Member Info for 13thmonkey

Winnings, How do you expect to develop a product, hell a nearly new technology in a new market, without making a loss? I bet ford made a loss for the first many years, amazon did, Microsoft did, Google did. Etc. Etc. If they place at a similar level to last time its an extra 10%, they have a product and sales, and importantly no debt, they could now borrow, but a small placement would have little material impact and be better value than debt.

That would be a very good reason afp

I'm more of the opinion that it is competing for sections of a 300M programme, would be more likely that there are several discrete outcomes to be achieved within that programme each of which would be a separate piece of work accessible through the agreement. This is one trust, where they lead others will follow. I've nothing to back that opinion up, other than to have a singular objective would be odd in my opinion. I can find no details on redstar?

The 300M program over two years is what interests me, shame to see 4 very big players there, they will carry a lot of extra weight into the bidding process, not really in a position right now to understand if they have a product. There is a remote chance they could simply rebadge someone else's product, or be supplying current tech solutions like gensets and a small battery to account for spin up time.

The spike will come with news of contracts, no contracts and it is dead anyway as a company needs sales. It won't be dead because of the lack of a spike, but because of the lack of the cause of a spike. On a heavily traded solid company, they might give hints of the future, but here it'll just tell you what has happened.

Only after the fact at the end of the year, not beforehand as you are saying, and only when most of your costs are production related.

At an aggregate level, as I said, yes you can, on a per unit machine basis, no you shouldn't publish that.

You misunderstand the kitchen analogy. As a buyer in a client of AFCs, you'll get a quote, you won't be told and we'll make 20% on this unit, whatever that number actually means. If you were told that as a buyer you'd think 20% that sounds like there's room for negotiation down to 15%. Similar when buying something big as a consumer you don't know the margin, all you can do is say is it similar to other prices or is it worth that to me, if I don't do this and the price changes by x is that lower price worth the difference in functionality or aesthetic. As in my other post the 20%figure might only be the Labour and material costs, include infrastructure and research and that 20% is actually negative, but they are accounting practises, but what are they using? Aggregating up all sales to a p&l at the end of the year leave less leverage to negotiate.

Sorry iPhone costs are well documented but companies that strip down tech to cost it, lot more than 30 to 50 or whatever values you used. The point is that no company describes their breakeven per unit, does it even make sense as a number? Do you include a decade plus of research costs? At what scale of production do you value it at? What about the cost of the facilitie? For a one off unit it'd be breakeven at 30+million if you did. Similar with the iphone what about the R&D to allow it to be produced? The cost of the factory not just the componentry. https://uk.pcmag.com/apple-iphone-x/91910/news/teardown-reveals-iphone-x-parts-cost-370 I'd probably sell up if they did disclose margins per unit as it'd remove competitive advantage.

As a customer you'd then use that as leverage to reduce the cost? Or as a competitor you'd know your target to design to, or to put in competitive quotes. Do you know what margin someone is making on a fitted kitchen when you get a quote? (only thing close enough I can think of in consumer space)

Breakeven, not simple to calculate. Let's say that they need 5m to run the company and make an arbitrary number of units. Let's say that their margin is 20%. Therefore they need to sell 25m to breakeven. As we don't know cost per unit the MWs is not known. Also the assumption of an arbitrary number of units is obviously wrong. But it hints at sales above 25M being needed on a standard sale of plant model, vs selling the power produced. On phone so not at my most eloquent.

Dig a hole, bury it in a mound, in a building, not an unsolvable problem.

Great explanation as to why now.

No idea where you read at cost from in that statement. They seem to splitting the piping to move hydrogen and cooling etc away from the cells, so you lease the clever bit with the ip attached, and you own the plumbing. If the protected bits are appropriately sealed then the ip is better protected, swap them out every few years and refurbish them. Doesn't seem that bad to me. I'm more concerned with the original plans for the benefit of the sale of electricity and where that money ends up. How does that work for customers? Or do they want to pay more for a maintained unit and use the electricity. You've got to sell in a way that customers want to buy, how flexible are we?

Gotcha, I'd have called a bottleneck a constraint to a known and expected level of capacity, the point being that this would create lateness etc. Hence customer dissatisfaction, and a harder position to sell from at a given margin. You're talking about a constraint to rate of growth, which is a whole different proposition as we can not take orders, constrained demand can increase prices, until a 3rd party offers an alternative. Far less concerned about the latter, not indicative of poor management (I'm ex manufacturing, and used to buy coating from bodycote.)

Honest question, what bottlenecks. This had been languishing in my account for a while and I've paid it little attention.

It's not the size of the system, it's another large customer, with other potential customers therefore opened up in the same industry, who are generally non competitive with each other.

Probably me. Assuming you can get a differential of 10p per unit, age can cycle the 125kwh once per day, and you have zero other costs, then the amount you cash earn is 4.5k per year, with a 48000 cost (from memory) that's over 10 years. 10p might be difficult, charging cheaply to hit a second peak is unlikely as the off peak is overnight, zero other costs is unlikely as it'll need to have a trained warm body to hit the stop button nearby, so that unit is overpriced for any kind of reasonable payback. However if connected to solar then you could leverage the 10p to a higher value as you'd have notionally zero charging costs, but again only one cycle.

Agree, not impressed with the start date, would be better if he could have explained why the start date is so far away. Liked the discussion around the next generation of battery power, and the other half of the business providing the business cases, means that they have their finger very much on the pulse of the pricing for the market. That other power pod shown here the other day seemed to have a 10 years + payback without finance costs,that'd be a non starter.

It's a balance between having a common core than you can make and variable bop, and various cores and still have variable bop. I'd argue that the complexity of the bop doesn't change much, it's pipes, manifolds and controls, vs the manufacturing complexity of different stack sizes. You could build the stacks for stock and respond quickly if there is no variation in them.