Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Yes, BB, we all know our chemistry, but think what it means. Ditto your clever remark that capacitors would be used to absorb brake energy in a car. (EMF is proportional to revs).
Dont think this is true at all.
In any company, expanding (new factory) is always very costly and difficult (ask any industrialist) - nothing special about ITM in that regard. The public want "Cheap Fuel Now" - politicians want their jobs. Subsidising installation of new technology doesn't make the cut. Sad to say.
Hydrogen power isn't cheap either (fact), struggles to equate with fossil fuel (this is because all the work that has gone into the fossil fuel industry has been paid off).
In a way, its good that it will be gradual because ITM can keep pace.
BTW, in Oz, there is some stupid idea that H2 is sourced from NH3. Good that a few experts are on board, and the tendency is for cooperation, not competition, at this stage.
The Autocar article is interesting. The Toyota did the run at the equivalent of about 8.6 L/100 km (=32mpg) but they did a lot of ultra-economy driving.
Theres no Energy Recovery System. You begin to see the difficulties: you can't mould a fuel tank to suit the body work, it has to be bulky because of the 700 bar pressure - so less room for carrying stuff; try to add a second system to recover brake energy and theres even less spare room. Petrol engines have got neat but here we need fuel cell stack and battery, though the motor is small.
My first point is, its a very difficult package to get cost down to compete with petrol (and I know thats simple cost, what most think about; the real cost of fossil fuel, devastating the planet is conveniently ignored).
Of course, they will get it done but its not as easy as I'd assumed. (I still applaud them for their initiative).
But my other point is, commercial vehicles seem a better bet and yet interest there seems poor.
Anyway, its ITM I'm interested in and things are going their way. (I was wrong to think they should be chasing sales: Working Groups getting H2 recognised has been the right way). ITM are lean and focussed and of course its troublesome to expand, which I presume is why the SP is ~32p. But their drift is always in the right direction. Presumably they get bought out at some point but whether or not, I think the SP is a buying opportunity. A few years ago, they talked about a 0.5MW stack, then a 1 MW stack (but no sign of it at that time), but now they show a 2MW stack.
Plastic and most waste is One carbon for every Two hydrogens. Methane is One carbon for every Four hydrogens. So how do you get both methane and hydrogen (and electricity)? And in the end, the Carbon will end up as CO2. You cant just look at bits of the process and say each bit works, ignoring the start and finish. Some plants create plasma from waste: obviously the heat can be used.
Please IGNORE my incorrect bit about " CO2 reverts to CO + O-. I suppose they get methane + water but not sure how it balances chemically." Of course, they have removed all the Oxygen so there is no CO2. I still find it frankly incredible that it can work, never mind servicing. Imagine bits of waste aluminium - where does that end up? Waste>two stage shredder, then electromagnetic iron removal, then two stage air removal (tricky second stage), batch into crucible, fractional separation of CH4 and H2, burn CH4 for electricity, compress (2 stage) H2. Sell to trucks (with fuel cell drive) on site.
Waste management: Interesting (if true). I had been puzzled about high temp cracking, like this. They say they get lots of methane, use it in a piston engine (I think) to generate so much electricity that they can run everything else and have surplus power (e') to export. They get a mix of CH4 and H2, separate out the H2 by fractional condensation, and then compress it for storage. The CH4 is the power source. I had wondered how they get the high temperature but they do explain that (microwave plus ordinary hot wire). But all the other (many) steps seem so demanding that I am still a bit surprised that its possible. Thats without servicing/repair work. Incidentally I think at the temperatures they are using, (~1500 C) CO2 reverts to CO + O-. I suppose they get methane + water but not sure how it balances chemically. I hope their Demo Model indeed runs as they claim.
Held these for years. Up and down. Basically a good company. But tends to optimism - then, some complication causes halt (eg, Sales in China look fantastic, well, wait a mo, only if we let a local company take control, etc). Still, Ilke HYG
'World's largest' solar and wind hydrogen plant proposed for regional SA A company called NEOEM or similar name. I am sorry not to see ITM featuring.
I can't equate efficiency of Fuel Cell electrolysis to generate H2, with conventional electrolysis. The fuel cell is about 80% eff (max). But its hard to know quite what that means. We really need electrical input per G H2. (I think it means a certain amount of electricity gives a certain amount of H2 heat). The reason I ask is that the FC needs deionised water whereas (perhaps) it would be simpler to get H2 from the sea by old fashioned electrolysis. My guess is old fashioned electrolysis is more trouble, otherwise we'd hear more about it.
Typo. = FC. While I lived in Sheffield I found the City Council knew nil about ITM. So I wrote to certain Councillors. Whether for this or other reasons, they're getting on board.
While here, read about a plan. Fits with the ARENA idea. It is: make H2 from solar (?unclear but maybe direct electrolysis of sea water which avoids need for de-ionised water in a FU). Combine with N2 from air. Transport H2 as NH3, unleash using a membrane (available). So their plan to transport H2 is described (Not sure what the point of this is, considering net efficiency). But there is a plan within this, to make electricity out of spare H2 using a 5MW FU. Could this be where ITM has a toe-hold? It all sounds a bit pie in the sky to me. But the commitment of the local Govt to have some FU vehicles seems a "given".
Hi First, the presentation was unbelievably bad. At best, just reading off the laptop what was showing on the screen. Only about details about applying for funding. No evidence of any real knowledge of the sort of stuff we all know. In reality, mainly a bunch of University guys were in the audience to try to see if $$ were available. (regarding your comment: I'd have thought given the LNG industry, there are floating "frozen" gas carriers already. ARENA seemed unaware of anything like that). It was quite bizarre. Complete write-off, IMO.
Hi Spice By chance, I saw an ARENA talk advertised while here (Oz) & today went along. Forget it: absolutely clueless. They imagine H2 can be mass produced and offer Grants to anyone who can find a way to "capture it" and transport it for export. Nothing to do with reality. Staggering, really. Taxes at work.
Good point. Interesting. I'm sure you are right (I had believed we were stuck with noble metals). The other thing is subtle orientation of the metal. The whole catalyst idea is very tricky. Without joking, its on the edge of quantum physics. But it raises a problem for ITM. If there were a catalyst advance, I doubt if ITM could gear up with a new membrane. ITM has said its got a "development" side now, but not sure exactly what that means.
So much (now wasted) �� in overhead power lines. Good pressure for rail to move to H2/e'.
@HiHi As I understand it, its as you suggest. Braking harvests electricity and you need a small battery. Years back I was at a Cooley talk and I think the small battery was needed
Yes, I'd seen that (TV in Oz). I do agree progress will be accelerating. Just I was taken aback at the current state of things. To get to commercial vehicles is a bigger jump than I had believed.
@Spicemerchant Wed 0826 Catalysts are pretty specific. Palladium works & is cheap but less effective than Pt. With 70 years of fuel cells behind us, its hard to see a new paradigm. ITM reckoned it had made a (small?? I suggest) step forward when it went public. I suppose there will be a way - maybe you hire your plug-in fuel cell and replace it like a tire. And I agree, the Pt doesn't corrode so should be recyclable. But although I do believe H2 is the way forward (no change of heart by me), present costs and present durability are worse than I thought and changeover will be slow. Ten years?
Yes, but how long do Fuel Cell stacks last? I had picked up (wrongly it seems) they functioned for many years. Thats not what the Economist says, or what (one company) advertises. But if cars are being built, I suppose they must be durable. Facts, anyone?