Member Info for operastar

A number of investment companies ARE involved in "grid balancing" storage using Li ion batteries since this pays good fees from the grid. These are good at short time storage to even out the demand on the grid but expensive for long term storage which will be more important in the future when fossil fuel power stations are phased out

The £68 M grant money EXCUDING Lithium ion looks particularly promising. Grab with both hands and use the publicity Invinity!

Dr A . Re Your 17.08 post. I truly hope you are correct in saying DR WILL stay as CTO until THE FOAK DMG IS fully commissioned. Do you have that directly from him?

Sorry if this has been posted before but I've just found Scania's arguments re Electric v Hydrogen
"Battery electric vs hydrogen
Scania has invested in hydrogen technologies and is currently the only heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer with vehicles in operations with customers. The engineers have gained valuable insights from these early tests and efforts will continue. However, going forward the use of hydrogen for such applications will be limited since three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity.

 

Repair and maintenance also need to be considered. The cost for a hydrogen vehicle will be higher than for a battery electric vehicle as its systems are more complex, such as an extensive air- and cooling system. Furthermore, hydrogen is a volatile gas which requires more maintenance to ensure safety.

 

However, hydrogen is a promising energy carrier; good way of storing energy over long cycles, and will play an important role in decarbonisation if produced in an environmentally friendly way. Scania looks forward to sourcing fossil free steel for its trucks as hydrogen will play a greater role in several industries.

 

Stationary fuel cells are an important component of the electric charging system. This solution is especially promising in areas with abundant renewable energy, and in rural areas off the main electricity grid.

 

“To do what’s best for both our customers total operating economy and our planet, we are not closing the door on any possibilities. It is clear that Scania’s focus in the here-and-now perspective as well as short- term is a combination of renewable fuels and battery electric vehicles. We see that for basically all segments,” Vlaskamp continues.

Done that Toneman. Excellent initiative. I rather hope that the haulage industry will be the ones to equip their fleets first though. A pity about Scania. Where was this news posted?

To allow 100% hydrogen will require better leak free pipeing which is being achieved in a gas project in Leeds I believe.

OK Thanks Tatty

Hi Tatty99. Re. Financial Close for First DMG.
I got the transcript of the webinar (all the slides but no Q&As) by re registering. It now does seem from the "Use of funds" section that the last two fund raises WILL be used "to protect the schedule" of the project. My interpretation of that statement is that the £15 M in these two fund raises will start the project construction which includes the setting up of the SPV to get all the cost quotes right away. This is even before ALL the money is raised i.e. the "formal financial close" which they "targeted to be in first quarter 2021 . I was not clear what the fund raises were for before reading this. I hope we will get an RNS very soon to say the SPV has been set up and another soon after that to say construction (at least off site) has started. Maybe these will come together. The further £10 M as a result of the warrant option for Peel should ensure that the commissioning and any modifications can continue during 2022. I am very encouraged by this approach that the "formal financial close" will not hold up progress.

Tatty99 re your 18.16 post. I registered for the webinair but missed it! Can you repeat what was said about " Financial Close"? That is financial speak for " we have the money " to me. I did see somewhere on a post here which I think was a quote from Protos that the project for the First DMG HAD "reached financial Close" . I meant to check up on this as PHE seem very reluctant to say anything in an RNS about this. I agree it SHOULD be a pre-requisite of starting construction but I get the strong impression that the two things will be announced at the same time
Is there a way to get a transcript of the Webinair?

It started out as 1 tonne Hydrogen from 25 Tonne Waste but got upgraded at Protos request for the first one. It is not clear to me if this upgrade will now be the "standard" module design. I was given the impression that every DMG will now be a bespoke design to suit each customer which does seem to depart from the original modular concept with standard modules in parallel.

Thanks for an interesting post Frac. another application for Super caps! I see they are talking about Maxwell Super caps in tests on the idea.

Hi Cred2. As usual ,government is behind the curve and pouring money into EVs instead of HEVs. Having committed all this investment into EVs, they will have to rapidly increase generating capacity which will more than likely mean traditional coal (cleaned up a bit with hopefully carbon capture) and gas (both now imported) The pollution will just be shifted from the vehicles to the power stations. Because the pollution will not be on our city streets the public will be lulled into thinking this is green. There is an alternative fuel from waste coming on stream for old coal power stations producing less pollution. The conversion of these power stations again needs investment which should be used for renewables for true green electricity.

OK Lesser . I dont see it . What date?

Good find indeed Lesserof2 weevils.
How come it isn't on the SAE RNS though? Made in WUHAN this year! What a story! with great potential in the biggest most expanding market in the world not to mention possible re purposing all those nasty coal fired power stations now we have a foot in the door.

Thanks for your 17.09 Post Sitiain. Absolutely agree that ANYTHING is better than coal AND a plus is that these power stations already exist so planning permissions for using a "greener" fuel source should be easy. The problem is we don't have the luxury of decades to wait for the zero carbon economy, so ANYTHING that slows the progress to this is a negative. The methane emissions is down to biomass in land fill rather than plastic, so on balance I think it is better that plastic being inert ( at least in the medium term) is better in land fill temporarily. . I think "gasification" ( N. B. NOT incineration) will deal better with excess plastic as most of the sythesis gas will be used to generate electricity leaving much less CO2 . I am still not sure exactly how much though. That is why it would be very useful to have independent figures for the different green tech emissions to get a better idea of the balance of risks (to the environment , that is , not the commercial risks)

Thanks for your 18:43 post Re. Uskmouth as well. I agree about the possible unintended consequence of using wood "waste". Like the bio fuel industry using huge areas of sugar cane, this could change from using waste to cutting down extra trees to "feed" a growing industry. I am certainly glad to see this new "Subcoal PAF" (need to find out what PAF and the other derivatives mnemonics stand for) uses 50% (UNRECYCLABLE?) plastics.
The BIG question for me is HOW MUCH flue gas emissions of Nox and CO , CO2 are produced ,both in the production of the fuel pellets and the burning of them in the power station. I am concerned that re-purposing present coal fired power stations in this way will slow down the drive to the zero carbon energy( by 2030-35-40) we all need to avert a climate change catastrophy.

Thanks for your posts Old. I will look up the two companies you mention as joint venture partners in MeyGen (sorry for miss spelling) Is Atlantis still the project developer? I assume that Atlantis is only supplying the generator for the Japan project.

Sorry Oldtramp. I now see from the latest RNS that the post from your Japanese source does relate to the generator exported by SAE. Since Atlantis does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the report ,I assumed it was a Japanese company that was manufacturing it and was therefore a rival. Well done Atlantis. I was invested in the old Atlantis three years ago but left due to very little support from our government in what should be a technology where the UK can still be a world leader. I am not very interested in the SIMEC side of the new business as I don't regard it as a true "green" tech as it still relies on burning fuel (even though from waste) However, I hope this side of the business can help to subsidise the MEGEN side through to comercialisation. So I'm back in, but in a smaller way until I see how this business model pans out. I have been encouraged by comments from the CEO that he sees this as a real growth opportunity. I also wonder if the fact that SAE is usually refered to as "Atlantis" is a good omen
Just one fly in the ointment is that SAE ownes only 77% of MEGEN. I thought the original company was the sole owner. Who ownes the other 23%?

This may be true Old but with usual Asia efficency and government backing they will probably overtake unless our government takes this technology much more seriously and puts (our) money where their mouth is. The CEO has made a very heavy hint about this.

I'm Tagging on to your post Winter Cherry to pursue the question of how "green" this companies product is. I am looking to add to my portfolio of green products that are mainly so far in the hydrogen area. My initial reaction to Coal switch is that ,at best it is "Dark Green" i.e. certainly better than coal for energy but definitely not as good as hydrogen which only produces water when burnt. (i'st greenes does depend how it is produced of course). In the process of trying to work this out, I was interested in the statements about how trees left to rot would also produce CO2 to the atmosphere ( re Batham 13.27 post) I wanted to find out more about this ,so came up with this link from which you may see that this argument is by no means straight forward.
https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/9089/does-organic-decay-release-the-same-co2-as-burning