|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Apr 28, 2017 19:35:13 GMT
I'd have liked it better if we weren't running coal fired stations on imported wood chip, but yes, a step in the right direction. I'm all for offshore wind - somewhere out in the roaring forties - and lots of solar farms (Sahara for a start).
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartassetzcapital on Apr 30, 2017 16:21:17 GMT
We've always been much more cautious of the additional offshore risks but will suggest we reevaluate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Apr 30, 2017 19:30:01 GMT
May they all spin their way to hell and remove their blight from the landscape. I wonder, what happens to windfarms (and individual wind turbines) when they are life expired? Who pays for their removal, especially if the owning companies have gone bankrupt? (Not pointing fingers anywhere, this is just a general theoretical question.) Not 100% sure, but I think it's down to the individual agreements written at the time, from memory they tend to say it's the responsibility of the owner, not the landlord, to return the area to the pre-WT condition. But it's likely or possible that a new agreement will be signed if all went well before I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2017 13:38:29 GMT
We've always been much more cautious of the additional offshore risks but will suggest we reevaluate. TRIG are doing pretty well. They pay a divi of about 6.4% annually as of this morning with what looks like some capital growth. Their assets are generally in the UK and France. Having a link into France also opens them up to opportunities in Morocco (world's largest solar farm is in Morocco) and they come back to the shareholders for more cash to make investements. In one of my "hold-em" piles. Not sure why turbines being sat in water should be any riskier than sat on dry land. There have been no "ship runs into turbine" stories and I know of only one case of a drunk fisherman hitting one. Given the potential plan for the Dogger Bank ( a whole island may be created and given over to turbines) and with EU targets, British targets and Paris commitments being what they are the investment opportunities in power cable laying across Europe and turbine installation is hotting up not cooling down. AC should be in there.
|
|
pikestaff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,187 
Likes: 1,546
|
Post by pikestaff on May 7, 2017 5:34:25 GMT
We've always been much more cautious of the additional offshore risks but will suggest we reevaluate. TRIG are doing pretty well. They pay a divi of about 6.4% annually as of this morning with what looks like some capital growth. Their assets are generally in the UK and France. Having a link into France also opens them up to opportunities in Morocco (world's largest solar farm is in Morocco) and they come back to the shareholders for more cash to make investements. In one of my "hold-em" piles. Not sure why turbines being sat in water should be any riskier than sat on dry land. There have been no "ship runs into turbine" stories and I know of only one case of a drunk fisherman hitting one. Given the potential plan for the Dogger Bank ( a whole island may be created and given over to turbines) and with EU targets, British targets and Paris commitments being what they are the investment opportunities in power cable laying across Europe and turbine installation is hotting up not cooling down. AC should be in there. AC and other platforms have foocused on the small end of the market: small-to-medium turbines on farms. Offshorre wind farms involve large numbers of bigger turbines with bigger installation costs as well. It's not easy to see how AC could get involved except as a participant in someone else's deal.
|
|
