Pommybumble
What question? Nobody is asking you to justify your investment, and no one is trying to talk you out of it.
The point is, the sceptics are concerned about the significant gulf between the rhetoric and spin spouted by the company, and progress actually delivered. This concern is compounded by the complete lack of clarity in anything issued by the company, as has been illustrated.
I am simply inviting you to put a valid counter argument to our position, and the sad fact is the no one on the Uber side of the fence is prepared to do so.
I'm really glad that you are happy with your investment, and I respect you right to express this. Conversely, I am not happy with my investment, and I reserve the right to express this. The difference is, I provide evidence to support my position, so I would respectfully suggest that, unless you are prepared to back up your counter position, your authority is compromised, and accordingly your status as a gullible fool confirmed.
Construct.....yeah, go on, go for it, release your inner Haggis!
That's just about the level of the Ubers and their ramper mates, ask a tricky question or make a statement that can't be validly countered by bluster and skewed interpretation, and lo and behold, they simply resort to insult.
Ah, the old "why should I explain why the numbers stack up when they don't" routine......so basically, you can't answer the question in a way that gives the answer you want.....Well, you believe what you want to believe, but just let others believe what they want to....difference is, the doubter's stance is supported by a couple of unfortunate tings caled, er...facts, and a previous history of a complete and utter inability to deliver on overly optimistic rhetoric...
Wow, just WOW!
Really looking forward to that. let's have a symposium on making energy expensive ammonia to put onto ships so that we can use a cracker that doesn't exist outside of a lab to crack the hydrogen out of it (don't worry, it only takes about 1/3 of the energy in the ammonia get the H2 out......Hmmmm.... what are we then going to do with the H2? Well' we could burn it in an internal combustion engine, burn it in a turbine, or alternatively, put it into a fuel cell that can only provide sufficient charge if supported by a load of batteries....which means for maritime use, the current iteration of fuel cell is not in any way viable.
Nice one, what a great evolutionary cul de sac to go down...never mind, it keeps the "Jam Tomorrow" boys happy.....
Construct
"Afc have Customers coming out of our ears, lining up for our Technology. Tier 1 construction companies etc ! The intrest in the Ammonia cracking technology is phenomenal, visits by major copanies every week. We have Fantastic partners"
Err... that's not quite right, is it? We have no customers, all we have is a bunch of people expressing interest; even those who trialled an amazing tower of power didn't actually pay for it, because the consideration was paid "in kind" for "marketing services" . The ABB contract is a joke, because all we've actually seen by way of income from this one is £600K out of a much touted headline contract value of £4.0 M. Expressing interest is one thing, placing orders is another; big talk about Speedy, but what are the actual terms of the JV? We know that Speedy are providing sales and admin support, but what are the terms for this? is this possible the "consideration in kind" that will be used to pay for the cells if and when finally delivered? We don't know, and until we do, statements like your earlier one are at best delusional, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to mask a problem with a lack of commercial viability for the company.
Pommy
Have you ever thought about actually taking a dispassionate view on what the company has said it's going to do, and what it's actually delivered in the past, rather than just going "la la la...I don't like what you say, so I don't believe you!"
As an example, look at the ABB deal; this was trumpeted as the great "next big thing" and great play was made about the wonderful £4.0M contract. Even when the accounts were published last year (you know, the ones which were late, because the company "had to take advice from their auditors" over the matter of deferred income) everyone here assumed (or, was in fact led to believe) that the element of the contract which want discounted by the share giveaway would be released as income in the current year, and the Ubers used this as justification to say that all is well and on target. What now transpires is that the amount of contractual income wasn't released in 2023 as anticipated, but has been kicked into the long grass, apparently to be released as a discount on sales to ABB, which are, of course non contractual, and indeed haven't even been factored into the pie inn the sky £27 Million....
Answer me this.......in your opinion, are AFC, under the terms of the contract entitled to receive the balance of the £1.4M deferred income upon achieving milestones, or has the contract been altered so that it form a part of the discount structure? No matter which way you cut it, the company has been less than transparent in respect of this particular contract, and it's things like this which generate the climate of suspicion that you are so afraid of.
Sorry to burst your bubble Garonne, but if this ever does go pop, Les will walk away Scot free. The simple reason is that you would need criminal levels of proof, and if you look at all representations made by the company they are so ambiguous and opaque that they can be subject to multiple interpretations, case in point, the use of the phrase “cumulative output” in the ABB Rns, which was the precursor to the great share giveaway….
In summary, they would never get a case to stick…..
Oggs....how very dare you say that Constructivenews is filling the board with Spam! Different meat product, I say..... maybe there should be a new verb in the English lexacon.....to "haggis" (verb......to blatantly ramp a stock on as many media as possible in spite of overwhelming evidence that it's a dog)
Stockcheque
Any chance you can provide numbers to back up your stance that power generated from a fuel cell fuelled from H2 cracked from ammonia is less expensive and power intensive than that from any other source of H2?
If you can agree the numbers I put forward in my earlier post, I can give you the proof. Or alternatively provide different numbers (supported by proof) and I'll do the numbers on them..... If you aren't prepared to back anything up, I suggest you simply desist from peddling your untruths....
I'll give you a clue.......power out of an amazing fuel cell thing using ammonia is about twice as expensive as using reformed H2 direct, and marginally more expensive than using H2 created by electrolysis. when comparing the ratio of power in to power out from start to finish, using H2 created by electrolysis is approximately more efficient....anyone care to disprove?
As a start point, anyone prepared to comment on the accuracy of the above numbers?
Energy density of H2 - 36KW / KG
Efficiency of reformer - 60%
Efficiency of fuel cell - 75%
Cost of reformed H2 - 2.00 euro
Cost of H2 from electrolysis 5.5 euro
From the above, it should be possible to calculate the relative costs of electricity generated from green H2, H2 via a reformed and H2 extracted from ammonia.
Put forward the numbers and lets see the comparatives using the above and uber proposed numbers, assuming they can be validated....the above H2 costs per KG are from the link in the RNS about the last so called milestone, which is basically quite irrelevant within the context of ACF and fuel cells.
Hahahah!
So what makes you think it’s actually a product? It’s a lab prototype and no more, it’s no more a viable product than any of the cell products that people aren’t queueing up to buy (caveat required here, without some obscure JV arrangement where the terms are unknown, or a massive discount the terms of which are known, but unpalatable to many)
Non product, and just another another brick in the yellow brick road to nowhere
“If I was Afc , why would I sell my prize asset “
Priceless!
So the amazing power of tower isn’t the prize asset , nor the unit supposedly destined for ABB (ha, ha!) or all of the other ground breaking tech the the company has failed to commercialise, but it now appears to be something that is at this precise moment in time nothing more than an idea which, in any case is a supposed solution to a non problem (it only becomes a problem if there’s actually demand for H2 to put into a commercially viable cell….which we ain’t got! and even then the benefit is actually less than clear…