Member Info for Gitfinger

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?

Come on Haggis, you're good at cut and paste, let's see your numbers......

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.

Is anyone prepared to set out the economics of power generation using H2 extracted from cracked ammonia?

Ubers, you go first, lets see how you get it to stack up....

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…

‘You could therefore run the Ammonia Cracker using Hydrogen Fuel Cells (AFC Energy's or anyone else's) off-grid and make loads of Hydrogen at the ultra low cost of Ammonia to fuel it. Or you could use cheap renewable energy if you just wanted the Hydrogen for an industrial process rather than more electricity.’

Do you actually realise how stupid this sounds……use H2 to make electricity to pump into a cracker, in order to make electricity….out of ammonia which has used vast amounts of energy to be produced….or you could use renewable energy to power the cracker to split out something that less energy dense, when energy density is supposed to be the thing that ammonia is supposed to overcome…..drivel…..hello, Mr black kettle, said the pot…

Valid counter argument anyone?

Maybe ABB will want to buy a nice big cracker, ready for when they place their orders for the 200kw unit that appears to not have met any of the performance milestones in….oh, about a year!

Tweedy…..or alternatively just pipe the renewable electricity through an electrolyser to create, oh, what’s that stuff…..hydrogen! Which, in spite of the spin can be safely stored and transported, it’s just that doesn’t suit the “next big thing” narrative…..and before you say it, if ammonia is. More energy dense than pure H2, isn’t that not quite as safe to transport?

Haggis

Read the words, then read your words and see how imbecilic your statement actually is.

What you seem to be stating is that you get more energy out than you put in, which is a nonsense and the kind of double speak spin that this company uses in its statements. What isn’t stated is that the energy put in us used to liberate the H2 contained in the ammonia which has in itself been produced at great energy expense. No doubt you buy into the lie that a cracker is more efficient than an electrolyser….which it isn’t…….

Oh, of course those geniuses at AFC might just have created the electrical generation version of the perpetual motion machine, I don’t think……

Haggis

Which particular bit is nonsense though?

Word on the street is that AFC are working on a perpetual motion machine that can be used to run a generator to generate the electricity that the cracker will need to crack the ammonia (into which the hydrogen has been placed at vast efficiency cost) to get out the hydrogen that they will then put through their fuel cell to create electricity that they will then store in a battery until such time someone wants to use it.

Is this complete nonsense? comments on a postcard please.....

Stating the true facts is a vocation, not a paid job, squire, unlike those possibly employed to generate so much white noise that the true dire state of the company’s product development gets overlooked…..

Per the ABB contract award RNS

"Proceeds received by AFC Energy under the Agreement will total £4m. Of this amount, £2m will be payable upon the signing of the Agreement, with two equal remaining milestone payments receivable on validation of system performance. Proceeds will be used to support the costs of system development and testing, together with recovery of AFC Energy overheads and the system's overall purchase cost"

Per the contract amendment RNS

“In early 2022, ABB E-mobility made a non-refundable payment of £2m to AFC Energy towards early stage development costs of the S+ Series fuel cell platform. Following review of the commercial arrangements between ABB E-mobility and AFC Energy, the two companies have agreed the following:

· ABB E-mobility has expressed an intention to invest a further £2m into AFC Energy by way of a subscription for shares in the Company replacing the subsequent payments due under the original contract.

· A volume discount on up to 10 x 200kW S+ Series fuel cell system sales to ABB E-mobility or its direct customers for a defined period of time”

It is quite clear from the above that there is no link between any amounts already received under the original agreement and future sales; the release of the balance of this original £2.0 Million (the £1.4 Million shown as deferred income) is subject to the company hitting performance milestones, and has nothing whatsoever to do with any subsequent orders, and certainly isn’t linked to any bulk discount.

For the deferred income not to be recognised, there are only two alternative explanations, either the contract has been changed, or the milestones haven’t been met, in either case, do we not have a right to know?

Melvin

You know full well that no one will challenge, because there is no valid counter argument, all we get in response is wet and wind and bluster and vitriol, all in the fact of rampant stagnation.....

McStock

You make me laugh!

AFC has gone from being a company with a purported aim of being able to produce fully green electricity on an instantaneous basis using virtually free hydrogen which was a by product of the chlor alkali industry, to a company that, if your synopsis is correct, needs to use ammonia (sourced from where, and green credentials of which are unknown) which will need to be put through a cracker that hasn't yet been developed, in order to trickle charge a battery. my, my, haven't we come a long way?

Oh, and another thing, anyone notice the massive misrepresentation of the comparative efficiency of the cracker as opposed to electrolyser?