The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
I’m a little surprised by this. Westinghouse chose Bloom and their SOEC electrolyser technology. The waste heat from nuclear apparently makes it ideal for combining with SOEC in high temperature electrolysis. This looked like it might be an important niche for SOEC.
I guess none of these companies really know the best technology for electrolyser. It’s all still to play for. What is clearer and clearer though is that hydrogen is happening, quicker and at larger scale than envisaged 6 months ago. That is not reflected in share price of any hydrogen company currently- they are all languishing, even those with huge orders.
Conversely the big oil companies don’t sign exclusively.
Shell has a big PEM electrolyser in Germany with ITM, this one in Holland using alkaline electrolyser with Thyssenkrup and most recently with us (Ceres) using SOEC. It’s fairly clear what their strategy is. If Ceres/SOEC proves most efficient (as we expect it to be) then potentially huge opportunity.
To be honest I think Polars performance pretty decent. It was on this forum and through their SNG holding that I became aware of them as a company. Share price for polar up today (3%) albeit well off highs of 1 yr ago.
Good company. Share Price will come back. Be sure not follow my investment advice though. Ive a great track record of losses.
41% doesn’t sound great.but most conventional internal combustion engines are reported to have around 20% thermal efficiency, probably less for the larger truck engines.
Fuel cells should be more efficient.
I’m on the optimistic side of the spectrum but I have not given up hope/expectation of an EUA.
The overall data tell us that SNG001 is safe and very likely effective (circa 90% chance across all groups in oer protocol P3 in IP setting). Deep dive tells us which group is most likely to benefit most.
For EUA there needs to be a credible plan to fill in blanks and get evidence up to full approval standard. For this the platform trials are needed.
At the moment we are awaiting NIH plan for new trial. My genuine belief is that EUA and NIH platform trial will come as a pair.
The other side of this is that the world would not forgive more dilly dallying to tidy up/perfect evidence if another more serious variant surges and we/FDA/NIH are sitting on the most powerful variant agnostic therapy for in hospital patients. I will say that again - the most powerful variant agnostic therapy for inpatients most severely effected by covid . 70% RRR for those most severely effected- SpO2 <92% and rapid breathing.
Hold firm. SNG001 will come through.
https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/westinghouse-and-bloom-energy-sign-letter-of-intent-to-accelerate-zero-carbon?hs_amp=true
I meant to send link.
Bloom have signed a letter of understanding for nuclear to hydrogen using SOEC technology. They say Solid oxide ideally suited for this. My understanding is that only Bloom and Ceres have advanced SOEC tech. Potentially a new market? Not certain if technically this is green hydrogen but certainly better than blue environmentally. Maybe cyan?
Exciting development though as not as much competition in this sector.
With EUA the FDA say they accept maybe benefit as a standard of evidence but that should be coupled with plan to get the requisite evidence.
In my view therefore EUA possible on what we have but it would need to be coupled with plan for the platform trial to support full approval. Twin track approach.
I suspect that is part of the hold up.
In my view it would be appropriate for the company to make this clear. That may be part of the plan to indicate where the company is going in the next 2-3 weeks.
Sentiment very risk averse currently. Plug SP has barely moved from near 18 month low despite this!
ITM could do with an order of this magnitude. Perhaps the Vitol JV will yield significant orders!
The EUA guidance was written in 2018, long before covid.
I do agree that while EUA is still in place for covid 19, the situation has changed in that there are some therapeutics available. SNG001 though stacks up well against these- see my previous posts for details.
I genuinely believe, based on the data so far, that there is strong evidence of efficacy. We also have great in vitro evidence. Elsewhere in the 2018 EUA document they do state that this will be considered.
If we had a platform trial, EUA could be applied for with full trial results pending. This is where SNG should be going. There may be a severe variant causing problems in South Africa currently. No time to lose. I say that as a clinician more than as an investor.
“Medical products that may be considered for an EUA are those that "may be effective" to prevent, diagnose, or treat serious or life-threatening diseases”
I think some here may be applying full license criteria. The EUA guidance emphasis “may be effective”.
In my view SNG001 more than qualifies. Link below. Read for yourselves.
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities#criteria
I agree. See my previous posts for detailed analysis of why.
Reading the text if EUA requirements also gives cause for optimism. I just hope the company have the nerve for twin track approach.
1) EUA
2) Large platform trials in both IP and OP setting.
They are definitely keen on 2). I hope now they will push on with EUA
In considering the potential of SNG001 we need to look at the competition and how it came to be in common usage. We have relatively little info on out of hospital efficacy at present so we must confine ourselves to looking at in hospital therapies. I have posted here before on this issue.
1) dexamethasone. It took multiple trials over many thousands of patients and a meta-analysis to show efficacy in a subgroup. The main benefit is for those in critical care. At best 30% rrr (relative risk reduction for death).
2) IL6 antagonists. Again mixed results and subgroup analysis needed to show efficacy- again circa 30% rrr in those with CRPs> 175 ( crp is a marker of inflammation).
3) mabs - only work early in disease.
4) antivirals- don’t work in hospital- only efficacy is within 5 days of infection. 70% rrr
This is a strong result today in a population in whom the options are limited. I think we have as good a chance of EUA as many that are in routine use.
I’m holding having topped up in the dip.