Member Info for tennents

Gitfinger

Your question - “Is the ammonia cracker actually a thing yet, or simply a proof of concept”?

Your assertion – it is not actually a thing yet

My repudiation of your assertion

The AFC website video (not a picture) headed First Ever “International-UK “ Ammonia Cracking Demonstration. Hence it is a real thing.

RNS 23 March 2023 states the lab work and ‘proof of concept’ took two years and was finished year ago. Hence it has been a real thing for a considerable time.

The following organsations have engaged with eh project and are taking ti forwards in a num,ber of developments

- The UK National Physical Laboratory (NPL)

- the trading arm of large European energy company

- a major marine engine manufacturer

- specialist injectors and control valve maker

- two shipping companies

- University of Nottingham - as independent evaluators

- UK government – as funders.

Hence - a range credible organisations have verified it as a real thing.

Therefore your assertion is well evidenced as fallacious – it is a real thing.

Your ‘new’ question - ‘where is the test data evidencing successful (technical and commercial) operation’

Your ‘new’ assertion - that it does not work/deliver to (a yet unpublished) specification

I spent a long time in the engineering industry and know that test data on new processes and pre-production models is tightly held until deemed ready for use in marketing/sales/contract bidding in ways that do not compromise IP or technical/commercial competitive advantage.

In other words we will get it when they are ready to publish it. If that upsets you and makes you want to shout and stamp your feet on here. That is fine – knock yourself out..

Have a good day

Gitfinger@ 15.13

“Is the ammonia cracker actually a thing yet, or simply a proof of concept”?

Rapid research took me to . . . . . the AFC website and a video of the cracker test site. Also AFC people talking about the next stages of work e.g a containerised solution for customer sites including marine propulsion.

The hardware in the video is certainly not a ‘laboratory model’. In addition, RNS 23 March 2023 states ‘(This) launch follows extensive cracker reactor validation testing over the past two years and completed in March at the Company's UK test facilities’. Hence the lab work and ‘proof of concept’ took two years and was finished one year ago.

So does the kit do what it is designed to? The UK National Physical Laboratory (NPL) say that it does, RNS 23 Oct 2023, and that it delivered the ISO 14687:2019 standard of hydrogen purity. This covers "ammonia to power" applications, stationary or maritime, and cracked ammonia in heavy vehicles and buses. Accepting that the NPL are neither stupid nor liars; we have highly credible verification.

The same RNS states that a Letter of Intent has been signed with trading arm of large European energy company to market cracker adoption. UK companies are not allowed to mislead with blatant lies on RNS. Hence, we know that someone in the hydrogen business has had their people crawl all over this kit and judge it to be technically credible and ie credible due diligence on the process and outputs.

If it had not been, they would not have signed a letter of intent and would have walked away. Hence, we have a customer-side verification of the core technology as credible and will be suitable for delivery to their customers.

Big and experienced companies, do not risk their market reputation readily or lightly. Hence, we now have credible market-side verification of the product.

RNS of 26 Jan 2024 advises a contract for Maritime Ammonia Cracker and Combustion Engine Integration Trials including:

- a major marine engine manufacturer

- specialist injectors and control valve maker

- two shipping companies

- University of Nottingham - as independent evaluators

- UK government – as funders.

These are credible organisations who recognise “when a cracker is actually a thing yet!”.

So, I look at your questions and conclude that:

You are lazy fail to do even basic research.

Your questions have an explicit bias that avoids all facts that are inconvenient to your narrative.

You are not as clever as you would like to think you are and most of this board recognises the difference between credible questions and gobby yahoo.

Have a good day.

Gather enough clowns . . . . .

And you have a circus.

“most are selling” ??

AFC shares issued 747.4 million

Average shares traded daily 2.03 million

Shares listed as sales today 419,890

% shares sold of total shares = 0.00056%

In what world is 0.00056% of a population “most”?

Your thinking is not rational.

Cheers Jhonboy

I have thus weeks IC magazine and don’t see any article, nor is AFC listed in the Companies In This Issue index.

Anyone else ?

Daz

What Bond thinks is not critical in this issue. The important decisions in the construction transition to H2 have been/are being made by:

- Tier1 companies e.g. Keir, and their supply chain companies

- Large plant hire organisations e.g. Speedy

- Fuel distribution and supply companies

AFC is a supplier to, not leader of, this transition. This is an opportunity for AFC and all other players in the industry power generation supply chain.

It is reasonable to assume that current successful and players will want to remain and will adapt accordingly. Hence Tier 1 contractors have trialled AFC (and other) generators. Speedy has developed a new H2 market model and existing fuel (or industrial gas) distributors will respond in ways that are profitable.

That process involves extensive senior decision-making and investment across many very big and very smart organisations. AFC is, at present, a small player responding to, and is certainly not driving, those decisions. Bond, and AFC, are currently small players.

You seem distressed about the relatively small step that AFC has taken in buying only two H2 delivery vehicles, and that Tier 1 site will have H2 cylinders sitting beside generators, as seen in the photographs of the field trials.

Bond and his two trucks are not limiting factors in the speed of transition. They are however central to giving Speedy and their Tier 1 customers a level of assurance on fuel supply that matches the diesel suppliers they are displacing. Particularly in the early stages.

In the recent meeting Bond said that AFC and Speedy would be agreeing the ‘best customers’ for the early stages. They expressed a desire for longer hires i.e. major project sites which could be years not weeks. As Speedy provide first level service they will be considering geography and have already decided which, of their many, depots they will offer H2 kit from.

As Speedy know their business, and what their Tier 1 customers want, they will be making informed decisions on that. So probably not starting in Exeter, Barrow-in-Furness and Dundee, nice as those places are.

Tier 1 are highly sophisticated procurers of kit and services. Their suppliers are highly experienced in responding to and meeting those demands, and the next tier suppliers e.g. fuel distributors know what will be expected of them. All of these people in the construction industry have been moving towards this for years. They know what they are about.

You under-estimate the intelligence and capabilities of a large number of very smart organisations. You also over-estimate of the importance of AFC as controlling factors.

This misreading of these realities sems to lead you to catastrophize around Bond and AFC. This is erroneous thinking.

Have a good day.

From the 17 Nov RNS

It is not AFC Energy's intention to become a capital intensive hydrogen logistics provider, however, early investment in well priced storage and distribution assets will support the maturing of the hydrogen power generator market whilst affording an opportunity to derive incremental revenue through the provision of hydrogen fuel logistics, at a reasonable scale, to customers in the UK and Ireland.

Daz

Bond talked about it during the presentation for about four minutes. I know this because I watched the presentation. You don’t know so we can safely assume that you either:

- did not watch the presentation, or

- did not pay an appropriate level of attention, or

- did not comprehend the meaning of the words spoken.

But here you are asking someone else to do all of the above for you. Let me introduce you to the concept of ‘learned helplessness’. To save you looking that up let me explain.

Learned helplessness occurs when a person who has experienced repeated challenges comes to believe that they have no control of their situation. They then give up trying to make changes and accept their fate.

I hope this helps you come to better terms with your difficulties here.

Have a good day.

Daz. If you spent a fraction of the time you spend writing whiny posts on here doing some basic research you would know AFC system users have had site hydrogen storage using cylinders.

Have a look at the AFC website case studies. There you will find 7, yes seven, photographs of trial sites where stacks of fuel cylinders are clearly visible. Give it a try, easy facts to find.

Beyond that there are already mobile hydrogen bowsers commercially available. For clarity that it a slightly larger H2 tank mounted on wheels, easy to tow if required. Google is your friend, a closed mind suffering acute confirmation bias is not.

Have a good day.

Posted on 17 Dec, the same day as the RNS.

Also note that Bond answered the same questions about fuelling with the same answer at the recent meeting.

Methinks the (lady) doth protest too much!!

Mucksy - of course he does

Daz9643

Posted in: AFC

Posts: 3,088

Price: 14.78

No Opinion

RE: RNS - purchase of assets from Octopus Hydrogen17 Nov 2023 10:05

DW they’re just doing it small scale to support the initial units being delivered to Speedy while the business gets established IMO, this for once actually makes sense

Yes, same old £27m order book that we yesterday and the day before that and the day before that and. . . . ,repeat

If you want jam you need to visit a supermarket. Alternatively you could read all the words in the AFC report.

Spot on. Priority now is production engineering, not financial engineering. Build a growing profitable business, then play about with listing options.

We need ruthless strategic discipline as we transition to a commercialised business.

The business will need more cash for working capital. The RNS states that the supply chain has been developed and verified for a build of 1,000 of the size 30 units per annum.

AFC intend to contract out the manufacture so will not need a major capital expenditure programme. They will however need to fund the purchase of all of the materials required to support stock and work in progress for a run rate of say 80 size 30 units per month, ramping up further as demand for H2 transition rises.

AFC sales will be very substantially through large plant hire organisations that are credible suppliers to the tier1 construction companies that will lead the H2 transition eg Speedy in the UK, our Saudi partner and who knows who else in other territories.

Hire companies have multiple locations/customers so to assure supply capability they will have to order at scale to book the production capacity of y units per year and deliver at an agreed call off of x units per month. This is almost certainly where the £27m order book comes from.

The massive benefit of this model is the relative certainty with which cash flows can be projected and presented to a bank to fund the working capital required. Buying known materials to supply contracted customers is everyday boring banking. Not absolutely risk free, but certainly not high risk in caparison to funding research and development or funding a major capex programme.

So………having got to that stage in its evolution AFC will take its cash flow model and copies of the purchase order contract from large and credible customers and ask for a working capital loan that will be secured against operating profits. Everyday business banking,

Would be smarter to retain the IP and ongoing development and license the manufacture with associated royalties.

I do not believe Anneowl is lying. However her use of an average of an estimated maximum and the absolute minimum is a statistical nonsense leading to a crass and misleading conclusion of a capacity of 100. If you invest to build a factory that has an annual capacity of 200 then that is the base you work from, not “1”.

The first important question is how efficient the AFC factory production and supply chain processes are, and how close to 200 it can deliver from that site. If it was only 75% efficient (which is very poor) than it would be doing 150. It might be reasonable to estimate an average between 150 and 200.

We also need to consider that before committing to a joint venture investment Speedy will have done significant due diligence on AFCs ability to deliver to acceptable levels of quality and timeliness. These people are not stupid and are investing chunky money on what they know, because they have seen it and done the numbers.

They have ordered £2m worth of kit to an agreed schedule, so they have a level of confidence that is not based on assumption.

The second, and much more important, question is around contracting out the manufacture. The AFC site capability is essentially startup/stop gap to get from prototypes to a ‘manufacturable’ product.

Diesel generators are mass manufactured, anything that is going to replace them will also be mass manufactured. It will also be produced in multiple market locations eg Europe, USA, Mille East, Asia etc etc. Production at scale is. It something AFC are ever going to get involved in? No it is not.

Massive challenge in production is now immediate, and of huge consequence. Do we sub contract or should we license (as Ceres). Huge questions.

Perhaps we could iChat about things like that?

Manufacturing in Germany would be excellent news.

1) German engineers build well

2) The recent EU certification evidences quality of the product

3) Manufacturing in Germany will significantly increase the % EU content value, reducing any UK/EU trade barrier difficulties or tariffs.

All of which substantially increase the probability of sales to EU based customers, and that is a lot of customers.

You seem to misunderstand the Ceres business model.

May not be strange as the recent company announcements on Speedy and Cracker have the current ‘headlines’ and arguably are the routes to near(er) term revenues.

I think they are just not allowed to talk about it - confidentiality agreements.

The ABB big dog will bark when it is ready. Hopefully that will include news that is favourable to AFC.