Drax Share Discussion Threads

[nick rubens] 01/3/2018 10:11

Cheers Fanghorn2 Didn't realise it was that much.

[fangorn2] 28/2/2018 15:34

Drax Biomass Subsidies Rise To £729m In 2017
FEBRUARY 27, 2018




Last I saw on subsidy front fyi.

[nick rubens] 28/2/2018 11:19

Drax's profits and dividends have been shrinking for several years. Can this re introduced dividend be held over the next few years?

Is the Biomass still being subsidized in any way? The accounts are not easy to understand as everything positive was EBITDA.

Sounds like some cash was generated despite reporting losses. Some share buy back to come during the year.

[minerve] 27/2/2018 10:55

I'm in already. I might add.

[andyalan10] 27/2/2018 10:47

OK, so at 245p right now that is a forward yield of just over 5%.

Combined with confirmation the biomass loader issue is fixed, and the fact that it is freezing outside and that coal is currently providing 23% of the UK's electricity, I'm getting tempted to get back in here.

Not yet ready to hit the button.

Andy

[minerve] 27/2/2018 09:47

One thing I do like about this share is the absence of moronic politicians talking about price caps and SVTs. The silence is wonderful.

[minerve] 27/2/2018 09:45

Looks OK to me, so far. Still working on it.

[scemer] 27/2/2018 09:36

For me it's on track for £425m EBITDA by 2025 and the current 12.5p div

[zcaprd7] 27/2/2018 09:19

Not sure about those results, need some help?

[stal2309] 01/2/2018 15:55

Judging by the drop in price somebody knows and it's not good news

[andyalan10] 01/2/2018 10:57

In mid December Drax announced an outage in their automated fueling thingie. They said they expected it to be fixed during January 2018, and the hit was likely to be £10 million. Anybody know a) if it is fixed and b) if the £10 million was CY2017.

Held these until recently, out on the spike when 4th unit conversion was announced. May re-enter when I hear confirmation that they are operating normally again.

Andy

[zcaprd7] 17/1/2018 11:51

Let's hope Trump doesn't cut off our wood supplies lol...

[liquidkid] 20/12/2017 12:22

Outage? Someone can't get the chainsaw started. Stuff it its too close to xmas - shop will put a new chain on it in Jan.



The regulations will change faster than DRAX can change the ROC units.

[zcaprd7] 20/12/2017 11:55

Interesting article in nature regarding stars impacting cloud coverage one Earth.That outage is a bit pants, no duplication of critical supply assets? Tut tut...

[inv] 20/12/2017 08:24

Should rise again, massively oversold

[zcaprd7] 14/12/2017 00:35

Nice to see coal providing 21% of the UK's peak power requirements during the cold snap...

[rburtn] 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.

[zcaprd7] 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...

[rburtn] 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.

[minerve] 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.

[zcaprd7] 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.