Merrill Lynch New Energy Tech Share Discussion Threads

[cyberbub] 16/1/2008 18:10

MrBT I agree, but LED lightbulbs are not quite there yet - I know as I have tried them! But if B&Q are starting to stock them then you know it will not be long until they hit the mainstream. An LED lightbulb uses just 5W of electricity for a good bright one, and in a typical domestic situation will last almost literally a lifetime. They currently cost £15 each for the good ones but within a couple of years they will be 7 or 8 quid, well worth it.

[mrbt] 16/1/2008 18:05

LED is the future with lightbulbs.

[praipus] 16/1/2008 17:59

Gsands

Lightbulbs are NOT responsible for 40% of the worlds carbon emissions......fossil fuel power stations are!

Nuclear is not my preffered energy source but if I had to live next door to a Nuclear Powerstation I would rather it was a modern one rather than 30 years old and hopelessly unreliable and unsafe as the press would have us believe of the UK fleet at the moment.

[gsands] 16/1/2008 17:10

Praipus,

I disagree with your bias. Energy conservation is an important piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

The poullution created by the manufacture of energy efficient light bulbs is rather secondary when the bigger picture is considered.

And have you thought through your reasoning properly when on one hand you say you are worried about the small amount of mercury in energy saving light bulbs whilst on the other condoning nuclear power stations providing they are safe with modern design?

[praipus] 16/1/2008 10:20

TrullSengar - I'm no expert on energy saving lightbulbs but it seems to be dealing with the symptom rather than the cause. A very dangerous and short sighted mode of operating IMHO.

Assuming you agree the demand for energy globally is in the process of dramatically exceeding supply.

The problem will solve itself to some extent as energy prices rise industry will look for cheaper ways to generate electricity.

However the government could give UK PLC a first mover type advantage by doing more to encourage Wind energy related renewables here and offshore...which would brinf UK power prices down and make us more competitive....now I wonder if they had spent £56billion on renewables rathern than Northern Rock...if we might be in a slightly better situation?

On the Nuclear front I would rather have up to date reactors than old ones thus hopefully avoiding Chernobyl situation. If the government goes any slower on the enrgy front it will start going backwards and end up paying through the nose for all its energy needs. Now is the time for the UK to get developing renewables IMHO.

[trullsengar] 15/1/2008 23:47

Sorry for OT - Praipus. Low energy lightbulbs use FAR less energy over their lifetimes than was used to create them, and far less overall than traditional incandescents. True, they do contain a small amount of mercury and should therefore be treated as hazardous waste. Councils should offer appropriate recycling facilities for them, but many don't. The official policy here in Glasgow for instance is to just dump them in the bin!

Your suggestions about building more offshore wind and hydro are fine, but the point is that we need to do AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE to have even the remotest chance of dealing with climate change. It's not a case of choosing between wind and hydro OR energy efficiency. We need ALL these options and more... and while I'd love to do without nuclear it looks like we're going to have to live with more of that if the UK government has its way. Here in Scotland the government is antinuclear and I think that's the right way to be, IF they invest much more in renewables.

Anyway, there you go. Sorry if I seem to be lecturing you. Cheers.

[cher price] 11/1/2008 22:54

Perhaps the recent fall is due to this:

Merrill Lynch New Energy Technology plc

7 January 2008

Supplemental Prospectus relating to the Issue of New Ordinary Shares

Copies of the above document have been submitted to the UK Listing Authority
and will shortly be available for inspection at the UK Listing Authority's
Document Viewing Facility, which is situated at:

Financial Services Authority
25 The North Colonnade
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5HS


Tel. no. 020 7066 1000


END

[praipus] 11/1/2008 22:30

Gsands 40% of all the carbon we generate is from coal, gas and oil fired power stations. Changing consumers habits or a light bulb is a complete red herring IMHO. 800,000,000 people in China could not give two hoots about Ken's lightbulbs.

What he should do is lobby government to build some more off shore windfarms a bit quicker to keep up with demand and reduce carbon emissions IMHO.

Or perhaps harness the tidal hydro electric power of the Thames.

I heard this evening that some so called energy saving light bulbs have mercury in them.....dont let young kids near them, and be extremely carefull how you clean up if you break one....highly toxic hazard and a land fill nightmare...also suspect the cost more in carbon emission to produce than the original ones....all that glitters is not gold.....Wonder when the first mercury related childs death will be reported.

[gsands] 11/1/2008 20:10

London is having a lightbulb amnesty this month where people can take in incandescent light bulbs to their local B&Q and exchange them for energy saving equivalents.

Pretty good idea I thought. Ken Livingstone is behind it.

[gsands] 11/1/2008 17:54

cyberbub - 11 Jan'08 - 17:10 - 378 of 379


the nuclear announcement (which is a disgrace, from my personal point of view)
--------------------

I couldn't agree more! Why do we persist with short term fixes instead of finding long term solutions.

[cyberbub] 11/1/2008 17:33

PS nice to see you on this thread, GSands!

[cyberbub] 11/1/2008 17:10

the nuclear announcement (which is a disgrace, from my personal point of view) should have no effect on renewable energy stocks. even if nuclear is here to stay, most of the new stations being commissioned are just to replace ones reaching the end of their lives. renewable energy is essentially replacing fossil fuels, and with Peak Oil and the Russian mafia controlling gas supplies, and 'clean coal' being a bit of a con, we are clearly heading for the situation in 30-40 years where nuclear provides a 20-25% base load of our energy and renewables the remainder.

i did also consider selling at 75p in anticipation of a psychological resistance level, but didn't :-( ah well.

MNE can only go substantially up in the medium term IMHO - always depending on the selection skills of the managers of course!

[gsands] 11/1/2008 16:17

This is a spikey performer at the moment, especially with all the stock market jitters. Refer to the chart for an illustration.

Thought about selling into the recent spike but decided to hold for the longer term instead and ride this all the way.

[praipus] 11/1/2008 12:27

Suspect its an over reaction to Merrill's whoes....NAV at 72p+ so hold fast IMHO or sell and keep you finger on the buy back in trigger.

[hoggetwood] 11/1/2008 12:11

Spangle: The announcement does look plausible as the cause of the selling. But, as you say, the uk energy stance shouldn't be especially relevant to mne. Maybe uk INVESTORS haven't realised this. In any case, it seems to me unlikely that alternative energy companies - even in the uk - will suffer damage.

[spangle93] 11/1/2008 11:26

IEM is down a chunk too, which points to it being wider than just MNE

Maybe it was confirmation that nuclear was going to be revisited in England and Wales, though I would have thought that MNE is less parochial than just UK issues

[hoggetwood] 11/1/2008 11:21

Very odd. I suppose we need to research the individual holdings. Or has some politician said something about energy policy? But at least we can take comfort that a new (five year?) high has been established.

[cyberbub] 11/1/2008 10:33

what's going on???!

[cyberbub] 07/1/2008 18:04

all very satisfactory so far