Member Info for toneman

Thanks for the energypost link taskmaster. I've tracked the various citations claiming to be where the costs of CCS come from. It's amassed several pdfs of hundreds of pages each. It's going to take me a while to dig through that lot if I have any chance of understanding how they determine the costs of CCS. Thanks for the lead.

I'd like to see a direct side by side comparison of the price structure of the two methods. If anyone knows where to find one, please share?

Unless the Carbon or CO2 is injected into a physical structure (like cement blocks has supposedly been developed or trialled) such that they can be simply stacked or buried and forgotten about our left forever, there would surely have to be an ongoing cost of storing CO2 as a buried gas... forever. I know there have been mentions of 100 years, but surely any release nullifies the point of capturing it in the first place. So even at 1 cent per day multiplied by infinity dwarfs the price of the original hydrogen. So CCS with underground CO2 storage as a gas cannot be cheaper than green hydrogen over the long term... yes... infinity is a very long term.

I wish I had access to the finer details around JP Morgan's (and others) analysis. There's never quite enough in the press releases of the analysts statements to make any real sense of it. Where are they seeing the "waning enthusiasm", over what time frame, and what does that leave us with...industrial hydrogen, heavy transport, alternative fuels? And if not hydrogen in energy storage, what do they see instead? Fossil? Not allowed. Batteries? Only for the next 10 years, after that they'll become too costly and ineffective.

Weighing ITM against Nel over the short timeframe they specified is also beyond pointless. Both share prices are still looking beyond 2021 so to prefer ITM for second half 2021 and then set a price is ridiculous. These analysts companies should just stick to rating banks, supermarkets, and utilities - stable companies with regular balance sheets that can be calculated and compared. Applying those principles to companies like ITM and Nel when the true scale won't be seen for a few more years is doing anyone who follows their advice a disservice. It's a shame some will get cold feet on the back of these brokers worthless mutterings and then, if they don't buy back in during the intervening price drop, I'm fairly confident they will regret it long term.

I've got a whole suite of clean energy stocks and it wiped out a sizeable chunk today. Seemed to be triggered by Siemens Energy saying their results will be short of their lower estimate... ouch.

Still, I expect this to be a very long road so if I had any spare change I might be tempted to add.

At least it's still hydrogen. That's still generally positive for us.

Nice little extract...

"We are well positioned to lead on the production of green hydrogen with significant technical expertise in electrolysers from world leading companies such as ITM Power, and the potential to generate significant quantities of renewable energy from offshore wind. We are home to world leading fuel cell powertrain companies such as Ceres Power and Arcola, and parts suppliers such as Johnson Matthey. Our unparalleled access to carbon capture and storage sites is an enabler for the production of blue hydrogen.

In transport, our focus is on the use of genuinely ‘green’ hydrogen, maximising its opportunities so that it can play a full part in our renewable energy system. Use of renewable hydrogen is already incentivised under the RTFO. Hydrogen is likely to be most effective in transport in areas ‘that batteries cannot reach’,
where energy density requirements or duty cycles, weight and volume restrictions and refuelling times make it the most suitable green energy source."

I know this document, and the soon to be released hydrogen strategy, was eagerly anticipated (therefore possibly already baked into the price), but I am a little surprised the H2 stocks dropped quite so much today as hydrogen is mentioned 94 times in the document and has a little section all of its own. With any luck we should get the hydrogen strategy document within the next month or so. Maybe that'll at least put some confidence back into investor's minds.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1002285/decarbonising-transport-a-better-greener-britain.pdf

The news icon doesn't seem to be highlighted yet, but ITM are in there with an analyst update...

ITM POWER PLC : BERENBERG STARTS WITH HOLD RATING; 400P TARGET PRICE

https://www.lse.co.uk/news/ITM/london-briefing-uk-inflation-tops-central-bank-target-for-2nd-month-9d9e2sde144vpka.html

Charles, anyone who waits for this company to make a profit before investing can go ahead and chalk this up to "another one that got away". You're right it probably will be a 'safer' bet in 5 years, but it's also likely to be over £15 (equivalent) by then. In my opinion this is, at best, currently undervalued; at least, fair value; and only if green hydrogen fails entirely is this overvalued but in that case not even 250 would save it.

I do however agree with you on AFC, but that's because it's in a completely different market to ITM and I don't rate the AFC product highly. I might change my mind if they made electrolysers (which they probably could) or developed a better hero product.

Bigger capacity batteries for EV still don't solve all the knock on issues around charging. Higher charge rates to make the user experience more like fast fossil fill still puts ever more strain on grid peaks especially if they concentrate chargers into hubs similar to the forecourt experience. The only big advantage I can see would be, once again, for those who can charge at home. It's hard to see any great advantage for those that can't. They're still confined to short splash and dash for about 100 mile at a time in 10 minutes, or waiting the full hour for a full tank.

All those APPG meetings have finally culminated in a report sent to Government today. In my opinion it's light on Green Hydrogen and heavy on CCUS and nuclear. Not surprising though when you examine the list of sponsors. I guess this is a bit "Fossil Lobby 2.0".

https://connectpa.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Hydrogen-APPG-Report-2021.pdf

In my opinion that was wise. I had high hopes for this company when I invested 5 years ago. All the hype gave me a good profit but I just can't see this company going anywhere against all the competition that's developed...even if they can get beyond their massive debt pile. For their sake I'm glad they are restructuring some of the debt terms, but it's hard to see it working out in favour of private shareholders. Happy to be proven wrong and wish those holding for a bright future all the best of luck.

The UK government didn't miss the relevance of the Chilean visit and wrote an op-ed piece published in the Diario Financiero newspaper in Chile. The published article doesn't mention hydrogen specifically, but their reporting of the trade affiliation on the uk gov page does mention hydrogen. So hopefully these are signs that government recognises the importance of trade in new technologies where UK has a lead. But the newspaper article was the day after the joint declaration the report in pv magazine mentions, so maybe some key decisions have been made now and uk needs to try a little harder next time...or get in a little earlier maybe.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-united-kingdom-cptpp-and-the-strategic-tilt-towards-the-asia-pacific

https://www.df.cl/noticias/opinion/columnistas/giro-estrategico-al-asia-pacifico-reino-unido-y-tpp11/2021-06-29/191845.html

To be honest, slightly surprised you're still around here daltry. Does this mean you're clinging on to these shares? Or are you same as me, sold a while back and just keeping an ear to the ground?

32 trades yesterday and 19 trades today. I guess everyone's just waiting on the sidelines ready to pounce when the time is right :-)

I look back here every now and then to see if anything's changed. Nope. Still not impressed.

This is what James May bought after he got rid of his Toyota Mirai...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XytYTxQEq_Y

It's a commendable intent, but the policy-makers never seem to understand how commerce and markets work. The reason we've had the disposable economy is that it's broadly favourable for both the consumer and the manufacturer - disposal means higher turnover therefore higher volume of manufacture and lower priced new purchase. And the manufacturers don't have to carry excess stock of slow moving spares. Being forced to carry spares increases overheads and lower turnover volume of original items increases the cost of the original.

I accept that high levels of disposal has an environmental impact, and maybe this is a solution to that problem. But they sell the idea as win-win, for both the environment and the consumer. I'm confident the consumer will not find this a cheaper solution.

As long as everyone's in the same boat then the markets should settle on a fair, if slightly higher, price for the original equipment, but my doubts are over the cost and application of spares and repairs. The article calmly states "with the ability to simply fix the broken part helping to cut down significantly on costs". "Simply"! Ha! Long gone are the days when offspring learned the art of fixing things or 'proper' DIY from their parents. And everything these days has the added complexity of electronic circuits for power supplies, timers and microprocessors. Most people will have to call out an engineer to service and repair these goods. And the cost of that labour plus spares is likely to exceed the old price of the disposable items. The new price is likely to be so high as to make the high cost of repair necessary. My prediction overall is that life will get a lot more expensive with this new, well-meaning, intervention. And to cap it off we'll be operating a lot more older and increasingly unreliable (due to age) goods. Chalk it up to yet another 'unintended consequence' from our rose-tinted-spectacle-wearing politicians.

It's an interesting little dilemma brewing. If you're making blue hydrogen and then putting it into a power station to generate 900MW of electricity, what does that mean for electrolysers connected to the grid? Obviously it's dumb to feed hydrogen into a power station and use that power to generate less hydrogen than you started with, so somehow all electrolysers need to be matched 1-to-1 with a green energy source. Then all green sources need to be allowed to run at their maximum available output all the time, i.e. never curtailed. The hydrogen power station should then be the unit that is curtailed (after all fossil has been switched off obviously) during periods where excess grid energy would otherwise be generated.

haha 5MW even. 5GW stack would be a fine thing...mahoosive.

Don't forget, there is a good reason why many of the ITM electrolyser finished products are built into shipping containers.

Whilst the early customer sizes fit that model they can be shipped from anywhere. There will likely come a time when the standard size demanded exceeds that model, so that could be tricky. Does anyone know what the packaging looks like for the forthcoming 5GW stacks? I haven't looked back at the presentations to see if those can still be containerised.