Member Info for observer842

Let's say a household/company has the capability to store and release a certain amount of energy at any point in the day from a battery. Let's go with the tariff described below to examine what behaviour that might drive: "The first 'time of use' tariff in the UK. Will it save users money?" (January 10, 2017) https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/1/10/the-first-time-of-use-tariff-in-the-uk-will-it-save-users-money === The UK’s first nationwide offer was launched last week, giving customers a 5p (6 US cents) per kWh tariff for seven overnight hours and a 25p (30 US cents) figure for 16.00 to 19.00 on weekdays. Intermediate times are priced at 12p. === Let's estimate that we can sell back to the grid at 20% of the prices above. i.e 4p, 9.6p, 20p. There are lots of unknowns, so let's examine what an idealised baseline calculation might reveal: a premise that has a constant demand of 3kWe, 24/7, and has access to a 51kWh battery (17 hours at 3kWh). Without the battery the cost is: (5p * 7hr * 3kW) + (25p * 3hr * 3kW) + (12p * 14hr * 3kW) = £1.05 + £2.25 + £5.04 = £8.34 per weekday. In this scenario, it's likely that with a battery it pays to fully charge the battery overnight at 5p, then discharge it over the following 17 hours to meet the 3kW demand, although it is possible that it may just about be advantageous to sell back some to the grid during the peak period - I haven't done the calculation. If it isn't then the cost will be: (5p * 7hr * 3kW) + (5p * 51kWh) = £1.05 + £2.55 = £3.60 per weekday (or more simply 5p * 24hr * 3kW) Already a significant saving per weekday of £8.34 - £3.60 = £4.74. But how does this compare when the premise is able to generate the 3kW locally? I'd say the optimal strategy in this scenario is to fully charge the battery overnight, and then fully discharge it during the peak period. The profit will be: (20p * 51kWh) - (5p * 51kWh) = £10.20 - £2.55 = £7.65 per weekday. Of course we still need to generate the 3kWe load demand. Enter the Inspirit Charger. With the assumption that the property requires a constant 15kWt, we can meet the 3kWe as a by-product at a cost around that of gas - 2.25p/kWh, resulting in: (2.25p * 24hr * 3kW) = £1.62 per weekday. Which then means we have a revenue of: £7.65 - £1.62 = £6.03 per weekday, which when compared to the battery alone scenario is a total saving of: £6.03 + £3.60 = £9.63 per weekday Per weekday hour this is: £9.63 / 24 = 40p And compares very favourably to the Align value of 28p. Of course the above is for an idealised scenario, but hopefully serves to demonstrate that at least in some circumstances an Inspirit Charger combined with a ToU tariff and battery could very well be a very attractive proposition indeed! ;-) DYOR - the above may contain both incorrect assumptions and/or errors. Ob.

Perhaps Align were trying to compare the value of the heat produced with that of a traditional condensing boiler with an efficiency of 92%? If so, I stand corrected regarding including the efficiency in the calculation. Here is part of the previous post with the efficiency included: === Repeating the above calculation for the 2kW boiler using the information from: http://www.inspirit-energy.com/story/the-inspirit-charger An mCHP boiler consuming a gas input of 13.5kW would produce c.2kW of electrical output and c.10kW of heat output. Assuming a gas price of 2.25p/kWh and electricity price of 12p/kWh that means 24p (2kW x 12p) of electricity has been self-generated and 24.5p (10kW x 2.25p/kWh x 1/92%) of heat, totalling 48.5p, on a total input bill of 30.5p (13.5kW x 2.25p), assuming the electricity and heat are consumed on site, so providing a saving of 48.5p - 30.5p = 18p. Comparing this to Flow's mCHP using the information from: "Tech Spec" http://www.flowenergy.uk.com/flow-boiler-tech-zone/tech-spec/ I'm not 100% certain I've extracted the correct figures, please shout if not! An mCHP boiler consuming a gas input of 16kW would produce c.1kW of electrical output and c.14kW of heat output at an overall 94% efficiency. Assuming a gas price of 2.25p/kWh and electricity price of 12p/kWh that means 12p (1kW x 12p) of electricity has been self-generated and 33.5p (14kW x 2.25p/kWh x 1/94%) of heat, totalling 45.5p, on a total input bill of 36p (16kW x 2.25p), assuming the electricity and heat are consumed on site, so providing a saving of 45.5p - 36p = 9.5p. So in summary (all without FiTs) INSP 3kW: 28p INSP 2kW: 18p FLOW 1kW: 9.5p Those numbers are all expected savings per hour of usage given the above assumptions. === If for the FLOW example, a comparison to a 92% efficient traditional (condensing) boiler is used, instead of 94%, the expected savings per hour is approximately 10p. Ob.

From the Align Report: "On the cusp of cogeneration commercialisation & trading at a fraction of replacement IP cost" (13th June 2016) http://www.alignresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Inspirit-Energy-Align-Research-13th-June-2016-Final.pdf === To take a simple example: an mCHP boiler consuming a gas input of 20kW would produce c.3kW of electrical output and c.15kW of heat output at an overall 92% efficiency - a level which has been demonstrated by the Inspirit Charger in trials. Assuming a gas price of 2.25p/kWh and electricity price of 12p/kWh that means 36p (3kW x 12p) of electricity has been self-generated and 37p (15kW x 2.25p/kWh x1/92%) of heat, totaling 73p, on a total input bill of 45p (20kW x 2.25p), assuming the electricity and heat are consumed on site, so providing a saving of 73p - 45p = 28p. This compares to no savings at all from a non-mCHP boiler, which only generates heat. === I'm not sure why they divide by the efficiency to reach 37p - seems wrong to me: I believe the value of the usable heat generated is simply 34p (15kW x 2.25p/kWh) - the 8% of energy not extracted from the gas just goes out the exhaust pipe. Is that correct? If so, the total is then 70p - 45p = 25p Repeating the above calculation for the 2kW boiler using the information from: http://www.inspirit-energy.com/story/the-inspirit-charger An mCHP boiler consuming a gas input of 13.5kW would produce c.2kW of electrical output and c.10kW of heat output. Assuming a gas price of 2.25p/kWh and electricity price of 12p/kWh that means 24p (2kW x 12p) of electricity has been self-generated and 22.5p (10kW x 2.25p/kWh) of heat, totalling 46.5p, on a total input bill of 30.5p (13.5kW x 2.25p), assuming the electricity and heat are consumed on site, so providing a saving of 46.5p - 30.5p = 16p. Comparing this to Flow's mCHP using the information from: "Tech Spec" http://www.flowenergy.uk.com/flow-boiler-tech-zone/tech-spec/ I'm not 100% certain I've extracted the correct figures, please shout if not! An mCHP boiler consuming a gas input of 16kW would produce c.1kW of electrical output and c.14kW of heat output at an overall 94% efficiency. Assuming a gas price of 2.25p/kWh and electricity price of 12p/kWh that means 12p (1kW x 12p) of electricity has been self-generated and 31.5p (14kW x 2.25p/kWh) of heat, totalling 43.5p, on a total input bill of 36p (16kW x 2.25p), assuming the electricity and heat are consumed on site, so providing a saving of 43.5p - 36p = 7.5p. === So in summary (all without FiTs) INSP 3kW: 25p INSP 2kW: 16p FLOW 1kW: 7.5p Those numbers are all expected savings per hour of usage given the above assumptions. Ob.

Over on the Flow board we've been talking about pay back times, and one topic that came up which I hadn't fully thought about previously with respect to INSP was Time of Use (ToU) tariffs: "The first 'time of use' tariff in the UK. Will it save users money?" (January 10, 2017) https://www.carboncommentary.com/blog/2017/1/10/the-first-time-of-use-tariff-in-the-uk-will-it-save-users-money === The UK’s first nationwide offer was launched last week, giving customers a 5p (6 US cents) per kWh tariff for seven overnight hours and a 25p (30 US cents) figure for 16.00 to 19.00 on weekdays. Intermediate times are priced at 12p. === In term of further reducing the TCO of the Inspirit Charger, including payback times, it may be a very attractive proposition to combine the Inspirit Charger with a battery (which has always been the plan, hence the name), but to plan on discharging pretty much the full contents of the battery to the grid at peak times - perhaps agreed in conjunction with an energy company. e.g. we sell to them for 20p - they sell it on for 25p. I haven't got my calculator out yet - perhaps I'll have a go at estimating payback times later: the issue is going to be the additional cost of the battery: but if you already have one... Ob.

Would you care to share your current views on INSP?

Indeed @Camkite. News must be imminent! And it might actually be company defining even (which way though!?) We've updated our website to state "Estimated Delivery Begins: 2017". What more does the market want that this time we mean business? Oh. Right. I almost forgot I'm easily pleased. Where is the certification?! Who has been trialling the charger?! How is the CIBSE report progressing?! Is that better? ;-) Ob.

I'd say it changed in the past week or two - perhaps last weekend even....

Just me that's excited that our website was recently updated to say that estimated delivery is now expected to begin in 2017!? That's this year right? ;-)

Payback times for the Inspirit Charger are mentioned here: "On the cusp of cogeneration commercialisation & trading at a fraction of replacement IP cost" (13th June 2016) http://www.alignresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Inspirit-Energy-Align-Research-13th-June-2016-Final.pdf Does anybody know how they are defined? For example, the Smaller commercial with FiTs 2kWe has an Installed Price of £11,500, and a First Year saving of £3,611 for a Payback of 3.1 years. I think it can mean either of two things: If I paid £11,500 up front (unit cost plus installation) then the total of my reduced gas, electricity plus FiTs expenditure over 3.1 years would be expected to total £11,500. An alternative interpretation (see my posts on the FLOW board for reference) would be that after 3.1 years I would have reached the break-even point had I chosen a much cheaper boiler with comparable heating capability instead. I would have thought the former as the calculations for the Smaller commercial without FiTs 3kW on page 6 seem to support this interpretation - whereas for FLOW they appear to be using the latter definition: but it's hard to know as concrete figures, even concrete estimates, are hard to nail down, and why I posted on the FLOW board asking for help. Ob.

Clarity certainly required @steveho! Lots of good news in recent years to whet our appetite. Let's just be hopeful that we have addressed the reason why progress has been slower than was anticipated and it's now full steam - I mean heat, ahead! If there is good news to come this week, sentiment could spin on a dime. It's been a long time coming! ;-)

It's alive! ;-) http://www.inspirit-energy.com/ News imminent? Do we know if the LOI mentioned below still stands? "Inspirit signs LOI with major global contract manufacturer" (9 February 2015) http://www.inspirit-energy.com/investors/rns-news-detail?id=6xl797r === Further to the announcement of 8 January 2015 highlighting that Inspirit was looking to expand its third party production capabilities with international manufacturing companies for the fulfillment of significant volumes of the Inspirit mCHP boilers over the next 5 years, Inspirit Energy (LSE AIM: INSP) is pleased to announce that it has now signed a Letter of Intent ("LOI") with a major multi national contract manufacturing services company that may lead to a significant manufacturing agreement being finalized during this quarter. === It apparently did last summer: "On the cusp of cogeneration commercialisation & trading at a fraction of replacement IP cost" (13th June 2016) http://www.alignresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Inspirit-Energy-Align-Research-13th-June-2016-Final.pdf === On the manufacturing side, Inspirit is in discussions with a multinational that may lead to significant manufacturing agreements in the future, although this is in addition to its current manufacturing agreement with UK based partner Malvern Boilers. The initial production run is expected to be between 1,200 to 1,500 units in the first full year. === Same question re the Malvern Boilers agreement: "Manufacturer signed for the Inspirit mCHP boiler" (27 January 2014) http://www.inspirit-energy.com/investors/rns-news-detail?id=vw1gzew === Inspirit (AIM: INSP), which is developing a heating boiler which also simultaneously generates enough electricity to power the average home, announces that it has signed a manufacturing agreement with global boiler manufacturer Malvern Boilers Ltd ("MALVERN") to produce the initial volumes of its unique and highly efficient mCHP boilers. === If the above are still in place, then it could very well turn out that this is the year for the Inspirit Charger! - assuming we've managed to address whatever problems apparently scuppered our plans to deliver last year... It's still a risky buy for me - but with massive upside from here if we are able to follow through to mass production - into the pennies for sure if so IMHO! Estimated Delivery Begins: 2017 Ob

I chuckled to myself when you mentioned the battery connection with INSP earlier in the week @jimb2 (because of our KDNC lithium connection) - but it does follow on from what we were speculating recently here: a possible tie up with a property developer offering mCHP + Solar + storage as standard. Unique selling point - until everyone is doing it of course! mCHP's have a very good chance of being ubiquitous in time: and I'd say we have a fighting chance with the Charger! ;-)

I'd recommend anyone looking to invest here after the sentiment driven rise this week to take a read back through this board since the beginning of the year, about 300 posts or so - an hour or two's read + the same again if you follow relevant links to research articles, the Inspirit blogs and the Align Research report. My summary: risky buy with massive upside if it comes good - I believe we are waiting on certification of the Inspirit Charger which has been, and continues to be, imminent in my eyes: of course it may never happen if there are insurmountable problems in its current incarnation which we have been unable to address over the past year. To clarify some of the posts this week: at the end of 2016 we had £73k cash and cash equivalents *plus* £63k in trade and other receivables. Take a look back at my posts from a few weeks ago where I dived a little deeper into the financials. If after doing your own research by reading back through the posts and following the relevant links you have any questions, then I'm sure many here, me included, will be more than happy to attempt to address them, and if we can't, discussing them in the open is exactly what this board is for IMHO! ;-) Good luck with whatever you decide. Ob.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_favours_the_bold I'd feel a hell of a lot braver if we had that certification under our belt @mac69! ;-)

Ahem...: "Australian home builder offers solar plus batteries as standard" (April 13, 2017) http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/australian-home-builder-offers-solar-plus-batteries-standard.html === It's a little unclear from their literature, but it appears that solar is available as a 5kW or 6kW configuration - and comes with a Tesla Powerwall 2, which offers 13.5kWh of storage capacity. Arden estimates that this combo should allow a family of 4 to meet 90% of their own energy needs on a typical Australian day. === So how long until we read: "Property developer offers solar, mCHP plus batteries as standard" Ob

"synergis FAQs" http://synergiscapital.co.uk/home/faqs === What does SynerGIS do with the money I invest? To generate your investment returns, SynerGIS uses the majority of funds you invest in SynerGIS Bonds to make secured loans to experienced property developers. The balance is held by our dedicated Treasury function and invested in cash instruments to provide the required levels of liquidity to the business. === Didn't we have a connection with a property developer at some point? Oh yes - search the web for "inspirit energy" "property developer" if you are interested... I'd say canny property developers should by now be interested in a deal to supply an mCHP which pays for itself within several years - great Unique Selling Point: similar to how we'll start to see property developers offering the "battery option" alongside the already common "solar panels" options - give it time. If there is indeed a connection with INSP, then that's one hell of a canny play - I think we've all been focussing on the possibility of a utility partnering with us, whereas a partnership with a property developer or two or three could be worth much more to us. Now just where is that certification so I can up my opinion already?! ;-) Ob.

Very interesting development for us - and something I'm almost embarrassingly surprised I hadn't spotted until now (I was investigating whether Lithium/Aluminium might make a good general purpose fuel - not just in rocket engines): "Could metal particles be the clean fuel of the future?" (9 Dec 2015) https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/could-metal-particles-be-clean-fuel-future-257172 === Metal powders, produced using clean primary energy sources, could provide a more viable long-term replacement for fossil fuels than other widely discussed alternatives, such as hydrogen, biofuels or batteries, according to a study in the Dec. 15 issue of the journal Applied Energy. === The paper itself reveals why it could be an interesting development for our technology: "Direct combustion of recyclable metal fuels for zero-carbon heat and power) (December 2015) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282326476_Direct_combustion_of_recyclable_metal_fuels_for_zero-carbon_heat_and_power === Alternatively, this paper proposes the direct combustion of metal-fuels with air in turbulent combustors to achieve higher power densities. The high-grade heat produced through metal-fuel combustion could be used directly for clean heating, or be used to drive Rankine or Stirling ECEs (external-combustion engines), as well as thermo-electric generators. === Remember that "heat" is our "fuel" ;-) Here is a recent presentation: "Metal fuels for zero - carbon heat and power" (October 27, 2016) https://static.tue.nl/fileadmin/content/onderzoek/Eindhoven_Energy_Institute_EEI/EnergyDays/Series_4_2015_2017/2016_10_27_Metal_Fuels/Bergthorson_Jeff.pdf Admittedly this approach doesn't quite fit in with my world view of the future, but it may fit someone's world view that is currently developing this technology and willing to integrate with the patented technology in our Stirling "sealed for life" Engine - for a price of course ;-) Ob

Hmmmm indeed: https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-tmj/tm-journals/2017-009/UK00003214088.html "Octagonal subsidiary to issue new 'SynergisBond'" (22 Mar, 2017) http://www.digitallook.com/news/aim-bulletin/octagonal-subsidiary-to-issue-new-synergisbond--2585894.html === SynerGIS has been established to provide commercial asset-backed lending and its operations would be independent on the activities of GIS, Octagonal’s board explained. === There could be a lot of previous shareholders here kicking themselves if John Gunn still truly believes in the future of the Inspirit Charger and intends to use this new tool to assist INSP to production. If what we have does in fact do what it says on the tin, then this should turn out very well for both INSP and for the bond holders indeed. Very well. Now if only the charger were certified...

@smrrty. According to: "Inspirit Energy - On the cusp of cogeneration commercialisation & trading at a fraction of replacement IP cost" (13th June 2016) http://www.alignresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Inspirit-Energy-Align-Research-13th-June-2016-Final.pdf === The initial end user price is expected to be £10,000 + VAT, falling over time as economies of scale are enjoyed from increased levels of manufacture. === Take a look at the table on page 18 for forecasts. Year 1 2 3 4 5 Sales Price £10,000 £7,400 £4,500 £4,400 £4,400 Cost of Sales Per Unit £9,388 £5,911 £3,011 £2,692 £2,692 Gross profit per unit £612 £1,489 £1,489 £1,708 £1,708 Gross margin per unit 6.1% 20.1% 33.1% 38.8% 38.8% From page 7, at £11,500 the pay back, without FiTs, is 4.9 years! Presumably it will be around half that pay back time at around half the cost, and even faster with FiTs. Massive USP - if only we had the boiler certified! News soon? Ob.

Something I watched earlier related to energy disruption made me think of INSP: "Tony Seba on Disruptive Technologies at SeouLA 2017" (March 31, 2017) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M27KECEL5Zo At 28 mins in he claims that solar panel adoption really took off with the introduction of a business model called "zero money down solar". That's *exactly* the type of business model we need to pursue for the Inspirit Charger. Zero money down mCHP. Of course if customers want to pay, or part pay, up front, they can - but arranged correctly it *should* be better for INSP if we are able to finance the Zero money down model ourselves (or with a partner) - and is a massive USP compared to traditional boilers. Massive. This truly could be a great play - just need confirmation of the certification and trialling for me to up my opinion from Buy to Strong Buy... Ob.