Member Info for Piltick

The study at the University of Queensland is mainly about the situation in Australia. It is assuming that the electricity to create and compress the hydrogen is coming from the grid, which is not decarbonised. However, in the UK ITM is using renewable energy through the grid, and plan to use off-grid renewable energy in the future wherever possible. PHE will hopefully be producing hydrogen with very low CO2 emissions. AFC and others are planning to produce greener and cheaper hydrogen in the future. The study assumes that the distribution of hydrogen will be producing CO2, but if they use hydrogen fuelled trucks for the distribution then there will be no CO2 emissions.

So I don't believe that the study applies universally.

I'm certainly hopeful that we'll get some sort of update tomorrow, but TBH I'm not expecting news of any firm orders at this stage. A lot of work will need to be done before getting to the stage of committing to signed orders. There will need to be detailed discussions between AFC and the customer regarding the precise requirements, the location, cost and delivery. AFC will very possibly need to do a site visit.

The customer may need to consider making some preparations at the site, they will need to carry out costings and financial projections, and no doubt in many cases the management will need to put a proposal to higher authority for approval before they can sign off the order.

All of these things take time, so patience is required. Of course some of these steps may have been covered already with some of the potential customers during the past several months.

So with all of these Tesla charge points at these places, does that leave anywhere for non-Tesla vehicles to charge up?

Could it be that AFC are using Multi Source Power Ltd. for this instead of Rolec?

Not quite sure what you mean Dodger. Individual shareholders will continue to hold the same shares in PHE before and after the takeover, and their capital gains will not be affected until such time as they sell these shares.

Kenny, I'm not clear what point you're making with that extract.

It is possible that Peel want the PHE/W2T merger to go ahead as soon as possible. They may even be insisting upon it as a condition of the becoming involved as developer of the FOAK. It would no doubt be less confusing for them if they have to deal with one company rather than two for this project. It will certainly get rid of a lot of confusion as far as potential customers and potential financiers are concerned, not to mention a lot of confused shareholders!

That's terrible haggis!

A great opportunity for hydrogen/FC cars on that road to top up their tanks!

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/business/business-news/1155052/new-dundee-event-will-showcase-energy-tech/

Leading innovators in the energy storage industry will gather at a flagship event at Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc (MSIP) in Dundee today.

AFC Energy will demonstrate a rapid off-grid electric vehicle charger that converts hydrogen into AC power which is used to charge electric vehicles.

I suspect that departments such as DFID will only become interested when there is at least one DMG unit up and running.

LedZep: "Could it be that as PHE have agreed an annual license fee for the first and subsequent 4 projects, that Peel are prepared (with a mix of government grants) to fund, not only the FOAK but also the subsequent four projects?"

That's the impression that I got from the announcements, that Peel would be the developer and hence take on responsibility for funding the next 4 DMG units.

I'm also thinking that it is likely that each DMG site will be within a separate SPV company, which means that each SPV could have one, two or more shareholders. At this time I would expect Peel to be the only shareholder of the SPV for the FOAK DMG unit, but it could be that additional shareholders might take an interest in subsequent SPVs. Furthermore, it would make sense for the enlarged PHE-W2T (merged) company to become involved as part shareholder in some of the SPVs in the future, IMHO.

Including trolls?

You'll get a shock if they're gone first thing tomorrow morning!

I rather like the idea. - think I'll buy more!

I believe that W2T established a SPV company Waste2Tricity (Protos) Ltd. which was to be used for the construction, development and operation of the first DMG unit at Protos. Presumably this is the company that would become the beneficiary of the grant of £1.25M to assist with the capital cost of the new unit.

Now that Peel have taken on the role of "developer" of the DMG unit, I would imagine (OK, I don't know, but it seems a reasonable assumption) that Peel would take over ownership of the "SPV" company, and that the grant would still go to the benefit of the same company i.e. Waste2Tricity (Protos) Ltd. (By the way, Peel might want to change the name of this SPV company.)

The grant is subject to two conditions, planning permission and funding to be secured by 31st March. When W2T was the nominated "developer" of the project, clearly they did not have sufficient funding in-house so they would have to find an external source. Now that Peel has agreed to become the "developer" it is unlikely that external funding will be required, so if Peel agree to fund the SPV then that ought to satisfy the condition for the grant.

All IMHO of course.

I'm still of the opinion that PHE won't issue the shareholders' circular before planning permission has been granted, because they will want to have that uncertainty removed before they ask shareholders to vote for the take-over. I would also expect the shareholders' circular and the notice of the EGM to be part of the same document. So if planning permission is granted on 3rd March, the circular can be issued later that week, giving 14 days notice of the EGM so that the EGM can be easily held before the end of March. Still within Q1.

What grid connection Kenny?

This may be completely unhelpful, but from the feedback you're getting it sounds as if you were trying to register rather than log in.

Sounds exciting!