[ADVERT]
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Drax Group Plc 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
  19.50 3.61% 559.50 559.00 560.00 566.00 535.50 547.50 874,873 14:16:19
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Electricity 4,235.0 -234.7 -39.8 - 2,232

Drax Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4376 to 4395 of 4550 messages
Chat Pages: 182  181  180  179  178  177  176  175  174  173  172  171  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
28/3/2020
16:43
It's all a bit boring this lockdown but that's how it started Nick. For better or worse, Drax is a 'climate' stock - or as I would rather put it - an intermittent renewables stock. It is not free to compete and generate power as economically as possible. That said, pointless ideology should be off the agenda. I wrote to Drax CEO asking for the economic case (explaning its irrelevance) for carbon capture, no reply of course.
rburtn
28/3/2020
12:49
Interesting debates here but maybe we should stick to stock market and Drax!
nickthegambler
28/3/2020
09:45
Again you are jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the evidence. You are the only person here who is fired up. As I said before, it IS possible to have an equable conversation about anthropogenic climate change. "Carpet bombing the public with nonsense obviously is effective. What would governments do without you?" These are very silly remarks.
cjohn
27/3/2020
21:28
Don't get so fired up CJ. Carpet bombing the public with nonsense obviously is effective. What would governments do without you?
rburtn
27/3/2020
20:23
rburtn "Thanks Cassini, as for CJ, forget it, I know my subject - not that it requires much to understand what I have declared." Good to hear you know your subject. But then the tens of thousands of scientists involved in climate change science who disagree with you also know their subject. Or do you think they are all idiots? I understood the points you made. Again, you have jumped to conclusions that aren't supported by any evidence. "But when I see someone lampooning conspiracy theorists, I sense they are members themselves." This is paranoid nonsense. Again, you are jumping to conclusions about me that have no basis in reality. It is perfectly possible to have a equable conversation about human-caused climate change. But if your position is that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or part of a "conspiracy", then there's no basis for a conversation. You must see that. Thank you, Cassini, for laying out some of the well-known problems with climate change science. As I'm sure you're aware, several of the points you make are heavily contested. Have a good evening, both of you. 15th day in strict lock up here in northern Spain. PS Very small position in Drax.
cjohn
27/3/2020
17:40
Drax dividend looks safe and maybe the market will start looking more closely at those types of company Pharma / Telcos / Food retailers etc that can So many have and will pull their dividends
panshanger1
27/3/2020
16:18
Thanks Cassini, as for CJ, forget it, I know my subject - not that it requires much to understand what I have declared. On the broader topic of conspiracies, they are the default position of mankind. Before the law changed, insider dealings were OK, and so today there exist many IT cartels which in the time of Standard Oil would now be broken up. A euphemism called networking has legitimised it. But when I see someone lampooning conspiracy theorists, I sense they are members themselves. I know the good reasons why CO2 is fingered - and also the bad reasons H2O isn't.
rburtn
27/3/2020
16:12
Yes panshanger - looks much better than before when it was tanking no matter what. maybe it shows the idiosyncratic nature of some of these lesser stocks and the fact that money could be made from that (but by better investors/traders than me!)
nickthegambler
27/3/2020
16:02
Nice up tick on a bad dayMarket starting to think there is value here ?
panshanger1
27/3/2020
15:29
No one questions the C02 greenhouse effect. In a laboratory, it is easy to demonstrate and explain. The scientists then though have to add a feedback figure to that basic effect to account for the complex system that is the Earth. This factor is currently several times the base greenhouse factor, depending on who models it. The Earth is an extremely complex system with various feedback loops and uncertainties (such as cloud cover feedbacks) which defy analytical so;utions. Modellers then make up a 'model' in software to try and model the increase in surface temperature of the Earth. They use a lot of free parameters, not all well understood. Hence the multipicity of models. They then 'back-test' the models to the known temperature record to 'tune' it. The result is that all models will predict the past well. The future? Well, it doesn't necessarily follow. I recall an interview of Freeman Dyson on Youtube, recalling his visit to Enrico Fermi the great physicist, to tell him of encouraging results in some new theory of pions to explain certain observations (quarks hadn't been invented back then). Fermi gave the paper a quick look, and told Dyson he wasn't all that impressed with the 'fit' to the data. Dyson asked why. Fermi asked how many free parameters Dyson had used to tune his model. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV41QEKiMlM) Dyson answered he used four. Fermi replied that John von Neumann always used to say that with four parameters, he could fit an elephant. With five, he could make it wiggle its trunk. Also, there are some bad hombres in the climate world. Michael Mann, who produced the famous 'Hockeystick' chart showing temperatures exploding upwards (hence hockeystick) in the 20th century, based his work on tree ring width. He measured tree rings going back a thousand years. Without getting into the complexities of why this is a very second-hand way of measuring temperature, he did something unforgiveable - he spliced the instrumental temperature record of the 20th century onto the tree ring temeperature record he derived. What he didn't let on, was that his tree ring data extended right up to the present and thus covered the 20th century too - except his tree ring data suggested a big down-turn in temperature in the 20th century. He ditched that inconvenient truth in favour of something that suited his political opinions, and spliced in the instrumental temperature record. One of his ex-colleagues explains this to an audience in another Youtube video, and he is none too happy with Mann. You won't read this in the papers or see it on TV though, as it doesn't suit the narrative.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk) Seen a graph showing sea level rise accelerating? Smoke and mirrors again. There are two ways to measure sea level - the tide gauges and satellites like JASON. Tide gauge data has its difficulties as some land rises and some sinks, but there's a long record and sea level rise is something like a constant 2.2mm/year from 1900 (goes back to 1850 in fact). The satellite data do not agree. It comes in with something like 3.3mm year. Guess what happens if you splice the satellite data from the last two decades onto the tide gauge data? You got it! BTW, there are many difficulties with reconciling the satellite data with the tide gauge data, and many corrections to apply to the satellite data to get the final figure. No one on TV or in the papers seems to lower themselves to examing the nitty gritty though as global warming now has all the hallmarks of a religion, including denounciations of heretics. I saw some similar psychology at work after the Brexit vote when I went to the tea room and was astonished to hear some clever clever colleagues (everyone had a degree or better) all agreeing amongst themsleves that only thicko gammons voted for Brexit and it was surely time now to bring in some sort of qualification for being able to vote in elections - like holding a degree - like what they had ;0) PS: I first copped that global warming was more of a belief system than anything else in the eighties when ITN did a series of special reports. One of them had a graphic saying 'Six Bad Things About Global Warming', which they proceeded to detail. There was no counterbalancing 'X Good Things About Global Warming'. It's not that one can't think of any either, but the fact is they couldn't countenance giving it a balanced approach. There was a narrative and that didn't fit the narrative.
cassini
27/3/2020
10:32
CJ Did you actually read what I wrote? Your powers of understanding simple logic and quantum are seriously lacking. It's a different field but I suggest you read this: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 If you've ever written a scientific publication, let alone been a researcher, you would understand how confirmation bias can run and run and run.
rburtn
27/3/2020
09:38
rburtn 22 Mar '20 - 20:36 - 3353 of 3361 "The world economy is on the point of collapse and could do without the contrived expense of greenhouse mania when much cheaper alternatives now exist." "and believe you me, physicists know it is nonsense." It's not a question of "believing". You are factually wrong on this. Nearly all scientists accept the science behind human-created climate change. "Contrived expense of greenhouse mania." This is particularly silly and conspiratorial.
cjohn
26/3/2020
16:21
Yes looks like closed slightly down with market up in the end!
nickthegambler
26/3/2020
14:25
Nick, you spoke too soon ;0)
cassini
26/3/2020
10:22
Hi Cassini, thanks for clarification - i must say it's rather odd how few postings there are on this thread considering the volatility -- and perhaps the value in this share. Anyway at least today is the first time since i've been following it that it's gone up on a down day (so far!)
nickthegambler
25/3/2020
20:39
I'm speaking to the unseen censor. I presume it's the owner of this thread. If I'd lost one post I might have thought it was finger trouble, but two?
cassini
25/3/2020
20:38
Not you Nick. I've posted twice on this thread, nothing remarkable, and both posts have disappeared. EDIT: I've posted several times but twice where the posts have disappeared.
cassini
25/3/2020
20:36
Hi Cassini - may I ask who you are referring to with your previous remark
nickthegambler
22/3/2020
20:36
The unique aspect of Drax is that it is run to comply with a government 'greenhouse gas' agenda forcing renewables. The directors' fiduciary obligations to shareholders are secondary. To continue in this vein, our directors should see to it that shareholders are adequately compensated. A 9.5p final dividend is the least one should expect. If cheap fossil undermines renewables by making subsidies unafordable, then Drax should return to using them and not go belly up on account of a bogus belief system. The world economy is on the point of collapse and could do without the contrived expense of greenhouse mania when much cheaper alternatives now exist. If the virus achieves anything, it should enforce some honesty in the Climate Change charade. Some hope, the meeja and government messengers are already out there claiming reduced activity - CO2 - is combating climate change. This dogma is peddled remorselessly and believe you me, physicists know it is nonsense. You will be hard put to find any credible numbers in the narrative of how a passive greenhouse gas at two or three parts in 10,000 works Earth up into a lather. Contrast that with the way water vapour shifts energy around. Half the sun's energy at the surface is used to evaporate water. Up to 1000 times more in the air than CO2 it is the major climate variable which is set in real time rather than by geological timescales. Evaporation is a surface property and mankind has plated and drained Earth's surface with impermeables in parts per hundred so impacting the vapour phase in the same proportion. One Heathrow runway of 50x3000m displaces 12Mw on average from cooling to heating and punches a massive hole in cloud cover downwind. The entire complex of peri-tracks, dispersal areas, second runway and buildings multiplies this by at least four. It makes the absurdity of the greenhouse tale irrelevant by orders of magnitude. The fossil fuel industry needs to throw off the shackles imposed from above on a false premise and seize the opportunity to rebuild our economy if only in the short term. Security of supply is one thing but it has nothing to do with Climate Change.
rburtn
22/3/2020
19:03
Certainly a bit of a mystery - dropped like a stone last few days - hopefully might bounce at some point - if not could be a really good bye if nothing untoward involved in drop.
nickthegambler
Chat Pages: 182  181  180  179  178  177  176  175  174  173  172  171  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
DRX
Drax
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

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

P: V: D:20211019 13:33:28