Member Info for JeffMills

Plug Power up 17%. Fed cutting rates for the first time under Trump — huge tailwind for green hydrogen. With these projects so capital intensive, lower financing costs directly improve returns and speed up deployment.

This message has been filtered, please adjust your filters to view x4 already!!

Come on guys. Spicy is clearly just playing the crowd. He deliberately posted an article from 2024 knowing people would jump on it as “old news,” and now he’s soaking up all the attention under his own headline. It’s not about discussion for him, it’s about baiting reactions. I tried debating him long enough, but he ended up filtering me after I kept calling him out. Honestly, wise up.

30 MW Hydropulse ≈ selling ~90–115 MW of Tridents.

(Reason: Hydropulse breakeven ~130 MW vs Trident ~400–500 MW.)

Re-rate happening when we get the first Hydropulse deal. Exciting.

As of Sept 2025: Hydropulse needs about ~130 MW operating to breakeven (range 60–190 MW on pricing), versus ~400–500 MW of Trident sales before in 2024 without Neptune Vs.

Here’s how I’m framing it in my notes over the past month or so — Hydropulse breakeven vs Trident:

the old breakven was “sell ~400–500 MW of Trident kit.” That was the one-off equipment model. Of course its much lower with Neptune V's.

Hydropulse is different. I’m earning recurring EBITDA from operating MW and selling hydrogen, so breakeven = how many MW online cover the latest audited overhead (~£33m) — not the older £28m prelim.

My simple, sane assumptions:

1 MW PEM ≈ ~151k kg H₂/yr (55 kWh/kg, ~95% uptime).

Non-power opex (water, compression/drying, O&M) includes stack replacement accrual.

Manufacturing cost of the kit is capex here (not EBITDA): electrolyser ~£0.87m/MW, “all-in installed” plant ~~£2.0m/MW. Financing/depreciation matter for cash/EBIT, but EBITDA breakeven is driven by margin per kg vs overhead.

Breakeven MW (Hydropulse), side-by-side cases:

Low margin — H₂ £3.50/kg, power £30/MWh, non-power £0.70/kg → ~190 MW.

Base case — H₂ £4.50/kg, power £40/MWh, non-power £0.60/kg → ~128 MW.

High margin — H₂ £6.00/kg, power £35/MWh, non-power £0.50/kg → ~61 MW.

Bottom line (my takeaway):

Old Trident breakeven guidepost: ~400–500 MW sold (one-off margin).

Hydropulse breakeven: ~60–190 MW operating, with ~130 MW a clean base-case read — and I’ve accounted for real running costs (incl. stacks).

The swing factor isn’t kit price; it’s the spread between H₂ sale price and power times uptime.

Blue will be over imo.

The whole point is going green. Nuclear helps by cutting the cost of green hydrogen with clean baseload power, but it doesn’t change the direction of travel. Blue hydrogen is still fossil-based and can’t meet the same sustainability targets, so it’s not where the market is heading.

Grey hydrogen costs $1–2/kg in the US and $3–6/kg in Europe, while green hydrogen is ~$6/kg today. If nuclear is allowed, green hydrogen could drop to $3–4/kg — suddenly competitive with grey. That’s why this is massive news, and if the EU makes the call, it could light up the market and push ITM above £1 even without Dennis’s contracts

Right now green hydrogen is about $6/kg. If nuclear power is allowed, electrolysers can run flat-out on cheaper baseload power, which would likely bring costs down to around $3–4/kg — nearly half the price.

Here’s my notes:

• Current green H₂: ~$6/kg

• Electrolysis needs ~52 kWh per kg

• Rule of thumb: every $10/MWh on power = ±$0.5/kg hydrogen

• With renewables: ~$60–70/MWh + low utilisation (~40%) → ~$6/kg

• With nuclear: ~$35–50/MWh + high utilisation (~90%) → ~$3–4/kg

• Net saving: ~$2–3/kg (≈35–50% cheaper)

Yes great week for hydrogen — the EU court has just backed nuclear in the sustainable investment list, killing Austria’s challenge. That clears the path for nuclear power to be recognised in low-carbon hydrogen rules. The Commission already set the 70% emissions-savings threshold, and crucially the European Hydrogen Bank’s next €1.1bn auction will include low-carbon hydrogen, not just renewables. Nuclear-powered hydrogen (“red hydrogen”) now has a real route to support, with full methodology due 2026 and evaluation by 2028. This is massive for ITM — every extra clean power source that counts means more demand for electrolysers, more projects bankable, and way faster scale-up. The market for ITM just got bigger.

Talking as if new modular nuclear reactors make hydrogen pointless shows a real misunderstanding of how the energy system works. Nuclear, if it ever scales, is good for steady baseload electricity — but it’s expensive, centralised and takes years to build. Hydrogen does something completely different: it stores energy for when the grid needs it, fuels heavy transport, and supports industries that can’t run on electricity alone.

People get led by clickbait headlines on hydrogen project cancellations, but the reality is every renewable sector has them — solar, wind, batteries, even nuclear. Ørsted, Equinor, BP, RWE — all have shelved multi-GW projects when economics shifted, and nobody says “wind is dead.” It’s just the natural cycle of big energy infrastructure. The fact hydrogen is going through the same growing pains as solar and wind did before scaling is actually bullish — it shows the sector is maturing, attracting billions, and will push through the noise just like the others did.

And for solar. Is that another conspiracy??? Heres some cancellations.

SolarReserve — Aurora Solar Thermal (Australia, 150 MW) — Cancelled (2019) after failing to secure finance/revenue certainty.

BrightSource Energy — Rio Mesa CSP (USA, 500 MW) — Suspended/Cancelled (2013) amid economics/permits; PPA cancellations killed it.

Lyon Group — Riverland Solar + Storage (Australia, 330 MW PV + 100 MW/400 MWh) — Abandoned/Liquidated (2019–2020) due to insolvency/financing.

Solar Trust of America (Solar Millennium) — Blythe CSP phase (USA, 500 MW of 1 GW) — CSP cancelled/converted to PV (2011–2014) as PV economics overtook.

SunEdison — India ‘Ultra-Mega’ Solar push — Projects derailed (2016) as tariffs collapsed and financing fell apart.

BrightSource/Abengoa — Palen Solar (USA) — Original CSP withdrawn (2014–2015); later restarted as PV under EDF after CSP economics failed.

Cancellations of H₂ projects are totally normal — it happens in every part of the energy transition. Honestly it’s getting ridiculous spicy. Wake up.

Cancellations of wind projects are just as common — nothing unusual here either:

Ørsted — Ocean Wind 1 (USA, 1.1 GW offshore) — Cancelled (2023) due to rising costs, supply chain delays, and financing pressures.

Ørsted — Two New Jersey offshore wind projects — Scrapped (2023) amid inflation, higher interest rates, and material cost blowouts.

Equinor/BP — Empire Wind 2 (USA, offshore) — PPA terminated after soaring costs made the contract unprofitable.

Ørsted — Hornsea 4 (UK, 2.4 GW offshore) — Halted (2025) as economics no longer worked with escalating costs.

RWE — Atlantic Array (UK, 1.2 GW offshore) — Abandoned (2013) for technical and financial reasons.

Spicy spent almost 8 months demanding answers on the 500MW capacity reservation, dismissing it as “just a handshake” and accusing Dennis of hiding the counterparty. Yet when it was disclosed that the company in question has begun to call down part of that capacity and ITM has already started manufacturing, he had nothing to say. Not a single comment. For someone so vocal beforehand, the silence is telling — and frankly, it underlines a lack of understanding of how contractual reservations and staged disclosure actually work in this sector. He called it alright.

Reuters and The Times over the past 7 days.

1.Clean hydrogen investment tops US$110 B in 500+ projects worldwide

Despite cancellations, over US$110 billion has now been committed globally across more than 500 clean-H₂ projects — showing the money is still flowing, not drying up. (The Times)

2. Operating + committed capacity to grow 5-fold by 2030

The IEA expects hydrogen production capacity in projects that are already operational, in construction, or at final investment decision to multiply by ~5× from 2025 to 2030. (Reuters)

3. Additional potential 6 million tonnes/year if policy & infrastructure improve

The IEA says that beyond the firmly committed capacity, there’s upside for another ~6 million tonnes per year of low-emissions hydrogen if governments provide stronger demand signals and build out necessary infrastructure. (Reuters)

4. China & U.S. leading investment – momentum in Asia and Middle East too

Most investment is coming from U.S. and China, but Asia broadly (and Middle East) are increasingly serious players — China’s producing big volumes, Asia’s ramping up capacity. (The Times)

5. Decline in projected growth doesn’t stop meaningful near-term wins

Even with the IEA cutting its 2030 output forecast (from ~49M to ~37M tonnes), the fact that “operating, under construction and FID’d” capacity is still rising fast suggests the foundation is being built now. (Reuters)

South Korea is clearly positioning itself to lead on green hydrogen by 2030, and that 300 MW+ pre-FID project looks almost certainly Korean — it’s one of the few countries (outside China) that’s been putting real public money behind projects of that scale. The IEA just cut its 2030 hydrogen production outlook by a quarter, but to me that actually feels bullish — still five years out, and expectations are being reset lower while the big players keep moving.

Funny to think back to Spicy’s “hydrogen is dead” take — still invested, still telling the chat we’d never see £1 a share by 2030. If that’s really his conviction and he’s holding, then he’s the real mug here 😂

Hydropulse hitting ~£200m+ revenue = £1bn+ valuation on normal clean-tech multiples… unless you think hydrogen’s a conspiracy, you can’t argue with that. I'll be happy to see this trading between £2-3 again in the next year or 2.

As we know, with Hydropulese, ITM will drop in 5 MW units on site, sign 10-yr offtakes, and sell H₂ direct to cement/steel/chem plants. No giant FID needed.

The maths (per 5 MW):

Makes ~800 tonnes H₂ a year

At £4–7/kg = £3.2m–£5.6m revenue per year

Over 10 yrs = £32m–£56m locked in

Scale it up:

10 blocks (50 MW) = £32m–£56m a year

A single cement plant on 20% H₂ fuel could use ~7 blocks = £22m–£39m a year

Steel mills need smaller pilots/furnace supply = 1–2 blocks each, still millions per site

Big picture:

Do a handful of cement + steel sites → 50+ blocks easily. That’s £200m+ annual revenue potential on today’s pricing, all long-term contracted.

That’s why Hydropulse could catapult ITM without waiting for mega-projects.

You know, it always makes me laugh when a certain someone gets wound up about a headline. The press thrives on clicks — and nothing drives clicks like doom and gloom.

Look at wind power. Over the last 15 years, how many times have we seen headlines like:

“UK offshore wind auction flops after no bids” (2023, BBC).

“World’s largest offshore wind farm project cancelled” (2024, The Guardian).

“Scotland’s green energy dreams face setback as major turbine order scrapped” (2022, The Times).

Every time one of these came out, you’d think the whole industry was on the brink of collapse. But fast-forward — offshore wind is still scaling, costs have plummeted, and new capacity keeps coming online every year.

So when I see “Green hydrogen is growing — but not enough to meet the hype” from the Times today. I take it the same way. Yes, projects get cancelled, costs rise, strategies shift — but that’s normal. It’s the scaling curve of every clean tech industry. What amuses me is how some people don’t realise that the media cycles live off their outrage clicks. If you zoom out, the direction of travel is obvious: more projects, more investment, and lower costs over time.