Member Info for julianb1234

Ok, since I had a few recommendations for the portfolio tool comment I shall assume someone here might want it, hopefully the link I am attaching will show up ok.
The sample contains some random shares to demonstrate how it works, and instructions are on sheet 1. If you are familiar with Excel it should be easy enough to use and even improve to suit yourself. The link will take you to non editable version of the document. To use it for yourself and make it editable I seem to recall you have to do file > make a copy > and save it in your own google drive.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KpIZRN0brXFFIzxE4l8wYpN7JGlslAwsgZHVmQRsLlA/edit#gid=699245325

I have a portfolio tool I built in Google docs. It takes live data from google finance, and allows you to add new share tickers by merely copying and pasting a line and editing the ticker name, the number of shares and the av price. It automatically loads links to a number of share web pages for the chose ticker, and allows you to have different portfolios on different sheets all totalled up to the front sheet, has micro graphs for weekly, monthly and six monthly charts and has a watchlist sheet as well. Only downsides are it takes a lot of internet bandwidth and it is editable so you can mess it up if you make a mistake.
If anyone wants it I will try and post a link here to a copy you can upload to your google drive, you have to use that as it only works from there.

I also am happy with the potential growth for static VRFB's, I see it as huge, I see no point in trying to force a square peg into a round hole, many's a company has come to regret trying to sell a product into a market that it doesn't suit.

@BenAlder In most of those circumstances I reckon hydrogen gas and a fuel cell would be a better choice, assuming we do entirely eliminate hydrocarbons, although my view would be that a gas powered IC engine would be green enough for minority usage subject to a licensing process to limit it to minority use. I think VRFB's would take up too much room except perhaps for the port use example, where you have a large ship and a relatively small demand.

@Mitchoftheday I have been following the board for a long time but rarely feel the need to add an opinion. Started investing in BMN a couple of years ago, and have built up a sizeable holding since. It is my second largest investment after PHE, both of which have benefited from their recent rises. ITM is the third alternative energy stock in my top 5 investments. I also hold smaller positions in CWR, EQT, UKW & AEG. Altogether making around 50% of my investment.

And to further elaborate, energy density of VRFB electrolyte is 72 kJ/kg, energy density of ammonia is 22.5 MJ/kg, i.e.ammonia is 300 times as energy dense... no contest really when you have to move something around and use energy to do so. You want the fuel that weighs the least and has the least volume. Weight and volume are not an issue for static use.

Note I wrote as someone who is heavily invested in BMN and believe in VFRB's future as one of the solutions for time delay energy storage, but as a professional engineer I also believe in horses for courses. VFRB's are not the right horse for transport. https://www.wartsila.com/insights/article/successful-tests-pave-the-way-for-ammonia-as-a-future-marine-fuel and also https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/marine-sector-looks-to-ammonia-to-decarbonize-shipping

I think there are better alternatives for shipping, using ammonia and either a fuel cell or directly in a marine IC engine. Ammonia will have a much higher power density than VRFB's and can be produced from e.g. solar power. I wouldn't be investing in that idea. VRFB's for static energy storage yes.

Tesla and Plug & Play EV batteries... now what have I heard about catalytic convertors being targets for thieves, imagine if all they had to do was unplug it and pull it out?
Some interesting facts about EV's and fires:
1) they seem to be more liable to fires than internal combustion engines are https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/manufacturer-news/2020/11/27/vehicle-fire-data-suggests-higher-incident-rate-for-evs
2) Tesla’s recommendation is to fight a Tesla Energy Product fire defensively. The fire crew should maintain a safe distance and allow the battery to burn itself out. Water spray has been deemed safe as an agent for use on exposed Tesla Energy Products. Water is considered the preferred agent for suppressing lithium-ion battery fires.
3) According to Simon Kirsopp, watch manager at Tyne & Wear Fire & Rescue, it is not always that simple: ‘Letting a fire burn out can not only have an impact on the surrounding environment, property, and people, but in many cases this just isn’t feasible. We have to think about the impact on the wider economy. Letting a fire burn out could mean closing a road for up to eight hours. It is estimated that for every minute a road is closed, it has a £1m impact on the local economy. Once the fire has been successfully put out, the problem for the fire brigade is not over. Electric vehicle fires are known to reignite hours, days or even weeks after the initial event, and they can do so many times. Just because the fire is burned out at that moment, there is no way of knowing if it will reignite in the back of the pick-up truck or in the storage grounds.'

I won't be jumping on the EV bandwagon just yet.

@Tagware re fire incident statistics, I have been unable to find any clear data on the incident rates, particularly separating petrol, vs diesel vs hybrid, vs EV so I don't know where you get your categorical statements from, my suspicion is that diesel cars will have the lowest fire incidences as diesel is nowhere near as flammable as petrol and needs a wick to actually burn freely unlike petrol whose vapours can ignite, however I have found this article from the UK car fleet organisation https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/manufacturer-news/2020/11/27/vehicle-fire-data-suggests-higher-incident-rate-for-evs

Oh, and another thing, on a battery perhaps the best thing is to increase the internal short circuit to remove the stored energy as quickly as possible, whilst still keeping the fire under control, so yet another argument that perhaps water is not such a stupid idea.

@Tagware. Yes conventional wisdom for house fires etc is you do not use water on electrical fires, for a start in order not to electrocute yourself... however battery fires are not the same, for one they are lower voltages, they are dc, and the battery short circuit creates a huge amount of heat in itself with no oxygen needed.... the conventional argument of using powder, CO2 or HCF's etc on electrical fires is to exclude oxygen and put the fire out that way.
On EV's Powder will exclude the oxygen to a certain extent, but do nothing about removing the source of extreme heat, the short circuit,.
CO2 and HCF's would not work well in open areas where the gas will escape, and also do nothing to remove the source of heat, the short circuit.
Water does remove the heat quite effectively, and as the voltages are not so high there snot the risk of electrocution, so perhaps the Fire Service are not being as stupid as you credit them.... but the source of heat remains, the short circuit, and that is why they tend to reignite.

@Tagware.. Ooh just under 1000 cells in Tesla's latest, isn't that great, only 1000 to keep at optimum temp and current loads all the time.
As for your comment about Ammonia and it being the most wasteful use of energy, perhaps you are yet again looking at the current main process which converts hydrocarbon gas using steam, and yes it generates a lot of CO2. However solar power is the cheapest form of power out there, and places like KSA (Saudi) have it in abundance, so wasting a bit of virtually free and completely green energy is neither here nor there. As I said in one of my previous posts they are already in joint ventures with various companies to create giant solar farms to produce ammonia for transport use, they aren't waiting for oil to no longer be in use.

As for fires, I would expect Tesla, a manufacturer of them, to claim they are safer. However lets just assume for arguments sake that there are about the same number of fires in each type, what do you do if you have a fire in a battery EV....
The services have two main options, let the fire burn out or extinguish it.
Many EV manufacturers actually advise for a controlled burn i.e allow the vehicle to burn out while you focus on protecting the surrounding area.
According to Simon Kirsopp, watch manager at Tyne & Wear Fire & Rescue, it is not always that simple: ‘Letting a fire burn out can not only have an impact on the surrounding environment, property, and people, but in many cases this just isn’t feasible.
‘We have to think about the impact on the wider economy. Letting a fire burn out could mean closing a road for up to eight hours. It is estimated that for every minute a road is closed, it has a £1m impact on the local economy. We have to think of business continuity, social arrangements and the effect on local businesses, sometimes closing a road just isn’t an option.’
So the second option, to extinguish the fire – this also comes with its own set of problems.
‘Putting out an EV fire uses around 1,125 litres of water per minute. We have to consider the water runoff. When water is used to treat a fire, it can become contaminated because it absorbs certain quantities of soot or chemicals that are common when anything burns, using such vast amounts of water it is very easy for this contaminated water to enter drainage systems. Once the fire has been successfully put out, the problem for the fire brigade is not over.
Electric vehicle fires are known to reignite hours, days or even weeks after the initial event, and can do so many times.
Not only does this pose a safety issue, but it also poses a legal issue: ‘Recovery firms are increasingly concerned about dealing with electric vehicles. There is no way of knowing if it will reignite in the back of the pick-up truck or in the storage grounds. This poses a legal challenge in terms of whose responsibility is it, and as a fire department it is hard to make the final call, just because the fire is out, it doesn’t mean it won

Ammonia is already widely transported by ships. There are risks just as there are with oil and LNG tankers, but I suspect the crew of an ammonia carrier are a lot more careful, just as I imagine they are on LNG carriers.

I don't disagree about the blending to the gas supply, but in reality by 2024 there won't be many DMG's running yet either. That will be the start of them really expanding, but it will still be relatively early days.

I am merely trying to dispel the idea that Tagware was promoting that hydrogen powered vehicles are dead ducks, I do not think they are. I think they have a very valid future and PHE is an obvious choice to be part of it.

Remember you can either make ammonia from hydrogen and air, or make hydrogen from ammonia, so it goes both ways, thus if you have hydrogen powered cars and no ready source of hydrogen nearby, you can easily tanker in ammonia and convert it to hydrogen. One of the main problems hampering hydrogen vehicles is refuelling facilities. PHE is one solution, converted 'green' ammonia another one, so you can resolve the refuelling point problem by green solutions in multiple ways.

The point about ammonia is that it provides an impetus to the wider use of hydrogen and thus more of a market, and that in itself means there would be more point to PHE's ability to produce the stuff. After all not much point in producing it if there wasn't a market.

And also google ammonia in the hydrogen society

As for the NOx issues, we already deal with them in diesel cars by using adblue, so clearly not insurmountable.
And you can use ammonia in a fuel cell. try googling that.

Googling ammonia as a shipping fuel gets this as the first 'snippet' with plenty of other hits. Ammonia has an advantage as it contains no carbon, so can burn in an engine without emitting carbon dioxide. By early 2024, Man Energy Solutions plans to install an ammonia-ready engine on a ship. The first models will be dual-fuel, able to run on traditional marine gas oil as well.
Also google ammonia from solar power the first snippet is "The biggest problem associated with solar power is intermittency. The problem is ensuring energy supply after the Sun has gone down. ... Ammonia can be produced decentrally from renewables (or cheap power) via Proton's NFuel units and this ammonia can be converted into power when needed via ammonia generators" and there are other hits you can read up on.

@Tagware. I really do suggest you read up on Ammonia as both a direct fuel and as a means of transporting Hydrogen (it is easily disassociated into Nitrogen & H2) before you continue to lambast me. It eliminates the issues you mention regarding having to always pressurise (note the UK spelling ;) hydrogen to utilise it. Yes we may have to use pressurised hydrogen in the actual cars, but to move it from production location to point of use you can utilise ammonia as an intermediary step. Even in cars there continues to be work on alternative ways of storing it other than as a pressurised gas, so who knows. I do feel the best means of transporting hydrogen is an area in which the UK govt has yet to cotton on, and agree with you they are missing a trick in that respect, but so are you.