Member Info for Piltick

Think you are right, jabberba.

I think the first piece of news has to be the planning / permissions because nothing else can proceed very far without that. Will it set this alight? I don't know about that, but it should create a warm glow!

So what can we expect in the next couple of months? Going back over the recent RNSs and interviews: - Planning and permitting by the end of March / mid April (KA on Vox 21st February). Personally I think that�s a tad optimistic, but I will be delighted if he can achieve that, or near that. - Final signing of the lease for the site at Protos, and �breaking ground� at the site. Target �about� April, with both of these events dependent upon obtaining the planning and permitting above. - RNS 22nd November: When initial site selection is confirmed, we intend to complete �negotiations for long-term private wire power-purchase and feedstock supply contracts. So presumably these negotiations are ongoing, and hopefully we will have an update shortly. When they have achieved the permits, the signed lease, the power-purchase and feedstock supply contracts, they should be in a very good position to seek funding, or part funding, from a bank, financial institution or partner for the cost, or part of the cost, of the first commercial G3 unit. This will be strengthened by the fact that they already have an operating prototype unit demonstrating that the technology works.

Just popped in for a quick read to update myself and came across your report last Tuesday. Thanks for posting that - it's good to get an update like that from someone who has been to visit the site. Very encouraging.

I'm sure that once they've been running commercial for a few years that they will be looking for other applications, but at the start they will probably want to stick to the tyre crumb and plastics.

Bumble, my personal view is that it wouldn't really be practical to charge the customer for electricity produced in the case of back-up, simply because by its very nature a back-up system will only be producing electricity on an as-required basis e.g. during power cuts. Under such circumstances it might be best for AFC to rent/lease together with a maintenance contract. I think it is unlikely that they would want to sell the system as they would probably want to retain ownership of it. I'm also assuming, and may be wrong here, that for these back-up (replacing diesel generators) systems, we are probably looking at 10kw units, or multiples of 10kw units, using the alkomonia technology.

I understand your logic, pomander, but you're still just making assumptions. None of us know who the company might be talking to about funding for the first commercial G3. Like so many things, we will just have to wait and see.

You seem to be assuming that the only way that PHE will be able to get funding will be by dilutive placings, not only for day-to-day working capital, but also to build the first commercial G3 unit. Of course you may be right, but I would suggest that there are many different ways to fund large capital projects, so until we know what the company has in mind, I don't think it is right to bang on about imminent dilutive placings. Trying to scare the horses?

Thanks IB. I expect that they will still be aiming to sell the electricity that's generated rather than selling the actual fuel cell units, especially in relation to the "direct sales".

That's a helluva price for a dog, Echoes!

I also notice that in their RNS 7th March it was stated: "we are taking three routes to market; the direct sales to customers, the indirect channel through partners and the embedded model where the fuel cells are the power component in a bespoke integrated-solution." I must say I am not entirely clear precisely what is meant by each of the three routes, in plain English / layman's terms. I recall that at some point in the past it was stated that it was the intention to earn revenue from the sale of electricity rather than selling the fuel cell units, but I'm not clear if that strategy still fits with each of the three stated routes above. Anyway, it's early days and we are probably some way off from having to worry about this at the moment. Good to think ahead, though.

Yes, I accept your point, Strontium!

Strontium: My understanding of Basic Engineering Design (BED) is that it is the process which follows Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) (which is the stage that PHE are at regarding their first commercial unit.) Google tells me that Basic Engineering Design consists of the following: Basic Engineering Design (BED) covering: Conceptual process studies (material balances, process flowsheets,�) and preliminary plot plan. Preliminary Piping and Instrument Diagrams. Definition and sizing of main equipment resulting in process specifications. ... Definition of control and safety devices. So I think it really means that they have finished the drawings, planning and components, but haven't actually built it yet.

wongtogo: Your said: "there was never any chance the fuel cell could have been installed without scrubbers" Scrubbers would have been available to PHE if required. In the RNS dated 23rd October: "one of the Suppliers is prepared to provide its proprietary small-scale Pressure Swing Adsorption (�PSA�) equipment to separate and clean up the hydrogen within the syngas to road-fuel quality hydrogen. Should the Supplier be selected to provide its equipment, it is prepared to guarantee and warrant the performance of the equipment." Presumably that offer still stands, when required.

It is disappointing that AFC's fuel cell has not been delivered to PHE at Thornton Park by the expected target of November last year. Although some on here, and on other BBs, are calling this PHE's failure, we don't know the precise reason for the non-delivery, so we cannot state categorically that is a failure on the part of PHE, or by AFC, or both, or some other reason. So until we know, it is wrong to attribute the word Failure to anyone. I will say however that I am also disappointed that neither company has issued any form of statement or update on this matter.

I agree that something along those lines should be done. I am supportive of KA and the BoD, but I think that this transaction has been badly handled. As others have said already, I think it it too many shares, it should have been "layered" with some at different strike prices and different dates, and yes there should be a target price for before they can vest.

KA talks about generating electricity using syngas with a gas generator at Thornton Park, but no mention of getting a fuel cell from AFC any time soon.

Thanks Jabber, didn't see your reply before hitting the button on my last post. Yes, that's what I thought.

Hi telephoneman, no that wasn't quite what I was getting at. I wasn't assuming anything about tax on hydrogen, I was wondering what cost comparison was being made. When someone talks about the cost of manufacturing hydrogen (or even the selling price of hydrogen) compared with the cost of diesel, are they using the cost of producing diesel, or the cost of diesel at the pumps, which includes fuel tax?

When you say cost of diesel, can you please clarify, do you mean the cost of diesel at the pump including fuel duty?