Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
So you are telling me to buy at 4p...;-) If you are correct, looking at the chart, they seem to be settling for selling for less each time...again looks like it could be a large investor de-risking over time (and traders will follow the chart)....in the end they will hold the same number of shares as when they started but with a much lower average price, or maybe even free shares...zero risk, with same potential upside. Unlike the mushroom PI's they may be kept a bit more in the loop so they have an idea of the timescales they can trade over. I suspect same with CPX.
Hi Graham. Maybe you remember me posting on Flow (what seems an eternity ago now)...manufacturing something cost effectively and meeting specs in volume is a whole different ball game than knocking out prototypes. I still think Jabil have the acumen to see these projects through to their eventual conclusion. Maybe you don't agree (I upset CPX holders with this recently) but the initial hype and surrounding some of these things seems to be designed to boost the sp to satisfy the II's (get cash back short term) or raise cash via placements so that the companies can continue while the real nitty gritty gets sorted out....in the meantime the sp will fall back. With all these new techs there are issues to sort out and deals to make....takes time...if it was easy everyone would be doing it.
The CEO seems to control/own own 78%....possibly it will eventually be de-listed.
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/revolt/is-%E2%80%9Crenewable-methane%E2%80%9D-energy-storage-an-efficient-enough-option/ http://phys.org/news/2014-01-synthetic-natural-gas-excess-electricity.html Synthetic methane...energy in from the sun... stable carbon cycle...can achieve zero overall carbon dioxide emissions...infrastructure for storage and transport already existing.
But still, as of today, the most abundant source of stored energy from the only real renewable source (the sun) is methane.
There is no easy answer, Graham. I guess nuclear power will still be going strong for quite a while. Solar power seem far more sensible long term, but it is the size of the numbers...i.e. how much energy is already being used from fossil fuels..it will take a long time for solar/wind to get there. http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf
Solar panels seem to be everywhere now so they are making a good effort. Energy from solar doubled in UK in 2014. But solar panels have only been energy positive (generating more than consumed to manufacture) since 2010: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/do-solar-panels-use-more-energy-than-they-generate. And it will take until 2020 until the energy generated by the solar industry has completely covered all the energy to create the industry and the panels. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use Further growth of solar and wind generation industries need fossil fuel and will need it for a very, very long time. A question to ask is why make plastic bottles for water anyway? If we are really worried about running out of oil why waste it bottling water? The answers are...we are not short of oil, it is still relatively cheap to access...and people create a market for bottled water. (Not me, BTW...I already pay for water piped to my house, I don't see why I need to use energy driving to a shop to pay for it again in plastic bottle.) The eventual directions will depend on economics, not environmental issues so much (although that will always be in the headline or sound bite)
No difference really. Fossil fuels contain energy stored from the sun (the only source of new energy). They are created from life itself. Think about the numbers. In about 2 hours there is as much energy coming from the sun's rays hitting the earth than the total human world energy annual consumption. Energy absorbed by the Earth from the sun over millions of years has been transferred via life into all those lovely hydrocarbons. Methane hydrates (which haven't even been touched yet) contain as much energy as all the other hydrocarbons put together. Of course energy can be taken directly from the sun via solar or wind but it is inefficient and costs more than just burning gas...methane in the atmosphere is actually increasing...life itself produces it. "renewables", "green" etc. is advertising/sales spiel...don't believe the hype. All batteries needed fossil fuels to make them. There is a market for Vanadium batteries, for sure. Fuel cells are classed as renewables but need fossil fuels to create the fuel to run them. Independence from fossil fuels? Certainly not in our lifetime. They are a too easy a source of energy. It's not even necessary to be independent from fossil fuels. We still need oil anyway for plastics, modern engineering etc. (do you worry about the oil you've used when you upgrade your mobile phone, or buy bottled water?). And regarding carbon dioxide emissions...just plant more tress instead of chopping them down...plants love carbon dioxide :-) But emissions are a taxable commodity. And I don't know why everyone worries about carbon. We wouldn't be here without it ;-)
So by 2030 only 4 x143GW = 572GW of renewable capacity will be added. That is less than 3% of the world's consumption today...and by 2030 estimates are that the consumption will have gone up by much more than that 3%... Also so called renewable energy sources are all the while depending on fossil fuels to maintain them...construction and transport of the solar panels, wind turbines, production of hydrogen for fuel cells...cheapest source of abundant hydrogen is still from methane. Cheapest energy source with little investment is gas piped to your home.
All they need to do now is get the cost down by 80% and they've cracked it.
Baxi use both techs in different products: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpV1w65GSdo Both big and expensive...
Energetix rebranded to Flow when Tony Stiff took over and they launched the energy supply business. The reason I think they have a chance with the mCHP boiler is that it is commercially viable (unlike fuel cell etc.)...it uses fridge parts and a scroll instead of a compressor. Main additional cost is the inverter which connects to the grid. It's a painless sell to customers with no extra upfront cost than a normal boiler. I don't see them as in direct competition to Alkane. The grid is closer to complete collapse every year with more and more cash needed to invest just to keep up with existing energy demand. Only 4% spare capacity this year......got my candles ready. Any support from home generation and companies like Alkane at peak times will be much needed welcome relief.
Ok. But I will ask you to look at things from another angle. Mention mCHP to the average Joe and he doesn't know what you are talking about. The Baxi Ecogen and WhisperGen have been on the market for years but cost is stopping mCHP going mainstream. For the general public to accept the concept (irrespective of tech) there needs to be a product that can compete cost wise with a regular already used device. The Flow boiler will do that....up front cost to the customer is same as an installed regular condensing boiler. If successful, I expect FlowGroup to have market cap in the £100'smillions over the next 3 years with a globally recognized name, a name linked with mCHP. And this will open the door and lead the way for other mCHP techs in future. And as with most things there will not be a technology or company that will be used exclusively....GL
Sorry, but I get the feeling you have made a decision just on hearing "fuel cell" and related that to media hype without knowing about the detail. Fuel cells are not new. They go back to the 1800's. Fuel cell is just a battery but needs fuel with hydrogen in it to run. They have been developing them for ages and always saying they are the future....but they are so really expensive with all sorts of operational and degradation issues.... And fuel cell development is more suited to automotive (higher accepted product cost) than a boiler. ORC was developed in 1961 so is a more modern tech in a way but is based on known physical principles and the key point....it is much cheaper than any fuel cell and so is suited to use in a boiler (accepted market cost £1000 to £2000). BTW Flow are not just a service. They have a product, a boiler...a complete developed product going into production with a manufacturing deal in 100,000's. CWR don't even have a reliable cost effective fuel cell part. If you look at any trustworthy mCHP research note for any of these companies you will find a common risk highlighted....route to market.....Flow found the solution to that.....energy supply business....which is a means to an end....mass produced mCHP boiler. ...that is happening now. When someone buys an mCHP boiler, they don't care what the tech is, most won't understand the tech....but they will care about the cost.
sharesport. From my viewpoint Ceres had the boiler practically ready for production some years ago and sadly the plan fell apart. Partly because of some technical/operational issues but I guess principally because of the funding needed for production. Ceres I think were planning to set up their own production which needed ££££££. Now Ceres scrapped that idea and are dependent on other companies incorporating the fuel cell tech in their products so they have lost some control... Flowgroup have zero outlay for production because they have Jabil as the production partner who are investing £millions of their own cash. Without the Jabil deal Flowgroup would be as diluted as CWR and CFU by now and the SP would in single pennies. FLOW SP has dropped today also though so see where that settles... CWR are years away from commercialization of a fuel cell product. We don't even know what the product will be. FLOW have a designed approved product and production is just months away....they have cash and no need to raise cash for 12 months... Nothing certain but Flow is in the lead at the moment...
Yes they are competing for the same market (according to their company presentations). FlowGroup have overtaken CWR in the mCHP race. CWR were ahead of Energetix at one stage. Commercialization of the fuel cell in a boiler still seems years away....FLowGroup will start production before the end of this year.... sharesport, I noticed you asked similar about CFU. The Bluegen is I suppose is in competition but it is not a boiler so difficult to know how it will fit in.
Interesting. Both Intelligent Energy and Plug Power seem to use hydrogen as the fuel for their cell. 90% of all hydrogen that is produced for all uses, is done by steam reforming....which needs the fossil fuel methane...and the by-product is ....carbon dioxide. Until hydrogen is produced in the massive quantities needed by electrolysis from renewable sources, I think advertising these hydrogen fuel cell techs as clean energy is just a little misleading. Yet, for a fuel cell where the fuel is methane, instantly some people think: "That's no good, it's using a fossil fuel."
Thanks for the link to the presentation. Ceres at least looked at what was required by the target market...a wall hung boiler... 1.5million replacement condensing boilers sold in UK alone every year. A shame it didn't work out, I guess cost as well as some performance problems were the issues. Still watching that one for a partnered product. Not really sure I know that much about heating as such, but I am an electronic/electrical engineer so power in/power out/efficiencies/energy usage all that stuff I guess is fairly easy for me to understand, .... and I've tried to research a lot, especially about the grid, existing energy usage, OFGEM reports, renewables etc. I am really interested in any mCHP companies but I am only invested in FLOW at the moment, and only since they got their manufacturing deal with Jabil last year.... but there is still risk there also. The issue all of these companies have is cost and route to market. The boiler market is huge but controlled by established big players. CFU for instance have developed a product that, while appears a good idea, is not a replacement for an existing household appliance in the UK. It would be additional, it needs to create a new market, so cost and size are absolutely key factors for mass sales in UK. But it's actually bigger and more expensive than any other household appliance I have ever bought....If the Bluegen were the size of a microwave oven and cost < £2000 I would put an order in right now. The patent stuff is just for interest really, probably many decades away before that happens on any useful scale....if it ever does.
Cheers. Yes, I agree a fuel cell device that produces about 1kW electrical power will also produce enough heat for hot water without burning gas. But I'm just saying it is not a boiler, it's just a water heater, so not enough heating on its own for UK climate. If you live in the UK I assume you have some form of space heating in your house for winter, most likely a gas boiler. The heat output will be upwards of 12kW. No 1kW fuel cell can deliver that heat . So if you have a 1kW fuel cell device for power and hot water you will either need a separate boiler (or other form of space heating) or incorporate the fuel cell in a boiler and when space heating, that fuel cell boiler will burn gas (i.e. the 12kW for winter). The Ceres boiler had the fuel cell (that was only 1kW) incorporated to deliver power and hot water but when space heating it was burning gas, otherwise it would need "magic" to heat a house from less than 1kW . "Ye cannae break the laws of physics Captain." :-) Not sure of the company with the patent IP but here is some info on it: http://www.google.com/patents/EP2621875A1?cl=en There are also some cool videos on youtube showing carbon dioxide in the supercritical phase/state. ATB.
Took me a while to find a good link: http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/chemicals/hydrogen.html If you have been investing in hydrogen producing companies you will have been investing effectively in those chemical industries using it. Check out how it has primarily been produced up to now and where it is used. The process uses fossil fuel and creates carbon emissions....90% of all hydrogen is produced this way. Actually production of hydrogen is adding to the CO2 emission/global warming problem at the moment because they won't capture it all in the process. Little hydrogen is actually used in renewable energy projects. I think the way to go is electrolysis to get the hydrogen. While hydrogen has a high energy density per unit mass, it has a lower energy density per unit volume than natural (or synthetic gas). So it makes more sense to combine the hydrogen with CO2 to get the methane. (At the moment they are using methane to get hydrogen and creating more CO2 which needs to be captured somehow). Piping hydrogen direct to homes is not straightforward because some always escapes (due to small molecules) and it would corrode existing pipes. Methane does not have those problems.