Member Info for originalharrystamper

"To be eligible to bid in CfD ARs, projects must have secured a lease plot, grid connection and consents. For AR4, scheduled for late 2021, three tidal stream projects are eligible to bid: Morlais in Wales (14?MW), the Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre (PTEC) in England (30?MW) and MeyGen 1C in Scotland (80?MW). Projects that win subsidy support in AR4 must be operational from 2026."

Ref: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0469

Morlais has yet to gain consents as far as I can tell: https://publicregister.naturalresources.wales/Search/Results?searchTerm=morlais&sortBy=Date&pageNumber=1

Perpetuus Tidal Energy Centre is at the planning application submission stage: https://perpetuustidal.com/

So that leaves Meygen - I wonder how much of the lion's share Meygen could be allocated given the above stages of the only other 2 eligible participants? Is it a pure coincidence or a very well timed JV with Nova?

OHS

Draft - you’ve mentioned a couple of times now that the turbines were removed due to damage, can you post a link to the source please? 2 were out for quarter life maintenance as per the following link: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/overhauled-meygen-turbines-to-be-redeployed-in-single-offshore-operation/

This was dated 30/08/21 so if you have an newer source/link to the details of the damage I’d be interested to read your reference as looks like you’re making an assumption…..

“The 1.5MW turbines – SIMEC Atlantis’ AR1500 and Andritz Hydro Hammerfest AH1000 MK1 – have been retrieved onshore for planned quarter-life maintenance. While in the workshop, the turbines have undergone basic routine maintenance, including oil and filter changes, and will soon be ready for reinstallation at the MeyGen site in Caithness”

OHS

sma43 - unfortunately yes. The ‘plan’ was to supply Uskmouth initially then future conversions as and when. They were looking at sites for the production plants last year (I believe 3 or 4 were proposed to be able to produce what would be required annually for Uskmouth before the WG got involved). The Teesside plant is purely N+P and nothing to do with SAE. Uskmouth environmental permit would have paved the way for all of this as it would have been the catalyst that rubber stamped Subcoal PAF as a replacement fuel for coal powered power stations, globally. You can see why it is such a kick in the n*ts for them.

Oh dear, seems someone hasn’t done their research before posting…..

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/SAE/entry-into-fuel-joint-venture-agreement-u2hnhip8lyqpo7y.html

Slick - The Conversion Engineering Manager for Uskmouth

Published: 30 August 2021

Anyone know when this year this paper was written? Wonder if the WM reads this forum - worth be worth having a read......

https://www.mdpi.com/2305-7084/5/3/54/pdf

Conclusion on page 14:

The Ea of Subcoal™ PAF obtained in this work for pyrolysis, CO2 gasification, and combustion are lower than Ea of SRF/RDF obtained in the literature. This result proves that Subcoal™ PAF provides a faster chemical reaction time than SRF/RDF and other biomass. Subcoal™ technology improves utilisation of MSW and prevents landfill, as a result of meeting the increasing demand for lower emissions and high-calorie fuels. It is a crucial sustainable technology that helps utilisation of non-recyclable materials in energy sectors that could otherwise be lost into landfills.

N+P (SAE's JV partner for NPA Fuels Ltd) have been extending their operations in the Netherlands over the last year and are now set to commence producing Subcoal PAF - the same waste derived fuel pellet that NRW were set to draft an environmental permit for last month until the decision was taken away from them.....

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/n-p-group-b-v-_alternativefuels-paf-subcoal-ugcPost-6868527949855891456-zbg5

Anyone who has followed and researched SAE long enough should note one of the commenters on the video

OHS

Slick - CC is absolutely a positive if it could be incorporated in SUP. In fact, it is most probably the only way that SUP would ever get WG/WM approval as that is their main sticking point imo - the WGs target to be Carbon Neutral so permitting a 200MW power station goes against their entire policy in its current form. I'm well aware of what the company has to offer on all fronts but my interest here was always Uskmouth. I still think it's a fantastic concept, nothing has changed their - I'm not posting my reasons that it won't happen, it's the WG/WM that are thwarting it. Constantly banging the tidal drum will fall on deaf ears until a decision is made on Uskmouth and the time frame here is anyone's guess....... but using the recent Mor Hafren decision would be a good starting point - hence the link. It is also very well worth reading this: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2021-11/mor-hafren-inspectors-report.pdf as it goes into huge detail about Wales' waste policy, waste hierarchy, recycling targets etc..... Inspectors conclusion (supported by WM) is that there won't be 'enough' waste generated in Wales to justify the need for Mor Hafren and that is only a 15MW plant. Uskmouth was never about using waste from Wales, it was always going to be imported in and there lies one of the main issues - importing 'waste' into Wales from outside of the country - messes with their whole waste hierarchy strategy. If the WG/WM can see subcoal PAF for what it actually is - a fuel pellet (regardless of being made of of 'waste') then Uskmouth shouldn't (imo) be classed as an EFW (if that was the intension) and could remain as a power station, generating 200MW of electricity for Wales. As the pellets would be imported, Uskmouth isn't saving/reducing Wales' CO2 levels, only adding to them. It's a real shame that it has been dragged out so long and is now called in and sitting with the WG and the WM for a decision when both the Local Council (Newport) and NRW were both minded to grant the planning and environmental permits - the very bodies put in place to make those decisions!! Democracy ey!
OHS

Slick - yes, irrelevant. Nothing to do with what they were asking for:

Thank you for your request which I received on 11 October. You asked for:
a) All correspondence and reports between WG and NRW and stakeholders related to NRW permit variation application PAN-008534, Permit variation application LP3131SW V003 Draft SUP pre-final copy, MA/JJ/3346/21.
b) All correspondence and reports between WG and NRW and stakeholders related to the legal review and associated correspondence related to PAN-008534 that informed the Direction issued by the Welsh Ministers to the Natural Resources Body for Wales: application by SIMEC Uskmouth Power Ltd. to vary an environmental permit pursuant to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

JD - you need to understand 'why' this info was asked. The CC is irrelevant at this point

What chance does Uskmouth have based on this decision making principle? The benefits of Uskmouth Power Station are tremendous but how will it ever get it's chance to prover itself if this is the attitude of the decision makers?

https://gov.wales/decision-mor-hafren-bio-power

Read from point 57 onwards: - even with all the benefits Mor Hafren would bring the Welsh Minister has still denied their application:

Benefits of the Proposal and the Planning Balance

57. The Inspector recognises the Môr Hafren proposal would bring various benefits. It would provide around 15MW of reliable electrical power to the local electricity network for the operational life of the project. This would be a significant contribution to future electricity requirements during a period when demand for electricity is likely to increase. (IR 711)
58. Although the resulting energy supply would not be carbon emission-free, the Inspector considers utilising the waste as feedstock rather than it going to landfill would provide significant CO2 savings. (IR 712)

59. The Inspector also notes the proposed facility would have the potential to use steam to create a local heat network serving nearby businesses. (IR 713)

60. The Inspector notes the focus of the waste strategy is to phase out residual waste through actions on waste prevention and sustainable consumption and production so any waste produced is reused or recycled. Therefore, any benefit the proposal may provide in terms of diverting residual waste from landfill to energy recovery would
progressively diminish. (IR 714)

61. The Inspector recognises there would be significant socio-economic benefits associated with construction and operation of the proposed energy from waste facility through direct and indirect employment opportunities. Also, the Inspector notes it is calculated the scheme would create additional Gross Value Added (GVA) worth £74.7m through wider
economic activity. (IR 715 - 716)

The Inspector concludes the insufficient need for the proposal, adverse ecological effects, conflict with the development plan and lack of compliance with the Welsh Government’s waste strategy outweigh the carbon emission, energy generation, socioeconomic and SSSI ditch management benefits the scheme would bring. The Inspector has considered all other aspects of the proposal and concludes the balance of considerations is such that planning permission should be withheld. (IR 725)

Formal Decision (Minister for Climate change Julie James)

72. I agree with the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions as detailed in IR 578-736. For the reasons given I hereby refuse planning permission for planning application DNS/3236340.

Anyone watch this last week? Here is the transcript:

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2021-11-04a.1096.0&s=medicines

Not invested, just looking and reading and pondering.....

Currently unable to get a firm electronic quote for anything over 2000 shares

It matters not a jot in the grand scheme of things - 350,000 shares issued is 0.12% of the companies shares in issue. If they chose to sell their shares at current market price they'd get circa £65k.

Morning all, nice to see a little rise on small volumes - hopefully the interest will grow further as news of the latest collaboration continues to filter through the correct channels of interested parties. This is another very good quoted statement from the article:

"3M’s participation in a ‘metaverse’-focused project is fantastic news for VR technology given that it is one of the world’s largest companies. It is also diversified, producing tens of thousands of products annually, highlighting several important use cases being considered for the corporate metaverse. The demonstrated virtual space could contain hubs for different business divisions, and even larger environments for 3M-wide gatherings, essentially eliminating geographical limitations on communication and productivity across and between business areas."

OHS

I’ve followed VRE for a while and invested a couple of months back. Price seems to have fluctuated between 16-20p over this period on fairly small volumes and equally, it doesn’t take much buying or selling pressure to do this. With the recent change in ticker and a bit of chat arriving on the VRE forum over the last week or so (was very quiet) I decided to finally add something on here. LinkedIn has been a good avenue to explore some ‘behind the scenes’ movements of VRE (EXR) and the one reference 3M lead me to googling for more info and found the linked article below. I personally think it is huge news for them as it directly references a Metaverse collaboration with a global company with over 60k employees!
OHS

https://vrworldtech.com/2021/11/04/engage-xr-and-3m-building-corporate-metaworld/

This article seems to have gone under the radar - I saw David Whelan had mention the collaboration with 3M on LinkedIn but having now read the article in more detail, surprised it’s not in a RNS - it’s a pretty big deal imo

“ 3M’s participation in a ‘metaverse’-focused project is fantastic news for VR technology given that it is one of the world’s largest companies. It is also diversified, producing tens of thousands of products annually, highlighting several important use cases being considered for the corporate metaverse.”

Wenglish - I have sought clarification on that wording of 'NEW' for months - ever since the moratorium was introduced which stated 'new efw' in the official statement. There is nothing out there that I can find or from any correspondence with WG/NCC that will clarify it's meaning and whether SUP is a new efw or not. NRW, for the purpose of the permit variation did classify it as NEW permit as opposed to a variation to the original permit if I recall correctly but whether this can be reflected on the plant as a whole is a grey area again. Until the WM can categorically state whether SUP is new or existing then the moratorium is a huge grey area and probably why the SP currently sits where it is. However, the fact that the same WM has not only directed the planning application to be called in (the day before Newport CC were going to approve it) but she has now called in the decision authority of NRW on the environmental permit (NRW were set to grant the permit). This in itself speaks volumes on the likely outcome here.....