Member Info for toneman

I don't really know whose decision it is to change from paying out curtailment to windfarms and instead subsidise them to do something else with the energy, but until they do make the change away from curtailment then electrolysers will remain largely in the background.

It is at least now recognised that there are significant periods of excess generation, but the decision seems to have already been taken that the next expansion for renewables will be through battery storage. That's going to take the edge off some of the curtailment and kick that issue into the long grass for a few years. That battery growth is likely going to see us into the 2030's and keep electrolysis in the background.

So unless our politicians recognise the benefit of subsidising the windfarms to generate industrial green hydrogen with their excess instead of putting a little of it into batteries then electrolysers probably cannot take off in the UK.

I hope ITM is strongly looking internationally for sales, otherwise we will run out of cash before the UK opportunity arrives.

I'm pretty sure that's why the stock price is rooted firmly to the ground. The wider investor sentiment is that ITM will run out of money before it runs into profit.

People keep measuring the market cap against cash in the bank as if the share price can't go any lower than that. Until the company starts making money the cash in the bank will keep dwindling away. The company is not expecting to make any money until at least 2027 so the cash is going to keep dwindling - and may even completely disappear. Forget the cash. Value the business.

I'm looking forward to the day when we reach an undeniable tipping point for the 'Green Transition' and all these funds come flooding back in. Boy will things pop then.

All the energy charts I follow suggest it's already undeniable, but seems it's not quite obvious enough for some people.

There was a institutional investors webinar at 11am this morning following Friday's RNS. The rise seems to coincide with when that would have ended, so sounds like it was all taken very positively. I don't know if the webinar is going to be released to the rest of us.

Disconcerting that Redflow couldn't get backing for their larger battery proposal. I always thought Redflow was quite a decent idea, after seeing it a few years ago on Fully Charged YouTube channel. Charging up through electroplating, which can last indefinitely until you choose to discharge again, seems like a great idea for long duration storage. It was on the basis of initially liking that idea that attracted me to Invinity and making an investment here.

We need to get some massive batteries (pref Mistral) out in the field soon so that the market doesn't grow cold on Invinity too.

We've had the stone-age, the bronze-age, the iron-age, and we're now entering the store-age.

Should be a game-changer. Let's see if the market gets the significance.

Ok, so it's between £7bn and £8bn of new money because we've got to subtract approximately £3bn already invested over the past 3 years.

All is not what it appears...

The National Wealth Fund (NWF) is a rebadging of the UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB). The UKIB was set up in 2021 with a £22bn 'pot' backed by HM Treasury. The now named NWF is the same organisation with a slighlty enlarged mandate and a slightly enlarged pot which is now £27bn. So Rachel Reeves is only really adding £5bn to the existing pot. It's not a new £27bn at all. Of course, I wouldn't turn down an extra £5bn if I was offered it, but it's important to understand the reality.

Usual political smoke and mirrors is alive and well at Westminster.

I'll believe it when I see it. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Don't get me wrong, I did vote for this lot, despite being a long-time Conservative. And I voted for them because they were still giving positive statements on green energy. My lot had completely lost the plot on everything over the past 5 years. So I'll keep my fingers crossed that their positivity can have a meaningful effect and that my cynicism is unfounded.

I learned a few years ago not to base any of my investment decisions on government promises. The idea that the stated target of 5GW of electrolyser deployment by 2030 carries any meaningful weight is wishful thinking. What penalties are there for the government missing that target? None. And if they were serious about hitting such an 'out-of-thin-air' target, they should have already been measurably on the way there.

I'm still a long term holder of ITM, CWR, PLUG, and a variety of other hydrogen stocks and green energy stocks. I'm a strong beleiver in the green future. Unfortunately our politicians have absolutely no idea what they're doing. My belief is that there are anough companies trying to build a future out of all this that they are likely to drive us to a green future anyway. But it will be in spite of our government rather than because of it.

Unfortunately the game is still the same as it's been for a while. No FIDs will be made whilst companies still think there may be subsidies or grants for them, so everything hinges on delayed Government announcements followed by further delays while quangos consider all the applications. This will also be seen soon with the mega-scale flow battery opportunities following last Thursday's government announcement. The secondary problem we have for electrolysers is that Government aren't thinking any further than storage. And they think that all forms of storage is created equally. That means they don't see the difference between storing excess solar vs excess wind. I've explained before why batteries suit solar and electrolysers suit wind, but, until we have a continuous excess of both, the politicians still won't see the difference.

And until they (politicians) also recognise the benefit of replacing fossil hydrogen with wind-derived green hydrogen rather than paying curtailment fees to generate no energy at all, we (the UK) are going to be stuck in this slow moving, low orders, no FID environment.

What a waste of money. They've certainly pulled the wool over the eyes in government (both parties).

Not a chance Musk is going to fuel cell. Surely he'd have gone with fuel cell for the semi-truck if he thought that fuel cells had any merit.

Fulmar29, that's annoying. We don't really want lithuim battery manufacturers increasing demand for vanadium to use in their cathodes. That mining.com report was not a favourable article for flow batteries.

At some point the big automotive companies should have worked out that the only way to get the refuelling sites would have been to pool their financial resources and club together to build out the first minimum required distribution of refuelling stations. That's effectively the model Tesla rolled out single-handedly to get such a leadership position in EV. Without it no mass adoption will occur for any new technology. Had Toyotal and others started such a hydrogen refuelling rollout 5 years ago when the last hype cycle took off then there would already be enough refuelling stations to make it a viable option for consumers today. But aside from Tesla do it for EVs, all the automotive companies simply wish for the government or 'big oil' to roll out refuelling/recharging sites for them. Hence Tesla outsells all other EV brands (outside China) typically 10-fold, and no significant hydrogen refuelling exists at all.

For the past two decades the excuse was always "Can't build the cars without the refuelling and can't build the refuelling without the cars". Well Toyota, Honda and Hyundai built the cars and still nobody built the refuelling, so turns out it was the refuelling holding everything up after all. And that still hasn't changed.

Today, Governments (ours especially) is under huge pressure to accept that there is only one option - battery EV. So it's even more obvious that if automotive companies want to offer hydrogen vehicles they're going to have to fund the refuelling rollout themselves otherwise it won't happen anyway. It won't matter how many hydrogen vehicles they manufacture, without the refuelling stations, no one will buy them. It's a shame. I'd like one. But now I've got solar at home and Octopus offer a 7p or 8p overnight tariff for charging I'll likely go for a Tesla instead. I'm sure there will be times on longer journeys where I'd wish for a rapid hydrogen refill, but it'll be 2035 before enough hydrogen refilling stations exist and my Tesla will probably need replacing by then so I'll consider hydrogen then I suppose.

With such little revenue growth forecast for next year, today would have been a good day to give us the name of the recent 500MW reservation customer and expand on what that should deliver for future revenue and when.

Https://ukhea.co.uk/uk-hydrogen-project-map/

This has probably been posted before, but it is new to me so I thought I'd share it anyway.

Rich, it's not surprising to see Professor Cebon as the key contributor to the article you shared. He's a well known anti-hydrogen PITA. There's generally nothing wrong with the scientific and engineering facts that are always the base to his arguments, but they always seem to simply dismiss other justifications that people may have for choosing transport solutions other than his BEV-only proposal. Personally I don't see a big problem with hydrogen transportation even if the hydrogen is not green. At least it would help reduce local air particulates in cities if we can get people out of diesel vans and trucks. But he dismisses that sort of reasoning on his efficiency-only paradigm.

That fusion project sounds like an absolute disaster. It's hard to understand why some people are still holding expectations of fusion success in the future. We've got enough fusion energy hitting the earth from the sun to power all our needs. We just have to keep harvesting it with solar panels and wind turbines. It all seems so obvious. Use some directly, store some in batteries, create some hydrogen. Easy.