Member Info for operastar

OK Mucker 007. I'm Not very good on numbers. Could you elaborate? It seems to me there ARE orders but I suppose you mean not enough. Something to do with the earnings per share I believe.

Thanks Whatabout. Where was the announcement?

Woops sory I ment your post 13.13 Stokey That Peel would be financing The FOAK AND the other 11 sites from their own resources.

Just found the RNS 1964G 22nd July 2019 announcing the signing of the lease on the site. I am not clear if this includes any buildings to occupy.. It predicted build completion Q4 2019. So not so good ,but probably Covid has something to do with the slipage.

Hold on. What about :
RNS 8776J 16th April Green Hydrogen for Humberside, RNS 3948L 30th April Funding award to supply 8MW Electroliser, RNS 9779M 15th May Formation of ITM Motive and appointment of MD, RNS 7401N 22nd May H2oZ Bus project in Australia. All these in the last two months. These are all solid project news ,not media hype. I do not get the Times. Too expensive for me but maybe the media are just catching up . Is there a link to the article so I can read it? What I am more interested in is news of progress on the new factory build. I assume it has started. When up and running, this will be the game changer , transforming ITM from an R&D company to an A list production company.

Alright Kenny Ref your post 15.03 Enough said I think. Incidentally Does the term "Project manager" cover the EPC (contactor responsible for getting all the quotes for the parts of the system) and the "Development manager" for getting it up and running . I have not heard any term for the company responsible for raising the funding so "Funding manager" I guess. Anyway , for the FOAK DMG Peel seems to be responsible for all of these functions as well as being the customer. Is this right and are some of these terms interchangable ?

OK Stokey. Ref. your 14.31 post I hope you are right about that.

With regard to the Feedstock. Ways2H quote Municipal solid waste including plastic . PHE are concentrating on the plastic mountain. They have mentioned that Biomass could be used however. Ways2H does look like a direct competitor to me . It is about the same size ( 8-50 US tons /day waste input) and also hydrogen output (1.4-1.75 tonnes/day)
The SGH2 process is different using plasma torches at much higher temperatures (3500-4000 deg. C) and on a much bigger scale ( see previous post) i.e. 114 tonnes/day bio waste in producing 11 tonnes/day hydrogen. This does seem to indicate size matters i.e a ratio of 10:1 approx. for SGH2 and 35:2 or 17.5:1 for PHE (they quoted 25: 1 orriginaly) and for Ways2H (Approx) . I hope you understand why I am so concerned about the timescale now.

I am sorry to be pessimistic about this Stokey . My view is that the FOAK DMG will have to start construction at least by autumn this year and then run for at least a year for testing/ snagging before other customers will risk financing the other 10 ,or is it 11 units in the pipeline. (I'm not sure what has or will happen to the insurance wrap scheme). I was very irritated by the merger plan when announced and considered it a side show to getting the FOAK built . I now understand from David Ryan that the merger is a necessity for Peel ( and I guess instigated by them ) as a prerequisite for getting the funding for the building. From endless posts here I understand that this cannot happen before endless wrangles go on ,mainly between lawers and THEN an EGM (or AGM?) to explain the deal and then get agreement of sharholders. In the meantime the EPC ( whoever they are, anyone know?) has to sign off on all the contractor bids for all the parts of the system before the financing deal can be concluded and construction started. Judging by the progress to date, I think a two year period for all this is being very optimistic, nearer three I think .As has been said Lawyers love to wrangle. I really hope I am wrong and Peel particularly get their corporate finger out and bang heads together.

Thanks for that Stokey 12 .Price comparisons are near impossible due to changes in exchage rates and sizes of plant but £5-8 /kg for PHE seems very high compared to $2 (£1.6 @ 1.22$/£) for SGH2 (claimed) and $5-3 for Ways2H . For ME ,it does underline the absolute urgency that the PHE/ W2T merger and the completion of funding of the FOAK DMG MUST be done ASAP (if not sooner) or other competitors will overtake us.

Sorry Again! Correcting myself this time! I did get the two USA companies the right way round. I am getting so confused in my old age . It IS as my last post Mon. 12:48

Still I agree with the option D

Not according to Gavin Williamson, the education Sec. "the corona virus may be with us for a year or more"

Sorry Redleader1 . I got the two companies I mentioned the wrong way round! It is Ways2H that uses ceramic beads. The beads, also called alumina balls are used as a heat carrier into the mix. I am also sorry you thought I meant the DMG process used the beads . I should have posted the links here which I did much earlier. Here they are:
https://ways2h.com/its-much-cheaper-to-produce-green-hydrogen-from-waste-than-renewables/
It is the HGS2 company that uses the plasma torches.
The link for them is here:
https://newatlas.com/energy/sgh2-cheap-green-hydrogen-california/
I hope that clears it up.

And the Zink is cheaper I guess?

Are! another LTH like me still hoping !

The Way2H tech seems roughly similar to PHE apart from the use of the "ceramic beads" . One point I do remember about the PHE method is that the feedstock is first "out gassed" in a near vacume chamber before entering the gasification chamber. This means little or no air contamination .I have not seen this mentioned in other methods. The SGH2 is completely different ,using a quite old method of much higher temperature (3500-4000deg compared to PHE 1000deg C) produced by plasma torches. It still seems to be favoured by American firms. I remember this was tried at a plant in the UK in the North East on a very large scale plant, but did not come to fruition. Another project also tried it backed by W2T but also folded when the first one failed.

Jabberba .Can you remind me what the cost per Kg of hydrogen is predicted. Thanks

SGH2 and another company Ways2H , both California start ups have been mentioned on the Power House Energy (PHE) site. They are more direct competitors to them and EQT being Waste to hydrogen . They ARE more efficient in terms of energy in to hydrogen out as the following quote from the article in "New Atlas2 makes clear.:
"What's more, while electrolysis requires some 62 kWh of energy to produce one kilogram of hydrogen, the Solena process is energy-positive, generating 1.8 kWh per kg of hydrogen, meaning the plant generates its own electricity and doesn't require external power input." While the first statement may or may not be accurate now, it is certainly true that the gasification process IS energy positive because it uses PART of the calorific value of the waste input as "fuel" to run the process. The waste itself is even better than free because waste companies will pay to have it taken away , at least the waste that can't be recycled. We may be confusing efficiency with profitability. The article from "New Atlas" does dispute the figures from SGH2 as the rest of the article says. i.e. cost of electrolysis production of hydrogen is nearer 5-6 $/kg than 10-13$ quoted by SGH2 . So only 2- 3 times more. AND of course , they are talking about USA costs. That is the trouble when you compare apples and pears.

Hi dflynch. Sorry this is a very late reply to your post of Tue 23:27. I thought you would be interested in the link below showing that Linde , the company supplying the hydrogen dispensing gear with the ITM electroliser, ALSO makes PSA systems as well. Why not kill two birds with one stone , I thought,and include your idea for topping up from the grid! www.linde-engineering.com/en/process-plants/adsorption-and-membrane-plants/hydrogen_recovery_and_purification/
In answer to your other point about the percentage of hydrogen that can be added safely in the PRESENT gas network, see the next link
www.keele.ac.uk/discover/news/2019/september/hydrogentrialatkeelecoulddramaticallycutukscarbonemissions/hydeploy-trial-keele.php
In order to convert the present network to 100% hydrogen see the next.
www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/2019/07/04/worlds-first-100-hydrogen-testing-facility-unveiled/
The next link I found after seeing Way2L8 post Wed 9:06 . While I applaud the company's entrpreneuriel spirit, I think it would be a backward step to continue that Steam Methane Reforming method of hydrogen production . I can understand the attraction to the chemical industry based in the North East, but not for the rest of the country. I know it mentions carbon capture but that is an extra part to be added. Better to avoid carbon in the first place in the sustainable future. Also ,the roll out of a pure hydrogen network needs co ordination country wide rather than a piecemeal effort . All the same , best of luck Leeds.
www.theengineer.co.uk/converting-the-gas-network-to-hydrogen/#comment-96855