Member Info for colins

56 Red and 4 Blue, and the share price does not appear to have moved - Strange day.......

Maritime industry embarks on carbon transition pathwayDecarbonising transportation and corporate supply chains are vital elements of climate-change mitigation. Shipping is under the spotlight as banks, investors, governments and other stakeholders scrutinise the sector’s emissions intensity.The shipping industry’s target of achieving a 40% cut in carbon intensity by 2030 and a 50% cut by 2050 is being driven by a suite of emerging mandatory standards for all ships of 400 GT and above, including Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) ratings. CII ratings measure ships’ operational efficiency in grams of CO2 emitted per debt weight tonnes and per nautical mile sailed and are assigned on a scale of A to E. Scope’s Ship Review has calculated CII rating estimates for more than 40,000 vessels. Based on 2020 data, 18.8% of ships have an A rating, 21.8% a B rating and 23.7% a C rating. The challenge will arise for the 13.9 % of D rated and 21.8% of E rated ships: vessels that receive D ratings for three successive years or an E rating in a given year will be required to implement remediation plans.e platform related to the emissions, sustainability- and reliability performance of the maritime industry.Please fine the he full report attached.Access Ship Review on ScopeOne – Use Ship-Search Tool

welcome to the UK cement industry

The cement industry contributes nearly a billion pounds annually to the UK economy. It operates 12 manufacturing and two grinding and blending plants and produces around ten million tonnes of Portland cement a year, representing about 90% of the cement sold in the UK.

Mineral Products Association (MPA) Cement - representing the UK ...

A trial is a trial, I wonder why the testing of a U.K. product does not take place in the U.K. have QFI approached these guys, if so why have they not stepped up to the plate. It would have been done and dusted an awfully long time ago if they had.

GLA, we are where we are.

https://blog.ballard.com/marine-fuel-cell?utm_campaign=Automatic%20Blog%20Email&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=172738538&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_R5rFlb2x7LBCoXwyrl6MYk4owjHJFTC1es3IkGLh1S_dbYvu-sGeGjJO_gOIaMDlAhXdUVLwV8_Rf2o-JWJAv_0BuKUn9h6Ak-0GhlOWtWhntGOg&utm_content=172738538&utm_source=hs_email

https://blog.ballard.com/marine-fuel-cell?utm_campaign=Automatic%20Blog%20Email&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=172738538&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_R5rFlb2x7LBCoXwyrl6MYk4owjHJFTC1es3IkGLh1S_dbYvu-sGeGjJO_gOIaMDlAhXdUVLwV8_Rf2o-JWJAv_0BuKUn9h6Ak-0GhlOWtWhntGOg&utm_content=172738538&utm_source=hs_email

They could use carbon for lube. Look up graphite large flake. Soon to be a booming market. But there will always be oil and it’s derivatives but it’s creating a balance, and just watched the video, long, but will tech solve all of our problems, I think not, watching the housing going up around here, incredible, new this and new that. If global warming is not just a myth, no, how do we resolve our problems. Nuclear power stations being decommissioned when we need them more than ever. Because technology has outdated good engineering.

Why are cement companies not ready to take the jump, anything has to be better than burning the worlds cra*. Power stations that are burning coal or any type of cra* they can get cheaply because refineries have to dispose of their cra*. We have MCI, the only one of hundreds of shipping companies world wide happy to step up, they don’t want to burn cra*, that’s obvious, but they need to clean up their image after the debacle a few years back when one of their liners sank through human incompetence, but we know it works. And of course BioMSAR, what a gift to the world this is, even if we have limited production. But if I am right a market place for glycerine would encourage more bio-fuels. Then you get to forests being destroyed etc.

Also the usage of this fuel in so many other fuel intensive industries.

The future isn’t bright, but it could be a damned site better using QFI tech. It like watching the world burn and those that make the decisions are terrified of upsetting big industry. If the IMO 2020 can implement rules that govern the world in a very short timespan, what is keeping them back. Those rules were made to accommodate the fuel suppliers I have no doubt.

GLA.

Didn’t somebody post on here a while back, well to wake a 50% carbon saving, the shipping industry could reach their present goals tomorrow if those banging the drum were only to listen and take action. Far too much disruption possibly for a massive industry. But of course we have public opinion, and the royal family on our side. :-)

Who knows and if we have not fully wrapped up the protection of our IP on the use of glycerine etc we will soon find out. Believe me when a few dollars are at stake anything can happen in the USA.

Let’s hope we do not have to call in the lawyers, but all being well and I have no doubt QFI have covered their ar**S this is going to be huge. Roll on 2022. It’s going to be a different year for QFI and all LTH.

Talking of rockets and share prices. I have a large investment in Astra Space, they have had three launch failures, a new launch in just a couple of weeks, incredible timelines, if it makes space the share price will indeed ROCKET, if it fails, so will the SP, until the next attempt. If you are tired of watching the kettle boil have a bet on Astra. It only recently went public through a Spac.

GLA

Brilliant 46, I will go with that, just need to top up another 1,000,000 shares.

Mind you the way the SP reacts to good news we could be down to around 1p or less. :-)

GLA

Refineries would still be able to dispose of their residues using MSAR, what happens to this stuff if we go to other bio-fuels, their are at least a few thousand ships out there that can use it and if it was possible Vlsf from Utah,I would have thought that shipping companies, refineries and governments would have been all over it.

There will be a lot of international pressure on greening up over the next months, all positive.

Yep Indi but at least you get a Big Mac, pop it in the Microwave and away you go.

Just makes you realise just what QFI sp could be worth once it is shifting product.

We can only wonder ……

I never knew of this process until I became involved in QFI and certainly the amount of fuel it takes to make what is essentially a product that has been around since Roman times, its not going away soon, a massive industry that operates in most countries. Morocco is just the beginning and if the Canadians are getting on their high horse to cut the emissions from its production so much the better. Onwards and the mist is clearing from the horizon. Great presentation the other day, it keeps me engaged, the company is moving forwards slowly as it approaches the finishing line which is commercialisation, as is often mentioned on here by all concerned, but I still have to wonder why the shift in the share price is non existent with one bit of positive news after another. As I have said before it is like a stretched elastic band awaiting the moment of release, lets hope it is a signed contract, and one not too far into the distance.

One interesting remark that I heard during my last trip around Europe, commercial shipping was a great dumping ground for the crap left over from the refining business, QFI will still allow for the crap to be burnt, just in a better way for the planet.

Whats not to like.

GLA great to be back.....

Cement is the essential ingredient in concrete. It is a fine powder that acts as the glue that holds concrete together when mixed with water, sand and aggregates.

Cement is manufactured by heating a precise mixture of finely ground limestone, clay and sand in a rotating kiln to temperatures reaching 1450ºC. This results in the production of cement clinker, an intermediate product in the manufacture of cement. The cement clinker emerges from the kiln, is cooled, and then finely ground to produce the powder we know as cement. The fuels combusted to heat the kiln account for about 40% of cement manufacturing emissions. The remaining 60% are “process emissions” — i.e. when limestone is superheated, it releases its carbon atoms and forms CO2 in the kiln — that are effectively irreducible. The Canadian cement and concrete industry is pursuing a variety of innovative measures to further reduce its carbon footprint.

Just pulled into Genoa on the ferry from Olbia and next to us two rather large MSC liners. Hope it’s not long before they are burning BioMSAR or MSAR.

Crazy to see the ferries steaming in and out of Olbia emitting black smoke like you cannot believe, how these old and worn out vessels can still be allowed to function with all of todays climate problems I will never know.

The French are banning the anchoring of certain yachts in specific areas to save the sea grass, MSC need to be seen to be making an effort on behalf of Italy, we all know how they can achieve that.

GLA

A great bounce today, did I not say months back that we would be at 5p by the end of the week.

GLA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Oil_Sands_Joint_Venture

The above has to have been posted here before, even though I have not seen it.

But what happened to this outfit.

Without billions of dollars in subsidies, hydrogen just doesn’t make economic sense right now. And because of where the energy comes from – mainly fossil fuels and other “dirty” energy sources – it doesn’t even make environmental sense.

So until we find a way to make hydrogen fuel cheaply, and preferably without fossil fuels, we just won’t see major adoption of this fuel source or major investment in hydrogen infrastructure.

Lithium-ion batteries, on the other hand, are well established and continue to improve in energy density incrementally, year after year. They’ve continued to fall in price as well. It’s very hard to make an argument to switch to hydrogen right now.

However, my largest disappointment with EVs is that they share a similar problem that hydrogen has with its production. Most of the electricity produced to “fuel” an EV comes from carbon-based fuels or nuclear fission plants.

When people drive EVs that are fueled by dirty energy, what’s the point? And it gets worse. Somewhere between 7–20% of electricity is lost as it is transmitted over the electrical grid. Additional dirty energy needs to be produced to account for transmission losses.

The only scenario where EVs are actually clean is if we can fuel them with clean energy. If someone lives near a geothermal or hydroelectric plant and is receiving 100% clean energy to their home, that’s a great option.

Or a project that I’ve been working on for my own home is to install Tesla’s solar tiles on my roof with Powerwalls (battery storage) in the garage. I’ll be able to power a car entirely from the solar energy produced.

And we should also remember that EVs and hydrogen vehicles are all produced in manufacturing plants fueled by carbon-based electricity.

A prominent MIT professor estimates that we must drive 50,000–60,000 miles in an EV before we can offset the carbon used to manufacture it… And that assumes that 100% of our electricity used for charging the car was clean, which is rarely the case.

With all that said, I am keeping a close eye on these industries, as well as promising new industries like nuclear fusion (not fission) as a possibility to meet our clean energy goals.

My wish is that the industry and policy makers are open and honest about the entire end-to-end system needed for 100% clean, sustainable energy. That includes everything from how the vehicles are produced to where the electricity, or hydrogen, comes from.

The downside to hydrogen…

Let’s conclude with a question about hydrogen cars:

Hi, Jeff Brown,

Aren’t hydrogen-powered vehicles both more economical and more environmentally friendly, producing only water as a byproduct? Aren’t hydrogen-powered vehicles more powerful? Their only lack is a convenient network of hydrogen power stations nationwide.

No lithium mining. No battery dumping. Vehicles with less weight. More economical than gas (petrol) or lithium-ion electric vehicles.

What are leading hydrogen power company stock plays? Shall hydrogen cars beat out Tesla’s lithium-powered EVs? I believe China- and Europe-made vehicles, in the future, are going to be hydrogen-powered vehicles, and if so, they may beat out Tesla worldwide. Cheers.

– Dr. Robert O.

Hi, Robert, and thanks for sending in your question.

I’m often asked about hydrogen as a source of clean energy to fuel our cars. It’s an exciting topic, and I share your enthusiasm about hydrogen’s potential.

Powering our cars, trucks, trains, and even planes with the most abundant element in the universe sounds like the perfect solution to reduce global carbon emissions. As you said, its only byproduct is water.

And hydrogen seems perfect on the surface. It stores three times as much energy per unit of mass compared to gasoline. When it is combined with air, the energy that is released can power a vehicle. And it combines with oxygen to produce water.

We can’t do much better than that, right?

Yet that’s not the whole picture.

About 70 million tons of hydrogen are produced each year, primarily for ammonia fertilizer. And 96% of hydrogen production is made through “steam-methane reformation.”

Here’s the problem. This process uses energy created by natural gas, coal, and oil to produce hydrogen. In all, the industry produces 830 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year to produce this “clean” hydrogen fuel.

Electrolysis is responsible for the remaining 4% of hydrogen production. This process uses electricity to split the hydrogen out of the water.

On the surface, this sounds better than steam-methane reformation. But the electricity that’s used comes almost entirely from fossil fuel power plants or nuclear fission power plants (which create radioactive waste).

Even if we use carbon-capture technology to offset the carbon dioxide that’s emitted when we produce hydrogen, it’s not perfect. Around 10–20% isn’t captured – and the cost means the hydrogen ultimately is twice as expensive.

That means we have to keep price in mind. When using hydrogen as fuel, consumers have to pay for it. A gallon of gas is a similar price to a kilo of hydrogen.

To put things in perspective, it takes about 50–55 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity to produce a single kilogram of hydrogen fuel. That’s the equivalent of almost two days of electricity consumption for an average home in America. Does it make sense to spend that much energy to produce 1 kilogram –

Indi, if you are along my route let me know and we can have a beer or two.