Member Info for Alfacomp

https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/blog/2019/03/27/shell-energy-s-renewable-promise-highlights-the-problem-with-regos/

Banxy - I hope that you are not with Shell Energy

For those who are perhaps overly impressed by the news reports of Largo's battery here are some facts:-

1) It seems rather difficult to claim of "50+ years of dedicated VRFB research" given the fact that the VRFB was only invented by Maria Skyllas-Kazacos 32 years ago.

2) Their supposedly patented "Inter-Digitated Flow Field (IDFF)" is common in the area - at the last International Flow Battery Forum meeting I saw at least 3 research posters that used those kinds of flow patterns inside the power stack. It is a trivially simple idea - simply cut channels in the electrodes so that the electrolyte doesn't have to flow through all of the other parts of the power stack to get to where it is ultimately going to react. In many ways it is simply the same as running the electrolyte through big pipes to multiple power stacks in parallel rather than having them all lined up in series (note - the flow configuration parallel/series need not be the same as the electrical voltage configuration) - so good luck on ever getting that patent to stick in a court of law. Unless you are talking the big boy money in military or biotech we all know that patents are so hugely expensive to defend that they are often only useful for impressing those who you would like to buy the company.

3) 4 hours to 15 hours battery duration - of course it is trivially easy to produce a battery with any duration you like. In fact you don't even need to increase the size of the storage tanks or add electrolyte - all you actually need to do is REDUCE the number of power stacks you have on the system - thus a 4 hour battery that uses 4 power stack can easily be turned into a 16 hour battery simply by taking 3 of the stacks away (of course the power rating of the battery then falls by 75%).

4) their reported DC efficiency of 78% is only average given the fact that flow field architectures are typically expected to have a 5% increase in efficiency - see for a discussion of flow field stacks from 2014 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013468614014510

Kyloe - yes thanks for proving that point so concisely.

NOT the same thing bristol blue. Round trip efficiency (electrical to electrical) of H2 electrolysis and recombination in a fuel cell is below 40%.

VRFB RTE is approx 80%. So the waste of using H2 as a 'battery' is 3 times as much as for a VRFB.

good luck to both of Lightningspike and Pdub - you're an inspiration for all of us.

will be working on it a bit more over the next few days DBB

jimbo66 and DBB - yet again we see a large delayed trade of 1.25M from the last trading day. If there is simply a transfer between a buyer and a seller it would appear that it is more than possible that this is being done in such a way as to 'paint the tape' with significant apparent 'sells' each day.

I wonder if this is illegal ?

well said raffym

no sammy you have got it right - the key thing in investing is, as you have identified, buy low and sell high.

That is why now is a good time to buy. What people like him would like you to believe is that the share price will never rerate and you should sell him your shares cheaply now.

I do not think so, just as the world is waking up to VRFB technology. You can see how concerned the incumbent technologists are - having tried to ignore and suppress it for years they are now being forced in to having describe VRFB's as 'complementary' to Lithium-ion - https://twitter.com/energystoragenw/status/1338323155102810112

Yeah, 'complementary' in that they do not burn and can be installed wherever they are needed, 'complementary' in that they are still running years after the lithium-ion batteries have internally degraded to such an extent that they can no longer be used, 'complementary' in that they become cheaper the more you get to use them, not die sooner.

could be very interesting.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/redox-flow-battery

bassguy - your theatre example only makes sense if there are no rules to guarantee that tickets are genuine as opposed to being sold by some guy with a colour inkjet printer.

In the case of tickets fake tickets are an example of fraud. In the case of AIM there is so little regulation that it is easy for obviously dubious business to poison the well for everyone else.

the many side reactions in the organics lead to decay of the active species rather too quickly. Water based organic electrolytes are in principle possible but the scientists don't get excited by it because the effective voltage is then constrained by the 2.0V breakdown voltage of water - so instead they prefer to go for organic solvents which ultimately are flammable.

Thus in the competitive rush to try and get research funding scientists are inevitably driven headlong down the route of running after energy density (as if that really is the limiting issue in stationary energy storage - it isn't) at the expensive of safety (it is). It is something of a fault with our research funding systems.

Okay

Ease. Off. Slogans.

either, plus the Market Maker can no doubt keep the evidence of either secret until it suits them, all in the service of 'making a market', naturally.

bassguy - it is more of a reflection of the rather ill-educated trading audience that AIM seems to attract. The sooner we are off this pathetic exchange the better.

would appear to be quite a healthy buy, assuming of course that it actually relates to today.

$20,000 tin implies roughly $10M revenue per year.

bassguy - no doubt all the freetrade trades being put through at the same time