Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. Watch the video here.
• Today’s news – “a new national flagship is to be commissioned by the government in a bid to boost British trade and industry globally…. with an emphasis on utilising British design expertise and the latest green technology.”
• Ricardo and AFC Energy collaboration – “… will focus on the joint creation of hydrogen fuel cell product and service offerings, with an initial focus on marine…”
• Ricardo has been providing advice to both industry and government clients on hydrogen strategies and technology development for more than 20 years.
By saying this ..... “If the outstanding and overdue sums are not paid in the short-term, then Abingdon may need to reduce its cost base” they are hinting that it wouldn’t look good.....
”Company announces redundancies because UK Gov not paying invoices”
I agree with Dr A. that because we are the final link in the chain we might be held up by expenditure elsewhere on the project to synchronise the assembly of the jigsaw. A greater cash flow into the project would result in quicker progress, but this is unlikely.
As I understand, Peel L&P are responsible for the entire capital expenditure for the DMG plant at Protos. Peel L&P are part of Peel Group which own vast real estate assets, for example large retail parks, leisure complexes, and ports.
Peel L&P itself is not flush with cash. Last year’s financial report (year ended 31 March 2020) showed …
Profit and loss account - Loss for the financial teat 2020: (negative £274,795)
Balance Sheet - Total assets less current liabilities: (negative £2,640,333)
So where does Peel L&P get its cash for capital expenditure? One can only surmise -grants from government and investment from the parent Company??
Peel Holdings owns land and property worth £2.3billion. It also invests in the property company Hammerson (property assets £6.3billion). But because of Covid lockdowns, as Hammerson said in their last report, they have been hit hard by “the largest fall in net rental income and UK net asset values in the Group’s history.”
With so much reduced cash flow it would be no surprise if capital investment projects have been slowed down or put on the back burner for a while until business returns closer to normal. Peel is an enlightened property company with high ideals and I have no doubt that the Protos project is safe. But it will probably take longer than we expected and, yes, patience will be needed.
Thanks again, Envision.
And thanks also to David Ryan for providing us with an update in detail of where we are on the Protos project. Katie asked the right questions and David seemed pleased with our progress on the PHE technical workload . Just what we needed.
The most quoted tender date here is 7 April, but to me, the tender notice is ambiguous.
In the Tender Notice: https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W11/746914041
The Description says “Whilst the initial response date for applications to join is the 07/04/2021…”
The Deadline says: 06 Apr 2021 01:00, which effectively means 05 Apr 2021.
And the Status currently says: “This tender is open for application. The deadline is in 17 days” which, if my arithmetic is correct, also means 05 April.
Can anyone clarify?
Hi Johnnie
I agree with you. The reason I am in (apart from Stereax, of course) is that I have high hopes that the work we are doing with JLR and Honda will soon result in closer formal collaboration and investment. Honda have declared their wish to use a British battery and JLR is literally just over the road from where we will be at UKBIC.
It is quite possible that the materials used by QS will limit their ability to improve further on their charging time, cost and possibly weight. With their different battery materials I believe IKA has the greater potential to go further on these characteristics.
Ilika made the claim, over a year ago, that…
“This new battery will be ultra-fast charging enabling electric vehicle owners charge their cars in under 10 minutes.”
But the moving target is now 5 minutes, as claimed by Storedot. They have produced their first production batch of engineering sample cells. Production of prototype batteries is expected later this year.
https://www.store-dot.com/post/first-ever-5-minute-charge-li-ion-battery-samples
Quantumscape released its performance data only recently, after years of development work, including real-world collaboration with VW..
https://www.electrive.com/2020/12/09/quantumscape-publishes-solid-state-battery-performance-data/
https://www.electrive.com/2021/02/19/quantumscape-sets-up-pilot-plant-for-solid-state-batteries/
Ilika seems to have been concentrating resources on Stereax. Preliminary development work on Goliath is proceeding but OEM collaborators are still being sought. Specifications are published only as general target features with no performance data.
https://www.ilika.com/battery-innovation/goliath
“Whilst we are going through the early stages of R&D, w are working with OEM willing to engage with us at an early stage to guide our development, either through direct engagement or via funded grants. If you’re interested in joining our development ecosystem contact us now at info@ilika.com”
Conclusion: Ilika is some way behind Quantumscape in EV battery development, so the product performance metrics cannot yet be compared.
Johnnie asks…”I'd be interested to know what info you have on the current status of ilikas tech that enables comparison between their tech and QS?”
Notbot says… “ I am feeling pedantic enough to point out that Ilika batteries are still basically Lithium-ion ones but in solid-state form”
“The difference comes with the choice of materials and the design of the cells,” says Graeme Purdy. “Other players in the field of solid-state batteries have chosen to use lithium metal anodes, whereas we use a silicon anode. Some of our rivals use sulphur-based electrolytes, whereas we use a ceramic oxide. We come from a different starting point which has enabled us to develop robust, well-functioning miniature solid state batteries that we are scaling up for larger applications such as cars.”
The Engsolve designs were for “25 tonnes/day of waste” but the 2019 accounts also said “Engineering scope for Protos increased to accommodate production of up to 2 tpd of hydrogen from 35 tonnes of regenerated plastic waste feedstock.” And “Engineering development continued and the DMG waste regeneration design capacity of generic equipment increased to 40 tonnes per day.” Do we know if the capacity upgrade design was also done by Engsolve or is it being undertaken by our newly recruited design team?
Valu, thanks for this information and well found. I had concerns about the size of the engineering design task for the newly recruited technical team. That the bulk of it may have already been completed is good news for me because, if so, procurement can begin much sooner than I had feared.
Dr.A and Lovejoy, thanks for the replies.
BTW, Dr.A, you do seem close to the Company. Do I understand correctly that we are about to construct a piece of large industrial plant using a new technology, which has been proved using a small scale pilot plant?
I would feel less uneasy about our technical vulnerability if I knew that all of the mechanical and electrical engineering designs, specifications and installation drawings for the new plant about to be constructed have already been completed and by whom. Why? Because I’m an engineer who has worked for years on turnkey industrial installations to new designs and I understand what needs to be done to get there.
Thanks NutH and DrA. I’m just a little uneasy that for several years up to the end of last year the Company had no staff and consisted only of the Board of Directors, all but one of which were non-executive. All technical responsibility lay with just one man, Mr David Ryan. His role is now “consultant”, which implies he is retained on contract, with only another four months to run. The extent of his technical knowledge relating to the project would be difficult to replace, and currently the Company seems to me to be technically vulnerable. And Mr Tim Yeo only referred to “welcoming a new Chief Executive Officer in due course.” There was no reference to a Chief Technical Officer having responsibility at Board level.
It is now more than three months since Mr David Ryan stood down from the Board of Directors as CEO, committing only to act as technical consultant for a period of seven months. The Company website still shows Mr Ryan as CEO, with all other directors being non-executive. At this stage of the project, technical responsibility at Board level should be made clear on the Company website.