Investing Matters Podcast - Episode 3 featuring award winning tech innovator Elizabeth Gooch MBE is now LIVE. Listen here.
The initial South African variant (Sorry WHO for not using your politically correct terms) spooked everyone for what it may have been, only for it to be one of the least concerning variants. The problem is it took the science community months to realise this, in fact they only admitted it wasn't of concern after Delta+ took over.
Little ironic how the UK was lambasted by the world for creating a perfect storm environment for a mutant strain to appear, and it ultimately appeared in the continent which couldn't afford to mass vaccinate.
I am not going to look too much into the Covid data, but Brazil and India cases have very much fizzled out.
Considering many countries have stopped financial support, lockdowns will no longer garner support. It's become a really unenviable ethical issue. Here in the UK the consensus seems to be we'll live with it as long as hospitals are not overwhelmed. It's logical, although I do feel bad for those families who are vulnerable and can understand the other side of the argument.
For the note, I am not supporting the way Brazil approached the pandemic. Things have been an absolute disaster over there. However, the data does not lie, it looks like they are over the worst of it and can get on with a recovery.
At some point countries have got to confront a very unfortunate reality.
Stating the RR projects are 10-20 year returns is a bit irrelevant when you consider the SP today, Falky.
The pre-Covid price is still a long way off, and the pre-Trent engine fix price is even further away. Granted RR has taken on more debt, but that will be offset to an extent by the more streamlined nature of the business now.
Should the transatlantic route remain open over winter it will reflect handsomely in the yearly report. With or without SMR, the SP will rise generously in my opinion.
It should also be noted that while SMR is a long term venture, I suspect RR's work and research in SAF fuels will materialise a lot sooner.
Don't get me wrong, if Covid forces further lockdowns and travel restrictions the SP will crash. However, news such as that from Pfizer last week can give us all confidence that we're past it.
Wind Turbines generate about 16% of the energy on the National Grid, and we have about 11,000 turbines.
With that in mind, just another 69,000 turbines and we won't need to depend on nuclear or gas!
There isn't a magic wand solution, perhaps in 10 years time there might, and maybe in 10 years time that solution will take another 10 years to implement. If activists want a solution today, then nuclear is it. Whether that be SMR's or not, renewables isn't enough.
I'm aware of the time it takes to build nuclear, which is all the more reason not to delay.
I don't expect IAG results will be that encouraging, however, they may be able to dress it up positively by revealing winter bookings data.
Monday will be significant nonetheless. If Covid doesn't close the transatlantic route again, then come next summer we may see 200p again (Even without SMR, SAF or further lucrative defense contracts)
Given the current gas crisis, the idea of sustainable fuels should hit home to the everyday consumer now and not just activists. With that in mind, the government has to in my opinion announce some kind of energy strategy. Saying we will be net zero by the year 20xx and all vehicles will be electric by the year 20xx simply doesn't work. The infrastructure isn't there to support the governments targets.
It's a bizarre way to operate; not far of just kicking the can down the road.
What I would like to see is something akin to "We're going to invest 'X' amount in projects 'X' and 'X' which will allow us to achieve our targets"
With all that being said, there is still plenty of time left of the cop26 so we shouldn't be too critical just yet.
I'm sure there are articles out there which balance the argument. However, this one demonstrates enough shortfalls to ensure we're a number of decades away from seeing molten salt reactor.
I still expect to see a bounce back once the transatlantic routes ropens. The market appears to be betting that countries will close back up and suspend travel again, but there's still no inkling that major governments will react.
If there is unfettered travel during the winter and the price remains ~130 then I would be prepared to substantially increase my investment leading up to the annual earnings in March (I believe?)
The Autumn and Winter months will largely just be watching from the sidelines and seeing how the SMR project develops.
I suspect it's related to the extra 140m announced pre-budget for SMR technology.
I'd be surprised if we don't hear something more substantial during cop26. I think people have had enough of vague commitments to address net zero goals. Bare in mind even once the government match the private investment as promised, RR then have to submit plans in what will be a very lengthy regulatory approval. Time to get the ball rolling.
Interestingly Italy do not have any Nuclear power sites and haven't for quite some time. They also rejected in a referendum reintroducing them in 2011.
Perhaps they want to manufacture parts in mainland Europe for practical reasons?
You make a fair point, lospeculatore. However, as Litt suggests, the Covid response this time around is likely to be different.
Every winter there is a wave of influenza which doesn't prevent international travel. It's up to governments both domestically and internationally to decide whether restricting travel is an effective solution to stop the spread.
Studies suggest the risk on flights is very low. Combine this with how the Delta variant spread rapidly even in countries who had their boarders restricted (USA, large parts of Europe), will they realistically act on it this time? Closing boarders is only effective if you adopt the New Zealand zero Covid policy, otherwise you're just kicking the can down the road.
The drop is related to Covid fears and the travel restrictions which come with that.
Your argument Trevor is RR is bad company because:
- Germany doesn't like nuclear
- Planes which RR get paid per mileage, not per passenger volume are half full
- And the best one, RR reported losses during the pandemic, despite being profit making again now.
It's not about having a different opinion, it's that you present your argument with petulance and can't back anything you say up with recent data.
Price will bounce back in the lead up to USA reopening, unless fears of another wave materialise.
I imagine any Nuclear commitments will be made together. This would include larger projects which RR isn't involved in such as Sizewell C.
Incidentally, the only way to produce clean Hydrogen is to have large scale renewable sources. It's one of the reasons why EV vehicles will take over despite Fuel Cell technology being much more practical. Perhaps nuclear power could open doors to make Fuel cell tech viable in HGV's and buses.
Quite a vague announcement. What is the 120m actually going towards? It isn't the pledge to match the private investment or any commitment to approve RR SMR's.
I will expect more news either before the budget or in the budget.
Saying don't invest in RR because Germany doesn't like Nuclear is like saying don't invest in BMW because sales in North Korea are poor.
It's not relevant.