Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Drax Group LSE:DRX London Ordinary Share GB00B1VNSX38 ORD 11 16/29P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -5.30p -1.92% 270.20p 270.90p 271.10p 281.10p 270.10p 274.20p 1,360,514 16:35:02
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Electricity 2,949.8 197.1 48.0 5.6 1,098.91

Drax Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4176 to 4200 of 4200 messages
Chat Pages: 168  167  166  165  164  163  162  161  160  159  158  157  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
14/12/2017
00:35
Nice to see coal providing 21% of the UK's peak power requirements during the cold snap...
zcaprd7
11/12/2017
07:48
I should just clarify that. In balance, where we are currently seeing forest fires, they would not happen because trees would not have grown there to provide the fuel. The process of desertification - lowering vapour content world wide - would halt once the N. Pole has melted and T is well up!
rburtn
11/12/2017
07:44
The problem is numbers. Although a concreted area is 3 or 4 degrees warmer that would be the case had one not poured concrete, it still only compensates for using up half the solar input with a 1% increase in radiant discharge. Same with reflection, too small in comparison with blocking up the pores for sweating. There's no escaping the problem of messing with the cooling/circulation system other than humidifying to an equivalent degree or constructing artificial clouds! If we stopped doing what we're doing, it would still take a long time for the oceans to warm up enough to get back into balance -with a different climate configuration but without the violent struggles in the weather to get there.
rburtn
11/12/2017
01:34
So, couldn't you just paint roofs and roads white?
zcaprd7
08/12/2017
11:39
Indeed, but science is a social endeavour and changes to prevailing theories take time (Thomas Kuhn).I mean take gravity, that's a made up magical power and lasted 400 years before Einstein replaced it...
zcaprd7
05/12/2017
14:34
To understand what is going on climate-wise you have to avoid those scientists who know a lot about very little. The model used to produce what I gather to be the authorised version of CO2 effect by Ramanathan is defective. Essentially it is a linear model whereas the reality is that it should be binary. Dry air does not radiate significant amounts of energy, it has to contain liquid water to do this, so it should be binary. Note that there is no experimental evidence that CO2 warms earth, it is all model derived. Avoiding bafflement by science the following can be understood by anyone. Average world rainfall is measured and agreed to be about 99cms - to get that vapour airbourne requires around 800Kw per hectare. That is in the region of half the solar input. When that vapour condenses at high altitude, the energy is generated in millions of spherical drops of water. The billowing form factor of clouds, their height, and the convective circulation within them means a vastly greater portion of the radiant energy the droplets generate goes outwards rather than downwards. So the water cycle is a highly efficient heat pump from earth's surface to space. The other side of the equation relates to incoming solar energy. Clouds both reflect and absorb energy as any sunbather can testify. Obviously, the reflected portion means a net reduction of solar input to earth. But this also applies to that portion which is absorbed as it undergoes the same discrimination directionwise as does radiation sourced from Earth's surface. So there you have it, a shutter for solar radiation dynamically self-adjusting according to how warm or cold earth is as defined by the water vapour content. Various criteria can be used for estimating the proportion of Earth's surface covered and drained by man's structures. At 1%, an underestimate, it only requires a 15% reduction in the rate of evaporation to account for the IPCC's measured increase in Earth's thermal content. As the true impact must be much greater than 15% - imagine an aircraft runway covering 3000x50m equivalent to 12Mw of evaporation - then the excess energy in Earth's weather systems becomes understandable. I am 100% convinced that I am not alone my appreciation of what is basic science, I just happen to have gone through the numbers.
rburtn
05/12/2017
13:04
I'm just back from golf, about to eat lunch, and will elaborate a bit after.
rburtn
05/12/2017
12:32
Yes. I know he is. He needs to address the scientists. Until there is consensus amongst mosts scientists of another view I will continue investing in-line with the current consensus. Happy to hold Drax and possibly increase my position here.
minerve
05/12/2017
12:29
He's saying co2 is totally irrelevant, the warming is happening (because of Urbanisation, concrete, and therefore lack of cloud reflection), and this causes the co2 increase, not the other way around...The scientists have the wrong causal factor, and once they realise, this will have an impact on the green economy.
zcaprd7
05/12/2017
11:55
rburtn You have an interesting theory, I don't deny that. But perhaps your arguments and ideas should be sent to the top climate scientists who are driving UK government policy. Drax is a business, not an R&D institute. Drax is there to provide services to society and make money within the regulations that govern it. No more no less. It is like asking a question about apple growth to the jam producer. Assuming that current science is correct, let's assume, OK? Drax is importing wood from abroad. Wood is a relatively CO2 neutral energy supply as long as trees are grown to replace wood taken. OK, energy is consumed creating the wood chip and transporting, which IS STILL, less CO2 creating than extracting oil and/or gas and transporting it over the same distance? No? In addition to this, burning wood is using wood that, species dependent, would die over a short space of time anyway, releasing the CO2 whether you burn it or not. That CO2 is contemporary CO2. Oil, gas, coal may have better energy density but you are releasing CO2 millions of years old and has never been in the contemporary CO2 cycle. If you study this even more holistically, it has been shown, that land - those wood pellet suppliers use around the Mississippi Delta (or wherever else) - would be used for cattle grazing if it wasn't used for wood chip production. Those trees would be flattened and methane and CO2 producing cattle would replace them. That alone offsets the CO2 emmissions used in transporting the wood chips to the UK.
minerve
05/12/2017
08:51
Denialists?
fangorn2
05/12/2017
06:58
My enquiry to Drax was precisely that really, what are their plans when the Climate Controversy is shown to be a contrivance between two false arguments - denialists and CO2? I don't think reversion to cheap coal - and clean ways process it - is under active consideration - not in public anyway. I have no problem with 'farming' combustibles but when a business is based on mythology, then I would like to think they have a plan B.
rburtn
05/12/2017
00:31
I guess if I'd been holding it for the last year, I'd be grumpy and calling everyone an idiot as well, lol...
zcaprd7
04/12/2017
15:19
Indeed, but when the story cracks, Drax can switch back to burning coal fairly easily, no?After Brexit, one assumes the UK government, with Ed Milliband's daft enshrining in law of carbon reduction, will continue the merry go round?
zcaprd7
04/12/2017
12:51
I wrote to our CEO's, current and designate, asking about their business plan and its dependence upon the absurd notion that earth's temperature is controlled by a change from 9,997 to 9,996 molecules in every 10,000 of atmospheric gases as a result of swapping one molecule of O2 or N2 with CO2. To her credit, Dorothy did reply, but like all those rich and powerful people with an interest in the feedstock of their wealth - viz population numbers - she stuck with the CO2 story. I have to say, deafening silence has been the reaction of all those 'professional' dissemblers to whom I have written except one - Lord Seldon, who said it was 'interesting'. My explanation deriving from the simple physical principals behind climate control have long been well understood. Any period in which Earth is warmer than normal - for whatever reason - will produce more water vapour, more cloud cover, so less sunshine and less conversion of CO2 to vegetation and O2. That is Earth's regulator. Eventually the lower sunshine, lowers the temperature back down. In other words the tight correlation between T and CO2 is because increased T causes increased CO2, not the other way about. It is a rigorous scientific equation. What is perturbing the long run situation is mankind plating vast areas with drained structures. This modifies the amount and configuration of water vapour production and subsequent cloud formation. It is not rocket science and the numbers, for those interested in them, are orders of magnitude greater than even the fictitious CO2 effect. Unfortunately the world's leadership can escape the consequences of climate change and decamp wherever they like leaving the state of emergencies to be funded by general taxation. Energy starvation would seriously impact their wealth, so forget climate change and build farcical concepts, like carbon credits and capture, to which Drax is committed. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy...need I say more.
rburtn
04/12/2017
12:19
Oh, and I had my letter on Drax published in the Telegraph, so the editor there obviously begs to differ with you...
zcaprd7
04/12/2017
08:44
Err, someone asked for thoughts?That's their business model, unless you disagree, but why not just call me an idiot if you prefer, rather than advance a different position, because that makes you sound like a great guy?
zcaprd7
30/11/2017
09:48
zcaprd7 27 Nov '17 - 20:37 - 3150 of 3151 "Yeah, they boat wooden chips over the Atlantic to burn here, to get a government grant..." Whatever, idiot, no one is asking you to join the club and I doubt very much you are an expert in this area or indeed anything else for that matter. LOL
minerve
28/11/2017
08:18
Drax Group PLC DRX JP Morgan Cazenove Overweight 251.80 258.70 390.00 390.00 Reiterates
justiceforthemany
27/11/2017
20:37
Yeah, they boat wooden chips over the Atlantic to burn here, to get a government grant...
zcaprd7
27/11/2017
17:22
Trading at HALF book value/NAV. Thoughts?
justiceforthemany
28/10/2017
16:56
The 60p EPS comes from studying the income sheet in detail. It is adjusted. Strip out the large amount of exceptionals and intangible write offs largely for the coal assets then that is the EPS you get.
justiceforthemany
27/10/2017
21:33
They are trebling the size of their office in london for what it is worth
jeremyprosser
27/10/2017
07:11
profits and dividends have been disappearing continuously for many years here. I'm surprised it has such a big market value myself. Maybe Investors think, one day it may earn something meaningful for the owners. I can't see it myself and I'm not aware of any job losses over the last ten years as profits declined. Not sure where the 60p EPS forecast comes from? lol
nick rubens
26/10/2017
22:52
I can't get my head around the dividend?
zcaprd7
Chat Pages: 168  167  166  165  164  163  162  161  160  159  158  157  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:42 V: D:20171214 06:03:46