if it to say "The company knows of no reason for the rise in the SP."

I too have been in contact with the Faversham Society and I contacted IES about a fortnight ago. They were aware of Cleve Hill but I'm not sure if they were aware of the concerns over the batteries that were being proposed. I also contacted the Secretary of State concerned and actually got a reply. It didn't address my particular point about vanadium flow batteries directly but said my views would be taken in to account in making the final decision. Pretty standard stuff.

The risk of lithium batteries catching fire or exploding are pretty small, especially if there is a cooling unit attached, but risk is risk and this project has a projected 30 year life span.If I lived within 2 miles of this or any other site containing lithium batteries i would not be happy. If these solar farms are to be situated near centres of population the case for flow batteries is overwhelming and the Government should make them mandatory in these cases. The more sites, the more risk so its likely that accidents will happen somewhere. HMG cannot afford another Grenfell Towers type incident especially as they have been forewarned.

Rather than regarding contacting HMG over the matter as promoting IES I think it is only right to use our knowledge to put pressure on the Government as a matter of civic duty.

Surprising piece of investing news

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/shares/millennial-investors-piling-oil-gold/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

At the moment we must look at the long term future of HUR and the oil industry in general.The negativity around oil is largely driven by the increase in renewable energy and it's replacement of fossil fuel.Virtually all media bias is against fossil fuel and for renewables and the SPs of oil companies have been hammered.

All the more surprising then that this video should be produced not by a climate denier but a leading advocate for a change from fossil fuels Michael Moore and his friend Jeff Gibbs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

They are not advocating fossil fuel use but, when you realise the implications of what they are saying about renewables, where is the world to go for energy?

Its long, about 1hr 40 mns and I watched it in stages. Lots of it I knew but lots I didn't. As I said, this relates more to the long term but sometimes things, especially sentiment, turn quicker than we think.

No Ianus, I don't know either.

2 things come out of that to me. Firstly, the standardisation of the batteries makes a lot of sense to me. It seems the logical thing to do if you want to get your prices down and they do need to come down. Its all very well saying that flow batteries against lithium over a 20 year period offer better value but most managers that make the purchasing decisions won't be with their companies, and maybe not in the industry, in 20 years. Secondly, Harper mentioned the fire hazard with lithium. Its not a major problem for lithium but it exists and as they say "If something can go wrong, it will go wrong.". The toxins released by burning lithium are harmful to humans (and probably animals) so siting them near, 2-3 miles, habitation is not a good idea I would have thought. This danger should definitely be highlighted in any presentation by RED and the comparison to the benign qualities of flow batteries made. This is more a planning issue but should made where energy farms near populations are considering including storage. It could affect the result of planning applications. The planners should also be made aware of the danger. Who wants to be the planning officer that OK'd a scheme which subsequently turned in to a political disaster?

Sorry to be so slow but has the 50:1 consolidation already happened and calculated in the SP?

I've been away from HUR for a while and was shocked to see the price at these levels. I've read the RNSs for the last 6 months and can see little problem with Lancaster but some sort of problem over at Warwick. I can't quite understand the problem there nor why the SP is so low. Can any kind soul give me a brief insight in to any problems and why the SP is at this level please. Forgive the ignorance.

If Greta had stayed at school she might have learnt this

https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/26/protesting-warmth-gretas-home-sweden-is-3c-colder-today-than-nearly-all-of-the-last-9000-years/

Network Rail seems to have been the most affected by the power failure but many other businesses must have been as well albeit for a far shorter period. Had these businesses had battery back up connected to their own solar panels for instance then they probably would have carried on operating normally during the outage. Even NR might have survived had they implemented their plan to built renewables along side their tracks, connecting it to batteries. Whether this is economically feasible is an arguable point but it must be another selling point for RED.