Drax Share Discussion Threads

[topvest] 23/2/2016 11:45

Yes, why the share price is so strong is anyones guess. The outlook is very bleak.

[nick rubens] 23/2/2016 08:16

Results today. Dividend just about disappeared, based on 50% of earnings.

[boffster] 23/2/2016 08:07

Rburtn, I've just sold partly because of this. Just because these regulations are imposed on Drax doesn't mean they have to pretend to like them

[rburtn] 23/2/2016 07:42

Just a quick scan of the results before I do something useful and play golf. What an absolute pantomime this all is - littered throughout with costly and slavish following of the climate change by CO2 myth. How on earth are the charlatons who inform their policy on the output of models rather than the application of science ever going to recant. It would be hilarious if it were not for the fact that the cause of climate change is unaddressed and increasing exponentially.

[zcaprd7] 22/2/2016 19:11

Goldmine are out..

[fangorn2] 22/2/2016 14:44

Tin Hats for FY results tomorrow

[zcaprd7] 22/2/2016 14:43

Interesting brexit play this one...

[rburtn] 17/2/2016 11:14

World average rainfall is about 99cms p.a. That weighs 10^7 kgs per hectare and requires 700kw to get from goundwater to vapour. If you consider that vast areas - the poles, high plains and mountains - produce little to no vapour, then we are talking about 1mw per hectare, at least, for temperate regions. Thus if Amazon build a 1 ha warehouse draining the land and preventing continuous evaporation as it must, it is depriving the earth's surface of 1mw of solar energy absorption and cooling as a first order calculation. (I know a proportion, much less than half, is radiated back down as the cloud forms, but the net effect is augmented by reflection and energy transfer from the rest of the atmosphere - including that from CO2 which is alleged to 'hold back' energy). Look no further for an explanation for climate change. It is not the absurdity of a CO2 effect needed to cause prodigious heating of the biosphere, it is the easy inhibition of a natural process which operates on a massive scale. A far better reason than climate change is needed to justify a stop on fossil fuel burning.

[liquidkid] 11/2/2016 10:56

Where does DRAX fit in all of this?
I'll tell you what they are going to do and it will not be pretty for shareholders.

First fiddle with some numbers, put this lot into a formula:
- Price assumed for wood pellets in Table 1 (8.39 £/GJ or approximately 229$/over dry tonne
- 90 day cif ARA Index for industrial wood pellets currently approximately 160 $/tonne or 5.8 £/GJ
- Drax says costs three times more than coal to burn
- Europe biomass market (currently about 15 mn tons)
- wood pellets required to operate Unit #1 of Drax entirely on biomass – approximately 2.4 million tonnes/year
- 420 megawatts of electricity running exclusively on wood pellets
- three of its c.645MW units run on coal
- CFD from Gov't - £95/MWh
- For 2015/16 The system operator (SO) paid £12.94/kW for 2.5GW in National Grid’s Supplemental Balancing Reserve (SBR)
- For 2016/17, the SO contracted 3.8GW and paid £34.21/kW.

+ multiply by magic number = the answer.

Sir, you're crazy. You're crazy with greed. There's no one on earth who will buy that fool thneed! The birth of an industry, you poor, stupid guy! You telling me what the public will buy?

[pierre oreilly] 11/2/2016 10:51

The demand curve for day can be estimated quite accurately. Generation is scheduled each day to meet that demand curve - plant is coming on and off the grid most of the time, but overall, the demand curve is met. Where the problems come is these days, with a higher percentage of intermittent generation like wind and solar, the plans for generation made the day before are met to a lesser and lesser extent. To correct for mismatches of the anticipated demand, (i.e. the wind may not blow as expected, the sun may go in, a coal plant may fail (rare), then reserve generation is instructed to generate. To get stations to just sit there on the off chance they may be needed, they receive sbr payments. As more intermittent generation comes on line, more and more resevre is needed, hence the sbr cost/KW goes up as well as more reserve being made available. It's a direct cost due to intermittent wind ... so wind isn't free after all - indeed, it needs drastic and expensive actions by the grid in order that varying wind doesn't bring the grid down! SBR is sourced (obviously!) from the remaining scheduable (i.e. non-intermittent) generation, which as you've probably read is getting less and less, worsening the situation, as intermittent generation is growing and growing, worsening the situation again. It's all green madness of course, with the grid soon running out of options whatever the cost - all it takes is a cold windless winter's evening and all the expensive sbr will be used and if demand is still not met, then the grid will selectively cut power to certain areas to protect itself.

That's my understanding. Some salient points if the above isn't clear
- demand must be matched exactly by generation each instant
- under normal circumstances, wind and solar must be taken by the grid whenever it generates (unlike other forms of generation).

[leadingladies] 11/2/2016 09:29

Would appreciate an insight as to how this SBR works. Is this in a sense "standby generation" needed only if demand exceeds set levels or is it committed generation to take account of the known peaks in demand. At face value the rates offered appear staggering !

[beeks of arabia] 10/2/2016 22:21

Eggborough announced 2 units on SBR.

[boffster] 10/2/2016 18:58

We're reckoned to be having most of Fiddler's Ferry, what's left of Ferrybridge, and Longannet shut down this year, and they're just the ones I know of, future of Eggborough is unclear as well

[nick rubens] 10/2/2016 15:41

Todays news explains the pullback.

"Whilst the High Court recognised in the judgment the merits of bringing the case, it has ruled against Drax and Infinis. Drax will now consider the judgment in detail."

[pierre oreilly] 09/2/2016 10:53

Not as appalling as daily powercuts.

After a few days of early evening powercuts, I expect even you will be telling the government to pay whatever it takes to get a few nukes built very quickly.

So what you are saying is stop the only current nuke project? But what would you do to minimise the powercuts to come?

Unfortunately, nuclear expertise is a rare resource, and there's none in the uk (even though we were world leaders in the technology a few decades ago). There's worldwide competition for nuke expertise, and we have to bid high to get it. In any case, nukes are still cheap compared to wind and solar which don't even satisfy the most basic requirements of grid generation, and we have spent - wasted in fact - many billions on those, and are locked in to spedning - wasting - many more billions over the coming years, all for intermittent generation of little use to a power matching grid.

[robbo27] 09/2/2016 08:58

Move the goal-posts (again)pull out of the hinkley deal,it is an appalling deal for the taxpayer.

[pierre oreilly] 09/2/2016 08:00

Well given that over the last 50 years the UK has gone from hero to zero in nuclear expertise and consequently has to beg the Chinese to build nukes here, I'm not sure what else they could do. What do you suggest?

[robbo27] 08/2/2016 07:58

I am not against nuclear power per se as part of a pragmatic approach to energy policy,but (the government) seem to be approaching it (the policy)in a cack-handed manner.

[pierre oreilly] 07/2/2016 10:21

I'm not sure drax is doing much for energy security ... it imports almost all its wood pellets and i expect most of its coal these days (if not, it will be soon).

Burning most of the us southern states trees isn't really the way forward imv, that relies on gov policy rather than economics.

We are in the sh*t these days because of the anti-nuke propaganda over the last 50 years. It's ok today almost everyone saying we should have more nukes, but just a few years ago, almost everyone was anti-nuke, and any pro-nuke post of mine was usually met with accusations of being a mass murderer (literally!), which more or less forced the gov's hand in rejecting nukes.

I'm afraid we have the outcome we (or rather you in general) forced, and we'll have to pay for the anti-nuke stance in both higher prices, powercuts, and massive capital cost over many years to dig ourselves out of the mess (which will take decades of course).

Meanwhile, drax' future is ensured by the lack of schedulable generating capacity, more than ever necessary today to help ameliorate the negative grid effects of solar and windmills.

[robbo27] 04/2/2016 08:12

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.

[bookbroker] 04/2/2016 07:36

Shows how foci useless these govts. are when it comes to energy policy, Hinckley Point turning into a total fiasco, it might be complete by 2100, if it's ever built, and cost a trillion in over-runs!

[robbo27] 04/2/2016 06:49

Fiddler's ferry to close 3/4 of capacity by april.The move was condemned as"extremely disappointing" by the government!!Breathtaking hypocrisy!!