Member Info for 13thmonkey

Short jupiter and make more

Or it could be what might be black text on yellow, but that might be an artefact of the resolution, could easily be red text. Page 4 same link

I suspect that a concern is the indent that it is housed it, (which is very wide and does not impede the use of the estop). The examples here on page 7 are much more restrictive.
https://www.idec-emea.com/img/cms/IDEC/Expertise/EF3001-0_whitepaper_0225.pdf

Isn't all that DW says, over and over again, the BoD are useless, there are no sales, where are the sales, why are there no sales, various accusations of incompetence etc etc.
That's not
"Probably the best provider of relevant information that the board has seen over the last several years."

Now I'm not saying that there isn't trouble, but he's not the answer.

Sorry bondy.

Who is blondy?

Dw is too busy on twitter (could equally be Sturm though)

Haggis, We've not discussed it for years my memory isn't that good, I think I missed a few 9s off the high end stuff too.

Thanks, i'm purely thinking of technical differentiators, which are then the reasons why we have those partners because it's useful to them, so back to basics, as we've not had a discussion of the technical benefits for years now.
Anything i've missed out on why our technology foundation is better than someone elses?

It's been a long long time, and there are new faces, some of whom may not know what's different about AFC's product.
It's an alkaline fuel cell, very little by way of precious metals, or even metals from my last understanding of it.
This means it can take H2 that is at the lower end of purity range, this is significantly cheaper that the very pure H2 that other fuels generally need.
A side effect of this is that it can take H2 extracted from Ammonia without purification stages, this again is a massive benefit over other fuel cell designs. H2 is difficult to transport, it leaks easily because it's tiny and under pressure and low temps. Ammonia is a liquid, easy to transport.
These are 2 key advantages that we have, and should fuel cells be a solution used widely why we should do well, we've got cheaper fuel and a more tolerant system.

You did, sturm didn't, that was the post I was responding to initially.
And you then go on to get it all wrong, 4x 2.5kW is a system that can generate 10kW, so every hour 10kWh, it's a flow process, not a battery.
You really have no clue how these work do you.
A fuel cell takes h2 in and feeds out electricity and water, it doesn't hold h2, the only h2 in the 'cell' is what's being processed at that time. When you run out of h2 in a cylinder you change cylinder, or the manifold manages it. There is no 'max it can hold', so it's like a genset in that respect, the device that creates the electricity and fuel tank for that are two separate items of kit.
Something else you need to understand, these fuel cells unlike precious metal cells, can use impure h2, from memory 99% pure vs 99.999% pure. This is significantly cheaper and like running a genset on used chip fat vs super premium diesel. Other fuel cells get 'poisoned' by the impurities, alkaline cells don't seem to care.
Something further else you need to know, on the larger units they have attached an ammonia cracker to fuel cell, so you feed it ammonia (much much easier to transport and much more energy dense) and it converts to h2, and uses that, this is also impure, so is not an option for many other cells, but that's cheaper and more readily available than h2.
There's an image from klunk just below/above this.

Perception of future...
That perception is increased with actual contracts.
ITM are at c 100p down from 600p+ (300p+ more recently) the perception of future contracts has decreased,

Swingman. Precisely as I said. But the post I was responding to suggested that a 6kWh generator (no such thing) and you'd need 67 of those to match the 400kWh produced, which makes no sense, you'd need 67 hours from a 6kW machine yes, but not 67 devices.
Not sure if you didn't read what i'd said, but you've simply restated most of it.
They stated quite clearly 300 hours operating, 400kWh produced, =1.3kw average load on the tower, no idea if that average is useful, it could have been 30hrs at full load, and 270 hours at very low load.
I'm actually not sure what point you are trying to make, it works, it works on an industrial site with probably little on site care, it works so that construction site workers can use it, it's compliant with any future emissions regs. , it's quiet, it's not idling when waiting for power to be drawn, or causing a delay by starting up when power is needed like a genset does.

But to get 'proper' movement the contracts and the perception of future contracts will have to start to match and then exceed the mcap.

Sorry Daz, worded badly, 1 kwh = 1 unit of electricity (unit in the electric bills sense), vs kw being the rate it's delivered at.
Sturm's comment didn't make much sense, much like DW's on twitter.

Sturmtrupper

Posts: 896

Price: 18.94

Strong Buy

RE: ORDERSMon 17:51
swingman, do you read your posts before sending them... You are talking about a comparison of a 6kwh generator for £1080....what has it got to do or why being compared with one that produces 400kwh...are you making it up as you go along, how many 6kwh do they need to buy to have 400kwh of power...let me get my abacus out 400:6=lets say 67x1080=72360...

Marley yes, there might be a minimal amount of standby power, Vs a genset, unless you couple a battery to the set with charging circuits etc. You can get variable speed gensets but you then need lots of solid state electronics to convert whatever frequency is being generated into 50hz. Still get the noise and emissions.

Swingman, this is prepping for the future when diesel gensets on site are banned.

Yes it will only provide the power that's needed, else where does it go, a diesel genset will be effectively idling a no load, BUT at whatever speed it needs to produce 50hz, genset RPM's are locked to the frequency needed, not the power output (no gearbox), from memory (from the genset building business originally) it's 1500rpm for 50hz and 1800 for 60hz for a typical 4 pole machine.
Sturmtrupper, kwh are unit's of electricity not power, i.e. power x time, so 10kW x 10 hours is 100kWh. I suspect that the 6kwh was in error and should have been 6kW. Hence the accionia unit has been running at about 1.3kW on average 300hrs 400 kWh.
Swingman, diesel will at some point be banned from sites unless laws change. They will need an alternative at that point, burning h2 in a genset is very inefficient and the fuel bill will be very high, plus maintenance of machines with moving parts is higher. Also procurement will start to play a part, bids that are greener for building will be received preferentially, and part of that is on-site power.

So why are you here of you believe that? It isn't football and you support them because you have done for generations on pain of being kicked out of the house, and you shout constantly that they are rubbish. If you don't like how they behave or perform then leave.

fully replaced the diesel generators... there was no need for more power, what's the problem with that? I wait you telling me why them not using more power is a problem.
For them the question is ease of use, they probably picked that site (road construction) as a lower risk, easy to swap diesel in, site.