Member Info for JeffMills

Contracts starting to filter through, looking good guys.

I’ll just sit back and wait for the 500MW decision, no rush. And as for you telling me or anyone else what to do—thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take advice from someone who’s actually contributing something useful, not from a self-appointed critic with a lot of time on their hands.

It’s pretty obvious you made this account just to bash ITM, which says a lot about your intentions. You must really have a lot of spare time to constantly attack others, especially when the only thing you’re offering is negativity.

Bloom Energy was at a 5-year low not long ago, and now it’s up 200% after landing a contract. So, if ITM lands the 500MW FIT, are you really going to make another account to downplay that too?

At some point, it’s worth asking: if your life revolves around attacking people for sharing information and hope, maybe it’s time to reconsider your approach.

aqua/ricky (same account)

i’ve gone through my posts, and i’m struggling to see where i’ve "ramped" anything. apart from you and your other account, i’ve never been accused of ramping. simply sharing news about the industry or reporting facts should not be confused with ramping.

when i share updates like the directors buying shares, itm’s first sale of the neptune v, the uk government’s multi-billion-pound investment in the sector, or the signing of the 100mw after the fid, i’m simply sharing relevant information. if that’s considered ramping, then i’m honestly baffled. discussing the potential of the 500mw deal is simply part of the conversation, not an attempt to artificially inflate the stock.

you seem to be attacking me for simply being transparent about what’s happening in the sector. the share price drop is part of the broader market conditions—could be due to plug power’s financials, the ongoing war in ukraine, or geopolitical tensions. it’s not as simple as blaming one individual’s posts.

what’s truly ironic is that you and your other account, ricky, went from raising legitimate questions to outright deramping, calling everything “****.” if you’re going to engage in discussion, at least keep it civil. i’m not here to be a punching bag for anyone with a negative agenda. maybe your time would be better spent elsewhere if all you want to do is throw insults.

let’s keep the conversation respectful and focus on the facts, not personal attacks.

You were highlighting delays and focusing on every negative you could find, acting like some day trader just hunting for quick dips. But the reality is, the 100MW Shell deal has been confirmed, and it's moving ahead. All those "delays" you pointed out were just noise, and here ITM is, making progress despite your doom-and-gloom predictions. Maybe if you weren’t so focused on short-term fluctuations, you’d actually see the bigger picture.

You're calling a 500MW contract a handshake, but Shell's 100MW and RWE’s 200MW are already locked in. If you think ITM’s doom is certain, it’s actually you who seems desperate, clinging to negativity rather than seeing the bigger picture. You keep fixating on short-term market noise while the fundamentals are stacking up. You say it's delusional, but honestly, your obsession with pointing out every minor setback is more of the real issue here... attention seeker

Nuclear stocks like Cameco (CCJ), once seen as poor performers/scams as ricky would call them, exploded in value after falls similar to ITM. From 2002 to 2007, Cameco rose around 1,200%. Similarly, Paladin Energy saw a 1,000% increase during the nuclear bull market in the mid-2000s. Companies like Ur-Energy and Denison Mines also followed similar paths. Like ITM Power today, these stocks were undervalued before the broader energy transition caught momentum, showing how sectors that seem stagnant can soar when the market shifts. Ricky acts like this has never happened before..

Nuclear energy is the perfect example here. In the 1970s, governments poured billions into it despite massive skepticism and fears it was dangerous or a scam. People doubted it would ever be profitable or safe. But by the 1980s, nuclear was supplying huge amounts of power—France alone gets about 70% of its electricity from it now.

These big energy transitions take time, money, and belief. The same is happening with green hydrogen today. Ricky the expert...

So, according to Ricky, the EU President is lying, and green hydrogen is some elaborate scam, with billions being invested just to trick people. The UK government, also in on it, is throwing billions this year to keep the con going. Apparently, Shell signed a 100MW deal with ITM for a product that’s “crap and a fantasy,” and Linde spent years owning 30% of ITM for something “worthless.”

Honestly, Ricky, do you even hear yourself? You’re claiming some of the world’s largest companies and governments are conspiring to sink billions into a fake technology, all while ITM secures real contracts and delivers real products. The mental gymnastics it takes to argue that is impressive—delusional, but impressive.

Alright, Ricky, call me a ramper if it makes you feel better, but let’s talk facts. Just weeks ago, the EU committed to accelerating green hydrogen, ITM sold its first Neptune V system backed by EU grants, and we’ve got confirmed deals like 100MW with Shell and 200MW with RWE. Add the potential 500MW project, and it's clear ITM is playing a big role in a sector receiving billions in government funding globally—from the EU to the UK, South Korea, and the US.

Sure, the SP is frustratingly low right now, but the market's brutal across AIM stocks. If you’re arguing this entire green hydrogen push is fake, then we’re looking at the biggest scam in stock market history. More likely, you’re bitter because you’ve been burned before and now take it out on others.

ITM’s Dennis himself explained the delays: inflation and electricity prices hit the sector, but that downtime helped ITM sort itself out. Do you really think companies like Shell and RWE spend millions on "fun" contracts or grant money goes to BS tech? I’m willing to wait, knowing profitability is in sight with just a few more contracts. Maybe you’ll buy back in at £2 when ITM’s already turned profitable. If that’s your play, fine—but don’t be so rude while others are willing to see the long-term.

The European Commission has today announced that Spain, Lithuania and Austria have all pledged up to €836m in total for the European Hydrogen Bank’s “Auctions-as-a-Service” platform, announcing dec 3

When I look through your past posts about other companies, it’s clear that whenever you’ve been bullish, you’ve been massively wrong—and when you’ve been bearish, the same story. So, with you being bearish here, I’m actually quite grateful. You absolute moron.

Before Shell signed the 100MW contract and made their FID, this was exactly the kind of post Ricky was throwing out. All doom, gloom, and condescension, acting like it would never happen. Now here he is again, running the same tired script about the 500MW deal. Honestly, it’s hard not to feel second-hand embarrassment for him at this point. Some people just can’t help but miss the bigger picture.

Ricky sanchez on Feb 2:

The update on Shell Refhyne 2 is that progress has been slowed down by two main factors

1. ITM Electrolyser Setbacks: The UK-based electrolyser manufacturer ITM Power, responsible for building the 100 MW electrolyser, has scaled back its expansion plans, impacting the project's timeline.

Alright, Ricky, let’s stop with the recycled negativity. Funny thing is, I scrolled back through your history and saw you doing the exact same thing when we were waiting on the 100MW FID—all doom and gloom until it was signed, and then silence. Now you’re back with the same “it’ll never happen” energy about the 500MW contract. Weirdo.

Here’s the reality: we’re not sitting here guessing; we’re looking at RWE’s massive hydrogen targets, with ITM already contracted for 200MW of electrolysers. Add in EU and Germany’s multi-billion-dollar hydrogen initiatives, the UK’s ambitious clean energy goals, and the Neptune V sale, which came off the back of an EU-funded grant project—this isn’t just "hope for the best." These are concrete moves positioning ITM in a rapidly growing market.

You can hand-wave all you want, but the shift to green hydrogen isn’t a “maybe”; it’s happening. If you’d rather sit here whining about stock prices while the rest of us look ahead to actual industry targets, that’s on you. Let us know when you’re ready to join reality. Attention seeker.

Ade. I’ve read about the ammonia cracker and understand its role. The cracker is used to release hydrogen from green ammonia that’s already been produced. However, it’s important to note that ammonia cracking doesn’t replace electrolyzers. Electrolyzers, powered by wind or solar, are still needed to produce the green hydrogen from water in the first place. Ammonia acts as a way to store and transport hydrogen more efficiently, especially for long distances. Once the ammonia reaches its destination, it can be cracked to release the hydrogen, but the initial hydrogen production still relies on electrolysis, not the ammonia cracking process.

The point of cracking green ammonia is that it’s a way to store and transport hydrogen more efficiently, not a direct replacement for electrolyzers. Electrolyzers, powered by wind or solar, are still needed to produce green hydrogen from water in the first place. Ammonia is just a storage and transport medium for hydrogen. Cracking it only releases the hydrogen after it’s already been made, so it can’t replace electrolyzers for the initial green hydrogen production. People here might not realize that electrolyzers are essential to make the hydrogen before it can be stored in ammonia and cracked later.

Yes, you’d need electrolyzers from companies like ITM Power to produce green hydrogen from water using renewable energy. That hydrogen is then used to make green ammonia. After that, the ammonia can be cracked to release the hydrogen. So, to make the process truly green, you need electrolyzers first to produce the hydrogen for ammonia.

The issue is that cracking ammonia, while it can produce hydrogen, still requires significant energy input, and unless the ammonia is already produced in a low-carbon or green way, it may not be as sustainable as electrolysis powered by renewables. The big advantage of green hydrogen made from water via electrolysis is that it’s zero-emission when powered by clean energy, whereas ammonia cracking may still face emissions challenges depending on how the ammonia is sourced.

So, while ammonia cracking for hydrogen is an interesting approach, it can only be truly “green” if both the ammonia production and the cracking process are powered by renewable energy—otherwise, it still risks being a carbon-intensive process.

Using crackers for hydrogen production, particularly blue hydrogen (which involves methane cracking with carbon capture), faces challenges. The main issue is that it still relies on fossil fuels, and carbon capture hasn’t yet been scaled up enough to make it truly carbon-neutral. This makes it harder to meet strict net-zero targets. That’s why Shell recently pulled its blue hydrogen plans, opting to focus on green hydrogen—produced via electrolysis using renewable energy—which is cleaner and more aligned with long-term sustainability goals.

When I said you need to make hydrogen in the first place, I meant that you need a hydrogen production method to generate hydrogen, whether through electrolysis or cracking. So, to be precise, both electrolyzers (which split water into hydrogen and oxygen) and crackers (which split hydrocarbons like methane into hydrogen and carbon) are methods of making hydrogen.

The difference is in the source: electrolyzers use water and renewable energy, while crackers typically use fossil fuels or methane to produce hydrogen.

So, while electrolyzers are the go-to for green hydrogen (from water), crackers like AFC’s can produce low-carbon hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Both are valid ways of producing hydrogen, but the choice between the two depends on the availability of resources and the carbon goals—whether you’re aiming for zero-emission hydrogen (electrolysis) or low-carbon hydrogen (cracking).