National Grid Share Discussion Threads

[stevie blunder] 13/6/2015 08:34

Thanks for the link blueledge, interesting.
However there are fundamental problems with energy storage because of the Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROI) problem. Storage just makes things worse. Worth getting your head round, here is a link to discussion of a recent paper:


"Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization."

EROI should be a metric right at the centre of all discussion of renewable energy, but is almost never mentioned. One does not need to be a cynic to ask why.

[blueledge2] 12/6/2015 18:49

hxxp://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/hydrogen-energy-storage

Very interesting item.

[pvb] 12/6/2015 18:28

Glad to hear it. Long may it remain so.

[bountyhunter] 12/6/2015 17:45

whatever you call the thread you can't control the posts or freedom of speech although derogatory remarks about other posters are not welcome here and I suggest we draw a line under that; posts here have generally been interesting and informed; obviously there is the occasional exception but that's certainly not been the norm here over a long period of time

[pvb] 11/6/2015 18:05

gbb483 11 Jun'15 - 11:50 - 3506 of 3508

Aether does exist - what do you think causes light to bend around stars?

Groan. I made a mistake. I thought this was simply a regular ADVFN investment thread! I hadn't reckoned on it being yet another toe suckers and froot pickers thread. As if there are not enough like that already on ADVFN. :-[

Time for another thread? The Sensible and Reasonable Person's NG Thread?

[pvb] 11/6/2015 17:59

Pierre Oreilly 11 Jun'15 - 08:58 - 3504 of 3507

1st post on here pvb?

While i could vaguely understand such a post if it came from a regular contributer, i can't understand it from someone with previously no previous interest on ng whatsoever.

Same old Oreilly, same old "ignorance is Truth".

I have been invested in NG for some while - it isn't compulsory to post on here the very moment you buy a share. But don't let boring old things like facts and stuff get in the way of your prejudices, Oreilly. I mean, you never have in the past.

[gbb483] 11/6/2015 11:50

Aether does exist - what do you think causes light to bend around stars? The experiment centuries ago would've found it if they'd had one arm of the test jig vertical and the other horizontal, rather than both horizontal with 90deg between them. They put both arms normal to the flow of the aether.

[tonio] 11/6/2015 10:12

Ouch,Just had breakfast and saw this. I winced at the t-word - very hurtful.
First time I've been verbally mangled by a polymer - could have been worse I guess, could have been pvc!

[pierre oreilly] 11/6/2015 08:58

1st post on here pvb?

While i could vaguely understand such a post if it came from a regular contributer, i can't understand it from someone with previously no previous interest on ng whatsoever. We are all big boys on here pvb, and we have intelligent discussions with a range of viewpoints, so please don't spoil it here by joining in. We don't need uneducated, single issue obsessed outsiders to tell us what we can and can't post.

i know your aim is to suppress all dissenting opinion on the global warming orthodoxy but it's quite valid to touch on that on here, and anyhow, it's absolutely nothing to do with you if we do or don't.

[pvb] 10/6/2015 21:57

Anyway the whole world now seems to have accepted the 'scientific consensus' of climate scientists that reducing man-made carbon dioxide is absolutely vital to save the planet. It amazes me because as any scientist should know the 'scientific consensus' argument is only ever resorted to when there is no clear evidence that something is true or not. A classic example was the 'scientific consensus' that the aether existed - this persisted for many years before relativity theory obviated the need for it.

Groan! Don't say we have to put up with this tedium on here as well? Can't we at least keep it off company boards?

[tonio] 10/6/2015 19:10

Government energy non-policy in the nineties and noughties failed to do anything about replacing ageing nuclear power stations; then the whole weird 'man-made carbon dioxide is bad' situation arose without, sadly, a sliver of real evidence either that carbon dioxide per se drives climate change or that man's activities would make a blind bit of difference even if it did. Curiously as a result of this nuclear reactors suddenly became acceptable - unfortunately too late to get a competitive price as in Europe the French have a near-monopoly.
Anyway the whole world now seems to have accepted the 'scientific consensus' of climate scientists that reducing man-made carbon dioxide is absolutely vital to save the planet. It amazes me because as any scientist should know the 'scientific consensus' argument is only ever resorted to when there is no clear evidence that something is true or not. A classic example was the 'scientific consensus' that the aether existed - this persisted for many years before relativity theory obviated the need for it.
So now we are stuck with daft wind-power and this week a version of tidal power which will go only a very small way to meeting our future energy needs - at enormous cost; all very sad when we are sitting on coal and gas reserves that would sort out our energy needs for the forseeable future.
If you compare us to the US who have transformed their energy situation since 2008 with fracking and increased production of local oil we are in dire straits.
Anyway as Pierre and redartbmud already said, NG carries on regardless of energy source - Carry on Gridding I guess. If it weren't so sad it would almost be funny.

[redartbmud] 10/6/2015 13:07

PO

The gov needs NG whether implemented sensible policies or barking ones.

One of the reasons I am invested here.

red

[redartbmud] 10/6/2015 12:20

PO

Thanks for the comment. I suppose that I am cautious by nature, and certainly believe that you cannot trust the politicians to always do the right thing. The energy policy has been woeful at best for a number of years now.
Ng. has been one of my biggest holdings since 'time immoral', so I keep a watching brief, and test the theory of the business plan at regular intervals.

red

[pierre oreilly] 10/6/2015 12:03

Red 3490, all the factors you mention are known to the regulator. It's him who decides the investment, where it comes from (ng. or customers), the return ng will get on it. The regulator will enable/allow/force a return compatible with long dated gilts imv. He won't allow ng. to get into any situation which threatens its existence, including low shareholder returns (and everything else). Doesn't mean the price and yield won't vary up and down depending on the circumstances. Ng just decide the day to day running to implement what the regulator (i.e. the government) wants.

Imv, It's totally misguided to view the regulation of ng in a similar manner to the regulation of water, or even electricity suppliers imv. they really add little value and are just retailers with little expertise beyond inventing complex tariffs. Ultimately ng are central to our defence, and have a great deal of knowhow and expertise, as you would expect due to the complexity of running the grid to the governments exacting requirements.

[jr_] 10/6/2015 11:30

Salpara111

This article may or may not put you off trusting the brokers.

hxxp://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1012525624756423720

IMO they cant be trusted either way for buy or sell.

Think it was a case of buy buy buy and forget anyone but themselves...

[tonio] 10/6/2015 11:09

For me rsi(20) is not too bad an indicator.

[bountyhunter] 10/6/2015 11:07

red - no snakes here I hope ;~)

[hjrose] 10/6/2015 10:18

The deal with Berkeley group has yet to be factored in

[redartbmud] 10/6/2015 09:54

bounty

I like the ladders, but am not so keen on the snakes. Time for another ladder please.

red

[bountyhunter] 10/6/2015 09:31

It's a bit of a stretch but I suppose with a will you can show anything with charts!


free stock charts from uk.advfn.com

[redartbmud] 10/6/2015 09:13

LG

I agree that the regulator allows for the 'cost of capital' in the calculations, but you can't get away from:
1. The current level of debt on the B/S.
2. The forward capex programme to maintain and replace the dicrepit part of the grid and the ongoing cost of connecting new technology inputs to replace decommissioned power stations.
It adds up to a good slug of billions that needs to be financed over several decades from now. Successive governments need to be onboard with the plan. Looking at water, they were very hard on the companies in the last round of regulation. Lovely Liv at SVT described the task as 'challenging', meaning that they had to run a lot harder to stand still. She re-based the divi at get go.
I am just flagging up the signals.
For my part I hold a significant position in the grid, but will continue to monitor the situation closely.

red

[bountyhunter] 10/6/2015 09:11

Interesting LG, I thought that must be how things work.
So with interest rates I guess any short term effect on the share price is a case of whether any change is suggested by the powers that be to be sooner or later or smaller or greater than expectations, with all eyes on the US as a potential future indicator and forecast and actual economic growth figures driving the powers that be.