Soco Share Discussion Threads

[steve73] 19/10/2016 08:10

Can't remember the source - but it referred to Si PV no more than a couple of years ago. Efficiencies have not increased much since then. TF and newer technologies may have reduced overall energy requirements, although efficiencies are much worse so require a larger area (which is fine in some applications).

A very recent report I saw from the NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) indicated a typical Solar generation total lifecycle energy cost of 53 te CO2 per GWhr (cf. 462 for Gas generated power which obviously refers to construction AND fuel usage). This figure suggest Solar is still around 4-5 years payback.

I agree the UK is not the best place for Solar PV, but it is important that it is close to the users, which make the UK more sensible than the middle of a desert.

[emptyend] 19/10/2016 07:54

Longer journeys (family holidays, etc, and some jobs) will be less suitable for e-cars, due to the relatively long re-charge rimes, since nobody would want to stop after every hour or so of driving for a one hour recharge.. It would double journey times - but looking further ahead, perhaps this is where leased (possibly driverless) e-cars could make more sense.. Simply drive to a recharge station, then jump into a fully charged car.. You don't so much rent the car, as rent the time in a series of cars.......so....back to the days of the stagecoach, where one had to stop several times to change to fresh horses?.....that's "progress" for you. ;-)

[nigelpm] 19/10/2016 07:48

Even without batteries, solar PV's require about 4-5 years of energy to produce them.

Where does this come from?

Some old papers I read from PV's produced in 2008 suggested 2.5 years on UK insolation levels. Therefore :

1) Solar PV is installed worldwide at average levels greater than UK
2) PV's are hugely more efficient now.

[steve73] 19/10/2016 06:02

Just wanted to join in the non-Soco discussion here..

Fanghorn, Whilst I agree that solar/wind cannot grow ad-infinitum without improved battery (or alternative storage) technology due to it's intermittent nature, it is likely that electric cars will address much of this growth. Most people use their car for relatively short commutes 2 times per day. An almost perfect synergy with solar generation: recharge during the day whilst working, and recharge again at night to keep the base load power stations (nuclear??) going at optimum rates.

Longer journeys (family holidays, etc, and some jobs) will be less suitable for e-cars, due to the relatively long re-charge rimes, since nobody would want to stop after every hour or so of driving for a one hour recharge.. It would double journey times - but looking further ahead, perhaps this is where leased (possibly driverless) e-cars could make more sense.. Simply drive to a recharge station, then jump into a fully charged car.. You don't so much rent the car, as rent the time in a series of cars...

Freight transport is another area where e-vehicles cannot obviously so easily replace the energy density of hydrocarbon based fuels, although again maybe a fleet of electric "tractor" unit could easily take turns at towing the load (driverless or otherwise).

Since the ground transport sector requires some form of "storage technology" anyway, this is likely to be the first sector to embrace large scale introduction of e-tech, and could increase the adoption of renewable electricity generation.

I think it VERY unlikely that aviation will ever replace liquid hydrocarbon fuels, although perhaps they could be supplemented by synthetic or bio-sourced fuels in the much longer future.

Another point to consider is the upfront energy requirement for manufacture of "renewable" sources. Even without batteries, solar PV's require about 4-5 years of energy to produce them. If solar continues to double at its current rate of every 18-24 months, it will soon be consuming a very significant amount of traditional Hydrocarbon fuels. I.e. to increase Solar's share of the global energy market from say 5-10% will require 20-25% of the global energy just to produce them. This is what will limit their continued rate of growth, and will also ensure that increasing traditional energy will be required for the foreseeable future (20-30 years).

[fangorn2] 18/10/2016 16:39

@Pineapple1

Big fan of this guys musing btw...very USA focused by the underlying gist is as appropriate over here/Europe

[fangorn2] 18/10/2016 16:37

Concur vis it's the rich/well off that beenfit. Given the proportion of subsidy to total bill it does indeed unfairly hit the less well off.

Personally not a avid believer in the global warming myth (or is it climate change, ie moving goal posts to fit the science!)

Still in Shell myself, but BP needs $55 or so to breakeven. Their divi surely must be questionable now.

Generally more bullish of Gold,inflation is coming, and it'll be unleashed to erode as much of the Non indexed National Debt as possible.

Tough times coming, all of which will be blamed on brexit, falsely, and nada on the global slowdown, the banking implosion in italy, China credit bubble, and round 32 of Greece debt saga.

[pineapple1] 18/10/2016 16:25

Fangorn.....No.
Its the rich or well off who will be the largest recipients of this. Subsidised by the poor and climate change fraud or did i mean levy.
imho

I agree with your comment regarding the majors. I sold out of BP far to early at about 4.50ish. Good profit but left plenty on the table. I won't chase it.
SIA i,ll be waiting to buy when we get another downleg in oil so on my watchlist again.
imho

[fangorn2] 18/10/2016 16:03

@PineApple1

Chaars.

Would you say that $11bn per annum is worth it?

[fangorn2] 18/10/2016 16:02

@Nigel,

You’d have to argue that in a democratic society if the will of the people significantly changes then there’s certainly a strong argument for changing course.

Normally I'd concur but in this instance when was the "changing" will of people considered from 1975 to 2016 - Maastricht,Lisbon(signed in secret by Broon)

British people sold a trading area, lied to, and then,over the years as "the Ted Heath Con" became apparent, the will of the people was consistently ignored by the political class.

20 years of hard work - being ignored, powers gravitating away from UK to EU daily, new treaties renamed (despite containing 99% of same content) & signed on our behalf resulting in even more powers being lost when the fine print was read...All this time will of people was never consulted - it was in Europe where it was ignored whenver the EU Commission got the answer it didn't want.

Well this time round I expect the same. A generation before we revisit.

As Dan hodges says, if its Revolution people want, then overruling referendum result is sure fire way to achieve that.

World is watching to see what precedent is set - Does a democratic vote count or can it simply be ignored & overruled if not to political classes liking.

[fangorn2] 18/10/2016 15:54

EE,

Agreed vis the subsidies. Perhaps abolishing those will reveal the true cost of Green Power & it's viability.

Battery storage is key...until they sort that we're going nowhere on solar front particularly.

Had a cursory look at Tesla//Solar City, First Solar, SolarEdge but reluctant to pullthe trigger.

With all thias talk about electric driverless vehicles and the like I'm intrigued as to where these corporates/governments pushing such think the consumers are going to come from given these technological advancements will cost hundreds of thousands of more jobs...If 95% of populace are on low wages/or 3-4 part time roles to derive sufficient income to live off hat chance they'll be able to afford to own such vehicles.



The next 10-20 years offer outstanding,& one hopes qualitative, leaps in the way we live our lives.

[emptyend] 18/10/2016 15:43

Interesting piece here on OPEC. Note the OPEC objective and the expectation of market balance in H1 2017:https://www.ft.com/content/274304d9-73aa-3791-b4af-a66e9eae6b7a

[invisage] 18/10/2016 13:19

Numpty empty...

[dukedosh] 18/10/2016 10:55

My last word on Brexit here. Everyone needs to read this, stop the stupid chatter, take it in and take it on.

Brexit: The hard and soft facts and the myths

[emptyend] 18/10/2016 10:21

Hi fangorn,Demand is always tricky to forecast, but one point to remember is that wind/solar subsidies have driven the scale economies here....and we are all paying for it with up to 20% on our fuel bills. Is that justifiable now costs have come down?Similarly, the 10-15 year peak point they forecast seems to be driven by assumptions about battery-powered transport. What are the underlying implications for eg lithium mining?....still wondering whether Ghawar can keep on plateau though.....;-)

[nigelpm] 18/10/2016 09:29

RE: Brexit.

It’s a tricky one.

I think it would take a serious downturn in the economy – perhaps large increases in unemployment, GDP falls > 3%, Consumer confidence rock bottom for anything significant to happen BUT....

If all/most of this comes to pass in the next six months before A50 is triggered (and it’s not out of the question) clearly public opinion will adjust.

There are already signs it is – lots of disgruntled leave voters saying they didn’t vote for increasing fuel and food costs – the reality being some of those had no idea what they were voting for!

You’d have to argue that in a democratic society if the will of the people significantly changes then there’s certainly a strong argument for changing course.

It’s all going to be very interesting – one thing is for sure there’s going to be lots of political wrangling and arguments for some time to come.

The best measure of where sentiment is going is probably to keep an eye on the GBPUSD FX rate.

[nigelpm] 18/10/2016 09:17

Peak demand not far away IMHO - and there will certainly be lots of oil left in the ground come what may.

I guess the medium term point is oil below $70 is worth pursuing - perhaps that will come down to $50 in time though.

[fangorn2] 18/10/2016 08:59

Interesting article....

Guess we will see "Peak Demand" in our lifetimes eh EE :)

What OPEC Oil U-Turn Missed: Peak Demand Keeps Getting Closer
Here is the opening of this interesting article from Bloomberg:

OPEC’s decision last month to reverse its policy of unfettered production and cut oil output to boost prices may be at odds with the industry’s most important long-term trend: demand for what they produce could start falling within 15 years.

If rapid improvements continue in renewable energy, electric vehicles and other disruptive technologies, petroleum consumption will peak in 2030 and decline thereafter, according to a report from the World Energy Council. As the globe’s largest producers gather in London this week for the Oil and Money conference, they might want to check their assumption that the market will grow for decades to come.

The plunging cost of renewable energy -- with solar-module costs falling 50 percent since 2009 -- is already upending the business model of utilities. Disruption could spread to the oil industry as electric vehicles become more economic than gasoline or diesel cars, potentially displacing millions of barrels of daily fuel use by the late 2020s. Projections for decades of demand growth that underpin investments in oil projects could be misplaced.

“The longer-term outlook, beyond 10 years, is certainly less rosy,” said Alex Blein, London-based energy-portfolio manager at Amundi, which holds more than $1 trillion of assets. “Given the advances in battery technology, by 2030 carbon-powered vehicles will be the exception rather than the norm. This will inevitably impact on oil demand.”


David Fuller's view
Whether OPEC actually reduces production, other than by accident, war or strikes, remains to be seen. However, OPEC is guaranteed to face more competition from countries which follow the USA lead by developing their fracking potential. Additionally, renewable technologies are likely to develop even more rapidly than forecast. Energy independence will be the ambition of every successful nation, and many will achieve it within the next fifteen to twenty years.

[buywell3] 18/10/2016 04:59

35$ OIL within 12 months .................. again

[ed 123] 17/10/2016 23:26

Yes, the chart encourages traders. However, this decline phase is somewhat complicated by the upcoming OPEC meeting, at which quotas may be agreed. Without OPEC, I'd have expected it to go back to 125p. This time I don't think it will go back that low. Maybe I'm agreeing with you after all, then ... 135p.

So, returning to your post 18709, if it's just a quick in and out for a few pence, then fair enough. I wouldn't buy and hold, though.

Whatever, I hope you make a bit. Good luck. :-)

[linton5] 17/10/2016 19:58

If you look at the chart since April 2015 it's a good trading stock,once Soco breaks above 165 170 it's blue skies.ive been in this situation before with IRV in 2010

[invisage] 17/10/2016 18:22

Steven Wolfe from UKIP quits... lolThese clowns are imploding. ee going to be UKIP Leader soon.

[ed 123] 17/10/2016 15:20

Hi Linton5.

Why come back??? If you've got your money out of Soco, you can go into any of the >2,500 UK listed shares.

Your money, your choice, of course, but surely you can find something better than Soco?

[linton5] 17/10/2016 14:11

Might come back in here again if it creeps to 135

[invisage] 17/10/2016 14:06

Why do you find it so hard to accept your loss ee?