Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Anonymous,CryptoPlankton,GrahamPlatt,Walkeia,genou, for Donating to support the site

The future for Energy Stocks?

General discussions about equity high-yield income strategies
Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4075
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 789 times
Been thanked: 1439 times

The future for Energy Stocks?

#251930

Postby Dod101 » September 15th, 2019, 7:50 am

Merryn Somerset Webb has an interesting article in the FT this weekend. She had attended the FT Weekend Festival last weekend and a speaker was claiming that we would be better buying green shares. If we had bought the FTSE All World index excluding fossil fuels we would have outperformed the index by 5.5% in the five years to March 2018. Investing in something called the FTSE Environmental Opportunities All Share Index we would have outperformed by 14.5%

We are probably all agreed that carbon releasing energy stocks (many in the form of oil) have a questionable future to say the least but of course 6% from say Shell gives us our money back in 10 to 12 years and we still have the capital although the 'green' lady said the dividend is not sustainable for very long. BP says it sees a major role for hydrocarbons until 2040, long enough for me!

MSW is writing about this in the context of income for retirees, the alternative being buying an annuity where of course we hand over £100,000 and get say £4,100 per year for life. Many though, including me do not want to give up their capital so she has an interesting suggestion. A time limited investment trust that holds only high yielding stocks made up of big oil, miners and other carbon producing ones.

For the less brave just buy a FTSE100 tracker, apparently currently yielding 4.1%, much the same as the current annuity rate for a 65 year old.

Sounds as if most of us are ahead of the game.

Dod

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4076
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 1473 times
Been thanked: 2570 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#251933

Postby Itsallaguess » September 15th, 2019, 8:12 am

Dod101 wrote:
Merryn Somerset Webb has an interesting article in the FT this weekend. She had attended the FT Weekend Festival last weekend and a speaker was claiming that we would be better buying green shares.

If we had bought the FTSE All World index excluding fossil fuels we would have outperformed the index by 5.5% in the five years to March 2018. Investing in something called the FTSE Environmental Opportunities All Share Index we would have outperformed by 14.5%


I agree that this is a very interesting area of the market.

In terms of long-term trends, I can see this market-segment becoming very important in terms of future Government legislation, so it feels like gaining some exposure to something like the FTSE Environmental Opportunities index might be worth considering.

What worries me is that when Governments start to legislate and spend money in these types of areas, unscrupulous companies tend to crop up to take short-term advantage of such legislation, which often doesn't lend itself to long-term income-investment...

Dod101 wrote:
For the less brave just buy a FTSE100 tracker, apparently currently yielding 4.1%, much the same as the current annuity rate for a 65 year old.


Relatively high FTSE100 yields often occur when there are large numbers of what might be viewed as 'outlier yields' occurring in the sector.

Looking at the current dividend data for FTSE 100 companies, we can see that there are 23 companies with a yield of 6% and over, with 11 over 7% -

https://www.dividenddata.co.uk/dividendyield.py?market=ftse100&sort=yield&order=1

The sustainability of those upper yields will be key to delivering the current 4.1% FTSE 100 yield on offer, and we must take a view on that when thinking of investing in a FTSE 100 tracker to achieve that 4.1% yield...

Personally, I still prefer a mix of similarly-yielding income-Investment Trusts, some of which invest outside the FTSE 100 market.

Wider diversification is more important to me at this stage than yield figures alone...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Dod101
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4075
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 789 times
Been thanked: 1439 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#251936

Postby Dod101 » September 15th, 2019, 8:21 am

That is a very interesting list of yields I must say. Some of these are in doubt but quite a number of those over 6% are not really. They must be good buys at present if we can ever get this pesky Brexit sorted (and I do not think it matters which way) That is surely the only reason that shares like L & G and say Phoenix Holdings are yielding what they are. Obviously the 'frozen' dividends of HSBC and Shell are inhibiting their share prices for now.

No one believes that the Centrica dividend is sustainable.

Dod

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4076
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 1473 times
Been thanked: 2570 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#251938

Postby Itsallaguess » September 15th, 2019, 8:57 am

One thing I meant to add regarding the risk of unscrupulous companies entering newly-regulated markets, such as the environmental one being discussed here, is to perhaps look to a high-yielding Investment Trust as a means to invest in the sector, where a level of sector-expertise can be taken advantage of by using an IT manager who might be able to discern between good and bad investments in that sector.

Such an IT that I've taken a keen interest in over recent months is John Laing Environmental Assets Group (JLEN), which is currently yielding around 5.5%, and is something that I intend to pursue in the near term -

https://www2.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=k8foj&skipre=1&univ=T

https://jlen.com/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

monabri
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3108
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 332 times
Been thanked: 833 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#252025

Postby monabri » September 15th, 2019, 4:16 pm

Dod101 wrote:Merryn Somerset Webb has an interesting article in the FT this weekend. She had attended the FT Weekend Festival last weekend and a speaker was claiming that we would be better buying green shares. If we had bought the FTSE All World index excluding fossil fuels we would have outperformed the index by 5.5% in the five years to March 2018. Investing in something called the FTSE Environmental Opportunities All Share Index we would have outperformed by 14.5%
Dod


It took some digging but "FTSE Environmental Opportunities All Share Index" has a ticker "EOAS". https://investing.thisismoney.co.uk/quote/EOAS

Now, if one had bought "vanilla" Vanguard All World (VWRL) or even Vanguard's S&P500 fund, VUSA, their performance relative to EOAS has been superior over the last 5 years.

Image

The next link indicates that the performance difference between the "All World FTSE index" and the "All World ex-Fossil" has not been all that great.

https://research.ftserussell.com/Analyt ... 05407e.pdf



VUSA
https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-sear ... etf-usdgbp

VWRL
https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-sear ... etf-usdgbp

scrumpyjack
Lemon Slice
Posts: 675
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 199 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#252032

Postby scrumpyjack » September 15th, 2019, 5:11 pm

It's no wonder that a portfolio excluding oil stocks for the 5 years to March 2018 did better than one that included oil. The price of oil at the start of that period was nearly $100 a barrel and it then fell sharply to well below $50. The lady was rather selective on her 'green' investment argument perhaps?

The world still needs oil for many many years and so avoiding holding the shares does not make you greener, whatever the Emma Thompsons of this world may say whilst jetting across the Atlantic to appear in climate change demos - the oil industry will carry on for some time so there is no point in not being an investor in it if you think it will be a reasonable investment for your own time horizon.

There is an argument that the expected lowering of long term demand for oil will result in a lower exploration spend and better profitability for the industry. No more spending billions on Artic exploration.

Arborbridge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3522
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 685 times
Been thanked: 1122 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#252457

Postby Arborbridge » September 17th, 2019, 8:41 pm

Itsallaguess wrote:One thing I meant to add regarding the risk of unscrupulous companies entering newly-regulated markets, such as the environmental one being discussed here, is to perhaps look to a high-yielding Investment Trust as a means to invest in the sector, where a level of sector-expertise can be taken advantage of by using an IT manager who might be able to discern between good and bad investments in that sector.

Such an IT that I've taken a keen interest in over recent months is John Laing Environmental Assets Group (JLEN), which is currently yielding around 5.5%, and is something that I intend to pursue in the near term -

https://www2.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=k8foj&skipre=1&univ=T

https://jlen.com/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


Looks like a 14% premium - a bit rich?

mike
Lemon Slice
Posts: 391
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 1:35 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 129 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#252489

Postby mike » September 18th, 2019, 12:40 am

Arborbridge wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:One thing I meant to add regarding the risk of unscrupulous companies entering newly-regulated markets, such as the environmental one being discussed here, is to perhaps look to a high-yielding Investment Trust as a means to invest in the sector, where a level of sector-expertise can be taken advantage of by using an IT manager who might be able to discern between good and bad investments in that sector.

Such an IT that I've taken a keen interest in over recent months is John Laing Environmental Assets Group (JLEN), which is currently yielding around 5.5%, and is something that I intend to pursue in the near term -

https://www2.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=k8foj&skipre=1&univ=T

https://jlen.com/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess


Looks like a 14% premium - a bit rich?


And from the AIC site, there zero revenue reserve to counter the inevitable bumps in the road - https://www.theaic.co.uk/companydata/CB8IU

From their https://jlen.com site, and searching CTRL-F in their annual report, "revenue reserve" does not appear once, and although the word "reserve" occurs 12 times, it is mainly as part of the word preserve. They do list a "retained earnings".

From https://jlen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WEB_01_JLEN_AR19-2.pdf, pdf page 124, page numbered 122

14. Retained earnings
.                             31 Mar 2019          31 Mar 2018 
£’000s £’000s
Opening balance 3,125 5,190
Profit for the year 53,352 21,060
Dividends paid (28,808) (23,125)
Balance at 31 March 27,669 3,125


Now if the retained earnings is the normal revenue reserve here, that is a wild variation between 2018 and 2019 from 1.6 months to nearly 12 months reserve.

The dividend CAGR is 2.1% (from 6.0p [YE2015] to 6.51p [YE2019]) so not outstanding.

Whereas the yield is interesting and the diversification and forward looking sector also attractive, the reserves question rings a bell for me without looking back further.

Itsallaguess
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4076
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:16 pm
Has thanked: 1473 times
Been thanked: 2570 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#252548

Postby Itsallaguess » September 18th, 2019, 4:43 pm

mike wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:
Itsallaguess wrote:
One thing I meant to add regarding the risk of unscrupulous companies entering newly-regulated markets, such as the environmental one being discussed here, is to perhaps look to a high-yielding Investment Trust as a means to invest in the sector, where a level of sector-expertise can be taken advantage of by using an IT manager who might be able to discern between good and bad investments in that sector.

Such an IT that I've taken a keen interest in over recent months is John Laing Environmental Assets Group (JLEN), which is currently yielding around 5.5%, and is something that I intend to pursue in the near term -

https://www2.trustnet.com/Factsheets/Factsheet.aspx?fundCode=k8foj&skipre=1&univ=T

https://jlen.com/


Looks like a 14% premium - a bit rich?


And from the AIC site, there zero revenue reserve to counter the inevitable bumps in the road - https://www.theaic.co.uk/companydata/CB8IU

From their https://jlen.com site, and searching CTRL-F in their annual report, "revenue reserve" does not appear once, and although the word "reserve" occurs 12 times, it is mainly as part of the word preserve. They do list a "retained earnings".

From https://jlen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WEB_01_JLEN_AR19-2.pdf, pdf page 124, page numbered 122

14. Retained earnings
.                             31 Mar 2019          31 Mar 2018 
£’000s £’000s
Opening balance 3,125 5,190
Profit for the year 53,352 21,060
Dividends paid (28,808) (23,125)
Balance at 31 March 27,669 3,125


Now if the retained earnings is the normal revenue reserve here, that is a wild variation between 2018 and 2019 from 1.6 months to nearly 12 months reserve.

The dividend CAGR is 2.1% (from 6.0p [YE2015] to 6.51p [YE2019]) so not outstanding.

Whereas the yield is interesting and the diversification and forward looking sector also attractive, the reserves question rings a bell for me without looking back further.


Thanks both - interesting and certainly valid points to consider -

Regarding Arb's point of a 14% premium, I agree that this is generally unhelpful, and is something that's put me off dipping my toe into this Trust at this stage.

I've actually been sitting on a relatively large percentage of cash for some time now, waiting for a general pull-back, and this trust is on my watchlist as a possible candidate for some of those funds if it were to be affected by such a pull-back.

That may or may not come to fruition, but I find it very helpful to have a solid watchlist of potential income-investment candidates for those periods where I'm accumulating capital rather than re-investing, and it's surprising what relatively 'temporary' bargains pop up during some market spike-downs.

As to the point Mike's made regarding 'revenue reserve', I note the following passage in the linked results PDF (Page 10) regarding dividend-cover -

Cash received from the portfolio assets by way of distributions, which includes interest, loan repayments and dividends, was £43.6 million during the year. After operating and finance costs, cash flow from operations of the Company of £35.6 million covered the cash dividends paid during the year of 6.46 pence per share by 1.2x and the declared interim dividends applicable to the year of 6.51 pence per share 1.2x, covered in more detail below.

Dividends - The Company has delivered consistent financial performance during the year, with a reported dividend cover of 1.2x. This is the same as the previous year and has been achieved while growing the dividend in line with inflation and without the Company issuing scrip in place of cash dividends.


https://jlen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/WEB_01_JLEN_AR19-2.pdf

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

midgesgalore
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 137
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 12:02 am
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#252608

Postby midgesgalore » September 19th, 2019, 1:49 am

Itsallaguess wrote:...

Thanks both - interesting and certainly valid points to consider -

Regarding Arb's point of a 14% premium, I agree that this is generally unhelpful, and is something that's put me off dipping my toe into this Trust at this stage.

I've actually been sitting on a relatively large percentage of cash for some time now, waiting for a general pull-back, and this trust is on my watchlist as a possible candidate for some of those funds if it were to be affected by such a pull-back.

...


Hi Itsallaguess

I note your interest on the purchase of JLEN or other green renewables candidates, I have been patiently waiting for a suitable entry point for one of these trusts and time is still ticking.
Since April 2019 I have been following a thread started by BusyBumbleBee on the Investment Strategies board
viewtopic.php?p=216655#p216655 that you may or may not have read.
In a potted summary for a buying opportunity you might wait for one of these trusts to seek new funds and issue new shares. These are usually offered at close to NAV as opposed to > 10% premiums.

The first page of the thread provides the majority of a data dump of the strategy.

My wife's portfolio holds UKW (Greencoat UK Wind) and I would be interested in holding JLEN or TRIG (The Renewable Infrastructure Group) once the premium reduces enough.

In line with that strategy TRIG might look to offer more shares very soon (185 million) as hinted in their last interim report.

midgesgalore

ayshfm1
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 138
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:43 am
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253107

Postby ayshfm1 » September 22nd, 2019, 9:35 am

I decided to ignore the green arguments on energy.

There were a number of reasons.

Firstly I simply don't buy into most of them as they end needing lots of space and lots of batteries. Not convinced the planet is any more saved doing this than what is currently going on.

Secondly they stack up as expensive by comparision - yes I'm aware that fossil is finite and eventually it runs out, though many argue we kill the planet before that happens so possibly moot.

Thirdly the only energy source that really does change the dynamics also wipes out all the renewables, where as it tends to complement fossil fuels. Anyone who thinks passenger planes will have electric engines deludes themselves.

So I'll summerise.

Fossil has uses that can't IMHO be substituted
Green as it stands today has a business case that has the potential to be blasted to bits

I have an open mind about what happens next - I try to come out OK on the swings and the roundabouts.

One scenario - the planet dies and we have bigger problems to worry about.
The other - fossil plays a far smaller part in the future and there is abundant nearly free energy

In all cases I come out OK, to the point where macro outcomes eclipse my micro circumstances :-) anyway.

I suppose I should stop teasing - fusion power is the outlier here. Fusion is the power of the future and always will be, is the addage and we've been trying for 60 years or so and pointlessly (IMHO) been financing large scale reacter tests in France at ITR and other places. So it could easily never happen. If it doesn't the planet is dead IMHO so our high yield investment decision are insignicant. If it does and there are a huge number of small startups trying to make it happen some very close (so they say). Then what does adundant free electricity do all those green projects? Dead overnight I would suggest, hence an unknown level of risk resulting in total wipeout and it could happen tomorrow.

As an example (there are many others in this game) - these guys look decidely possible

https://cfs.energy/

It also important to say fusion works, there is even a way to do cold fusion - but it's pointless unless more energy comes out than goes in, no one has been able to do that yet, but the big, if impractical Tokamak's are pretty damn close to break even. If someone crosses the magic profit threshold the investment thrown at them would be enormous not to mention they really will have saved the planet.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3059
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1571 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253127

Postby Gengulphus » September 22nd, 2019, 1:14 pm

ayshfm1 wrote:...Thirdly the only energy source that really does change the dynamics also wipes out all the renewables, where as it tends to complement fossil fuels. Anyone who thinks passenger planes will have electric engines deludes themselves.

Anyone who thinks they will have tokamaks also deludes themselves - tokamaks are big, heavy installations, even the smaller ones that are being worked on... Passenger planes will almost certainly be powered by chemical fuels, and the only candidates that look practical at the moment are hydrocarbons and hydrogen, with hydrogen having the practical advantage that it can be cheaply and efficiently synthesised using electricity, while hydrocarbons have the practical advantages of being easy to store and being the in-place technology.

ayshfm1 wrote:So I'll summerise.

Fossil has uses that can't IMHO be substituted

Obviously fossil chemical fuels can be substituted - with synthetic versions of the same fuels. For the chemical fuels in widespread use today, it's known technology, but it's unfortunately too expensive... However, technology has a habit of coming down in price as it is developed - if the development effort is put into it. For example, the other day I saw a story on the BBC indicating that offshore wind power had come down in price to the point that new installations no longer looked likely to require subsidies.

ayshfm1 wrote:Green as it stands today has a business case that has the potential to be blasted to bits

Just about every industry we invest in has the potential to be blasted to bits - given a suitable definition of the word "blasted" that doesn't imply a very short timescale...

And I don't see fusion as being at all likely to blast other energy-supplying industries' business models to bits if one uses a definition that does imply a very short timescale. It's all very well talking about it supplying "abundant nearly free energy" and (from your link) "One glass of water will provide enough fusion fuel for one person's lifetime" - but the cost of that water will be a miniscule part of the cost of fusion energy for a very long time, or quite possibly forever. The major part of it will be the costs of all the development and the capital & running costs of the plant, and they'll almost certainly be considerably higher than the costs of other forms of energy and slowly come down over time. And even when they are below the costs of alternatives, there will be a huge installed base of sunk capital costs to replace - things like the current issues of migrating houses away from using gas and other fossil fuels for their heating, cars away from using internal combustion engines, etc, would all be easy were it not for the huge installed bases of the current technologies.

I'm fairly certain it will take a few decades from the point that fusion starts to take off ( metaphorically - I'm not talking about those passenger planes here! ;-) ) to its competitors being in bits, and the point at which it starts to take off is still an unknown number of decades away. Yes, your link talks about commercialization starting in 2025 - but that is a new company with not-yet-proven technology talking about its own future, something which is almost always done with strongly rose-tinted glasses on. And fusion has a long history of people expecting it to become commercially viable in a lot less time than it actually turns out to need... (Which does not show that it will continue to do so forever - but does show that it's hard to predict when it will become commercially viable.)

ayshfm1 wrote:I have an open mind about what happens next - I try to come out OK on the swings and the roundabouts.

One scenario - the planet dies and we have bigger problems to worry about.
The other - fossil plays a far smaller part in the future and there is abundant nearly free energy

A third scenario: fossil plays a far smaller part in the future, and there is abundant cheap energy from fusion in the distant future, leaving a gap between them when things become difficult - and that gap is filled by solar power, wind power, wave power, etc, and possibly also by energy storage/transmission technologies other than batteries and power cables.

And there are numerous variants of that third scenario, using the different technologies to complement each other in a variety of ways. Basically, just looking at the swings and the roundabouts isn't enough - one needs to look at the seesaws, the climbing frames, etc, as well...

Or dropping the analogy, I don't think that concentrating on just fossil fuels and fusion is a particularly good idea. Given the plausible timescales, green as it stands today almost certainly has a major part to play in the next few decades, and I would want my diversification to include it, even if it is eventually doomed to be eclipsed completely by fusion.

One other point to bear in mind is that when new companies do start to take off, they often get taken over by established players with deep purses - especially when their expansion becomes limited by the availability of capital and if they're competing with other companies in a similar position in the same market... The current big energy companies are likely to be looking for fusion companies to take into their empires once they see them starting to take off, just as they are looking to expand into solar and wind power today.

Gengulphus

mattman74
Posts: 47
Joined: November 11th, 2016, 12:42 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253150

Postby mattman74 » September 22nd, 2019, 9:06 pm

Some random thoughts....

Fusion - probably 20 plus years away though there is a prototype reactor being built in the south of France.
It is VERY hard to do on a commercial scale.

The problem with remewables is the intermittent supply - you need energy storage. Battery technology is not there yet but storing energy by pumping water up a hill to a reservoir works well. There is a lovely site available on Loch Ness.

If we ignore the political risks National Grid could do very well from the infrastructure required for electric cars.

Once you have energy - it is easy to produce hydrogen from water.

Ethanol can be easily produced from grain. Car & aircraft engines can be modified to run on ethanol. Diesel engines would run on cooking oil with little modification.

Matt

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3761
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 1281 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253162

Postby tjh290633 » September 22nd, 2019, 10:16 pm

There is one energy source which is always available, but varies with time and location. That is tidal energy which is derived from the gravitational pulls of the sun and the moon.

The problem with using barriers and lagoons is that they tend to destroy much of the available energy. Submerged turbines such as have been demonstrated in the Pentland Firth and the Bristol Channel are likely to be better at converting that energy into electric power.

TJH

mattman74
Posts: 47
Joined: November 11th, 2016, 12:42 am
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253165

Postby mattman74 » September 22nd, 2019, 10:48 pm

Good points about tidal. It is predictable but somewhat intermittent of course. The tide doth turn.

Undersea turbines would work but a tidal barrage is very effective. The french have done this.

The Severn is ideal (i think it would supply about 8% of uk energy needs and you could use it as another transport link to Wales)
It hasn't happened because.... of the tweetie birds. Lots of feeding grounds at low tide & the barrage would flood them.
God bless the RSPB.

Sigh.

Matt

Alaric
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3652
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 718 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253168

Postby Alaric » September 22nd, 2019, 11:09 pm

mattman74 wrote:Ethanol can be easily produced from grain.


It's a way of converting solar energy to fuel. The downside is the land usage and the diversion of grain away from food. For that matter trees may need to be removed to free up land for grain production.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3761
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 248 times
Been thanked: 1281 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253189

Postby tjh290633 » September 23rd, 2019, 6:47 am

mattman74 wrote:Good points about tidal. It is predictable but somewhat intermittent of course. The tide doth turn.

Undersea turbines would work but a tidal barrage is very effective. The french have done this.

The Severn is ideal (i think it would supply about 8% of uk energy needs and you could use it as another transport link to Wales)
It hasn't happened because.... of the tweetie birds. Lots of feeding grounds at low tide & the barrage would flood them.
God bless the RSPB.

Sigh.

Matt

That's precisely why barrages and lagoons are unacceptable. The French example on the Rance estuary in Brittany showed that impeding the tidal flow reduced the available energy considerably. The associated loss of habitat and fishing opportunities is a major downside.

TJH

ayshfm1
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 138
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:43 am
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253236

Postby ayshfm1 » September 23rd, 2019, 10:35 am

The nub of my point, is all the green schemes look expensive to build and run, so resulting in a high cost product.

With the risk (we can debate the size of that risk but we cannot deny it exists) that they will be wiped out overnight by a nearly free alternative, hence none of my money is going into them.

I smiled at the thought of a Tokamak in plane. I think the ITER Tokamak is just jobs for the boys by the way, too big and too far into the future. It's the small startups that possess the potential to change the dynamics and you cannot discount that happening "tomorrow".

As an aside, everything also seem to revolve round boiling water turning it into steam and powering a turbine, got to be a better way.

Gengulphus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3059
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Been thanked: 1571 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253328

Postby Gengulphus » September 23rd, 2019, 3:50 pm

ayshfm1 wrote:The nub of my point, is all the green schemes look expensive to build and run, so resulting in a high cost product.

With the risk (we can debate the size of that risk but we cannot deny it exists) that they will be wiped out overnight by a nearly free alternative, hence none of my money is going into them.

There is a risk (we can debate the size of that risk but we cannot deny it exists) that the pharmaceutical companies will be wiped out overnight by a philanthropic scientist discovering an obscure cheap-and-easy-to-make-at-home medication that cures all diseases and making a gift of the recipe to all mankind. So better not put any of your money into pharmaceutical companies either... And just about every industry has similar "can debate the size but cannot deny it exists" risks, so better not invest in them either...

The point is that investment necessarily involves taking risks. Assessing which risks are realistic and should be taken into account and which are so tiny that one has to treat them as negligible is an essential part of investing - and so one cannot reasonably dismiss assessing the sizes of risks with comments like "we can debate the size of that risk but we cannot deny it exists".

Personally, I think that the chances of fusion commercially wiping out other sources of energy "overnight" are very small (even using a very non-pedantic definition of the term), the chances of it being "nearly free" until a lot of time and effort has gone into refining the technology are similarly very small, and so the chances of it doing both of those things are absolutely tiny...

Gengulphus

88V8
Lemon Slice
Posts: 569
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 101 times

Re: The future for Energy Stocks?

#253605

Postby 88V8 » September 24th, 2019, 3:22 pm

Green is all very topical, but can anyone make money out of it.
Tech was topical, remember, and the wipeout that followed.

I hold some Simec Atlantic SAE. Tidal energy. They were going to be a great thing. Fortunately I don't hold many as I'm down c90%.
Follow the saga in the discussions here
https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?Sha ... c-Atlantis

The sector is far too exposed to the whims of Govt funding.

Fusion... has been 20 years off for the last 30 years.

Electric cars, batteries. AFAIK there is not one plant in the world ready to recycle lithium batteries in volume. Quite simply, nothing matches the energy density of petrol, and imv, electric cars are just eco hogwash for those who wish to kid themselves about their impact on the world.

The green sector is interesting for folk with money to burn. And crystal balls. Crystal balls, now there's a product worth perfecting.

V8


Return to “High Yield Shares & Strategies - general”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests