Member Info for Rooky

BumbleB or Muscorum,

Whatever, welcome back both of you.

A very big plus for the generators, is that there would be no need or wait for planning permision as the application could be included in the initial planning permision that is nearly 100% required before any construction work is commenced.

Therefore when (note not if) a customer wants such a generator, supply could be almost instant, as long of course if the production of the generators is nicely on line.

Stokey,

You may well be right (I hope you are), but I think we will have to agree to disagree and wait to see if W2T up the anti in the still continuing negotiations.

Piltick,

Fully agree re your last post.

Piltick,

My point was that W2T now have a better hand to play than before todays RNS whereas PHE have a worse hand (that applies to any deal between PHE/W2T and not Peal).

Stokey12,

My take is that Peal would have exclusivity for the 5 DMG's mentioned, but any additional DMG's would be open to negotiation, as no doubt competitors in PEAL's field of expertise would also be approaching PHE.

Having just checked the PHE/W2T negotiating deal RNS from December, it only states that the negotiating was at an advanced stage', so does that mean that W2T could hold out for a deal that suits them better than the one at the advanced stage.

Clarity here is very important.

Stokey,

Your mention of the 'negotiations' in the RNS is one of the several wordings/sections that could be far clearer.

I often wonder if the compilers of RNS's start with a confusing RNS or an easy to understand first version, then spend time making it so complicated so that it makes them feel superior than us lower mortals.

Yellowf1,
You say, "So going back to revenue £600k.
Apply say 20x earnings.
£12M.divide by 2BN shares=0.6 of a penny, so roughly 25% less than todays SP.
UM."

Don't know where £600k revenue from as that would be for just one unit plus the historic payment and the RNS clearly states that The Supplemental Agreement allows Peel to act as the developer of Protos and four further DMG® sites in the UK pending finalising the proposed acquisition of W2T by PowerHouse, with W2T relinquishing its entitlement to UK exclusivity for the technology and development rights of PowerHouse’s DMG® technology.
Powerhouse/W2T is only awaiting shareholder approval, which will be a given take

i have no problem with negative views as long as they are sensibly argued, but your calculations are completely wrong and make no sense whatsoever

Having read the RNS yet again, also being more awake and thinking clearer, this looks a good deal for both PHE and Peal.

No doubt PHE would have liked to have received a higher licence fee, with Peal wanting to pay less, but at present Peal have the best hand as, 'who but Peal' are in a position to take this technology into production.

Where PHE benefit is of course having the first few of their DMG units out there, working for all to see.

AT present Peal have no competition, but the situation will change when further customers come forward, both wanting the DMG's and for development.

It is then that higher licencing prices will be for the taking as auction/bargaining will be the way to go for PHE.

I think I have answered my own post of 0737.

Does the split mean that 'at present 40% of the licence fee goes to W2T, but when Powerhouse buy W2T that money is then included into the PHE pot

If that is correct and the buy out goes as planned, IE at the same price, thats fantastic, but it does leave a doubt, is the PHE/W2T settled and only waiting for shareholder approval (IE could the deal be ditched and W2T come back for more money.

Can someone please explain why the 'The PowerHouse license fees will include a 60:40 fee split with W2T pending completion of the proposed PowerHouse acquisition of W2T. ' if we are taking over W2T and soon they will no longer exist.

The above is not a sarcastic comment, but although having just woke up, I have read the RNS 3 times and don't understand the above paragraph.

A large fire at a tyre dump in Lincolnshire a few years ago was investigated as an arson.

Can't remember the outcome, but it is obviously far cheaper to set these dumps on fire than it is to either remove or a controlled burn.

That is not an allegation against anyone.

Firefighters are tackling a large fire in east Hull with reports of around 50 firefighters at the scene. The blaze is at a recycling plant with engines from across Hull and East Yorkshire currently on hand. ... "There are 100sq metres of recycled plastic involved.
In 2014 a similar fire occurred. also near Hull.

Of course its not just the dumping of such waste that causes problems, as this a dump near a re-cycling center, which like all fires pollutes the environment.

We all are far more familiar with tyre dumps catching fire, not so much re plastic dumps.

As we are all aware, the PHE system would enable such dumps to be not just reduced, but to have a presumably far shorter time span between the actual dumping and the conversion into hydrogen.

More publicity is needed re both the dangers/problems of waste dumps and the opportunity via PHE to convert waste into a valued product.

Superfly1,

I think AFC need to start charging up themselves...............I had a sudden vision of AB sticking his finger into the AFC charger socket......Now that would get media coverage.

Manabouttown,

Re my post AIM shares not held in ISA free of CGT. You are right of course, they are only free of IHT and after 2 years.

Yet another senior moment

I first looked into Tidal power about 10 years ago, then as now it was costed as far too expensive and it still is, plus of course you have the problems of obstructions to both surface craft and aquatic life.

It could and does work in a small scale in limited locations, but not for mass power production. Of course as to the long term future, who knows.

Re the Wind Farm disposal of turbine blades. I must admit that I had never thought of de-commissioning costs, and it also looks like those in power (pun intended) had also not given the problem sufficient thought.

Re the climate change, green environment meeting/talk in Hull plan for carbon neutral, one of the speaker Andy Parkinson chair of marketing Humber is also CEO of the bid for £36 million for Hull climate change.

Another speaker is, Prof Dan Parsons, Director of the Energy and Environment Institute, University of Hull.

i mention these 2 speakers because of the connection with Hull University and Hiiroc of which AFC signed a binding heads of agreement RNS 27th Jan this year .

Possibly reading something into this that isn't there, but you never know

Meant of course to add, 'held for 3 years'.

Also remember that any AIM shares (almost 100%) that are held outside an ISA are also free of CGT.

Hi ReoninV,

Re 'with the necessity of having a 30% bigger fleet MINIMUM to account for charging vehicles' , As for buses, the drivers have to take breaks at fairly regular intervals (terminal stops), so even a 10 mins rapid charge during these breaks would be sufficient to keep them running.

I agree re a none starter for street charging once EV's gain momentum in sales/use, but to my mind, the first to target change would be such as The Post Office, whoe's vans are mainly left all night in depots enabling ease of charging.

Company cars where the vehicle is used for business during the main part of the day, with private use at other times, would be rapid charged either whilst the driver is completing end of day paperwork or on arrival at home.
Of course there are many other examples.

It would best to award the £50 mill to a city that is almost totally flat, as that would give the best distance covered by a single charge.

So my vote would be for Hull, which is hopefully to become a free port, and is only a couple of miles from one of the largest concentration of vehicle dealerships in the country.