A very informative and interesting study if not posted yet, everything around Hydrogen production and use, also a cost chart on hydrogen production on the status today, costs to produce hydrogen are therefor at the moment between 2 and 8 Euro per KG. This are the costs for production of Hydrogen, waste hydrogen is a different story of course.
Developments are here of course moving fast and costs might be already or might become already cheaper, but its an idea.
Shell speculates that production costs of 1-2 Euro per KG is the short term future.
I am not sure but at the moment generally 33 kwh / KG, if i remember it correctly roughly from 50 liters of H2O I can produce approx 219 kwh in a fuel cell, might be better or higher now with the new AFC cells.
Now converting 1 L H2O weights about 0.71 KG.
I amno specialist in comverting and costs calculation, nor have the time today and or know if this figures specially towards H2O needed to produce 1khw of energy in a fuel cell match, perhaps someone has more inside. I will also try to find out.
But then we can start to calculate the costs of hydrogen per kwh and add the costs of energy production AFC is targeting and finally have a figure for the business and validity.
Important is, look at the degration start, a 2 years electrode starts at 0.03 or 0.04 and gets quickly to 0.10 and higher, so if AFc installs them they have 3-4 month or a bit longer where they are profitable and then they have to pay on top. A 4 years starts at 0.03 or 0.04 and probably ends justunderneath 0.10, so fully valiable !
If you assume with a 2 years 10 cents, that is right, but only for a short period, so dont look at the starting point, have the full degration time in mind. A electrode at least for two years should offer a stable calculation cost of under 10 cents, not starting at 10 cents !
First batteries over the years and even now drastically get smaller and smaller by reaching more power and at the same time longevity !
Second if you read the presentation 10 Cent starting can be reached by a two years electrode, then costs go up. Starting around 5 cents and then going to 10 cents is reached approx with a 4 years electrode, which will then be the winner, running 2-3 month on 10 cents is not the long term solution, read the presentation and look at the charts !!! Dont guess
Thanks to all those who have contributed towards this thread and given their take on what is actually happening at AFC. One thing that stands out is, that there is an awful lot of information that we do not have to hand. Whilst I accept that much of the R & D is subject to great secrecy, the direction the company takes and how it goes about achieving it's aims, are certainly not. With each Megawatt we start to sell, there should surely be a cost and profitability analysis with which investors can gauge just how far we are progressing, once contracts begin to flow.
At present it is easy to work out because it is virtually zero. However, when we eventually get going we need to have an idea of how well, or how badly, we are doing. So many things have changed over the last few years, that investors like me have lost sight of the potential Fuel Cells can give for an Eco Friendly world, especially when others (USA and Russia for example)are trying to put carbon emissions on the back burner. If AFC can prove that there is money to be made in cleaner technology, then investment should pour into the industry. They just need to make it clearer for present and future investors how they intend going about it. It's not rocket sci......, or maybe it is. Thanks again
I thought we'd already reached 0.10c but were now aiming at 4 year longevity to hit a far more price competitive 0.05c ?
This would put us on a par with other mainstream suppliers and very importantly, with NO subsidies, that other green companies have had to attract for years in order to force a switch to wind & solar.
If AFC can achieve this, and they must be feeling confident, we would be in an incredibly strong position.
The nail has firmly been hit on the head. Unless we get to $0.10 per kw/h then AFC can not compete. If we do hit that then the green credentials should see AFC become the preferential supplier.
As AFC will be supplying power, the customer does not care if the FC has 6 weeks longevity or 6 years as long as they are paying only $0.10. No doubt penalty clauses will be in place if AFC can not deliver.
The longevity is for AFC to be able to survive. If they are constantly swapping out FCs but selling Power at $0.10 then AFC can not operate and won't last 6 months.
There is information in the last two AGM presentations which make some of this clearer.
Yes, selling the fuel cells does all seem to boil down to the price per KWh.
Longevity is not the only factor they are/have improved to bring this price down. There have been cost savings in removing nickel, reducing the amount of catalyst per electrode. The surface area of the electrodes has been increased and the new sealed units have more holes for even air (oxygen) flow to the plates which all adds to more efficient operation. Possibly quality control has made the electrodes all give even and improved power output.
From the two AGM presentations were graphs showing longevity versus cost per KWh. Comparing the two shows how far things have advanced over the past year. This year they showed the lower section of the longevity/price scale of the graph, which wasn't even presented last year. It does look as if we are now approaching or at the 10c per KWh level, but the four year electrodes could take us down to more like 3-5c per KWh.
To get to orders we need to (as well as convince people it is all working well) get to a price people will pay. Indeed, sadly this does need to compete with market prices for electricity.
For the chlor-alkali industry, large users of electricity already have discounted contracts and we probably do need to get down to those low prices (? 3-5c) to be competitive there.
However, there are niches where the price per KWh for electricity is very high. Wikipedia lists remote islands as some of the most expensive, some approaching 90c per KWh. Particularly high seem to be places where expensive diesel is the main source of electricity. Beyond this there are places where electricity is cheaper but unreliable. For a reliable supply expensive diesel backup also needs to be used. This is why we are looking at the three new areas, power generation (could be for remote areas), backup power, and battery storage. All these areas would allow us to sell electricity where the price point to be competitive is far higher than the chlor-alkali industry and may already work with the 10c ish conversion cost we have.
I am sure that Adam Bond will be excellent at finding and selling products into these niches as soon as these new products are ready. They are as big or bigger markets than chlor-alkali. Hopefully we are not too far off now. I certainly would not want AFC to be selling fuel cells to customers and making a loss on them as many fuel cell companies are. Ever increasing debt and refinancing spiral would be a very bad thing in my view. What we are waiting for is selling products at a profit, and I believe the first fuel cell company to do that.
Of course a company will see the 4 years longevity as important and yes, AFC will be selling the energy produced but companies buying will want to know how secure and for how long the fuel cells will/should be able to run without problems, as any problems could and I repeat could cause loss of energy.
But if AFC are as confident as they appear to be, then there is nothing to stop a contractual clause/condition that if the promised 4 years longevity is not proven, then a rebate from any monies paid would be forthcoming, or there is an increase in payments if the 4 years target is proven.
Most big contracts are full of clauses, one more should not be an issue and would move things forward to the advantage of AFC and of course prospective customers who if AFC are to be believed are queuing at the door.
What next, yet another improvement from 4 to 6 years as an excuse for not putting the product out.
No product is ever going to be perfect and if AFC continue to procrastinate they might end up with the best fuel cell that never sold.
Thanks for your explanation, however I am still a little confused. I was under the impression that the life of an electrode was governed by it's degradation, due to the surface chemical reaction with the hydrogen, in the same way that a car's battery acid degrades it's electrodes. The stronger the material, and the volume used, the greater the longevity and the slower it degrades. I realise we are dealing with an alkali, but assumed a similar problem existed, as the Fuel Cell electrode has a finite life span. With regards the set up, of the fuel cell, that can surely only be tweaked so far, but as a non technician myself, I am sure you know far more than I do.
I am assuming that a four year electrode will allow us to get to the magic market price of 10c (US)per kilowatt, that will trigger interest from prospective customers. Surely, as I was lead to believe, that one of the selling points for this technology was it's green credentials, and zero environmental impact. It now appears that all companies have gone back to the "bottom line" approach to business. This was clearly illustrated by a post that stated "Adam Bond said in his preso that many large industrial companies are able to get good deals on the cost of power and then there may be additional subsidies". Countries who are signed up to the Paris Climate Change Agreement, means, any subsidies would be counter intuitive surely, for using carbon based technology for their electricity. If we are competing against old methods we are going to be in a never ending spiral of trying to undercut, or match the competition prices.
Regarding not following the business, it has become increasingly difficult to do so as there is so little information out there. It was stated some years back, that AFC did not want to sell the fuel cells and income would be established from selling electricity into the grid from flared off hydrogen. It then decided it wanted to be an energy supply company, so how it sees itself in future operations and contract formats, I do not know. Can you explain how they intend to generate income from their operations, and who will fund the capital costs of setting this up? AFC or the customer?
Finally, if AFC can succeed in producing a four year life electrode, with the same amount of materials (or less) and an improved set up, they will have my eternal admiration, even though it goes against all that I was taught in school, on the laws of physics. Lets hope my teachers were wrong. They probably were.
They stated at the AGM that they would not be roducing any more Quarterly newsletters. Any significant news would be RNS'd as per market rules. There would be a minumum of 4 RNS's however to tie in with final results, interims etc.
Well im glad its not just me thats frustrated and I appreciate all views.
Im with DW in that I would like to think AFC are confident theyll reach a 4 year electrode without upping the costs to produce them again. Otherwise it will have been a big mistake to tell the market of a 30% reduction in costs. I think it will come down to tweaking the operating conditions to stretch out the operating life.
Im hoping the new from Stade tests which I expect in the next month or so sheds more light on the situation. Who knows, they may have managed it already.
I still believe that AFC will make those illusive sales, but I want to see them sooner rather than later. Before someone beats us to the prize. Im still holding!
Shows how less you know or follow the business !!
First of all longevity has nothing to do with more material in the fc, it could even be less, its a matter of the set up and construction of what we have now to modify it. Coming to two years meant already cutting down materials drastically.
A director signing a contract does not care about 2 or 4 years, he cares about the prices of the energy, so afc could pretty much sign any contract, but they have to be sure they dont pay on top for it, for a short time you can do, but not for a full contract.
I'm not sure where the four years came from, it seemed to suddenly appear after so much talk about getting two years longevity. It sounds like an excuse for another few years of nothing being produced.
The product should be out there by now, simple. I expect some posters to say things like 'these things take time' or at least along a similar vein. The product should be out there, while further r&d is performed. I feel I'm funding a group of people's lifestyles, simple.
If you look at all the promises made over the last 6 or 7 years, which must be roughly how long I have been invested, then the company has failed to deliver, simple.
Well done for lasting this long without losing it, Gadams. You obviously didn't experience that warm fuzzy feeling from the non-attributable AGM presentation, or the positive feed back on this board. AFC cannot be regarded as viable with only a two year warranty, it has to be a four year. However, apparently we can do deals because by the time units are ready to install we should have the latter electrode. No body on this board has challenge that statement, so I will.
Firstly, we will be negotiating a product that has a two year proven longevity, although it will be presented as four years, as the said electrode should be available by the time it is installed. The source of this statement was Jim Gibson. Which ever way you look at it, or dress it up, a purchasing director is not going to sign a contract for what may be available down the line. He will want proof of a signed off guarantee by De Nora, and a date that is watertight. We all know how long it has taken us to get to two years longevity. With a start in 2005, I make that at least 12years of testing and research. I know, at least I hope I do, that it should take much less time to double it's life, but there is still no indication of just how long that might be.
Secondly, if we do manage to double it's life, how much more material will need to go in to it, and will it still fit our existing fuel cell, or will there be yet another redesign? Maybe some one with more technical knowledge, than I have, can shed some light on that.
Thirdly, and lastly, if AFC manages to secure contracts on the basis that a four year electrode is in the offing, and the lab runs into difficulties, what happens then. Will we have a stack of two year electrodes in stock as a back up, or will we not order any, until the four year electrode is available? Either way, it would sound a crazy way to do business.
The market has made it's feelings very clear by dropping our share price below 10p. If AFC management do not show some initiative soon with regards to positive news, then I see us all losing a great deal of money. For me it was to be my pension, such was my initial faith in this company. Any one else want a rant?
I wish investors would be as clear on where AFC are as the management is.
I received this reply from the board to my query of exactly where they think they are regarding progress.
The board strongly believe that the company are approaching the cusp of being almost but not quite, nearly but not completely, just about not far off, very near to well nigh and virtually ready for commercialisation.
I feel feel your frustration BAL1969. I've been here since 2010 and had originally hoped I'd be comfortably in profit by now.
However, I do think that we are finally on the cusp of being 'ready'!
AFC are confident that the trial results at Dunsfold will be replicated at Stade and we can only be talking a matter of a couple of weeks at the most before we have news of the results. Assuming the results are as expected they have already stated that they have 3 target areas in which they hope to have demonstration units with a view to signed contracts in 2018. This should see the share price increase to a more representative value.
I did a search of the word 'ready' in the 'Final Results' RNS.
From the article I found
Today, with the support of our key strategic partners such as Industrie De Nora ("De Nora"), these technology milestones have been achieved and the Company stands ready to move from proof-of-concept to commercial production status.
The other occurrence was
AFC Energy's technology and engineering team has made major strides throughout 2017 in preparing the way for the commercial manufacture of the Company's fuel cells. This has included modification of the flow plates that hold the electrodes and most importantly modification to the electrode itself. Here, we have been able to remove a significant amount of nickel from the electrode plate substrate to significantly lower costs and most importantly to allow the finalisation and certification of components within the manufacturing process. The result is that AFC Energy is primed and now ready for commercial manufacture.
Is this the 1st Phase of 'Ready' or are we still testing to see if we are really 'ready'.
These guys are just full of bs.
Wait a minute they don't have a Balance Sheet, must be the other BS then.
A buy of 400k of shares went through yesterday @ 10p, though not shown on iii's volume figures. It was shown under trades though. Possibly, it was Mr John Rennocks forecast purchase at the price he wanted. That may now release news to allow the share price to rise again. now those are nicely tucked away.
Have you seen how easy it is to submit a review?
"Access or use Glassdoor, (1) you must be 13 years of age or older and, if under 18 or the age of majority in your jurisdiction, your use of Glassdoor must be under the supervision of a parent or guardian or other responsible adult "
I had the impression that this was the atmosphere before the shake up when Adam Bond arrived.
It then changed to working on the target list of projects for the year and not going home early.
There seems to have been churn in the staff and De Nora are hardly inexperienced!
I am sure this information came from one of the AGMs presented by Adam Bond.
I dont worry, its just fun. Besides as the old romans already knew create some other fighting places if you have lots of problems internally, politics as usual. The US is the best example for that next to the old romans. :-)
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.