Drax Share Discussion Threads

[rburtn] 26/11/2015 07:41

Glad to see the above stupidity of Carbon Capture is now being recognised, only a matter of time before CO2 effect on Climate is seen as quackery.

[vk74] 25/11/2015 22:47

UK government carbon capture £1bn grant dropped -

[hazelton] 25/11/2015 16:54

We could buy it from abroad like we do lots of other stuff (not a brilliant idea in my view). We really need some committees to decide on names for the roads that the houses would be on.

[nick rubens] 25/11/2015 16:14

Looks like it will be better for shareholders for it to stop generating electricity and develop the land instead as suggested above.

What would happen in the electricity market if they chose that option?

[hazelton] 25/11/2015 15:45

What does anyone suppose this is worth if houses were built on it ?

[zcaprd7] 25/11/2015 15:37

Guidance maintained, where do we go from here. Surely the dividend is knackered now?

[liquidkid] 20/11/2015 09:48

So the final solution for DRAX is to convert to gas, or biogas, go nuclear, beef steaks anything but coal. Spare me brain DRAX already has 3 plants running on Biomass thneed pellets.
Biomass is here to stay. It is globally decided that it is the future.

This is the reasoning:

The Carbon cycle: When a tree is cut and burnt it only releases carbon that the tree has removed from the atmosphere in the first place. So, if a tree is planted for every tree that has been cut down and burnt -- the process is " Carbon Neutral " . On the other hand if Carbon that has laid underground for millions of years is excavated and burnt - as charcoal and Fossil Fuels -- the process is " Carbon Positive " adds extra carbon to the air.

Even the Tories know that.
The Conservatives logo: A Scribbly Tree
it's not actually a tree. If you look carefully enough you'll see that it's a berserk green elephant peeing over everything.

Ferrybridge C closes - and up springs Ferrybridge Multifuel 1 (FM1) and plans to build another Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 (FM2)


Now, you listen to me, Pop, while I blow my top! Trees? Ha! You speak for the trees? Well I speak for men, and human opportunities! For your information, you, I'm figgering on biggering and biggering, and biggering, and BIGGERING, turning MORE truffula trees into thneeds! Which everyone, everyone, EVERYONE NEEDS!

[minerve] 19/11/2015 18:06

Actually some studies have shown that if you look at the wooden pellet scenario from one of the widest angles it isn't clear that it isn't green. The wood comes from areas that, if they weren't making wood pellets, they would be beef farming. So all the trees would be chopped quickly, rather than a rate married to consumption, all that CO2 absorption would disappear and be replaced with the meat trade - probably the worst trade when it comes to damaging the planet.

The reality is, we never will really know, spin doctors and those with material interests, both ways, can create their stories to match their objectives.

[boffster] 19/11/2015 16:28

Agreed. I think its also bonkers to be importing gas, which is relatively expensive and leaves us at the mercy of foreign powers, when we've got years and years of coal buried beneath us, the digging up of which would also create jobs thereby boosting the economy. Do that until its no longer economical, by which time we'll probably have mastered nuclear fusion.

Its worth noting that it would be quite easy for Drax to switch the biomass burning units back to coal should that ever be advantageous.

[boffster] 19/11/2015 14:40

Without knowing the exact ins and outs, I'm assuming its rather more difficult to convert biomass into a gas for a turbine, than it is to chop it up and stick it in a furnace

[rburtn] 19/11/2015 14:16

Boffster - I don't know how the EU comes into this. An entire scientific community has been beguiled by this false premise. The EU is more environmentally sensitive than most and I suspect that is because so many continental countries are not surrounded by sea. They cannot dump with impunity into the Rhone, Rhine, Danube et al. If they did, their neighbours would create hell. It is one of the many reasons why they seek co-operation rather than confrontation.

[nick rubens] 19/11/2015 13:46

Biomass was being invested in because of state aid and that's been pulled. Is anyone switching to biomass from gas?

Government caused Drax's green plan to derail.

"moves by the Government to rein back support for low carbon technology."

Read more: hxxp://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/updated-government-under-fire-as-drax-pull-out-of-1bn-carbon-capture-project-1-7479834#ixzz3rwdB5lrG

[boffster] 19/11/2015 13:28

rburtn - hoping we get out the EU next year so we can start making some decisions that are in the national interest, instead of in the pursuit of some fantasy.

[boffster] 19/11/2015 13:27

"expensive biomass isn't going to compete with gas or nuclear"

Explain how.

In order for gas to be advantageous over coal, carbon prices will have to rise. This will hit the gas plants too though, and will improve the economics of biomass vs. gas.

Its all a bloody fantasy anyway since there's going to have to be a hell of a lot of building if we're going to get rid of coal by 2025.

Imagine if electric cars increase in popularity? They'll be sat on the drive 'cos we don't have enough juice to charge them!!

[rburtn] 19/11/2015 13:27

Nick, I would advise them to hold on tight, it's only a matter of time before the main driver of climate change is shown not to be greenhouse gases - possibly a glimmer of which will appear the next time the IPCC convenes.

[nick rubens] 19/11/2015 12:27

For Drax the end of coal but it isn't meaningfully profitable anyway in latter times(and expensive with carbon tax anyway).

Then the expensive biomass isn't going to compete with gas or nuclear. So what is the plan for the future? They don't have one and are now seemingly limping along until profits totally disappear and it's almost worthless from a shareholders perspective.

Anyone got any ideas for them?

[deanroberthunt] 19/11/2015 07:28

the best case is that it fits expensive CCS systems.....but that is very costly and could make the plant unprofitable...

ultimately, we need power, so there's a clear issue with having a critical public supply facility operating within a plc environment...

[deanroberthunt] 19/11/2015 07:23

Ferrybridge C closes this coming spring..

There's a clear policy to close all UK Coal fired power stations..

My view, Drax is on borrowed time.

[boffster] 18/11/2015 21:55

The ever reducing supply margin is likely to drive spot prices higher, particularly if we have a cold winter. It wouldn't surprise me if Drax was able to recover the money the gubberment has stolen, by taking advantage of these higher prices.

[fangorn2] 18/11/2015 19:16

Drax: biomass hysteria

The UK generator’s shift from coal to biomass is risky, but may yet pay off


Amber Rudd wants her job to be predictable and boring. “Energy policy shouldn’t be noticed” the energy secretary said in a speech on Wednesday, which confirmed plans to phase out coal-fired generation by 2025. Cue hollow laughter in North Yorkshire, home to the Europe’s largest coal-fired power station.

Shares in Drax, owner of the said installation, fell 4 per cent after the speech and have lost almost two-thirds of their value this year. They trade at just five times last year’s earnings and yield 5 per cent. While profits will fall sharply this year and next, the company is not doomed. Its future is less about the end of coal and more about what will replace it.

Most notably, the government said in July that it would cease awarding “levy exemption certificates” to Drax. These are worth around £5 per megaWatt-hour and their removal will reduce 2016 earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation by £60m, or around a quarter.

[she-ra] 18/11/2015 18:06

Boffster - They wanted to make biomass unviable so that they can push through fracking. i.e scare us all into thinking we haven't got enough power and then turn the public into little frackers.

[boffster] 18/11/2015 17:16

No. It did that because Drax had already secured the investment and they decided they could get away with going back on their promises. There's some litigation ongoing regards to that I believe. And 'gubberment' wonders why no-one is investing in electricity supply. Hitting 'green' suppliers with climate change levies isn't going to result in cheaper bills, is it? Quite the opposite.