Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Edit to previous post
The name is Johnny Depp star of "Pirates of the Carribean" not Johnny Rep as posted
And
Johnny Depp`s hydrogen home is not on Grand Cayman Island as posted but on a private island nearby
Apologies to Mr Depp
Are ITM in negotiations with Caribbean Utility Co?
Well
That would be an interesting link with significant commercial implications for ITM
We know that ITM have joined forces with Mike Strizki of REI to provide electrolyzers for solar powered homes
We know Mike Strizki currently has a project on Grand Cayman Island to provide a solar powered home for Johnny Rep
But
We didn’t know until Mike Strizki came on the scene all homes on Grand Cayman Island are powered by the Caribbean Utilities Company They have exclusive ownership of the distribution network and make their power from diesel generators and imported diesel
And
We didn’t know that although CUC are a tiny Utility Co the power generated is actually quite large in terms of the local market at 136.6Mw
Why is that important to ITM ?
Well
There is potential for ITM to sell CUC a means of adding onboard hydrogen to their diesel to reduce their carbon footprint and the amount of diesel they need to import This would be cost effective if the diesel engines are not of the common rail design which some of them must be if they are large units and over 10 yrs old
And guess what
CUC are inviting tenders for wind turbine cos to build a wind farm on their island
See
http://www.cuc-cayman.com/1/about/windproject.cfm
The last feasibility review suggested it wasnt economic because of the electricity prices
However that review couldn’t turn to a low cost electrolyzer co for support in storing energy when it wasn’t needed during the night
This time they can turn to ITM Power
But
Will CUC have heard of ITM Power ?
Unlikely before Mike Strizki came on the scene
But not anymore
Assuming ITM are providing the HRU for Johnny Rep then they will have to get into discussions with CUC
Since CUC will be familiar with the rules governing the use of an electrolyzer on Grand Cayman Island ie the “permitting work”
And who better to represent ITM than the skilled entrepreneur and engineer
Mike Strizki of REI
knowtechtrading - Welcome.
The oil analogy is excellent
Taking the oil exploration co analogy is very apt for ITM
ITM have made the "discovery" of the membrane semi conductors
ITM have "tested" the depth and potential to exploit the patent,value their capacity in various market sectors to turn it into something the world needs
ITM have "clarified" what is needed to bring their product to market
They are now entering the stage were mundane engineering bop tasks need to be done to get their product to market
Ford Focus, Transits converted for H2 with Refuellers
For the lousy share performance, the blame,imo,lies squarely with Panmure. They misunderstand & completely undervalue the ITM breakthrough technology. Their negative stance rubs on all that come across their evaluations. Having proven it's patented PEM and MEAs, ITM is not a prospector but a producer.
Once the Ford committment to ITM/Roush project can emergethere will be few more desirable investment to hold in this field, with many applications on other fronts in for free.
Ford and ITM must be developing an FCV
basbas
Agreed
Heres another supporting argument
It is inconceivable that Roush are working with ITM on an FVC using a Ford vehicle as the skeleton while concurrently working with any other manufacturer on an FCV The IPR issues demand that for FCVs at least that Roush work exclusively with one OEM
Otherwise ideas are being copied wholesale on the two jobs
The only logic that works is FMC are backing ITMs fuel cell development
FMC involvement more logical than speculative
the logic of the cogent argument you put together is difficult to dispute. All the signs say that Ford is
looking forward with Focus as a centrepiece to what ITM and Roush can accomplish for it.
Mmmm……
Roger Putnam Chairman of Ford UK retired in July 2005
In May 2006 he became a Director of ITM
In July 2006 Ford UK announced that £1bn of redirected R&D capital would be focussed on reducing carbon emissions
See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jul/18/travelsenvironmentalimpact.motoring
In the July 2008 Roush video John Mitchell said that ALL of Roush`s work came from OEMs and that since Jan 2007 it had been focussed on diesel and electric hybrids
He described the Transit /HRU collaboration with ITM as something new which opened up the opportunity for two UK cos to work together on a hybrid which would pave the way for a fuel cell vehicle However he didn’t imply a brand new vehicle but a successor to the hydrogen petrol Transit simply a variation of an existing OEM vehicle
So far so good
However
Roush are no different from any other business
It needs income to balance expenditure and ideally exceed expenditure
And
When Roush Inc announced the decision to sell Roush Technologies they made it clear that the cash demands of the business were unacceptable
So
There is no way Roush could afford to be devoting large resources and costs to an FCV powered by an ITM fuel cell unless there is ongoing income to finance the R&D
Indeed their whole business philosophy is geared to serving the R&D needs of major auto OEMs
They just don’t have the cash to survive
In any event
It would be crazy for ITM to develop an FCV manufactured by Roush as a route to making money out of auto fuel cells
It would also be suicide for Roush to launch a low cost FCV when their very life blood depends on the auto OEMs
So
Here`s one speculative thought that might explain this conundrum
Roush have fronted for ITM in auto fuel cell development with Ford UK for at least 18m
And
Roger Putnam may have been persuaded to join ITM at the behest of Ford UK with a brief to keep an eye on technology development on behalf of Ford
Company which made cars Black Ford Motor Company
ford.com
lost me basbas who is FMC ?
FMC seems natural to sponsor Electrolizer in Tank
Re ITM`s electrolyzer inside a vehicle fuel tank
If you were putting an electrolyzer insided a custom designed storage tank would you consider the combination to be a "product" in its own right?
..I would
And
Would you expect ITM or the tank manufacturer to assemble the combination ?
I reckon it is most likely to be a joint effort lead by ITM until the first few production prototypes have been made There after ITM would focus on providing the electrolyzers and the tank maker would assemble,test and market the combination
Hence for ITM to seriously develop and market this product they must be working closely right now with a specialist tank manufacturer
And
No professional tank manufacturer would go into such a venture without being satisfied that he had a ready market
So he in turn would be seeking a committment from at least one vehicle manufacturer to eventually buying the electrolyzer in a tank product
and he would be doing this before not after he entered into any JV development with ITM
So following this logic there is at least one vehicle manufacturer prepared to adopt the electrolyzer in a tank concept providing it passes all the relevant tests etc
basbas
No doubt there are some complications in the bop for a RFC versus either an FC or an electrolyzer
However its been done already by other cos albeit on methanol fcs and wet potassium hydroxide old technology
since the basi MEA is the same the internal difference(ie inside the stack) will presumably be in the design of the gas grids control electronics and as you say the wiring
I can only speculate that the moulding process makes the manufacture of an RFC easier than traditional assembly methods
ITM maintain that an electolyzer is a fuel cell working in reverse. I do not know how difficult it is to wire the same MEAs stack for both functions, but I guess that if they can achieve it, the kit will save space, and cost of equipment, both critical factors in most applications.
ITM Ford Transit can save London businesses $5400 pa
To be exempt from the London congestion charge of $4400pa and the emissions tax of $1000 pa a vehicle must have been converted by one of the cos on the Power Shift Register of approved converting cos held on the UK Energy Saving Trust database
See
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/fleet/PowerShiftApprovedCompanies%2021-04-082.pdf</a>
ITM`s partner Roush are NOT on this list
Yet Roush said in the ITM video that their Hydrogen Transit would be launched in London during August 2008
So when Roush do launch this Hydrogen Transit in the next couple of weeks
they will have to reaffirm that it is exempt from the LCC or the exercise is pointless
According to the rules governing the London congestion charge
The ONLY other way Roush can achieve exemption is if the vehicle OEM gives his approval to the vehicle by simply declaring to the LCC people that the Transit fulfils the dual fuel criteria and emissions standards
So if they are not on the list of approved suppliers Roush must have Ford approval and are getting exemption under the Ford umbrella
Hence Ford could well be questioned by the Media as to whether they have given their support to enable LCC exemption
If so the Ford PR people ought to be cute enough to try to pre-empt questions by agreeing a PR strategy in advance for Roush to deliver when the Transit is launched
Particularly since the Roush participation in the ITM video was all they did to help the cause. There was no Roush press statement or interview …… zilch
This was a bit odd since Roush could be doing with all the PR they could get as an MBO Co in their first year hoping to attract the attention of the dual fuel target market
Unless of course
The Roush target market is Ford
and the PR of the launch needs to be agreed with Ford
We shall soon find out
An announcement from Roush is expected during Aug 2008
ITM Ford Transit can save London businesses $5400 pa
To be exempt from the London congestion charge of $4400pa and the emissions tax of $1000 pa a vehicle must have been converted by one of the cos on the Power Shift Register of approved converting cos held on the UK Energy Saving Trust database
See
<ahref='http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/fleet/PowerShiftApprovedCompanies%2021-04-082.pdf' target='window'>http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/fleet/PowerShiftApprovedCompanies%2021-04-082.pdf</a>
ITM`s partner Roush are NOT on this list
Yet Roush said in the ITM video that their Hydrogen Transit would be launched in London during August 2008
So when Roush do launch this Hydrogen Transit in the next couple of weeks
they will have to reaffirm that it is exempt from the LCC or the exercise is pointless
According to the rules governing the London congestion charge
The ONLY other way Roush can achieve exemption is if the vehicle OEM gives his approval to the vehicle by simply declaring to the LCC people that the Transit fulfils the dual fuel criteria and emissions standards
So if they are not on the list of approved suppliers Roush must have Ford approval and are getting exemption under the Ford umbrella
Hence Ford could well be questioned by the Media as to whether they have given their support to enable LCC exemption
If so the Ford PR people ought to be cute enough to try to pre-empt questions by agreeing a PR strategy in advance for Roush to deliver when the Transit is launched
Particularly since the Roush participation in the ITM video was all they did to help the cause. There was no Roush press statement or interview …… zilch
This was a bit odd since Roush could be doing with all the PR they could get as an MBO Co in their first year hoping to attract the attention of the dual fuel target market
Unless of course
The Roush target market is Ford
and the PR of the launch needs to be agreed with Ford
We shall soon find out
Are ITM developing a Reversible Fuel Cell ?
Here are 3 comments by ITM that I think are linked
In the 31 Jan 2008 Interim Results Statement ITM said
“Finally, building upon the successful research in fuel cells, reported in the past year, we are now setting out a major new programme to develop a 1kW fuel cell system for demonstration in mid 2009 with the objective of sale and production in the second half of next year. The fuel cell will be designed to integrate as a pair with one of ITM’s electrolyzers. The Company intends to use both the hydrogen and oxygen from the
electrolyzer to create a complete energy storage system with the minimum balance of plant.
The programme will require the development of a new gas storage system for both hydrogen and oxygen. The Company has already filed patent applications on a new design concept. In addition the programme will require the development of a hydration system, gas control system and the electronics required to control the fuel cell system.”
Then
In the 31 July 2008 Interim Results Statement ITM said
“ITM has now begun planning the next logical step for hydrogen vehicles whereby a new low cost, light weight electrolyzer stack is placed inside the high pressure hydrogen storage tank which is required on-board any hydrogen vehicle. The ultimate objective being a vehicle that is refuelled with water and capable of producing and storing high pressure hydrogen onboard.”
Later on ITM also said
“Electrolysis usually requires pure deionized water which produces hydrogen and oxygen.When the hydrogen and oxygen recombine they release energy and a potentially useful byproduct; pure drinking water. We are currently testing the water quality required to be used in our different electrolyzer chemistries to achieve both a useful renewable hydrogen fuel and clean drinking water. Our prime focus is to develop the capability to use sea water so that the electrolyzer combines the functions of a desalinization plant and energy storage system.This will be very useful both in island locations and desert environments. The work is progressing satisfactorily as a basic research activity focusing upon the use of the Company's AE membrane materials (alkaline materials) which are less affected by the impurities found in sea water which adversely affect efficiency and cause operational problems in more conventional, acid chemistry materials.”
And finally
“In our interim results we announced a program to develop a 1kW fuel cell system for demonstration in mid 2009. The program is progressing successfully.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I reckon the link between all of these comments is that ITM are working concurrently on a number of fronts to develop a range of Reversible Fuel Cells (RFC)which can work either as an electrolyzer or as a fuel cell
In terms of news releases we might reasonably expect announcements to progress as follows
1 Successful development of the 1 Kw fuel cell
2 Successful development of the electrolyser inside a high pressure storage tank
3 Successful development of a high pressure hydrogen / oxygen storage tank containing a 1Kw electrolyzer and 1 kw fuel cell This device would be targeted at the domestic solar panel market where the two will operate to provide power when the sun isn’t shining.
4 Successful development of the 1Kw reversible fuel cell (RFC) where the electrolyzer and fuel cell are combined into a single device This would be a lower cost version of 3 above
5 Scaled up version of the RFC for trials in a Roush hydrogen car This device would perhaps be rated at 60Kw to 75 Kw
6 Scaled up version of the RFC for trials in a pilot Desalination Plant This device would perhaps be rated at 100Kw to 150Kw
The common thread running through these projects is that in timescale terms they all represent the next phase of R&D for the Boffins at ITM
ie while ITM build their initial income streams from the dual fuel cell, diesel and Hythane OBs,and 10Kw electrolyzers...all high margin stuff
They are concurrently working on the priorities which the market says will bring the next income streams
Ie
Domestic /Commercial Applications
A high pressure fixed storage tank containing a Reversible Fuel Cell which can act either as a high pressure high rated 1Kw electrolyzer when filling up with hydrogen or as a 1Kw fuel cell when providing power to the solar panel home or factory
Transport Applications
A high pressure auto storage tank containing a Reversible Fuel Cell which can act either as a high pressure high rated 75Kw electrolyzer when filling up with hydrogen or as a 75 Kw fuel cell when providing power to drive the car
Desalination Application
A high pressure large fixed storage tank containing a Reversible Fuel Cell which can act either as a high pressure high rated 150Kw electrolyzer when filling up with solar hydrogen or as a 150 Kw fuel cell when providing power and pure drinking water
When you read it closely it does make sense Gerry.
I would tend to agree with you on that one
Will ITM replace IE on the Boeing UAV ?
Well there`s something interesting nobody has mentioned before
On 20 Nov 2007 ITM released the Boeing announcement which said
Preliminary Design Agreement
“ITM Power plc the technology and research company focused on the commercialisation of the hydrogen economy, is pleased to announce that it has signed an agreement with Boeing Research & Technology Europe S.L. to prepare a Preliminary Design of an Environmentally Friendly Refuelling Station for Fuel Cell Powered Unmanned Air Vehicles. “
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Then in the Interim Results Statement on 31 Jan 2008 Peter Hargreaves said
“Elsewhere our superior fuel cell construction methods are also being sought as far afield as Boeing in Madrid and the United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport. Our labs, which are working in close conjunction with our new
production facility, should enhance the Company’s reputation.’’,
When you read the first statement it rather suggests that the ITM Boeing contract was a desk exercise to design an system whereby an electrolyser makes hydrogen from green energy to put into the storage tank of Boeing`s Fuel Cell Powered Unmanned Air Vehicle.
However when you read the second comment it strongly implies that ITM`s Boeing contract included doing a novel design of fuel cell presumably a flexibly shaped fuel cell that was amenable to being installed in a UAV
Couple this with the announcement in July 2008 that Intelligent Energy who currently supply the Boeing UAV fuel cell were forced to raise another $13.6m to keep going and you might conclude that ITM are poised to join or replace IE on this project
Is ITM`s first Solar Home in New Jersey ?
31 July ITM Statement
“In addition, we are currently working with Renewable Energy International (REI) on solar hydrogen homes. REI have built the first solar hydrogen home in the United States after a three and a half year process of establishing the permitting requirements. They are currently building their second hydrogen home on Grand Cayman Island.”
Later on they say
“In addition ITM will be pursuing the development of a lower pressure, lower cost 10kW system that could be used in low carbon housing
projects to supply hydrogen to a gas boiler, cooker and a small fuel cell. Our production engineers have begun the process of identifying
and acquiring the components for this new product. In the United States a lower pressure system is permitted for solar hydrogen homes. We hope to demonstrate this system in early 2009.”
Rather a strong hint that REI have chosen ITM to demo the HRU in the Grand Cayman Island Solar Home currently being built
….and see this as a stepping stone to solar homes in the US
No doubt starting in New Jersey where all the legislative standards and codes of practice are in place thus simplifying planning approval
I wonder where in the US the ITM electrolysers are headed ?
31 July 2008 Results Statement
Extract
Commercial developments
…The team has begun the construction of the first electrolyser units which we are planning to test as soon as they are completed. Certification and permitting work for the installation of electrolysers is also currently underway.
So the electrolysers are at the stage where ” certification” and “permitting” work is currently underway
Well
We know “permitting” is a project management term used more often in the US than in the UK
It appears the US also use the term “certification” to describe getting their development products approved
See
http://www.americansecurityresources.com/subsidiaries/pdf/American%20Security%20Resources%20-%20Investor%20Insight%20v6.pdf
“Hydra is emerging now from the development stage of its fuel cell, and is going through certification and fine tuning the design to maximize output, efficiency and minimize heat to provide maximum life of the unit.” The Hydra fuel cell is being certified by CSA-International
I wonder if CSA- International are also doing the electrolyzer certification work for ITM before they are installed somewhere in the US ?
Both cos are members of the US Fuel Cell Council
Certification shouldn’t take more than a couple of months as priority is given to renewable energy products
But where is this hydrogen generation station going to be?
Can Hydrogenics provide 700bar hydrogen ?
It looks like ITM Power can
eg
In the July 31 ITM Results Statement
PH said
“The Company is now developing a commercial refuelling system for use with commercial vehicles, material handling equipment (Fork Lift
Trucks) and local public transportation systems. This system will combine a number of home refuelling systems, a hydrogen compression system and hydrogen storage to enable fast refuelling of high pressure hydrogen. The Company anticipates this system will be demonstrable this autumn.”
Based on reading the above…...
And in the knowledge that ITM launched a 75 bar HRU electrolyser
on 9 July 2008
And
Knowing that the commercial refuelling system included a hydrogen compression system
How would people judge what was meant by “high pressure” hydrogen?
Well
There`s really only one conclusion
They would be entitled to believe that it was hydrogen made in a self pressuring electrolyser at 75 bar that was subsequently raised to “high pressure” ......whatever that is………..?
Sounds fairly reasonable….
Except
Earlier on in the same statement PH actually defined what he meant by “high pressure”
Quote
“Having achieved the 'gold standard' of a high pressure electrolyser operating without additional costs of compression, these different stack designs will ensure that we can offer an optimized and cost effective solution to a wide range of applications.”
Which rather suggests that
Either
PH has two definitions of “high pressure” which would be confusing to put in an annual Results Statement
1 The Gold Standard of 75 bar self pressurised hydrogen
and
2 Hydrogen which has been self pressurised to 75 bar and then subsequently re-pressurised to a higher level in a hydrogen compressor
Or
The explanation lies in the comment “to enable fast refuelling of high pressure hydrogen”
ie
PH is really referring to an undisclosed self pressurising level significantly above 75 bar possibly the DOE target of 300 bar which is subsequently raised in a hydrogen compressor to the 700 bar pressure level needed to achieve “FAST” refuelling
since we know that 700 bar hydrogen can fill a tank in under half the time needed by 300 bar hydrogen
And if this was the case
The potential partners for ITM are narrowed considerably since
only GM and Nissan are targetting a 700bar hydrogen storage tank
Hydrogenics have competition for their Hydrogen Gas Station
Extracts from ITM`s 31 July Results Statement
"The Company is now developing a commercial refuelling system for use with commercial vehicles, material handling equipment (Fork Lift Trucks) and local public transportation systems. This system will combine a number of home refuelling systems, a hydrogen compression system and hydrogen storage to enable fast refuelling of high pressure hydrogen. The Company anticipates this system will be demonstrable this autumn."
AND
“Finally I could not conclude my report without mentioning Dr Jonathan Lloyd who has now decided to retire although he has made himself available should any of the team wish to draw on his vast experience of the business since its conception.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Interpreting the above at face value it is saying that
ITM are working on a package which contains the undernoted
design and build elements
…Several 10Kw HRUs linked together which can self pressurise to 75 Bar
…A Hydrogen Compressor which raises the pressure from 75 bar to 300 bar which is the Honda FCV tank pressure or possibly 700 bar which is the GM standard
..A Hydrogen Storage Tank and the associated pipework, valves, controls etc
..Several high pressure Hydrogen Pumps which transfer the high pressure hydrogen to the vehicles high pressure Storage Tank
..The civil engineering works needed to build the system
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This sounds like a fairly straightforward balance of plant design and build system for some quality mechanical and electrical engineers
However there are some puzzling aspects to this package
Firstly
This package isn’t something you put on the back of a lorry and take to central London for a demo
It’s a fixed not a mobile installation
Its going to take up the parking area of at least 3 or 4 buses
Its going to need an area for several vehicles to park in while being refuelled
Its going to have a tank that is sitting on concrete foundations, with fire protection, spillage security,fencing etc
Its going to need liaison with the public utilities to ensure it has water, power, drainage etc
Its going to need planning permission
In short, its physically quite big and involves quite a bit of liaison with local authorities, utilities etc
So the first puzzle is this:
Who is actually doing this project ?
ITM certainly don’t have the multi discipline skills needed
And
If the package is being built on a UK site for demo later this year then outline drawings and a planning proposal needs to be in the hands of the local authority at least 3 to 6 months in advance
Also
ITM have identified the 75 bar HRU as their first product and the Ford Transit as the vehicle to be refuelled with 75 bar hydrogen
So if I was a prospective customer of Roush/ITM I would be pretty miffed if I was told that not long after buying a few stand alone 75 bar HRUs ,ITM and Roush launched a better version with a bigger range and almost certainly at a lower cost/Kg of H2
So
The second puzzle is this:
Where in the world is this package going to be sited ?
Its most unlikely to be in central London for the reason outlined above
Well
Heres one explanation that answers both puzzles
I reckon ITM may have placed a contract on a US project management co to design and build a hydrogen refuelling station somewhere in the US possibly California
And have released the news in July 2008 because its going to leak out anyway and they would rather be in control of the news and release it early than find themselves responding to leaks
The only other issue that’s a bit of a mystery is who ITM are partnering in this installation for there has to be some permanent organisation to whom the installation will be handed over
My hunch is that it may be an auto co who are providing some 300 bar fc buses to a local bus co
We shall see
An excellent peice of information Gerry, thanks.
Now we have a Wow! Explains 20% rise for ITM today
That's enough to get us to Clariges for breakfast after the dinner!.
Heres a couple of interesting scenarios:
Ford announced in 2006 that from 2007 all their UK Ford Transit diesels would have engines of the common rail design
This is the type of diesel engine that Bi Fuel were given a contract by ITM in Feb 2008 to collect data on hydrogen /diesel combustion
The initial feedback from these tests on 31 July 2008 said that hydrogen energy could be substituted for diesel energy in the ratio of 20% to 30 % with sufficient reduced emissions to satisfy local pollution restrictions and without significant
or costly modifications to the existing engine
This strongly suggests that the burning of hydrogen in the 20%:30% range satisfies the emissions regulations for the London congestion charge
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Transit van sketch on the ITM website has two cylindrical hydrogen tanks slung under the chassis
When you look at the dimensions of the 2007 range of Transits, the chassis is long enough to accommodate two cylindrical tanks holding a total of 90 litres of hydrogen which weighs 6.0 kg at 75 bar
Which is quite an interesting number since:
The Ford Transit with an 80% full 80 litre tank needs exactly 6.0 kg of hydrogen for a 20%:80% hydrogen/diesel mixture
So the first scenario the Bi fuel test results suggests is this :
All NEW diesel Transits can be converted to a hydrogen /diesel hybrid without significant or costly modifications to the existing engine
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And
If ITM could get to 112.5 bar the Transit could carry 9kg of H2 This is equivalent to 24 litres of diesel
It would provide a 20%:80% hydrogen/diesel mixture for the mileage equivalent of a 120 litre diesel tank
ie 50% more mileage between each full tank of diesel
So the second scenario the BI Fuel test results suggests is this:
For an improvement in hydrogen pressure of 37.5 bar from 75bar to 112bar
The Ford Transit does what no other hybrid has done and that is to extend the range of the vehicle by 50% while concurrently reducing ongoing emissions
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Also
If the transit storage tanks have a 10 Kw onboard electrolyser inside each storage tank
The storage tanks could easily be refuelled with hydrogen at a rate of 3 kg/night over 7hrs
Which would support around 36 litres of diesel at the 20%:80% rate
Enough for an average daily mileage of over 250mls
So its most unlikely that the Transit wil ever run out of hydrogen if it starts off from the beginning with a full tank of 6kg or 9kg depending on whether it is stored at 75 bar or 112.5 bar
very interseting post regarding Hydrogenics
I always have had high hopes that the 300 bar will materialise sooner rather than later.
We can only live in hope but I see the reality coming ever so closer
It's all between the lines as usual... How do you do that Gerry LOL
If you are even close to being right on this point then forget booking the top table....we can even forget the idea of booking the function room, we'll just take over the entire Hotel for the evening ok
Hydrogenics may be concerned by this ITM item culled from the 31 July Statement
which said
Para 1
“It has been a very difficult year for the Company because we have had to access externally sourced engineering skills and components to integrate into our first complete systems. Quality control of components and manufacturing reproducibility delayed the demonstration of our refuelling system and the hydrogen petrol bi-fuel car until July.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The first question we should consider is
Why are ITM telling us this story ?
Whats the point ?
We are really left with only two possibilities
1 ITM are apologising to the shareholders for all the delays in launching the HRU
And perhaps
2 JH is also reaffirming that ITM made mistakes in trusting their suppliers and although they handled the problems professionally, we shouldn’t be surprised if they are let down again
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Well actually
All we shareholders really have been let down by ITM on is the timing of the HRU and Bi Fuel car demo since the ABRO situ seems to have been inspired by the MoD
So we are entitled to read Para 1 solely in the context of the HRU and Bi Fuel car
And if we do
As always with ITM
There is a little nugget lodged between the lines
This is explained below
In Para 1 ITM tell us they had problems finding the right engineering cos and people to help them turn their brilliant hand made HRU into a finished green box
ITM also say that even after they found the right engineering cos the problems continued
The Cos could not supply the bits needed for the HRU to the standards ITM needed to turn the 10 KW electrolyser into a green box
So what do we know about the problems ITM have had with their HRU ?
Well
We know that in Jan 2008 ITM had been blaming their cell module supplier for not giving them an injection moulded electrolyser housing that could operate at 75 bar
We know that in March 2008 ITM announced that the electrolyser had been tested satisfactorily under a pressure of 75 bar
Meaning it had been put into a pressure vessel (NOT A CELL HOUSING) and pressurised to 75 bar by a gas probably nitrogen.
We were never EVER told if the cell housing problem had been solved
Most people assumed that it was when the bi fuel car and HRU demo was announced
However
Nobody at the 9 July demo ever got seeing what was inside the green box …which was a bit strange since ITM were quite willing to show off their electrolysers at previous demos
So why would they want to keep it quiet this time ?
I`ll give you one reason and a rationale to support it
Nobody got a look inside the green box because it contained an electrolyser inside a tank which was pressurised to 75 bar
Why could this be true ?
Because
In the July 31 statement ITM said
Para 2
“In order to reduce the Company's risk to third party component suppliers, ITM has developed three different stack technologies in
parallel which have all been successfully tested. Having achieved the 'gold standard' of a high pressure electrolyser operating without additional costs of compression, these different stack designs will ensure that we can offer an optimized and cost effective solution to a wide range of applications.”
Well
If Para 2 is read in the context of the 75 bar HRU cell module being unable to be injection moulded to an acceptable quality control standard
Then
ITM could get round this problem simply by placing the electrolyser inside a pressure vessel which was made by a different process from injection moulding
This wouldn’t stop the Green Box still being used to house the whole HRU assembly But it would not be pressurised at all since the pressure was contained within a cylinder inside the box
And
The implication of this is
ITM have yet again announced a goal that has already been achieved since they also said in the 31 July announcement
New Developments as of 28 July 2008
“ITM has now begun planning the next logical step for hydrogen vehicles whereby a new low cost, light weight electrolyser stack is placed inside the high pressure hydrogen storage tank which is required on-board any hydrogen vehicle. The ultimate objective being a vehicle that is refueled with water and capable of producing and storing high pressure hydrogen onboard. This will require a combination of the Company's one-step 'flexible' cell technology with a suitable hydrogen storage vessel.”
In other words
The onboard electrolyser within a 75 bar tank is not at the planning stage
It is at the finished stage and has already replaced the original HRU design which was a stand alone electrolyzer self pressurising inside an injection moulded cell housing which also served as the external walls of the green box
And
If this is the case
ITM have already found a suitable hydrogen container which can fit inside the green box which is the size of a european fridge/freezer
and
The Roush /ITM approach to Local Authority Fleets will include the option of retrofitting an onboard electrolyser inside the H2 tank as well as the HRU for overnight charging
and
ITM having electrolysed to 75 bar inside an HRU may well have electrlysed to 75 bar inside the bi fuel car`s storage tank
and
May be well down the road of electrolysing to 300 bar
Hydrogenics do not need to eat their heart out Gerry
You know they say two heads are better than one. Hydrogenics over there can work with ITM over here to spread a hydrogen gospel and the applications to help humanity to their mutual benefit. Hydrogenics understanding and lead in practical H2 applications combined with ITM technology should help both stay well ahead of the pack.
Hydrogenics Eat your heart out
We are now sure that ITM is both secretive and way ahead in terms of where they are and what they tell the public at large. It could well be that they are onto the cold electrolysis..I feel MIT is not being totally open about what they have done. MIT's prof was talking very high capacity energy storage, but did not expand.. Good luck to MIT and anyone trying to obviate our need for fossil fuels if only to rid us of terror through starving its oily funders..By MIT's own timeline they expect it to be 10 years away..and they need to use platinum which is not limitlessly available yet..
Hydrogenics eat your heart out.
The solar news with Cobalt is interesting but as in the same section of the periodic table as Nickel I wonder if ITM might have a lead in this but just being extremely quiet about it?
Hydrogenics eat your heart out
Good find babbo
http://www.designnews.com/article/47092-ITM_Power_Claims_Polymer_Membrane_Breakthrough_in_Hydrogen_Electrolysers.php
I dont think the 3500psi tank pressure in the design news article is wrong
As I have been saying all along the 75 bar 1125psi self pressurising electrolyser will be followed fairly swiftly ( possibly later this year) by a 200 bar version
Boy am I glad I didn’t go for Hydrogenics
ITM are going to slaughter them on both performance and price
TT
Mitsubishi have already indicated that by electrolysing inside a tank at 350 bar they had found a theoretical route to electrolysing at 700 bar
ie no chemistry roadblock
Why didnt they just go ahead and electrlyse at 700 bar ?
probably because the tank was only rated at 400 bar and would fracture if they raised the pressure to 700 bar
Why have we heard nothing since ?
Possibly because high pressure electrolysis using nafion and platinum proved too difficult ?
It really depends Gerry. Everything is relative under the sun. A 75 bar self pressurising with no easy to identify failure mode may be the Gold Stanard when against a competitor that has multiple failure modes at 300 bar and great inefficiencies. Certainly hope they can go straight to 300 bar.
Does the ability to electrolyze under pressure (inside H2 tank) give anything away about the ability to run at 75 bar, 150 bar or towards 300 bar. By definition the thing must be able to contunue to deliver at 75 bar when in something towards a 75 bar environment?
Am I going in circles?
I dont think Hydrogenics can make 300 bar H2
But I think ITM can
JR re you advfn post
Jungle Raver - 28 Jul'08 - 09:42 - 5386 of 5452
Any thoughts on this comment? It would be nice if they told us how many bar they had reached without compression:
"Having achieved the 'gold standard' of a high pressure electrolyser operating without additional costs of compression"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
JR
As posted eleswhere I now think that ITM speak from the high ground of the hydrogen economy and their comments are better understood if considered in that context as opposed to a narrow view of making money as fast as possible from whatever means is the quickest
So from today onwards I will be interpreting all ITM`s obscure
comments in the context of the engineering needed to serve a hydrogen economy based solely on renewable energy sources
This gives a slightly different perspective on the interpretation
For example
The gold standard of high pressure electrolysis has to be a low cost electrolyser which enables a solar or wind powered filling station to supply hydrogen at a consistently low cost
This goal is achieved with an electrolyser delivering 1 bar which can be economically compressed to 300 bar
or
an electrolyser delivering 75 bar which can be economically compressed to 300 bar
But the gold standard has to be electrolysing at 300 bar since this simplifies everything
Conno
I have no problem with trading the volatility and would do so myself if I was sure I wouldnt get caught out
I wouldnt descibe that as shorting at all
My beef with the shorting brigade is that they are trading with non existing shares and thus can leverage up the volume
As basbas was asking earlier
sooner or later all the Pis who panic sell alongside the shorters will have evaporated and the volatility swing will reduce
Maybe this is the principle underlying double and triple bottoms as the chartists point out and may explain why this latest attempt to return to the 40p range may not happen
Good luck in any event
Good luck Conno, and I hope you get back soon. That might help so don't go on a guilt trip.... As for the 40 proof Halal whiskey , the boys here used to drink it, pronouncing "Bism Al Lah..." on Good Malt , to render it Halal.. Cheers.
I'm only swing trading 10% remember, therefore personally the risk is acceptable if I miss major news breaking while out. I understand your comment on how a wrongly timed 10,000 sell can start an avalanche if several are playing the game at the same time. However if you are playing as a true ITM LTH and are fully committed to buying back in at the opposite end then it all balances out evntually. As I said until we see cash on the table deals, shorters are unfortunately going to control the SP movements.
As much as I agree that all shorters should be shot at dawn, why sit back and let them be the only one's to profit while we true believers just sit and wait for the value to be recognised? That day will of course soon arrive but after 3 years of loyalty it's a bit of a wind up seeing the system benefiting the vultures rather than the loyal.
PS. I maybe would have won the bet but as I said earlier how would I have secured my winnings? Even halala whiskey wouldn't have made it here. Unless your version of halala whiskey is a bottle of cold Liptons sugar minted tea??? Nice, that always makes me want to party big time.
Everyone is free to do what they will; 10000 sold or offered at moment of weakness can precipitate an avalanche. I believe no one can sit moral judgement about what another does.LTH's are not in concert., I am hoping the amplitude of oscillation is shrinking; I've doubled my position over last three months, and I am sitting more confident now than I ever did. when ITM goes up for real, it will soar as the the penny drops and investors understand just what they have a chance to buy into. I'll know it's happening if they cross £1 in 2/3 weeks . You would have won the whiskey Conno if you struck the bet.!
Don't blame you but the swings will get more momentum behind them as others join the ride and one day the sales will go in to a buyer that is sitting waiting and the chance to get back at a lower price will disappear. OK if it's 10% of the holding but some are probably swinging all they have.
Anyone notice if the oscillations are diminishing in amplitude?
A very steady set of results and happy to hold. However, until we get a concrete sign of a real commercial {$} deal then it looks like the shorters will remain in control and keep us swinging between 40p - 60p.
On this note I'm kicking myself this morning as I had my finger hovering over the sell button @ 60p [playing with 10% of my long term holding LTH]..... but hesitated missed the chance and sold at 55p instead. Still, we are continuing to fall as I type so will buy back in when we hit the mid to low 40's. Might as well have some fun while we wait for the big fireworks to arrive.
Hydrogenics - funds holding:
http://www.mffais.com/hyg.be.html
How many of those wil look to ITM once the truth is out?
I get more confident holding ITM for financial and altruistic reasons. The results are most encouraging. Progress on number of new fronts. I like the Co-operation with Renewable energy Intl on Hydrogen Homes.That is a big market. ..And free energy with desalination from solar.ITM is a great investment with progressive confidence build up from success refecting on the value of the company, much like a drilling company value behaves as it progressively proves reserves, or a drug company value behaves as a new blockbuster drug pass through successive trials..There are so many applications in diverse mass markets, and the commercialisation is today, as ITM is within the price to be competitive on electrolysers sold in today's marketplace. The PEM & MEAs are world beaters on quality and price, and being the building blocks of numerous needed applications, ITMs future never looked Brighter.
Results - I see the results overall as exactly in line with what I was expecting. Som many potential areas of development it's very exciting.
It is a buy for the longer term with no choice but to ignore short term volatility.
Every chance of very many RNS's this next 12 months.
Basbas
Didnt know Hydrogenics were developing a 200bar electrolyser
I will have a look at the technicalities and compare it with the ITM product.....This could be a serious competitor if Hydrogenics can sell it for under $1000/kw
Followers
|
3
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
303
|
Created
|
07/05/08
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
ITM Power are an English Fuel Cell and Electrolyzer Co listed on the London AIM Market They have around £25m in cash and a cash burn of under £5m pa
Website http://www.itm-power.com/
ITM make the astonishing claim that they hold the keys to the hydrogen economy
This claim is based on new patented membrane materials for use in fuel cells , electrolyzers photo voltaic cells (solar cells) and photo electrolysis cells ( which produce hydrogen direct from sunlight).
This material is 1% of the cost of the world industry standard Nafion made by Dupont
It is 25% more conductive than Nafion and does not suffer from many of the features which cause nafion fuel s cells and electrolyzers to be so expensive
These advantages over Nafion are:
The material is hydrophilic ( water tolerant ) unlike Nafion which must be kept dry
The material can be acid or alkaline unlike Nafion which can only be acidic
The material is not dependent on platinum catalysts and works well with low cost catalysts
The material can operate at either high current density or high voltage
The material water flow can be controlled ultrasonically
In addition
Individual cells in a stack can be switched on or off or varied unlike Nafion cells which can only be controlled at the stack level This means for example that the output of a 100Kw stack can be controlled in steps of 200w or 0.2%
The material is cheap to buy
The cell stack can be moulded in multiples of around 25Kw at a volume of 1m3 simply by pouring the liquid membrane material into a fuel cell or electrolyzer frame inside a box. When irradiated with gamma rays the unit becomes solid
The overall impact of these advantages is that ITM fuel cells and electrolyzers can be made for under 10% % of the selling price of the current best in class and will deliver a higher and more reliable performance
The membrane material has been successfully operated as an electrolyzer on a test rig on a 30min/off 30min on cycle for over 10000hrs
ITM fuel cells will be suitable for deployment in a wide range of products including, portable power requirements (e.g. laptops, mobile phones), domestic power plants, UPS systems, distributed (non-grid) power, motor cars and other forms of transport.
ITM electrolyzers have a wide range of applications including the production of hydrogen from off peak or green power
for use as
A fuel in domestic low carbon housing to produce peak power or use in cooking or heating
An additive to diesel where a saving of 14% in mpg is obtained together with reduced emissions (road transport, locomotives, ships and planes)
A fuel for hydrogen powered cars either manufactured at gas stations or in a home Refuelling Unit
Standbye engines
Improving combustion performance of power station boilers
Cooling power station generators
Low cost / high performance replacement for catalytic converters
Business Model
ITM intends to build income streams from a variety of sources as the advantages of ITM systems are recognised. ITM does not intend to become a large scale manufacturer but will seek to join industry partners and OEMs to deliver low cost solutions, although there may be occasions where low volume high margin production would be undertaken.
It is therefore envisaged that revenues will primarily be generated by commercialisation of both technologies
via four main avenues:
. joint ventures;
. licensing;
. grant funding; and
. niche manufacturing opportunities.
ITM claim their electrolyzer can be made for under $164/Kw
The true cost is probably around $60/Kw in high volume production
Current electrolyzers on the market today sell for over $2000/Kw
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
On 9 July 2008 unveiled a a 10Kw Home Electrolyser Unit at a media event in England The volume cost of this Home Refueler is approx $4000 with a projected life cycle of at least 10000 running hrs (last real time test was over 11500hrs)
The Home Refueller is capable of making H2 at 75 bar from offpeak power for around $1.83 per gal of gasolene equivalent Approx 3hrs of electrolysis are needed to make the H2 for one gal of gas
ITM will also be offering a 75 bar retrofit H2 tank and system which will comfortably give 25mls per day in a Ford Focus Greater mileages are possible with vehicles capable of taking larger 75 bar tanks
A collaboration agreement with Roush Technologies UK was announced on 28 March 2008 to jointly market ITM`s Home Electrolyser and a Roush hydrogen/gas Ford Transit
A Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) has been signed with United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center to investigate unmanned submarine applications for ITM`s dual liquid fuel cells
An MOU has been signed with HEC of Iowa to develop non polluting green energy systems
An agreement has been signed with Mike Strizki of Renewable Energy International to provide electrolysers for hydrogen homes in the Caribbean
A productionised version of a dual liquid non inflammable micro fuel cell has been demonstated to military agencies
A project to make liquid fuel from atmospheric carbon dioxide and hydrogen from an electrolyser has produced encouraging results
A 2004 project to use low cost patented materials to replace silicon in a solar cell and therebye increase conversion efficiency is showing promising results
Hydrogen/diesel combustion trials have demonstrated that a hydrogen / diesel mixture of 20% to 30% in common rail engines will provide the same performance at greatly reduced pollution
The addition of 7% hydrogen enables engines running on natural gas to half their already low emissions and improve their mpg This hydrogen can be sourced for free using buses and similar vehicles via a low cost ITM electrolyzer powered by roof mounted solar panels
A site worth visiting is Greg Blencoe of Hydrogen Discoveries. Greg has been tireless in promoting the cause of the role of hydrogen in the global green economy His impartial assessment of ITM technology vindicates the belief of all LTHs
ie
If ITM can deliver what they claim, then they are in the forefront of opening up the hydrogen economy
see
http://www.hydrogendiscoveries.com/
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |