Compact Power Share Discussion Threads

[spiv 1] 15/11/2006 08:22

Gilts, what is it with you and public money? Surely you must accept that sometimes the gov can back a certain technology/system if in the long run it is for all our benefit? The gov gives money to all sorts of green projects, just look at the grants you can get now for installing solar power on your house.

[don muang] 15/11/2006 08:18

Words to note: 'expects' and '2008'

"Compact Power EXPECTS to sign biomass plant contract in the next two weeks"

"The plant is expected to be operational by the third quarter
of 2008.

[asparks] 15/11/2006 08:10

gilt - 3.8 meg is small yes - but this is very much the first of many similar plants that are proposed.

[don muang] 15/11/2006 07:43

if they (the government) have money spare for subsidies then perhaps it should go to making HP Sauce in the UK again .........

[giltspur] 15/11/2006 06:50

LOL, go git em hammy.

[hammy davies jnr] 15/11/2006 01:52

#105

Good post Guilts, I will be writing to mi MP teh marraw.

[spiv 1] 15/11/2006 00:08

I appreciate its old but it is very clean. The naval refit is occuring on HMS Ocean. It may then be rolled out to the other ships. As for government funding, the new plant (if I remember correctly will cost £18m) so its hardly surprising they may need some help. The issue as far as I am aware is that the technology has never been scaled up to a large plant so it comes with a high level of risk, which perhaps may explain the lack of institutional backing. That said, cpo has received institutional backing over the last 2 years (check the rns releases). Subjective and objective?? check the last results which as far as I can remember show that the small plant is profitable (though of course not cpo as a whole). Well, interesting banter

[giltspur] 14/11/2006 22:11

Well, well, well, I should have known, our old friend the high speed gas set from TGN is in there. What was it 1.1 megs?

They don't make a profit, the ship thing is evaluation and they have raised money from Gov to build another evaluation unit at Avonmouth - that's it.

The use of AIM by government in this way is unacceptable and i will be making complaints forthwith. If they want to support R&D, which is what it is, they should do it by other means. This is quite deplorable.

The technology is as old as the hills incidentally, not new and certainly not unique.

[giltspur] 14/11/2006 21:58

spiv

The point is this: The government are subsidising it - if they are making profit why?

I don' believe they are profitable, in any case you are mixing a subjective idea with an objective conclusion - a trick used by tipsters and brokers on the sell.

If it had any merit at all the institutions would finance it so why are they going cap in hand to the government.

However, i need to look at it in more detail to make an objective opinion.

[spiv 1] 14/11/2006 21:47

Well I think the government subsidy side of things is another issue. The government is going to use taxes and the price mechanism to persuade/force local authorities and businesses to look at waste alternatives/reduced greenhouse gas emissions and the cpo technology is one option. The existing plant is Bristol, although small is now profitable so I'm not sure what you mean about the larger site not being able to make money. CPO has also developed an ocean based waste system which is being fitted to Royal navy vessels. No doubt cpo will gain some sort of royalty from this as well. Don't get me wrong, cpo is high risk and I its not for widows or orphans but it is one of the cleanest technologies that exist at the moment and as such it has a fair chance of being rolled out both nationally and internationally. The fact that we are only a small contributor globally to Co2 emissions is true but what relevance has that to the investment story here??

[spiv 1] 14/11/2006 17:24

I've got to agree with asparks. As Giltspur said it is true that the cpo pyrolysis method is not a cheap way to generate elctricity but it also disposes of rubbish at the same time. Local authorities are paying increasingly expensive landfill taxes so the cost issue is becoming less of an issue. Also, perhaps Giltspur missed the Stern Reprt a few weeks back and the governments commitment to green taxes. That is the reason DEFRA is prepared to fund the project, not because they are 'stupid'. The next round of Kyoto targets are set to be agreed soon and governments will increasingly have to cut back on emissions. It is also worth noting that although some landfills do capture the methane produced, many do not and it is 30 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than Co2.

[giltspur] 14/11/2006 16:08

Hammy LOL

TSK would love this one, it's made to measure for the little greenie.

[hammy davies jnr] 14/11/2006 15:47

TSK would like this one, imo.

[giltspur] 14/11/2006 15:40

Are you seriously suggesting that a 3.8 meg set will make a dint in the landfill problem?

Are you aware of how much power a 3.8meg set delivers? It gives enough diversity power factored energy for 250 homes. They'll sell it to the grid at a subsidy from out pockets. Labourites you see, utterly bonkers .

[giltspur] 14/11/2006 15:36

asparks

Nothing has changed in power generation, it is like any other industry, it must work competitively or it sinks. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole but if you like it, fine.

[asparks] 14/11/2006 15:35

and another - we need to diversify our sources of energy

[asparks] 14/11/2006 15:35

another thing that's changing - we are running out of landfill sites

[asparks] 14/11/2006 15:34

yes gilt - but the world has changed since the 70s & 80s. Something called global warming has now been recognised.

Things that were once not viable, now are.

[giltspur] 14/11/2006 15:32

asparks

Because the government are stupid - if you were aware of how they waste money on consultant blah you would be astonished.

It is very expensive to recycle rubbish into generation - take my word for it i'm in the game - have been all my working life.

I will give you some examples when i have time. I was the most prolific buyer and exporter of unused gensets in this country, first from the 1973 three day week scare and then the 84 miners strike. Every single waste/generation plant that was built in the lasst two decades has failed because it is simply not a viable proposition. Methane is only just viable and only because of the subsidies.

3.8 megs is very low power stuff. They can't even cobble a website together with any degree of efficiency - the example clip doesn't work

[asparks] 14/11/2006 15:24

also - CPO been testing these for years and apparently have a viable product....

[asparks] 14/11/2006 15:24

gilt - then why are the govt giving it 5 mill?