Member Info for toneman

In principle I've got nothing against short selling, but analysts shouldn't be allowed to combine that with writing a report slamming the thing they're shorting especially if their word carries any weight in the industry. If you're a heavy-weight commentator or analyst you should only be allowed to commentate on things you don't have a vested interest in your predicted outcome. But it's been like that forever and I figure even the rule makers probably have a vested interest in it remaining like that. Just means it's hard for us home-gamers to win.

Actually most of us here already know the market potential for electrolysers. Today an IEA report has been released which reiterates numbers of the scale we've previously discussed...and extends a little further for good measure.

Global capacity of electrolysers expands to 3300GW by 2070...(0.2GW today)

Equivalent to 7.5MW electrolyser produced every hour for the next 50 years.

https://www.miningweekly.com/article/iea-says-green-hydrogen-is-ready-for-big-time-and-lists-africa-as-key-production-site-2020-09-10

https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-technology-perspectives-2020

And this is where we could have followed the online seminar if we knew it was even on.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/gigastack-webinar-phase-1-conclusions-and-project-ambitions-tickets-116980111663#

I guess I need to sign up for a few more email notifications :-(

oldbrian, I found one...

https://www.business-live.co.uk/technology/gigastacks-green-hydrogen-solution-heavy-18907387

Now what's my prize?

oldbrian, I expect ITM's entire future relies on the success of the wider hydrogen market. Any failures would likely hit the stock price very heavily. So I'd rather people keep posting things from the fringes. Also, it's hard to report only ITM specific if they're not releasing any news.

According to Milton they can make 5 times more per truck than typical truck manufacturers because they package all the hydrogen in with the sale. So that's why they don't seem to care who builds them and I guess it therefore doesn't matter if they end up a little over-priced per truck. But it could be a big gamble on the big oil and forecourt providers not jumping onto hydrogen refueling in a big way. I'd have thought that if Shell, BP, Exxon, Total, Chevron, Eni, Conoco, get a sniff that hydrogen for transport fuel is going to take off then his USP pretty much disappears as they populate their refueling infrastructure with hydrogen pumps.

If GM is going to engineer and manufacture Nikola's pick-up, and Iveco will build their trucks in Europe, it's hard to see exactly what value Nikola brings. Also, it's hard to see how Nikola can effectively compete when their own products are being manufactured by, arguably, direct competitors. When GM and Iveco manufacture for themselves the end result has got to be lower cost without the extra layer of margin taken out. I still hope Nikola can make it a success for the sake of my hydrogen dream...but there is something unconvincing about the approach.

Is this one new? So hard to tell these days. ITM, Ceres and Siemens all get a name-check.

https://renews.biz/62962/green-hydrogen-could-generate-320bn-in-the-uk/

The IEA produced this dataset as part of efforts to track advances in low-carbon hydrogen technology. It covers all projects commissioned worldwide since 2000 to produce hydrogen for energy or climate-change-mitigation purposes. It includes projects which their objective is either to reduce emissions associated with producing hydrogen for existing applications, or to use hydrogen as an energy carrier or industrial feedstock in new applications that have the potential to be a low-carbon technology. Projects in planning or construction are also covered.

IEA (2020), Hydrogen Projects Database, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/hydrogen-projects-database

Sorry taskmaster...I missed that one amongst the psmith64 show this morning. I even scanned back before I posted it and still missed it...funny.

Lord Oates to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Hydrogen Advisory Council will develop a fully-funded hydrogen strategy for the United Kingdom.

https://www.kallanishenergy.com/2020/09/04/uk-hydrogen-campaign-gains-parliamentary-support/

Sorry bilbs. I thought you were having a minor dig at me earlier. I've now re-read your 10.36 post and I think I now understand what you were actually saying. My apologies.

bilbs, do I have to choose a different number just because you said it first? I didn't realise that's how this worked. Sorry if I trod on your toes.

Sharpeye52w, it's not necessarily a break out yet. If it holds at 225 then it's still part of the triangle/pennant. Let's see how that unfolds.

I agree, the Gravitricity idea sounds like the most difficult way imaginable to store a tiny amount of energy, probably quite inefficiently. Lifetime maintenance would probably be a nightmare too. I'd like to see the numbers to prove me wrong.

1LEO, it's all part of the after hours auction period between 4.30pm and 4.35pm. There's always comment about it and I've googled for good explanations many times. These are a couple of the best (partial?) explanations I found...

http://www.theel1tetrader.com/2013/01/lse-closing-auction-how-it-works.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV40TBikG_8

Our governments, past and present, have a track record of backing the wrong horse and making the wrong decisions. Perhaps, for now, no news is good news. It will certainly not be good for us when the next news out of government is a decision to back vehicle-to-grid as their priority for grid balancing. It would be very wrong, but it could happen...

It's either just their interpretation of the rules, or more likely just easier for them to release the data every month, regardless of change, so that they can never miss the regulatory release when there has actually been a change. In my opinion it might be clearer if instead they did only release when there is a change then perhaps you could go back and find the numbers and dates more easily.

Here are the rules...
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DTR/5/6.html

bilbo, I've been thinking exactly the same recently. It's odd that so many business watchers/forecasters don't seem to appreciate that part of the volume is required just to get the cost of manufacture down to meet even today's prices where companies like ITM could be break-even. Constantly passing these cost savings on to the customer feels necessary in business in order to remain competitive. Ultimately I guess that's what often leads to the winner-takes-all when the more successful buy out the least successful and drive out the competition. That's why I feel it necessary to back ITM, NEL, and MCPHY. A rising tide lifts all ships...but ultimately some ships are bigger than others.

I certainly can't believe it's worth a read at that price. Their forecasts are almost certainly no better than our own discussed regularly on this forum. I saw one report very recently that predicted growth on electrolysers or fuel cells, out to 2027, at only 7% annual rate starting from 2018 or 2019 sales figures. Frankly, if we were only looking at 7% annual growth over that period, that would mean hydrogen would have failed to gain traction once again.