Member Info for toneman

m_wall where does that 1/10th population claim come from?

Do they use fresh-water for toilets in California? In Hong Kong I was aware that the toilets used sea water (or derived from) not fresh water. There were signs up saying "Not potable. Do not drink".

In a way, that's kinda my point Bilbs. Predictably low rainfall suggests their economy should be built around desalination plants, not praying for rain.

I've never understood California's water issues. They have a massive coastline of the limitless water resource of the Pacific Ocean. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all fresh-water reserves on Earth sourced from evaporation of seawater which then falls as rain, snow, or other precipitation, onto land where it is collected either naturally or by man-made means? If, then, nature isn't quite offering enough for the State of California, why do they not replicate the process themselves with their abundant sunlight and access to the ocean. I know desalination is not necessarily an efficient process, but then so many of today's processes are not efficient, so what, we do them out of necessity. Rather than constantly moaning that nature isn't playing ball, just get on and make your own. The same is true for water and hydrogen. It's a very recyclable resource, but you may have to make fresh water yourself and/or pipe it to where it's needed. Am I wrong?

Sorry if this has been posted already. Australian government has rejected the plan for AREH in Western Australia. Hopefully they'll get it through after further consultation. I guess they have to protect a few more birds first. I wonder what will happen to those birds and wetlands if we don't get a grip on climate change, but I guess I can accept that even doing things the right way these projects are measured at a higher standard than all the fossil installations were.

https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/green-hydrogen-blow-as-36bn-global-flagship-areh-ruled-clearly-unacceptable-by-australia/2-1-1028069

I don't know enough about making steel, but this sounds like one of the most significant milestones we've had in a good while. The phrase "game-changing" is a little overused but it does seem appropriate here.

Agreed. But does it introduce a conflict of interest that would allow the naysayers to say "Ah, but she has to say that doesn't she". I'm worried that the clout and gravitas she normally brings to the discussions and debates could now be seen as biased.

McPhy down around 14% today after pretty similar experience to ITM, slow decision-making during the pandemic and a "wait and see" mentality. Sounds very familiar.

They said...
"McPhy (Euronext Paris Compartment C: MCPHY, FR0011742329), specialized in zero-carbon hydrogen production and distribution equipment (electrolyzers and refueling stations), today announces that revenue for the first half of 2021 is expected to be above €5.0 million compared to €5.4 million during the same period last year.

As announced in the Group’s last communication on May 21, and despite a market that remains very buoyant, McPhy observes delays in the execution of its projects, as well as in the taking of firm orders, which are slow to materialize due to the global health context, the related restrictions, and the wait-and-see attitude of certain economic players dependent on public financing mechanisms.

As a result, revenue growth for the full year 2021 could be limited.

Despite this outlook for 2021, the Group intends to pursue the deployment of its business model based on the continuous improvement of its green hydrogen technology, which can only be considered over long cycles. The Group reiterates its confidence in the medium and long-term growth prospects of its markets and remains focused on the industrialization of its production capacities and the acceleration of its technological developments in zero-carbon hydrogen."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/land-rover-commits-hydrogen-fuel-cell-power-defender/

Here are some snippets for those without access...
"Despite little Government support for hydrogen, Land Rover is going down the fuel-cell route as part of its drive to reduce emissions".
"JLR says that fuel-cell technology is better for larger, long-range vehicles and those operating in hot and cold environments"
“We know hydrogen has a role to play in the future powertrain mix across the whole transport industry,” says Ralph Clague, head of hydrogen and fuel cells for JLR. “Alongside battery-electric vehicles, it offers another zero-tailpipe emission solution for the specific capabilities and requirements of JLR.”
"Yet despite the UK Government’s conviction that battery electric cars are the sole way forward for passenger cars, the European Union and Europe’s car makers are investing and working hard on the technology for larger passenger cars and commercial vehicles."
"JLR plans to achieve zero tailpipe emissions by 2036 and net zero carbon emissions across supply chain, products and operations by 2039."
"Land Rover engineers will work with research and development partners including Delta Motorsport, AVL, Marelli Automotive Systems and the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre (UKBIC) to research, develop and create the prototype fuel-cell electric vehicle (FCEV)."

Hard to see how they get "Market Perform" and stuck with a target price of 310p. Good buying opportunity if we go back down there, but I think they've got there price wrong...far too cautious.

Not sure if this webinar link has been posted before, but it was quite good so even worth a repeat.

https://youtu.be/PlRyzX1mVog

This link is a great summary of lots of the projects going on in this space. As these are currently just 'projects' just imagine the demand for electrolysers and hydrogen when they all prove to be viable.
https://elainemaslin.wordpress.com/2021/05/01/tracking-hydrogen-in-the-offshore/

I think that's absolutely right mercmark. But why should such short term, high gains start up again that was precisely the result of people realising Hydrogen is going to be a thing. You can't wind the clock back, so we start from today's knowledge which is that everyone is now aware of the market. The only surprises are likely to be the scale of things to come. If it scales up big then 350p is quite underpriced, but maybe not the 1000% gains we saw recently. If it doesn't scale above a niche direct replacement of existing grey hydrogen, then 350p is about right, or maybe a little high.

Personally I think it's a good solid investment from here. I've been lucky and rode the 1000% from the 20p days and I don't expect that ride again from this share, but I'm happy to take the modest double being offered at today's prices in a reasonably short term and expect to see £15 in the longer term.

Doli, that's what's giving us some of these good buying opportunities, sellers who can't wait. No one's forcing anyone to invest in ITM if they can't wait for it to unfold. I'm sure there's plenty of quicker opportunities out there if they know where to look...maybe crypto? But ITM always said it would take a few years to fill the factory and I think general covid restrictions have contributed to them being about a year behind schedule. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt for now. If they're still £4m in 2023, they're toast.

It's funny how downgrades have a negative impact on stock prices even when the target price is a whopping 60%+ increase on present value. After a day of presentations, and a trading update, Barclays et al have had an opportunity to dramatically change their stance if they felt it necessary. They could have taken the view that this is never going to fly and could have simply said "Nope, game over, new target £1". So a minor rerating down to 600p, still 60%+ from today's price should be a massively positive endorsement. I wonder how long it will take the market to recognise the logic.

I don't think you missed anything. There wasn't anything new presented. So there's no reason for the share to take off. What we did get is further justifications that everything is in track which ought to be 50MW this year. I hope we'll then see growth like 100MW-150MW, then 300MW-350MW at which point we trigger another factory. I think a lot of that is built into the price. Anything less is likely to hurt. Staying on track should steadily lift the mcap from 2bn to 10bn before 2030.

Mark, I would put it slightly more than just a 'target' for £40m next year. They state they've already got 33MW under contract for completion. So they're short of 17MW to reach the target. It'll be really disappointing if they can't firm that up from their backlog potential. So if they fail they would be rightly vilified.

johnpohn both ITM and Plug are growing companies. I'm surprised you're putting so much emphasis on past accounts. What does your research tell you about future valuations for both those companies? That would be much more interesting to share.

johnpohn, why do you think it should have translated into revenue this period?

johnpohn, you need to understand IFRS 15. That determines when you are allowed to state the revenue on your books. With a lot of projects delayed due to covid restrictions you can't get on site to perform the acceptance testing. If you can't accept the product, you can't claim the revenue.