RE: Will We27 May 2026 18:07
As our CEO said in several of his presentations, the economics of transporting ammonia and hydrogen are very, very different.
Hydrogen is transported at very low temperatures and very high pressures. It requires specialist, dedicated 'tube' trailers, which are expensive to make due to the high-quality steel required to withstand the pressures. This also limits teh volume of hydrogen each tube trailer can move. That is turn increases the number of trailers you have to operate, particularly if the customer site does not have its own hydrogen storage tanks.
These tanks are also expensive to build IF you can get a license to build and operate such tanks. Local planning rules are quite cagey about having tanks of highly explosive materials anywhere near a populated area. OK for the RAF with large airfields, not so clever elsewhere. Just another restriction ot consider in choosing ammonia or hydrogen. Not as simple as it looks for H2.
Ammonia is one of the world's largest volume bulk chemicals, with a global network of ocean terminals and bulk carriers. The production, storage, and transport technologies and risks are well understood. Ammonia is not 'nice', but it is readily handleable and orders of magnitude less difficult and dangerous than liquid hydrogen.
That is why we will attract many customers.
Geopura does have a good start on HPOW. They may well keep that position in some applications, but there is a stack of other applications where HPOW will be the lowest-risk, lowest-cost, and easiest-to-operate solution.
That is going to make us a lot of money.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
