We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
If we are assuming that the Pramac P11000 is going to be the natural hunting ground of the speedy tower of power, then I presume that the capex is going to have to be somewhere similar.....do we have any idea what the unit cost to the JV is likely to be, because this is going to be a key indicator of the commercial viability of using fuel cells as a replacement to Diesel, even before you start looking at comparisons between white diesel and H2....
Daz. Ah, so what you're saying is that the FAT test isn't really independent, it's just a case that it's met the performance parameters set down by the customer. I suppose if the "customer" just happens to be your joint venture partner, then you can set the performance criteria exactly as you wish in order to make sure that the so called "test" is passed....a bit like marking your own exam paper I suppose.....The acid test will be whether any units are actually hired out by the JV, on what terms, and whether these so called sales actually generate any kind of gross margin.
First things first. On face value, looks like a step forward, and could be the start of a move out of the doldrums. If it is indeed a move out of the doldrums, and the share price manages to lurch above my exit point (23.5 pence, which is a no profit / no loss position on my not inconsiderable residual holding) then I'm off, never to be
heard of again.....that's the good news for all you ubers. If it still lurches in the 15 - 20 pence channel afer this news, I'll carry on calling this dog out.
Just one question.... does anyone actually know what's entailed in a FAT test? Do they know what the parameters of the test are, and who sets them? Do they know who is undertaking the test? Are the testers independent, or is it done in house?
Answers on a postcard please.
I believe, I believe, I believe, I believe I believe that all will come good, and that there will be a commercially viable product, and that there will be many units flying off the Speedy shelves, and that ABB will buy loads of super duper big units, so much so that they will exhaust their agreed discount.....Oh, that's all right then, it's now going to happen, because I believe that it will happen, in spite of the whole raft of evidence to the contrary and complete apathy in the market.....
Newt.....The only clown around here is the one who insists, in spite of all of the evidence, that this is anything other than a cynical money engine being operated for the benefit of others, rather than in the best interests of the shareholders.
Funny how you get all uppity and aggressive when I post something that you aren't able to counter with you usual ambiguous double speak....again, give evidence of anything that is factually incorrect......
I await your next volley of insults....oh, I forgot, it's a friday afternoon, and you're probably busy having a cosy "tutorial" with some "newt studies" student somewhere......
Still sitting on the fence then newt wrangler......unable to put a valid response to the points posed, so just get all supercilious....show me where I am factually incorrect in the points raised.....you won't be able to and that's what really grieves you, hence your childish need to resort to insults, which are water off a duck's back.....Oh, nice red day again, things going well in AFC deluded land then......
Klunk
Well, that's B3 sorted... your turn.
Putting a Ferrari badge on a Fiat Panda means that you just look like a newt wrangler, because everyone can see that underneath, it's a Fiat Panda. If you have a big grey box, which has a Fiat Panda engine in it, but put a Ferrari badge on it, there is nothing that the average man on the street can use to identify the fact that the gubbins inside aren't Ferrari, but Fiat. This is precisely what AFC has done, which is misleading and immoral.
By definition, if the energy generated by the solar array is subject to two separate inefficiencies, then by definition, it would be more efficient to cut out the middle man, and go straight to battery. If your comment about the size of solar array is correct, then that means that the whole project is very reliant on imported energy, which really casts doubt on the validity of the whole thing. Basically, whatever contribution the chocolate teapot had in energy delivery, derived from the solar array, more energy could have been supplied to the battery array directly, if the teapot was simply by passed.....
B3
You seem to be deliberately missing the point, as per usual. The picture shown on the website clearly shows a box marked "Electrolyser" with AFC written on it. To the average man in the street (one of which you, of course aren't because of your superior intellect) implies that its is actually AFC's electrolyser. You have confirmed your understanding that it isn't AFC's electrolyser, so do you, or do you not agree that to place the words AFC on a box of tricks that isn't theirs is misleading.
How about, just for once, you stop acting as the arch apologist for the company, get off the fence, and answer the following in simple agree / disagree form, and if "disagree" provide a valid alternative fact.
1. Does AFC have an in house developed electrolyser
2. Did AFC show a box marked "electrolyser" in a document produced by them, with AFC clearly shown on the box
3. Is this, or is this not misleading
4. In Extreme E, the AFC unit was not capable of providing the necessry charge density, and therefore the unit was reliant on a significant batter buffer
5. The AFC unit could effectively only trickle charge the battery array.
6. The solar array created electricity. This was then used to create hydrogen using an electroyser (thereby suffering efficiency losses)
7. The H2 was put into a fuel cell, which trickle charged the battery array, thereby generating further efficiency losses.
8. The battery array was used to charge the cars.
9. The energy produced by the solar array which was used to generate the hydrogen could quite easily have been used to trickle charge the battery array without the intermediate steps of electrolysis or conversion back into hydrogen by the fuel cell.
10. There would be more energy available to charge the battery array if the trickle charge was direct from the solar array, as opposed to going through two intermediry steps.
You call me a buffoon if you like. Fine, no problem with that, but I'm the "buffoon" who has maintained for years that the tech doesn't work as promoted, and that sales are a long way off, with the company entering into many MOU's JV's sales agreements which have all come to nought. Where are we now by comparison to 4 years ago.....still in the doldrums and no commercially viable product, but what do I know, I'm only a simple buffoon who saw the light and sold out the majority of my very significant holdings when I twigged what was going on....better be a buffoon than a deluded pretend academic who no doubt teaches something like "newt studies" or the like, all the while thinking that this pile of junk will come good....trust me, it won't.
losses.
Klunk
But it wasn't an AFC eletrolyser though, was it? Please explain your comment about the solar array needing to be the size of a football field, because it just makes no sense.
Solar array > electrolyser > fuel cell > battery means far more inefficiency than solar array > battery,.
By definition, if you are cutting out the middle man, you will get more energy into the battery per hours production by the solar by direct charge than by the convoluted electrolyser / chocolate teapot route, ergo, you should in fact need a SMALLER array, rather than a bigger one.....try applying a bit of logic, old boy!
With all due respect, who are you to tell me what I do, and do not know about this company. I do know that there is no AFC electrolyser, and I do know that the Extreme E system failed to perform as per specification, hence the need for the huge battery buffer and the ultimate removal of AFC from the enterprise.
B3. Actually, just to put the record straight, they used a solar array to generate electricity. It was then put through SOMEONE ELSE'S ELECTOLYSER to produce the hydrogen, which was then put through the AFC fuel cell, which trickle charged the batteries that were needed to provide the required charge, because the fuel cell itself couldn't deliver it on an instantaneous basis.
Which begs the question, why go to all of the trouble of having an electrolyrser and a fuel cell, when you could simply cut out the middle man and trickle charge the battery array from the solar array directly.
I challenge you to put a valid counter argument to this last point....
B3. So sorry I couldn't be bothered to go to the AGM, along with all of the other gullible sheep.....I guess if I had, i'd have seen the poster....Sorry to burst your bubble, but THERE IS NO ELETROLYSER! A picture on a wishful thinking poster isn't a product. Please show me actual evidence of there being an eletrolyser in the armory of AFC's cutting edge products and I'll shut up, but until then, I'll maintain my position that it's just another example of borderline fraudulent spin.
If there were such a product, why have we never heard of it, surely it would have been newsworthy, especially on the basis that the company issues RNS's on the most pathetic non events imaginable....
B3.....Melt! If the company had such a thing an electrolyser, then why has there never been any mention of said product anywhere in the company's product offering page. There has never been any form of acknowledgement on this, or any other board that the company had / has electrolyser capability, and I challenge you to find one....(oh, of course, I've probably trawled through and had them all deleted, as per your usual response when you're proved wrong.....). I put it to you, sir, that if the company did indeed have said piece of equipment, then it would be trumpeting it from on high, as opposed to pretending to be developing a cracker which takes H2 from a carrier source which is far less energy efficient.....Just accept that the company has yet again been more than economical with the truth.
Just had a quick look at the old AFC website to see if there's anything new sculling about, and I happened upon a piece of blurb relating to the now defunct Extreme E thing. Apparently, the H2 used in the Extreme E thing was green H2 produced by an EFC badged electrolyser. It must be true, because its shown in the blurb.....Wow! I simply didn't know that we were working on electrolysers as well as crackers....how did we all miss this?
https://www.afcenergy.com/media/qebl15lm/how-green-hydrogen-is-made.pdf
McHaggis
You are a complete and utter joke who should be banned from posting on any form of social media, as all you do is peddle untruths to vulnerable fools who believe that this lame duck might actually achieve something.
Yet again, you use the word "Pipeline" ref ABB, when in fact all it was in effect was a discount offer given by AFC SHOULD ABB DECIDE TO BUY UNITS possible given under duress as a result of the 100KW unit possibly not delivering as per contractual requirements (along side the share giveaway)
From the RNS
"Speedy will in turn, under a separate agreement, provide marketing, accounting and logistical support to SHS and its own customers."
so no doubt this will be along the same lines as those testing the kettle boilers paying for them by way of payment "in kind" so I'm guessing that no actual money will change hands, and Speedy will charge an equal and opposite amount for the above mentioned services, so that it's a non cost deal for them. Or alternatively they may get a discount by way of share issue, just like ABB did.....watch this space and see how this pans out....it aint gonna end well.....