Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Ths is qute interesting because it is a proposal for a VRFB system to replace a current lithium ion battery, so raises issues which must be common to many potential installers.
https://icons.cns.umass.edu/sites/default/files/student-work/2020-05/vanadiumredoxflowbatteryicons2paper.pdf
For installation in 2030 in the University of Massachusetts
Quite interesting if only to get an idea of other off-shoots, E.g. the Sumitomo systems.
For example, interesting to see that of course VRFB battery containers can be stacked on top of each other.
Yet another not-much-described advantage of VFRBs - Lithium ion no way can be (because of safety issues)...so a lot of the bulk/space argument can be countered depending on the particular setup......
Surely land costs money? (!)
Thanks for mentioning pedestrians!
I can see the benefits and deemed essentialness of car ownership, but I look forward to the day I don't have to keep breathing in poison in London! Imo it is a more constructive persuit to find a way of diminishing the environmental impact at the point of manufacture, which is logically easier to control than continuing with millions of units (cars) all over the world spewing out stuff for the locals.....
Not just EVs.....I'm sure there are a lot of nervous prospective home battery installers now having second thoughts...
This is a can of worms that it seems isn't allowed to be opened!
https://www.energy-storage.news/fire-hazard-leads-to-further-product-recall-for-lg-residential-battery-storage-systems/
It feels like any company that can deliver a reliable non-lithium product in the home may be on to a winner from now on....
I mean, when is some authority going to grab this and deal with it properly?
Latest typical 'expert' recommendation:
'...enough space for fire crews to maneuver and aim a hose'
Yeah...that's the sort of expert advice we need now...not!
I've been buying constantly for a while now, never selling, because the company is undervalued and a truer valuation will show itself at some stage. Some investors and others don't even believe their own judgement on the company's prospects.
So this or that person has decided that they have been 'in' long enough to have made a profit, and haven't, so rather than pull out and admit they lost their gamble, they have to put the boot in.
I'm gambling as much as the next guy - I can see that. But I am staying put. I have faith in the board, and the company's prospects. All that is missing is time.
I 'invested' in countless tech and oil/mining companies in the '90s, and lost a bundle. Back then I was swayed by investor sentiment, rather than fundamentals.
Not this time....
Best to throw away the BS in the Mail and look at the source. It has some excellent info on the subject:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352158070_Safety_of_Grid_Scale_Lithium-ion_Battery_Energy_Storage_Systems
Logically, if, as was thought by many, some entity was selling heavily recently, why is that organisation or others not racing to dump everything, since the price is up around 20% from the low by now...?
Perhaps the big selling is over.
I'm sorry to say, but it really looks like many potential investors as well assome long-term holders were recently convinced that we would hit a lower bottom support price, so are now 'out'. Hence the lack of much excitement here.....
And suspicously no trolling...come on guys, the company is the same today as when you were dragging it down!
Perhaps it was always thus, but authorities are just not taking innitiatives in this area. Perhaps it's all about profits?
Anyway, this is interesting because it details some findings after the 2019 Arizona battery fire.
Typically, 'Standards today focus on the means to manage a fire, but have so far avoided prescribing solutions that restrict or slow cell-to-cell and module-to-module thermal runaway propagation'.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/storage/aps-completes-investigation-following-2019-battery-storage-fire-disaster/
Having looked at the early stuff on this, from 2017, with Musk bigging up the biggest battery....it is clear that not one single word was devoted to safety. This implies ether no-one forsaw any issues, or that they assumed issues could easily be contained, or they were obfuscating. Either way, we have battery fires that have a best option of 'waiting for them to burn out and crossing fingers'.
I just can not believe that rollouts will continue given this......
Crazy how the fireman says best thing to do is wait for it to burn itself out! Meanwhile other services say constantly pouring thousands of gallons of water on a battery fire is the only way to deal with it...
Clearly no one has an effing clue what's going on here, or how to deal with it, and this can't just continue with 'pot luck' being the only determinant.
They are really taking the whatsit here.....
It's like buying a used laptop battery from ebay to save money, but it being described as an 'eco' version, and having a far smaller guarantee......
Ultimately this is not a great move since it just means more hassle.
I think a better but not popular solution would be to literally recycle the battery constituents.
However, making that task easier is contrary to squeezing ever-greater profits by battery makers, so it probably won't happen without government intervention.
At least with VRFBs you have the unmatchable advantage of relatively easy recyclability of the main component........
There are plenty of new and established funds around that are investing in companies that support the new industrial revolution.
I think it has been a mistake to think only of 'pure green' investment funds getting involved.
In the same way that I think perception is faulty in regarding VRFB as some sort of replacement for lithium ion.
It is relatively niche...but that niche is potentially huge nonetheless.
Private investors here have been puzzled by the 'why' of the low BMN price......it has to be the case that bigger fish have this company on their radar, and will buy when they are ready. Is today a sign of that? Who knows.
Interesting that no-one is shouting about the rise today!
(I am, but only very quietly...sshhh)
How do you deduce that?
Isn't it possible that someone wanted 'in' and for a large buy it will take time to work on, so be reported later?
After all, it is possible (though unfashionable!) to look at this from a demand/supply angle....and the supply was a little short so price had to rise to attract more sellers?
It's interesting that Tesla's share price doesn't seem to get disturbed by these news items on the fires caused by their batteries. Perhaps investors see it as only a miniscule issue within their battery empire? Or maybe they have an 'it will only go on going up' mentality, so are blinkered to anything -ve?
Once the authorities get on to appropriate regulations, costs and hassle will rise for this type of installation. From day one I saw this, and insurance costs will follow suit. Fire brigades worldwide will not be happy to have to deal with this stuff, never mind the communities in the environment. This is all good for VRFBs and other safer technologies, of course.
BTW that guy on youtube seems to be verbally incontinent on this subject...but at least he's getting loads of ideas 'out there'.
God forbid BMN degenerates further into some sort of Reddit plaything.....
Trying to stay sane/focused these days is not easy!
Are there profits warnings here....is the VRFB due to be superceded by a 'better' technology that beats its inherent advantages...indeed are there any good arguments apart from 'the share price dropping'?
This share seems highly under-valued - so hold til the value is realised.
Simple strategy. The rest is down to appropriate portfolio allocation. Sure, it's more than tempting to fill-up even more. But each to their own.
Crazy really - very few, if any, arguments are saying 'the price has been dropping because the business is failing, and it has no future'.
Most are of the order of 'no-one knows why the price is falling so let's theorise about mystery sellers, shorting, takeovers, whatever'.
One thing - 'money makes money' and the reverse is also true: the dropping share price has inspired investors to the negative - they have ceased to have faith in their own judgement, and are instead thinking 'well this company must be bad because no-one else is buying'. We are in a historically cynical age, and I could well believe this sentiment alone is at least part-responsible for the constant drops.
I'm happy to keep holding...regardless of what's going on with the price.
That is what risk is about, and holding BMN may be high-risk, but potentially high reward.
If anyone says 'yeah but you'll keep holding then till it approaches zero', there is no answer.
Well, you've got to be in it to win it, as they say.
I find this aspect of Bushveld strangely murkey. It looks like something that could hugely benefit that part of Madagascar, where only a miniscule % of inhabitants have access to electricity. It's too easy over here to insist on a green agenda...sometimes a compromise may be needed. Listening to Fortune in interviews back in 2017 he clearly talks about it as a very valuable asset that is not appreciated by the market. Also would it not lead to loss of good faith and respect, as well as return on investment, were Bushveld to drop this project in order to favour our box-ticking requirements for green credentials? The political situation there looks even more trecherous than in South Africa, so any agreements into the future would have been hard-won, as well as being potentially risky.
I don't know how a mining company could ever be classified as 'green'!
Sure....you can make an argument that further down the line something is produced which is greener than something else, but still....
One day the energy company as a stand-alone could surely be seen to be as a green investment...but you can't diddle around with a miner in order to say it's green!