Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Duferco are subject to a six month lock in and 6 month orderly disposal after that. So even if they did want to sell they wouldnt be able to for quite a while yet. Their shares most certainly wont be being forward sold now.
Is there another example of a rental agreement for electrolyte being used for a commercial battery? If not, then BE have just pulled off the first in the world. Once the economics of this way of delivering a vrfb become clear and verified in the field it will change the landscape for vrfb. Up until now the effect of rental on the LCOS has been on paper, now they can show it for real.
It's a truly brilliant step for BMN, and one of many to come within this space.
BBN still holds and posts updates on twitter more frequently than here nowadays, as many of us do, to avoid the pond life. See for yourself:
www.twitter.com/BigBiteNow/status/1290988497835298816?s=19
Adam Rouselle is the CEO of REA, a company in America who provide clients with 24/7 renewable energy. Here is what Adam Rouselle had to say of Mikhail and Bushveld Minerals / Energy at the recent IFBF showcase :
"I think the whole world is going to be depending on Mikhail much more than they are paying attention to today. I think his company is in the centre of this entire industry, and we need his leadership, we need his assets, and uh... and uh... I can't make it any simpler than that."
This is coming from a man whose focus is pumped hydro. And why is he so excited by VRFB and their potential? Because of the fact that his company want to provide 24/7 renewable energy, with no reliance on any other types of base load generation or peaker plant support. This is important because this is exactly what companies like google are targeting. According to CSO of Birch Infrastructure (a company that specialises in operating utility infrastructure for hyperscale data centres), lithium-ion batteries cannot provide this service. In order to get up to near 95% renewable energy, these companies are going to have to rely on other kinds of battery storage. Pumped hydro is a potential option, but as Alfacomp has pointed out it is limited in its uses depending upon the location. Adam Rouselle, a man whose focus in energy storage has been pumped hydro, clearly knows this. His comments above confirm his opinion that VRFB are the way to achieve 24/7 renewable energy supply to the huge corporations, who need a constant and ever growing energy supply to power their data centres. Not only that, but he is putting Mikhail and Bushveld at the centre of that solution.
The quote above is from the following video of the IFBF showcase earlier in the year at around 1 hr 32 mins in:
www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=JcP1XTjYrTE
Another interesting chunk:
"H2, a South Korean ESS maker, finished the development of “EnerFLOW 430” and it is currently discussing with private power plants and public energy companies about constructing EnerFLOW 430 at their sites. It is planning to install South Korea’s first flow battery-based ESS at a power plant by the end of this year. Such installation will be the first case of a connection between a commercial facility and KEPCO’s power transmission and supply networks. It is heard that another company that specializes in the battery is also showing interest in the market."
H2 are a South Korean VRFB manufacturer. The EnerFLOW 430 is their most recent product. It is a shipping size container VRFB with a capacity of 270 KWh. So you are looking at roughly 4 containers per MWh. More information on their porduct can be found here:
www.h2aec.com/eng/sub/product/product07a.php
A pertinent article given the current conversations:
www.vanadiumcorp.com/news/industry/south-korean-government-allows-flow-battery-to-be-used-for-ess/
"There are also huge expectations that introducing flow batteries to the ESS market will be a turning point for the market that has struggled due to recent ESS fires. A total of 28 fires had occurred from August of 2017 to October of 2019 due to lithium-ion rechargeable battery ESS, relevant industries have faced crisis while the market size had shrunk from 5.6GWh in 2018 to 3.7GWh in 2019. Because 5 fires involved ESS paired with photovoltaic generation according to the investigation results from a second joint private and public investigation group, some were concerned that South Korea’s new renewable energy industry would also take a blow as a result. However, it seems that the ESS industry will be able to recover quickly as the government is improving relevant systems and as private companies are forming a new market.
“Introducing flow battery to the ESS market paired with renewable energy where the only lithium-ion rechargeable battery was used will give renewed energy to the ESS market that has struggled and will be a turning point for the market as it expands options for consumers.” said a representative for the industry."
The following article explains the niobium / vanadium situation (and other metals) quite well. Hopefully the link works:
https://www.niobiumprice.com/vanadium-and-niobium-substitute/
Why are people assuming that VRFB were intended to be used on every site by Pivot Power to begin with? They have only ever been mentioned as being utilised at the ESO. It is, after all, a somewhat experimental project that is using a hybrid system. One that hasn't been used before.
I fully expect that once it is up and running, the folk at Pivot Power may be on the phone to IES once again.
It would seem that Fortune, either rightly or wrongly depending on your bent, decided that what was best for the share price and for shareholders was to do the best by the company. To make great deals, drive down costs and ramp up production etc. He believed that if he did everything he could to make the company the best it can be, that value should naturally be reflected in the share price, and that it would take care of itself. He even said as much in recent interviews, saying something like, "You would think that eventually the share price would take care of itself, right?"
Over the past year, and especially the past few months, this has not been the case. The Crux investor interview was the first time we ever saw a glimpse of Fortune's true frustrations that the market simply wouldn't do what it was meant to do, what it was built to do (in theory). BMN, and Fortune in particular, are like that quiet child at the back of the class getting A* in all their exams, who nobody notices until they go and win a Nobel prize. Should Fortune be more like Elon Musk, should he show boat and play the game? I honestly don't know. I feel it would undermine the professional standard and class that has been established for BMN if he did, but that is just my own feeling on the subject.
Regarding what Fortune should do about it, I would point people to listen to what Fortune said in the recent Crux interview on the subject of moving off of AIM. He quite pointedly said that he was unable to talk about it, nor to give an answer. If a company have nothing to declare on a subject, like moving off aim, then they will simply say, "We have no current plans to do so," or, "It's not a priority at the moment". Things like that. When there is actually something happening, they will not be able to say anything about it. Which leads me to believe that Fortune's response is an indicator that something is a foot. He very clearly said, I cannot answer that. Make of it what you will!
I understand frustrations. We are all human, and even what is vented here is not always meant, or is regretted in a day or so. It's been a trying time, watching other companies recover to pre-covid levels whilst BMN remain low. What we all should hold onto is the fact that BMN is sitting at the doorstep of a colossal new industry. One way or another, the market will be forced to pay attention.
6 : Cost / LCOS
This is a tricky topic, as there is no perfect evaluative method for comparing different battery storage technologies. Different reports suggest quite varied numbers for each tech, and most of the data in relation to VRFB is outdated and in short supply. However, is it generally agreed upon that when using a VRFB more than once per day, they are cheaper when using a Levelised Cost of Storage valuation method than li-ion. The Levelised Cost of Storage is a fairly lengthy and complicated equation, however basically what it does is evaluate the cost of a battery over the course of its life, rather than only thinking of the initial Capex.
As a VRFB is capable of 2 cycles per day vs the li-ion of one, then you getting twice the work out of it. This reduces the Cost per Cycle, and makes it more cost effective over the course of its life than li-ion. This is already the case now, and we do not need to wait for anything to change for VRFB to be cheaper than li-ion using this valuation method.
7 : Recyclable and sustainable
As is widely known, the vanadium electrolyte is 100% recyclable at the end of its life. It can be dropped back into another VRFB, or through a simple process of precipitation it can be converted into V2O5, which can then be used for making FeV for use in the rebar industry. This means that the vanadium you put into the market is accumulative. You simply add to it, and create more potential capacity, rather than consuming it on its first use and reducing the supply once more. By comparison, attempts to recycle li-ion batteries are riddled with complications and safety hazards.
8 : More ethical production chains of base metals
Li-ion batteries are dependant upon the production chain of metals such as cobalt, the majority of which is mined by child slaves in the Democratic Republic of Congo. There is a great desire, for obvious reasons, to shift away from reliance upon such metals, so that any ties with these companies are cut off. Vanadium by comparison is mined by professional companies, such as BMN and Largo.
9 : Vanadium more abundant than the metals used in li-ion batteries
Fairly self explanatory. Vanadium is the 22nd most abundant element in the earths crust, and is 11 times more abundant than li-ion. It is also more abundant than cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc and lead. When targeting a far future energy storage market of terrawatt hours, you want to use a mineral that is in clear abundance.
And there you have it. My list of benefits.
3 : Over building capacity / usable capacity
Taking what was said above, if someone wanted to buy a battery with a usable capacity of 2 MWh, they would need to buy a li-ion with a built in capacity of 2.5 MWh, so that it would have a guaranteed usable capacity of 2 MWh (80% of 2.5). You are essentially having to pay for capacity that you will never be able to use. This is not a cost effective strategy, especially when targeting very large scale and expensive applications.
With a VRFB you get what you pay for, and can use 100% of that capacity with every cycle. This makes more economic sense. Why pay for capacity that you cannot use?
4 : Duration.
A li-ion battery is best when used for between 1 - 2 hour applications, possibly up to 4 hour. When it comes to grid services there are a number of services that this is useful for, such as frequency regulation. However when it comes to the heavy duty work of peak shifting, and reducing the scope of the duck curve, then you need batteries capable of working well at durations between 4 - 8 hours. This is where VRFB work most comfortably. The future market for these heavy duty, big scale batteries is likely to be the largest.
5 : Sub-linear cost to capacity relationship
When a li-ion battery is made the power and capacity are baked in from the start, and cannot be changed. This is not the case with a VRFB. The power stacks (the power rating) and the electrolyte volume (capacity) can be scaled independently of each other.
If you start with a 2 MWh battery, and later want to scale up to 4 MWh, you do not need to pay for an entire new 2 MWh battery, you just add double the electrolyte to the existing battery and voila! A 4 MWh battery! If you wanted to do this with li-ion, you would need to manufacture a whole new 2 MWh battery to put alongside the existing one. In this way the costs of increasing the capacity of VRFB goes down per KWh the more you want to increase it by. Whereas the costs of increasing the capacity of a li-ion battery continuously increase.
VRFB vs Li-ion benefits.
Now, bear in mind that I don’t personally believe that this market will be a winner takes all scenario. The market demand is going to be far too large for any one tech to capture every opportunity. Having said this, lets have a look at what benefits VRFB have over Li-ion.
I have 9 points, which will be laid out below.
I also cant be arsed to post these in reverse order so that they read in sequence, you’ll just have to find this first one and then read from there!
1: Safety
The safety of Vanadium has long been known vs Li-ion, and I feel like this point has been covered pretty well in the past here. As a VRFB is made up of mostly water, there is no chance of thermal runaway. It is also not possible to trigger an Arc Flash, which are a serious concern in the UK with 57% of electricians having dealt with them in their career, 25 of which result in fatalities each year. Lithium-ion batteries at grid scale capacity have the same explosive power as a small nuclear bomb. Add in the deadly cloud of hydrofluoric acid and you have a perfect target for a terrorist attack if it is situated in the centre of a city.
2: Cycles / Degredation
VRFB are capable of achieving thousands more cycles per lifetime vs li-ion. The number of cycles per tech varies depending on the source, however according to a report by Hydrowires, Li-ion are capable of 3,500 cycles at 80% depth of discharge (DoD). This means that they can only charge/discharge at 80% of their nameplate capacity with each cycle. VRFB on the other hand are capable of 10,000 cycles at 100% DoD. So if you have a 2 MWh battery, one li-ion and one VRFB, the li-ion will only be able to provide 3,500 cycles at 1.6 MWh, vs the 10,000 cycles at the full 2 MWH a VRFB can achieve.
How Li-ion get around this is by providing what is called a “usable capacity”. They have the capacity that the battery is built to (2 MWh), and the usable capacity that is usually around 80% of that (1.6 MWh). A warranty for a li-ion battery only covers the battery for use within the usable capacity for a certain number of cycles, or for a certain number of years, which ever comes first. This is due to degradation. Solid state batteries like li-ion degrade with each cycle. A li-ion battery needs to keep that 20% of unused capacity to act as a buffer against degradation. The more you use it, the faster it degrades. Hence why it is only warranted for a certain number of cycles.
A VRFB suffers no degradation. The electrolyte you put in at the start is the same that you get out at the end, save for a slight diffusion of water across the membrane between the solutions. This means that there is no reduction in capacity over its life, and the only real reason that a VRFB has a shelf life at all is due to the component parts such as the membranes, pumps, valves etc. A VRFB can be cycled as many times a day as the charge/discharge rate allows. Which has cost implications as we will see later.