Member Info for Bananaman2

Why choose that region for manufacturing B.o.P ?

Poor man. Don't underestimate the manufacturing partnership with BK Gulf.

Klunk, thanks. I am liking these collaborations which will take AFC tech outside of the UK. We seem to spend much of the time procrastinating to make a quick decision. I believe the middle east could be a major benefit to accelerating AFC deployment of the fuelcell technology. They will not be afraid to spend money on this equipment to demonstrate the desire to clean up construction and also be the first.

There can be too much red tape in the UK whereas some other nations will just go with it. If it fails at least they have had a go. I do not think AFC will fail !

The ABB, Ricardo and Mace collaborations will certainly open up doors on a global scale hence the revised price target from the brokers. We are no longer looking at UK EV charging as the only market. Other countries will see the AFC fuelcell technology as the answer. Where are all the other fuelcell businesses with their diesel generator replacement sets ? possibly too expensive because of PEM cell technology and not utilising AFC and Ammonia.

Can anyone provide the DUTCO RNS date. It was a few years ago now.

And as we know BK Gulf are a Dutco company.

Hopefully 2+2=4

;-)

One word..............DUTCO

And with with 3.6m it's nearly £500k.

Clearly being held back now to fill orders. Mind games from the MMs

The H2 that PHE generate is best used for vehicle filling on site. Remove the need for transportation to a designated fuelling station. Changing PHE H2 to ammonia is pointless. AFC has the advantage of being able to use cracked ammonia which would be a direct replacement for diesel. The advantage being that the H2 is only 99.9% which other fuelcells cannot operate on.

For AFC and PHE to work it would be a case of taking the fuelcell to the H2 production and not the other way round.

As someone pointed out, it's unlikely that AFC and PHE would work together in the immediate future. Both need to get on with delivering their immediate solutions to the hydrogen transition. I struggle to see what the wait is for. Neither need a developed hydrogen infrastructure. Both can be utilised immediately to accelerate the transition.

AFC ate not a leaky company. Just look how well AB has managed NDAs up to this point.

AFC were massively oversold after such significant partnership announcements. The drop to low 40s started immediately after the Ricardo RNS. Mace RNS has done zero. Both should have added some stability and value.

Most excited about AFC than I have ever been in 11 years.

I am sure they will just get on with it. One initial system followed by 9 more

Poland will overtake Peel. Too much procrastination in the UK

TOM, through Greenfield will need to locate a site and licence. A newly constructed plant would most likely be funded through finance. I would imagine with oil and sand sales based on 5k bopd initially would present a decent IRR. The FEED study will provide more details but I expect Greenfield would at least be talking to someone along these lines. Cant imagine it would be difficult to find a lender based on potential economics.

PQE or TOM ?

I'm holding both. To be honest I'm surprised there is so little chatter about PQE and TOM.

I am trying to understand the significance of a positive update. Likening it to a miner of gold or PGMs. I guess PQE know the oil is there so its way beyond exploration. PQE will or could have an operational plant on the resource. TOM will have located a resource. Intimated as such in results released in February.

So just how significant is a positive update ? My guess is very. It will allow extraction at alow cost per barrel whilst the economics of sand and oil sales are fantastic. Its very significant not just for TOM or Greenfield but for PQE is also.

The difference with Greenfield is Valkors expertise which other business's looking to utilise POSP technology may not have unless the tweaks and upgrades utilised by Greenfield is shared. The PQE IP is as much about thr proprietary solvents. The upgrades is specific to TOM and Valkor through Greenfield

Yes. The best market really is the replacement of diesel power with ammonia. The TAM is huge for AFC. I am not convinced macro power generation is the way forward and the transition is likely to consist of smaller scale micro generation . Something like Hynet sits in between whereby the infrastructure is supporting an industrial cluster. I can see more of this popping up as the years go by. Some larger some smaller. For the time being the immediate market is much larger for AFC with diesel power replacement and EV charging. It is immediate and AFC can easily displace current technology such as gensets and grid upgrade avoidance.

I don't doubt that.

PHE claim to produce around 3 tonnes of H2 from 25 tonnes of waste. I am not sure how much power could be generated from this using an AFC system.

EQT convert 200k tonnes of waste per annum to around 20mW of power by combustion of syngas. Perhaps cleaning out the carbon and converting to H2 may increase this slightly although power would be required to clean the syngas.

B&S, an AFC power station would work anywhere there is a low cost supply of H2 or ammonia. Or at least a location where these are produced through processing. Lets consider AFC were to work in partnership with other companies in the sector. I don't mean ITM and green H2. I mean PHE or EQT. Both the later deal with the global waste issue, although PHE is all about H2, EQT can also convert waste to H2 and Syngas. Where both convert syngas to power by combustion the remaining H2 (EQT at current stage will use combustion of syngas only without separation) could be used in a fuelcell to improve the waste to energy green credentials and also the economics. Not forgetting that H2 used in a fuelcell is more efficient than combustion.

This again removes the need for a developed H2 infrastructure like, for example a CCGT were natural gas is piped to the station. AFCs can be utilised with advanced gasification to improve the environmental and economic metrics on site.

Welcome aboard Michael. I think the problem is most of us have taken a 3-5 year view for the last 10 plus years. We have seen the All Time High from back in 2010 broken only this year. That has taken 10 years plus to return. I am sure we all appreciate AFC is on the cusp of very big things at this time. Another 3-5 years seems like a very long way off. Right now is the transformational period for AFC and as I said earlier, it is their tech which can accelerate the transition as there is no need to wait for a hydrogen infrastructure to be built.

Well Hollamatronic, I hate to go against the rest of the world but they've got it wrong. H2 and fuelcells is the future. The advantage with AFC is its ready to go and does not rely on the development of a H2 infrastructure. I fact AFC are so ready to go they can actually ensure that the development of said H2 infrastructures whilst under development are constructed using clean energy through fuelcells.

Whilst there is a focus on green hydrogen development AFC are ahead of the game here and can simply accelerate the transition to H2 moving away from diesel power. Same applies to a move to EVs and charging. Infrastructure development not required.

So no excuses. Thr world has got AFC wrong here. Starting to see this as 'undervalued' based on just how disruptive this technology is and I mean far more than an ITM electrolyser. Just look how much existing technology AFC can replace immediately at very little change to conditions and perhaps only a small change in cost.

Added another 1m myself