# CFU - Ceramic Fuel Cells



## dagrizzbear (29 August 2005)

I've bought in and am thinking this has got to be a pretty good climber in the long run.  It's still below the initial offer price and hasn't begun the climb.  

I mean Oil is in the 70's, market will spotlight alternative energy related shares like this one sooner or later.  Has got impressive patented technology on the globally hot topic of fuel cells and some commercial steps already progressing with sales talk to NZ and Germany.  So the market frenzy of when the transition from a CSIRO venture to a commercially operating business takes place is just around the corner.  Long term supporters like Energex are at the shareholder list.  Even BHP Billiton and Mitsui & Co. are  holders.   

Any comments?


----------



## Porper (29 August 2005)

*Re: CFU*



			
				dagrizzbear said:
			
		

> I've bought in and am thinking this has got to be a pretty good climber in the long run.  It's still below the initial offer price and hasn't begun the climb.
> 
> I mean Oil is in the 70's, market will spotlight alternative energy related shares like this one sooner or later.  Has got impressive patented technology on the globally hot topic of fuel cells and some commercial steps already progressing with sales talk to NZ and Germany.  So the market frenzy of when the transition from a CSIRO venture to a commercially operating business takes place is just around the corner.  Long term supporters like Energex are at the shareholder list.  Even BHP Billiton and Mitsui & Co. are  holders.
> 
> Any comments?




I don't know anything about the fundamentals dagrizzbear but the chart for CFU is apalling in my view, long downtrend apart from a couple of blips, in another weak phase now.Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.

So it will probably shoot up.


----------



## dagrizzbear (2 September 2005)

*Re: CFU*

Thanks Porper.  

I am not a day trader and invest in the medium to long term so it's interesting to hear your opinion from a charts point of view.  I guess I should have waited a little before I jumped in.   Hopefully seeing gains two days in a row is a sign of a stop in the losing streak.


----------



## YChromozome (16 December 2006)

Should be a stock to watch on Monday. 

A couple of days ago CFU announced that they would build a volume manufacturing plant in Germany to make solid oxide fuel cells for micro-combined heat and power (CHP). The first stage will see a production line capable of producing 50,000 1KW full cell stacks per year with the line running 24/7. The second stage will see the factory expanded to produce 150,000 1KW fuel cell stacks per year.

CFU who has a number of demonstration units in field trials has said they are not interested in building the CHP systems themselves. They would much rather build the stacks and work with existing appliance manufacturers to integrate the stacks into their products.

After the Australian market closed last night, CFU announced a product development agreement with Gaz de France, Europe's leading distributor of natural gas, and De Dietrich Thermique, to develop a fully integrated m-CHP unit for the French residential market.

CFU is dual listed on the ASX and AIM. This announcement pushed CFU's AIM price up 15% overnight.


I had an oportunity to have a tour through CFU's Nobel Park (Melbourne) facilities a week and bit ago. It's certainly impressive the gains they are making in size and efficiency every year. It was only in June 2005, they launched the first fuel cell powered CHP the size of a two door wardrobe. Then they brought out the NextGen, which was half the height of the first demonstrator. Many of the NextGen units are in the field, including 10 with a German utility, EWE. 

In September CFU announced newer square ceramic stacks and improved other key components such as a 50% smaller steam generator, a 40% smaller heat exchanger, and a 75% reduction in the airflow through the system. They had a Nextgen chassis fitted up with the new square cells, and the stack was only half the size with all this wasted space in the top of the cabinet. I can only imagine what size the unit will be next year . . 

We also saw the Zircon Powder plant ready to be shipped to a factory they are setting up in the UK. This was announced earlier this year and should be operational in April 2007. The Zircon Powder also has uses in other industries and hence there is a an oportunity for this plant to bring in revenue through the sale of the powder to third parties.

I think the announcement of the Zircon Power plant, Fuel Cell Factory in Germany and the overnight announcement of the product development agreement with Gaz de France shows the commercialisation is now full stream ahead and there should be good things happening over the next few years.


----------



## EasternGrey1 (17 December 2006)

I'm not totally convinced CFU is good value, though the recent announcements will probably push the share price up at least in the short term.

At 150,000 1kw ceramic stacks p.a., what revenue stream are we looking at?

If a 1kw generator can retail at around $US550, ie. $A700 Yamaha EP1000 Generator, then the wholesale price of a 1kw micro-CHP ceramic stack (not the whole unit) is unlikely to exceed say $A150.
So we are looking at maybe 150,000 * $A150 = $A22.5m pa revenue. If profit margin is 50% (generous?) then annual profit is $A11.25m, and if the company is growing strongly p/e might be as high as 30, giving a market cap of $A338m. But this production level isn't reached till phase 2, and phase 1 goes to 2009. Discounting say 5 years at 15%, we get NPV15 = $A168m, or at 10% NPV10 is $A210m. I think those figures are reasonably generous.
Market cap is currently $A232m.

The project is to be funded by a combination of debt and equity, so there is also some dilution to come. In addition, competition and improving technology are likely to push prices down over the intervening years, and CFU is not the first cab off the rank.

The Gaz de France deal obviously adds value, but it is unclear how much, and any profits are still years away.

CFU clearly has potential, but I wonder if it is really worth buying at the current share price. I would have thought there was better value out there.

Disclosure: I bought CFU late 2005 & early 2006 for average 0.55 and have since sold them all at average 0.75. I would buy again around the 0.55 mark.


----------



## YChromozome (17 December 2006)

EasternGrey1 said:
			
		

> If a 1kw generator can retail at around $US550, ie. $A700 Yamaha EP1000 Generator[/URL], then the wholesale price of a 1kw micro-CHP ceramic stack (not the whole unit) is unlikely to exceed say $A150.




I think you are looking at the product purely as electrical generation. 

What its really about is energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction and decentralised electricity.

The fuel cell as purely an electrical generator is more efficient than today's more efficient Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT) found in some power plants around Australia. Ceramic Fuel Cells are aiming at 50 to 60% electrical efficiency. Then in a centralized model, you have losses in the transmission grid. With Fuel Cells, they will be installed in the home close to where the power will be used. Gas can be stored, electricity is harder.

However where the real advantages come in is with CHP (Combined Heat Power). When the fuel cell converts the Natural Gas into electricity, it will also produce heat. This heat can be used for other applications such as water  or room heating and further increases the overall system efficiency. 

CFU's main market is Europe where cold winters see a boiler unit in the basement running 24 hours a day all winter to keep the house warm. This is why they are targeting condenser boiler appliance makers. So you get electrical power, and the heat is practically free. The UK and parts of Europe are also very much more in tune with greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. They have mandates and targets in for low emission housing and significant energy reduction targets.

Regarding who will buy them, the current indication from the market is the utilities would. EWE in Germany is trialling over ten MicroCHP units, and the announcement from Gaz De France demonstrates great interest from the major French utility.  

What the utilities plan to do is purchase the CHP units, install them into customer's basements, but retain ownership. The utility (e.g. Gaz De France) will run the units on their own wholesale gas, while selling the Heat and Electricity to the end users. So the customer will have no upfront capital costs - in fact they don't even need to worry about buying a condensing boiler. They just buy heat and electricity.

The utilities gain a decentralised grid with less transmission infrastructure and greater efficiency. The other thing the utilities have their eye's on is grid stabilization. They will control all these decentralised units installed into peoples homes and have the ability to export extra power into the grid in area's where it is needed. Apparently the utilities have already got models of this scenario.


Ceramic Fuel signs European deal - Nine MSN



> Australian-based Ceramic Fuel Cells says it has signed a deal to develop its cells in domestic boilers with utility giant Gaz de France and boiler maker De Dietrich Thermique, sending its shares surging.
> 
> Ceramic Fuel Cells makes cells which use natural gas to create heat and power inside boiler units.
> 
> ...


----------



## EasternGrey1 (17 December 2006)

The way you put it, it sounds great - but -
- there is competition and CFU hasn't won yet, so there is still a chance to be factored in that EWE, Gaz de France etc might not use CFU's stacks at all (which I didn't factor into my calcs).
- a key issue is just how much CFU will get paid for each unit. Just because it's G de F not the householder doesn't necessarily mean they'll be paid heaps.

For me, the figures don't yet add up to compelling value at the current share price, though I'm not saying that CFU won't be a great investment over the next few years. My calcs suggest that at the current level of information, the shares are not far off being priced for perfection.

I'm currently treating it as a spec to be bought low and sold high, rather than a solid long term investment. If it keeps going up from here, I'll most likely not be on board, but future announcements might change the picture of course.


----------



## YChromozome (22 December 2006)

Interesting - Seems to just keep gradually floating up. Yesterday on the ASX it closed 95c up 2.7%.

Overnight on the AIM, CFU closed up 6.76%.

Since the announcement AIM:CFU is up 31.6% and ASX:CFU is up 26.6%


----------



## hoody (16 March 2007)

It seems this stock has been given renewed interest by an American commentator Dan Denning now living and working in Australia. He rates this thing as a top pick and has sent out recommendations on it yesterday. Yesterday it was $1.12 today its 1.29.  

Spoke to one CFU's directors yesterday. Seems things are moving well with their trials and  the plans to produce in Europe around 2009. They are not planning to sell the units in Australia at present. Our electricity is too cheap.

There is a shareholder information day at the Noble Park factory on Wed March 28. Bookings must be made on 0395542300. Some non shareholders may be allowed to attend if space allows.

Hoody


----------



## Knobby22 (16 March 2007)

I think the rerating is more a going back to the old price coupled with todays announcement showing the product going commercial at full steam.

I bought a few a while ago. Some risk but not compared to most technology companies in the ASX. Could get taken over by the Europeans who can recognise a good tech. company. Probably get slapped in a correction though.


----------



## hoody (16 March 2007)

Thanks Knobby. You are of course correct in saying the announcement is the likely reason for the rise today. I did ask the receptionist at CFU that I spoke to this morning if there  was an announcement today but she had no news. I took her word for it and neglected to look it up.



I'm going to the meeting and taking a tour of the factory at Noble Park on Wednesday 28th. Any others interested?
Cheers

Hoody


----------



## Boyou (5 June 2007)

hoody,
         I have done a bit of research on these .Fundamentally I think the company has HUGE potential.And just reaching the production phase with the plant in Germany.
         Plenty of interest from European power companies.The French power company looks to be on board.
         Just wondering if you are still on them and how the factory tour went.I just picked up a small parcel of them today .I know there is still a fair amount of spec surrounding CFU ,but the potential excites me! 

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## Captain_Chaza (5 June 2007)

Boyou said:


> hoody,
> I have done a bit of research on these .Fundamentally I think the company has HUGE potential.And just reaching the production phase with the plant in Germany.
> Plenty of interest from European power companies.The French power company looks to be on board.
> Just wondering if you are still on them and how the factory tour went.I just picked up a small parcel of them today .I know there is still a fair amount of spec surrounding CFU ,but the potential excites me!
> ...




Ahoy Sea-Cadet Boyou

The Potential may excite you but I find the Technical much less flattering
I wish you Gods speed and Safe harbour

Any bounce will be a simple case of "Get-out Stakes"  IMO

Salute and Take Care
and Please be quick and decisive when the time comes for ACTION!


----------



## YChromozome (5 June 2007)

Boyou said:


> Just wondering if you are still on them and how the factory tour went.




How did I miss the details of the factory tour. None the less, I visited them last December. My brother visited them the year before and comparing notes it appears the units just get smaller . . The decreases in size and increase in efficiency over time is quite impressive.

Of those ASF members that went on the 28th, did CFU have any clues lying around. On the tour on the 5th December, they had a condensing boiler being fitted out, but naturally couldn't comment much. The announcement came a week or two later . .

I still hold a parcel I brought during the IPO.


----------



## Boyou (5 June 2007)

Hi responders!
                  Captain Chaza ,thanks for the warning.I do understand the risks.Could you expand on the Technical stuff? What don't you like about the system? 
                  YChromosome ,thanks for your input .I live in Bris ,so it was not possible to attend the tours.I see you have been holding a while..still confident about them ,now they are reaching the next phase?

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## hoody (5 June 2007)

Boyou

No I'm not still in the stock. I bought at 1-20 and sold at 1-12. Glad I got out when I did but I still have the company in my watchlist as I'm very confident it will eventually produce an excellent return. But production and installation of units is over a year away so its not going to make money any time soon. I'm of the opinion there is lots of better value out there at present where your money can return a much faster profit. 

Hoody


----------



## Boyou (5 June 2007)

Thanks Hoody, I will just see how they run for a while....I don't mind waiting.

The next couple of years will be interesting for this type of technology as people begin to grasp the reality of LOCALISED energy generation.One small step toward lowering Greenhouse Gas emissions.

 Bring it on ,I say!


Cheers Ya'll


----------



## YChromozome (5 June 2007)

Boyou said:


> YChromosome ,thanks for your input .I live in Bris ,so it was not possible to attend the tours.I see you have been holding a while..still confident about them ,now they are reaching the next phase?




I'm in Adelaide, likewise my Brother. We took the oportunity to go over to Melbourne for a look. But I understand, it's not like you can just take a few hours off work and drive down the road for the tour. . 

Yes, I'm actually more confident now about the company than ever. When they first listed, while you could see some potential, it was hard to justify the economics which at the end of the day makes or breaks the product. Now with the interest and the large utility alliances in the UK, Germany etc I can really see a large market for them.

There was also the problem of convincing Joe Blogs, member of the public, why you would buy a MCHP system over something else. Now that the Utilities want to pay for them, install them at the customer premises and charge the customer for heat/hot water and electricity, while also using them to balance their power grids, the risks of poor customer takeup are also ellivated. I would imagine very little retail distribution, but a few large utility type orders, and hence this comes with less support costs.

While things look more rosy, it's still a long term play. It will still take a few years to see the start of commercial manufacture. While we wait, if there is little news, the share price could soften. CFCL looks like they are well positioned within the market, but other players could still come in and step on them.


----------



## Boyou (6 June 2007)

Thanks for your input YChromozome,

Looks like the SP has taken another little run up.looking at the chart on ASX, I see it has been doing a bit of a Rhumba for a while.

Anyone care to speculate on the moves? Is it smart money doing a bit of massaging? Hope not .

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## YChromozome (6 June 2007)

Boyou said:


> Anyone care to speculate on the moves?




CFU always seem to have some speculation and rumor about future deals in the media, some turn out to be valid, others not.

Today it was a consortium of Middle East investors?

CFCL in demand on bid hopes - The Times, June 6th.



> Heavy trading in Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (CFCL) sparked talk that the boiler maker could have attracted a predator.
> 
> While the shares finished flat at 39 ½p, more than 13 million were exchanged, compared with an average daily turnover of less than a million. CFCL, which is running trials of an electricity-generating cell with power suppliers, has long been mooted as a potential target for a large white goods maker. Yet rumour has it that a consortium of Middle East investors has been showing interest in the group’s technology.


----------



## Boyou (7 June 2007)

Looks like the spec buyers bailed out on this one ,to some extent ,today

SP down to .955.Perhaps the Arab interest was just another Furphy!

I'm still up on my buy having got them at .90. Perhaps things might settle down a bit from here in and we can see some steady growth ..Hope so

Thanks for the background on yesterday's spike,YChromzome

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## Boyou (9 July 2007)

SP finished up at $1.03.Still the usual spec buying,but I am pleased by the general movement of this one.

Was waiting for some kind of ann and here it is.


PRESS RELEASE

9th July 2007 



E.ON UK and Ceramic Fuel Cells to collaborate on development of new greener microgeneration in the home



Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (CFCL), a global leader in fuel cell development, and E.ON UK, the company that runs Powergen, have signed an agreement to develop and deploy a prototype fuel cell combined heat and power unit in the UK.



The companies will work together to develop a fully-integrated micro CHP unit, incorporating CFCL’s fuel cell, that can be fitted into homes.



The highly efficient new units would be able to power a wide range of UK homes and would also help to reduce carbon emissions in the UK.



E.ON is contributing to the product development costs and retains a first option to purchase future CFCL micro CHP units for the British market. The agreement with CFCL complements E.ON’s existing activities in the field of micro CHP. 



Brendan Dow, Managing Director of CFCL, said: “As climate change emerges as one of the greatest challenges for modern society, we believe that CFCL is well placed to deliver energy-saving initiatives to reduce carbon emissions in the home. 



“With this agreement we are now very close to achieving our partnering objectives in Europe. We look forward to working with E.ON UK to bring our energy-saving technology to homes and small businesses throughout the UK.”



CFCL is planning to announce its appliance partner responsible for manufacturing the units in due course. 



During the collaboration, CFCL will supply a NetGen+ unit for operation with a supplementary boiler and a specially designed thermal store to produce an ‘Alpha’ prototype which will subsequently be deployed in a field trial.  The current project schedule is for the NetGen+ unit to be delivered by December 2007 and the Alpha unit to be developed in Q2 2008.  



The partners have agreed to discuss further co-operation in the subsequent development and deployment of ‘Beta’ CHP units (comprising CFCL’s fuel cell module fully integrated with a condensing boiler) as well as commercial targets for fuel cell m-CHP units for the UK residential market.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 July 2007)

Exciting stuff.
I bought a small holding which is now a bit bigger.
Happy to keep holding as we now have a product, a manufacturer and a client.


----------



## Boyou (9 July 2007)

Yes indeed Knobby22,Things are moving fairly rapidly for CFU.Well,as fast as this sort of new tech does.

Perhaps a bit of background info on them ,for those who are new.Of particular relevence to the share price movement in the short term are the last 2 lines of the  final paragraph in this story from Power Alternatives news site.

It's a beaut read!

June 18, 2007

Ceramic Fuel Cells Is Moving Along The Commercialisation Route


By Rue Swabey



Australia-based Ceramic Fuel Cells (CFCL) has achieved a significant amount since its IPO on AIM in March 2006. It is working to commercialise its fuel cell technology on a large scale. CFCL’s micro combined heat and power (m-CHP) unit generates constant electric power while producing hot air and water from the waste heat. Fuel cell technology produces low emission electricity as it is generated by chemical reactions rather than combustion. CFCL has acquired a site to build a manufacturing facility in Germany and it has signed two product development agreements with European utility companies. These agreements validate CFCL’s technology and underscore the growing confidence in the company.
CFCL’s business model is to sell to the utility companies rather than the end user. This approach is logical as the technology is new and the utility companies are better equipped to market it and install it. In addition the utilities have the balance sheets to roll out large volumes to their existing customer bases quickly. However the real pull factor is that m-CHP technology is highly attractive to the utility companies. This is because on-site generation reduces dependency on the grid and lowers maintenance costs. Residential users of the technology will remain connected to the grid so power can be imported to meet demand and surplus energy can be exported. Under this import-export model consumers would sell unused power to the utility at wholesale prices which would be re-sold at retail prices improving distribution margins. 

There is also potential for carbon credits and tax rebates. CFCL’s chief executive for Europe, Brendan Bilton, emphasises that the economics of its m-CHP unit means that it does not need government subsidies or favourable legislation. In fact he sees gas-fired power stations as CFCL’s competitors. However it is likely that the utilities will subsidise the installation of CFCL’s m-CHP units and lock the consumer into a long-term contract that will more than repay the initial subsidy.  

The signing of product development agreements with Gaz de France and Germany’s EWE demonstrate the solid interest that European utility companies have in the technology. EWE is a serious partner with a commitment to fuel cell technology dating back to 1995. Specialist boiler maker, Bruns Heiztechnik GmbH, is part of the agreement.  EWE has ordered ten units for field trials with will be built in conjunction with Bruns. The agreement with Gaz de France (GDF) and boiler manufacturer, De Dietrich, is particularly attractive as GDF has a monopoly over the French residential market with more than 11.1million customers. 

CFCL is in discussions with a further seven utility companies in Europe. The market has focused on UK’s Powergen and Nuon in the Benelux region as probable partners. Robert Kennett, a non-executive director of CFLC was formerly managing director of Powergen Combined Heat and Power and Renewables. And CFLC is building its German production facility in an industrial park owned by Nuon. Discussions with privately owned utilities are slow as the technology is new and needs to be quantified before an investment decision can be taken. But Mr Bilton is confident that once an agreement is reached with a UK utility it will lead the way in demonstrating the value of the technology across Europe.   

CFCL’s board is currently discussing how much capacity to build at its site in Germany. Once a decision is taken orders will need to be firmed up before work commences in September. Construction is envisaged to take 12 months. The building of a proprietary high-quality ceramic powder plant in Merseyside in the UK is progressing and should be commissioned by the end of September. 

There are several short-term drivers for the stock including announcements of orders from the utility companies. The market will also focus on the alpha field trials being run by EWE. Technological updates underscore why the utilities are so interested in the technology. Recent developments have increased the electrical efficiency of CFCL’s fuel cell stack allowing for a 50 per cent reduction in the balance of plant which is significant in terms of cost and size. Longevity tests are currently at between 3,000 and 4,000 hours with degradation of less than 1 per cent over 1,000 hours. The share price has climbed steadily from its 2006 listing price of 21p to 44p today. In February it reached a high of 52p on speculation of a bid from a utility company. If the product development agreements progress as expected it is likely that there will be real acquisitive interest in the company before long


----------



## Boyou (28 July 2007)

The latest news on CFU. Anouncement on Thursday about the forth parnership agreement.It's all up on the website.Plus a Broadcast of a presentation by MD, Brendan Dow.

Here is an excert from that announcement.


Press Release 24 July 2007
CERAMIC FUEL CELLS, NUON AND REMEHA COLLABORATE ON MICROGENERATION FOR BENELUX REGION
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (CFCL), a leading developer of energy products based on solid oxide fuel cells, Nuon NV (Nuon), Holland’s leading generator and distributor of electricity, gas and heat and De Dietrich-Remeha Group, represented by Remeha BV (Remeha) today announce that they have formed a collaboration to jointly develop a fully integrated micro-combined heat and power (m-CHP) unit for the residential market across The Netherlands and Belgium.
The new-generation high-efficiency unit, which is based on CFCL’s fuel cell system, will enable households and small businesses to generate both heat and electricity.
The unit will look just like a conventional high-efficiency boiler with the difference being that as well as generating heat, it also generates enough power to meet an average household’s energy needs. This means more efficient use of natural gas resources, while the CO2 emissions are up to 25% lower than from a gas-fired power station and up to 60% lower than from a conventional coal-fired power station. The fuel-cell boiler will be easy to install as it uses the same pipes as existing high-efficiency boiler installations.
Peter Erich, Member of the Board of Nuon, commented:
“Technologies that save energy at home are one of our biggest future challenges. We believe that with CFCL and Remeha we can offer households and small companies a solution for a more efficient use of energy and the reduction of CO2-emissions.”
Brendan Dow, Managing Director of CFCL, commented:
“Our fourth product development agreement, this time in the key Benelux market, complements our existing collaborations in the UK, France and Germany and completes our partnering objectives in Europe. We are now well on our way to commercial product development.
“Nuon is widely considered to be at the forefront of clean power generation and our selection as development partner is a huge endorsement of the potential for CFCL’s fuel cell technology. Importantly, Nuon has stipulated precisely what it needs to place large orders for commercial m-CHP units providing a clear path for us to formalise volume orders for the first time.
“We are also delighted to have expanded our relationship with the Remeha group. The experiences gained from our existing collaboration with De Dietrich in the French market will serve us well as we work together to develop a commercial product for Benelux residents.”
With operations in The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, Nuon is one of the leading innovative energy companies in Europe, with a stated commitment to efficient and renewable power generation. In December 2006, CFCL announced that it is to develop a large-scale
fuel cell manufacturing facility at the Oberbruch industrial park in Heinsberg, Germany, which is owned and managed by Nuon.
De Dietrich-Remeha Group is one of the largest boiler manufacturers in Europe. Besides Remeha, it includes De Dietrich Thermique, France’s leading heating appliance company, with whom CFCL already collaborates via its partnership with Gaz de France. The product development project for Benelux will build on this existing collaboration.
Under the terms of the agreement announced today, CFCL, Nuon and De Dietrich-Remeha will jointly develop 1kW m-CHP units to meet specifications for homes in The Netherlands and Belgium. The first stage of the project is to deploy an ‘Alpha’ unit, whereby a CFCL NetGen+ unit, a high efficiency condensing boiler and a thermal store will be integrated and operated via a single control unit. Nuon will then test the system for efficiency, reliability and integration. Based on the results of this stage, the partners will then proceed to the second stage - creation of a near-commercial ‘Beta’ unit, comprising a single physical unit in which a CFCL fuel cell module is fully integrated with a boiler.
The parties have also agreed to define price and performance targets for commercial m-CHP units and, if the project proceeds successfully, to place agreed volume orders for commercial units. On the basis of these volume order targets Nuon will be CFCL’s exclusive utility partner in the Benelux region.
The partners will commence work on the project immediately. The Alpha unit is expected to be deployed in the first half of 2008.


----------



## EasternGrey1 (11 September 2007)

Last time I posted on this CFU board was Dec06. I wasn't very enthusiastic. But I've kept an eye on CFU and it has entered a few new deals - it now has deals in the UK, Holland and Belgium, as well as Germany and France. Things seem to be going CFU's way, business-wise, though the share price has been one-way for 7 months - down.

APEC bringing China and the US into the global warming debate will help, and oil prices are back up into the mid-$US70's.

My feeling now is that CFU probably has a good chance of becoming a major player in Europe, and is looking like pretty reasonable value.

I have bought back in. [In Dec06 it was 0.75, I have now paid 0.80. So I haven't  missed much - phew! - and my $$$ have been working hard elsewhere in the meantime ...]


----------



## Boyou (3 October 2007)

CFU has a pretty slick presentation out. They are meeting targets and expanding their reach. (I am still a holder)


https://invest.etrade.com.au/Quotes...spx?symbol=CFU&tab=ASX Company Announcements#


Cheers Ya'll


----------



## EasternGrey1 (19 December 2007)

Bought more at 71, 66 and 60, and it still keeps going down. Still looks pretty good to me (obviously) so am I missing something?


----------



## Boyou (19 December 2007)

I took more at Eighty four! 

Can't see anything fundamental to worry about.They keep on releasing good news.First Net Gen Unit shipped to EWE/European Patent in the bag.

The market will wake up one day..

Cheers


----------



## trtkjd1 (28 December 2007)

I had a flyer come around at my work about a year ago when the share price was about $1.20 ,didn't mention the companys name on the flyer just a brokers number , don,t quote me but as i recall they were forcasting returns of around 100% for the next 5 years .  glad i didn,t buy then but with the price now very seriously considering it, as a buy.


----------



## EasternGrey1 (17 January 2008)

Moving into Japan too (today's announcement).

It looked pretty good before, now it looks even better ..... doesn't it?


----------



## Col Lector (19 January 2008)

CFU last at 0.53 following announcement of expansion of fuel cell venture into Japan. http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080117/pdf/316zhzydc3l3wf.pdf
To date Europe has been the main focus. However with strong growth projected in Asian LNG usage, the Asian market growing has additional huge potential. This move into Japan may be the catalyst to spike the SP out of its current malaise.
Mkt cap $164mill
52week: 0.42low; 1.435high; 
The drift lower has occurred despite a flow of good news. IMO investor impatience a possible factor  ie, Prototype development & field trials ahead of scaled up appliance partner manufacture has been (necessarily) a protracted capital intensive process. Now nearing end of this phase...appliance partners throughout Europe are currently integrating the CFU units into final marketable units for mass manufacture.http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20080110/pdf/316w7d7cld47lv.pdf
CFU's patent suite and involvement as vert integrated supplier to major European energy & appliance co's can be expected to bring strong revenue growth from 2009 on. Now that units have been strenuously field-tested as a prerequisite of European contracts, CFU will be better able to fast-track its move into the Asian market.
Noting that Woodside is a substantial holder (last time I looked)


----------



## Boyou (5 February 2008)

I am still a patient holder of CFU..as the SP slips down again and again. 

With this stock patience is the key. They keep the market well informed with developments and their strategy of "value adding" is bearing fruit.An excerpt from todays announcement. 
Ceram Tec is a German comany producing ceramic components for the automotive,electronic,medical and industrial markets 


"In line with CFCL’s commercialisation strategy the partnership will combine CFCL’s and CeramTec’s expertise in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) with CeramTec’s manufacturing capabilities and expertise, securing the supply chain for mass manufacture of high quality fuel cells at commercially viable unit costs."

 Add that to there continued push into Asian markets...you have a winner IMHO


----------



## Boyou (23 February 2008)

From an interview with Brend Dow,CEO of CFU.

These guys still have the inside track on their nearest rivals Ceres 



INTERVIEW-Ceramic Fuel MD sees 2008 as crunch year

By Chuang Khoo and Chris Wills

LONDON, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Ceramic Fuel Cells , which makes fuel cells for the next generation of domestic boilers, faces a make-or-break year in 2008, when substantial orders are expected, its managing director told Reuters on Friday.

"We expect the volume orders (in 2008) to be in the vicinity of thousands to tens of thousands," Ceramic Managing Director Brendan Dow told Reuters in an interview on Friday.

The loss-making company has so far only received orders for prototypes of its fuel cell units, called stacks, which go in household gas boilers.

They create electricity, as well as heat, from gas fed into the boilers, which can be distributed back to the grid.

These micro-generation units could appear in homes from 2009, cutting power costs for users while making excess power available to utilities for resale.

Ceramic is developing the fuel cell stacks for boilers with utility partners Nuon, E.ON's Powergen , Germany's EWE and Gaz de France .

The units will be priced between 2,000 euros ($2,963) and 2,500 euros each, Dow said.

Ceramic expects 2009 to be a key production year, when it will start producing significant volumes for the first time if the utilities place orders as the company hopes.

Ceramic expects to turn a profit in 2010/11, house broker Libertas Capital said in a note earlier in February.

The firm, listed in Australia (CFU.AX
CERAMIC FUEL23 February,2008
23/02/2008 22:20 Sydney, Australia.
Value	Change	% Change
0.415	+0.005	+1.220%

    * Company overview
    * Real-time quote

CFU.AX , 0.415, +0.005, +1.220%) and London, is expected to turn cashflow positive in calendar year 2010, Dow said.

Dow said the factory it was building in Germany would cost around 8 million pounds ($15.7 million), slightly lower than the 9 million pounds analysts had expected.

It will initially have capacity to produce around 50,000 units a year, which can be extended to 160,000 with further investment.

This would require further fundraising, which the company would prefer to raise in debt rather than equity, Dow said.

Rival AIM-listed Ceres Power , which is also loss-making, is working on similar technology for domestic boilers, but testing with its partner British Gas is not expected to be complete until 2011.

Dow said Ceramic would not favour selling a stake in the company to an investor, in the way Ceres sold a 10 percent stake to British Gas-owner Centrica . (Editing by Will Waterman)


----------



## Boyou (28 February 2008)

The news continues to flow....At last some revenue too. 

Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd announces that it is investing â‚¬12.4 million in the construction of a manufacturing plant in Heinsberg, Germany for the commercial production of its fuel cell systems. CFCL also announces that it has received a volume order from Nuon, The Netherlands’ largest energy company and CFCL’s partner for that market. CFCL and Nuon have agreed on a set of performance targets for a commercial unit. On CFCL’s achievement of these targets, Nuon will order 50,000 fuel cell systems, to be delivered over a five year period from June 2009. The order is expected to generate substantial revenue for CFCL over the five years.

At CFU's estimate of up to $3,000 per unit that's $150,000,000 over the timeframe.Brendan Dow is also confident of signing two more similar agreements over the next 12 months with other utilities


----------



## Knobby22 (28 February 2008)

I am rapt. This is what the company needed to give investors confidence. My shares return is nicely profitable which is always relaxing. 
Tried to be buy more today but failed.

The risks have reduced but there is still the possibility of manufacturing problems. I am pleased with how the management have not tried to take too much on though. I am now a keen buyer amd am waiting for for the second leg of this bear stage to back up the wagon.


----------



## Bruza (29 February 2008)

(QUOTE)
Australia's Ceramic Fuel Cells has secured its first volume order for its fuel cells that provide electricity and hot water for homes from natural gas. Instead of burning the gas, the fuel cells use a catalytic reaction to produce two kilowatts of power. Netherlands energy utility Nuon will buy 50,000 of the fuel cells over five years from mid-2009 on the condition that performance targets are met. Ceramic Fuel Cells has also announced it will spend EUR12.4m ($A20m) building a new plant at Heinsberg in Germany to produce the cells


Distributed by News Bites.  © Lexis-Nexis



After such encouraging news yesterday, does anyone have some ideas on why the pullback?


----------



## Buddy (29 February 2008)

There seems to have been a very large trade yesterday of over 2mill shares at over 80 cents. Normal trades per day are around 2-300k. Then it drops back today to the mid sixties.  Does anyone know what the large trade is about?  Is there someone (another company?) building up a large stake?


----------



## EasternGrey1 (21 March 2008)

Like many others, this board is virtually defunct. I thought that, 3 weeks on, at least someone should try to answer your question. So here's my best attempt at an explanation :

I don't know.​
(Sorry about that, I'm just in that sort of mood at the moment. Weeks of market mayhem eventually get you down.)

I think that trades between major players can be arranged outside the normal market mechanism, and then be reported to it, whereupon they appear as a trade. You do sometimes see a big trade reported outside trading hours.

But I might be somewhere the wrong side of cloud cuckoo land on this one. I'm pretty sure I've heard of this mechanism in the US, but whether it operates here, I really don't know for sure.


----------



## surely (22 March 2008)

Another 4-6 months of being pushed any played and CFU will be well and truly on its path to a true valuation imho.

Was thinking that the UK market was looking at CFU more favorably than it has been over the last 6 months but another 6% downward push on Thurs with substantial volume themes CFU downward in the UK for the short term I'd say. Oz CFU market very bullish imho but Poms are killing the enthusiasm.

Im a fairly substantial holder near on 2 years and sitting on a loss but have absolute faith that CFU will be one of the stellar performers in a massive new eco market. Its potential is highly calculated, very well managed and virtually predestined. 

Well see another order, maybe more, perhaps further partners, the factory build progressing, test modelling updates and perhaps new product profiles within the next 4-6 months imo, so plenty of news to kick CFU along. 

News is the driver of CFU so bring it on.


----------



## EasternGrey1 (23 March 2008)

I hope you're right about the "stellar performance".

My reading of the Climate Change debate (what debate? isn't the science all in?) is that it has a shock in store for us this year, as the Global Warming scare collapses.

Hence many eco plays will collapse too. I think and hope that CFU has a place as an efficient distributed energy supplier in a Europe with energy demand outstripping supply - not as an eco play - but I'll have to do some work on the figures.


----------



## EasternGrey1 (10 April 2008)

It may be premature, but I'm out of CFU today - at an uncomfortable loss, but so be it. (If ever there was a clear Buy signal, this is it!!).

The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced the Global Warming scare is going to unravel. Probably later this year. Carbon trading was an absolute shambles and collapsed in Europe last year. I can see no reason why Australia's would be effective - principally because it is based on junk science and the spotlight will be turned fully on the IPCC report when everyone starts to realise just how much it's going to cost them. Don Aitken's paper, reported in The Australian yesterday, was probably just the first in a confidence-shaking series for the true believers. Another cold winter in the northern hemisphere will just about kill them off, and that is looking likely because solar cycle 24 (which the IPCC deny has any impact) is badly delayed. Cycle 23 could end up being the longest in 100 years, and long cycles are bad news for climate (coooold).

CFU's longer-term future was looking pretty impressive, but I think profit margins will depend on a substantial carbon cost, and anyway it will be quite a long time before sales and profits build up. I'll just switch the money into gold and oil and wait a while.

OK, I may be wrong. I'm almost certainly acting far too early. We will see.


----------



## mojohand (23 April 2008)

I don't think that this company's future is solely link to climate change. There is also the distributed generation aspect of this technology that is also a point of interest for alot of utilities along with the greater efficiencies of fuel consumption.

The technology is greener, true, but if climate change turns out to be another Millennium Bug fiasco I don't think it will be a death knell for CFU.


----------



## EasternGrey1 (5 May 2008)

You're probably right, it's just that I have been doing a lot of reassessing of the alternative energy / global warming scene, and coming up negative. Today's announcement surprised me - CFU fund-raising - as I had in my mind that CFU was well cashed up and had 3-4 years' supply.


----------



## rhen (23 July 2008)

It would appear that action yesterday shows some interest returning to CFU. I can only count this volume being exceeded 14 times in the last 2 years.


----------



## eddyeagle (1 October 2008)

CFU is being plugged by the Daily Reckoning / Money Morning guys...

http://www.portphillippublishing.co...ource=e9aaj906&o=1562646&u=27988633&l=1592451



Anyone got any thoughts on this stock at the moment?

Their most recent presentation looks ok.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 October 2008)

eddyeagle said:


> CFU is being plugged by the Daily Reckoning / Money Morning guys...
> 
> http://www.portphillippublishing.co...ource=e9aaj906&o=1562646&u=27988633&l=1592451
> 
> ...




While the presentation mite look good, This chart says 
it all.....CFU has been around for a long time and is 
considered a dead duck.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 February 2009)

Good news:-

Efficiency up to 60%.
Less than 12 months away from production.

Previous bad news: 
The CFO badly invested the cash and has lost much of it (now sacked).


In my opinion will be a 10 bagger from low point - whenever that occurs -as once it is producing the campnay will be in a position to develop a strangle hold of the market - like Cochlear.


----------



## noco (19 February 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Good news:-
> 
> Efficiency up to 60%.
> Less than 12 months away from production.
> ...




Yes! Knobby22, best news I've heard in the past two years. I was becoming a bit sceptical about CFU, but decided to show some confidence and stay with them.

Had a promotion Phone call yesterday pugging Kevin Rudds SOLAR CELLS subsidy of $8K.

I asked the promoter, What was the efficiency of SOLAR CELLS, and they had no idea.

Do any ASF members know the answer to the efficiency of Solar Cells ?

I'm curious!

Noco


----------



## Knobby22 (19 February 2009)

noco said:


> Yes! Knobby22, best news I've heard in the past two years. I was becoming a bit sceptical about CFU, but decided to show some confidence and stay with them.
> 
> Had a promotion Phone call yesterday pugging Kevin Rudds SOLAR CELLS subsidy of $8K.
> 
> ...




Nice to hear it Noco.

Today's solar cells have an efficiency of up to 15% but there have been breakthroughs -  http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201202573

The fuel cell works at night though when generally the residents will need the power as they will be home from work. Storing solar energy for night use isn't efficient.


----------



## noco (19 February 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Nice to hear it Noco.
> 
> Today's solar cells have an efficiency of up to 15% but there have been breakthroughs -  http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201202573
> 
> The fuel cell works at night though when generally the residents will need the power as they will be home from work. Storing solar energy for night use isn't efficient.





Thanks for that info Knobby22, I believe the batteries required to store Solar Power are very expensive. So it looks like Solar Power is not the way to go.
Noco


----------



## So_Cynical (19 February 2009)

noco said:


> I believe the batteries required to store Solar Power are very expensive.




Not really...Standard type deep cycle, lead acid Battery's are about twice the cost of normal quality car battery's.

Fullriver Sealed Lead Acid AGM Battery 12Volt 38Ah DC $207

http://www.energymatters.com.au/fullriver-sealed-lead-acid-agm-battery-12volt-38ah-dc-p-156.html

Actually surprised at how things have changed...some super hi quality battery's 
at that site for over 1000 bucks each. 

----------------------

And CFU is still tanking....where is the bottom???? and have a look at that volume!


----------



## Knobby22 (20 February 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Not really...Standard type deep cycle, lead acid Battery's are about twice the cost of normal quality car battery's.
> 
> Fullriver Sealed Lead Acid AGM Battery 12Volt 38Ah DC $207
> 
> ...




I agree, where is the bottom? That is why I said "10 bagger from low point - whenever that occurs". I think there might be a dilutionary fund raising at some stage, as I think the market does, which is why the sp keeps falling.

The other problem with batterys 'cynical' is that they are environmentally unfriendly. An invertor is needed to convert the power to AC which produces further losses.
Solar cell systems need a lot of space and are expensive though this will improve.

We are talking completely different needs and technologies anyway. 
In cold countries, the fuel cell will not only provide cheap electricity and help governments reduce their need to build new power stations, it will also heat the home. Their is a real market for it.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 February 2009)

Up 113% today.
Maybe that was the bottom.

Noco, maybe the high volume showed that interest was growing.


----------



## So_Cynical (20 February 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> An invertor is needed to convert the power to AC which produces further losses.




Best to keep it all DC and just rig the house and buy appliances accordingly, not as 
hard as many think considering most non element appliances use DC anyway.



Knobby22 said:


> Up 113% today..Maybe that was the bottom.




Lets hope so for the holders...GL


----------



## MACCA350 (26 February 2009)

As a holder I hope they do well in the future 

I bought in when they were 28c, then again at 16c, then doubled my holding at 7c.........now I'm holding to see where they go in the next year or so.

cheers


----------



## craigj (15 April 2009)

bought into this stock today at 7.9c 

some big volumes traded today

any thoughts out there

cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (15 April 2009)

I think the price is being supported to get the raisings off. I sold mine but bought into the raising. I reckon they will fall a bit before they take off due to profit taking from the raisings.


----------



## awg (16 April 2009)

seems like i may have gotten the same thing as knowing the outcome before the race started

my mail arrived at 2.30pm ysterday, i opened it at once, and saw the prepopulated entitlement at 5c. (the closing date)

I had previously decided not to take up the offer, as the SP was low, but had just scanned the market for top % risers and seen CFU at 8.6c, up 25% for the day.

i gave the registry a tinkle and they affirmed so long as i bpayed and faxed the offer doc b4 5.00pm, I would be ok, so I did.

obviously i am averaging down on this stock, but even at 7.8c now, that would represent a 56% unrealised profit, at least bringing me MUCH closer to breakeven.


----------



## MACCA350 (16 April 2009)

I've averaged down twice already, contemplated taking up the offer and average down again, but I just couldn't bring myself to put more into it(already in to the tune of $30k) I do believe they will come good over the next year or so............although 5c was real tempting(closed yesterday did it?)

cheers


----------



## DAZT49 (27 April 2009)

Nice to see a director buying 10 mill shares.
Funny day on the market today, flat and sideways.
Hopefully another good night on the DOW tonight, if the mexican flu doesnt get them.


----------



## jonojpsg (20 May 2009)

Interesting move today (potential/outstanding breakout??) - now that capital raising is done it appears that SP is on the move again?  Definitely has longer term potential if they can get some of their European partners to hook up definite production runs.


----------



## awg (22 May 2009)

Up another 25%+ today, on top of several other big rises

has hit a big Ask of 19c now

glad I took up the capital raising at 5c a few weeks ago

wish i had put the house on it

good announcement today, took a while to take off after it


----------



## MACCA350 (22 May 2009)

I was just about to post the recent move, almost doubled in the last 4 days........kicking myself I didn't take up the entitlement 
Although I've averaged down twice and quadrupled my initial holding, current cost is sitting at 14.5c so it's nice to have my holding back in the green

This is another of my long term holds as I believe they have a great potential with their product

cheers


----------



## Boyou (22 May 2009)

Up another 31% today on staggering 70 mil volume.

The announcement re new "Bluegen" unit seems to have created a stir.

Do any of the interested have any figures on cost of generation?...Would be nice to compare 'cents per Kilowatt hour' with other technology.

Very glad I took up the offer at 5 cents.Good luck to all the faithful

Cheers y'all


----------



## fureien (22 May 2009)

hmm although i would have most definitely like to have bought in before the huge surge today. volume looks to be steady. if pre open stays the same on monday. it looks like the price might actually hold as opposed a huge taking of profits. possible long term buy


----------



## bugmenot (23 May 2009)

Boyou said:


> Up another 31% today on staggering 70 mil volume.
> 
> The announcement re new "Bluegen" unit seems to have created a stir.
> 
> ...





Hi Boyou,

There is a great presentation on the latest new product (BlueGen)announcement here:
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20090522_CFCL_BlueGen_Launch_22May09.pdf

The take away points for me:
- BlueGen can produce up to 17,000 KwH per year. Apparently enough to power your house, plus your neighbours!
- The BlueGen units can be connected to the interwebs and turned on and off by the utility company or govt owner etc. Dynamic load balancing etc.
- BlueGen also creates enough heat to produce 200 litres of hot water per day
- BlueGenforecast to generate electricity at a cost of 11.1 cents per kWh
- 39% cheaper than current Victorian electricity prices (18.1 cents per kW incl GST)

BlueGen is forecast to cost around $8,000 per unit in mass production
- ROI of seven years, product lifetime of 15 years

This is definitely a long term buy and hold for me. I bought 15,000 at 7c and then another 10,000 at 19c after todays announcement.

-BMN


----------



## MACCA350 (23 May 2009)

Ceramic Fuel Cells launches modular generator product
Signs MoU with VicUrban

A few points from the announcement:
-Victorian *Premier John Brumby* launched the BlueGen product at CFU's head office.
-If CFU's products replace just 7% of current usage, *Vic will reach the Feds 5% CO2 reduction well before 2020.*
-CFU *signed a Memorandum* of Understanding with VicUrban
-BlueGen planned to be installed in VicUrban building *in Dandenong by the end of this year*
-3 more demo units installed in other VicUrban developments
-VicUrban's portfolio includes over *50,000 houses to be built by 2020*
-"VicUrban is delighted to be partnering with a CFU *to help promote* a product which *could become the next generation of sustainable energy technology in Australian homes*" VicUrban CEO
-BlueGen has an *overall efficiency of up to 85%*, compared to about 25% efficiency of Victoria’s current coal-fired power stations.
-BlueGen unit *uses up to 95% less water* than Victoria’s current coal-fired power stations to generate the same amount of electricity

Also the Business channel has been running the story on CFU's BlueGen release all weekend 

I'm even considering a BlueGen unit for our next house

cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 May 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> BlueGen has an *overall efficiency of up to 85%*, compared to about 25% efficiency of Victoria’s current coal-fired power stations.



The vast majority of coal-fired capacity in Vic is operating at 27 - 30% thermal efficiency with only one plant lower than that range. 

It might not sound like much, but 30% efficiency is 20% better than 25% when you do all the maths...


----------



## jonojpsg (24 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The vast majority of coal-fired capacity in Vic is operating at 27 - 30% thermal efficiency with only one plant lower than that range.
> 
> It might not sound like much, but 30% efficiency is 20% better than 25% when you do all the maths...




Are you kidding SMurf?!  85% efficiency is *283%* better than 30% when you do all the maths - there is no comparison.


----------



## Boyou (24 May 2009)

Thanks Bugemont! 
I actually just found this info on their website and was about to post it up.

I think the news is outstanding..CFU have had a couple of major setbacks lately..the Nuon deal going belly up and capital losses due to bad investments.
Hope the current SP rise can be sustained on the back of this news.
Also it is heartening to see the Melbourne based company is being recognised in it's home state.
Australia can be world leaders in the Greenhouse Gas challenge! 

Good luck to all .

Cheers Y'all


----------



## Boyou (24 May 2009)

Just found some reference to CFU on a stock report page

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3241097

Once these become more common it won't be long before the mainstream media are reporting the news..and then the cabbies will follow  

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> Are you kidding SMurf?!  85% efficiency is *283%* better than 30% when you do all the maths - there is no comparison.



No argument there. I'm just pointing out that the least thermally efficient major energy source used for power generation in Australia isn't _quite_ as inefficient as its detractors often claim. 25 vs 30% is a significant difference.

As for doing a proper comparisson of fuel cells, you'd have to start with the same primary resource and include all the transformation steps along the way. Starting with coal versus gas is a bit like putting one driver in a Ferrari and other in an old Morris and concluding that the one in the Ferrari is a faster driver.

If you start with gas ex-processing plant then it's roughly 55% versus 85% assuming we're talking about state of the art plant under optimum conditions in both cases.  

If you start with black coal and compare an ultrasupercritical boiler versus the fuel cells and coal gasification then it's still around 42% versus 55% depending on how you go about the coal gasification.

So it's certainly more efficient. But the 25% versus 85% bit is a bit like the Morris and the Ferrari...


----------



## bugmenot (24 May 2009)

I've just been doing some research into Co2 emissions and where Australia stands - the CFU presentation mentioned that Victoria has the highest Co2 emissions per capita. This creates an even bigger upside potential for the kinds of technology that CFCL provides.

Some good quotes found on this page:

http://www.aussmc.org/US_Report-Australia_top_emitter.php

"Australia has a high dependence on cheap coal based power generation with *77% of our power coming from coal.* In a total emissions sense, Australia emits about 1% of the world’s emissions."

"The key message for Australia is that our poor greenhouse performance will increasingly attract international attention, if we don't start soon to reduce emissions, especially from the energy sector. Action is needed not only to *shift to gas-fired* and renewable electricity generation, but also to reverse the growth in electricity consumption by investing in more efficient buildings, appliances and industrial processes. A succession of recent major international studies conclude that such investments can actually provide a better financial return than expanding electricity supply – yet state governments continue to advance proposals for new power stations."

"Some of the Victorian stations, which are smaller than the above-mentioned NSW stations, have 50% more CO2 emissions per megawatt-hour than the black coal stations. Most notable is Hazelwood (1600 megawatts), which has *the highest greenhouse intensity (about 1.5 tonnes CO2 per megawatt-hour) in Australia and possibly one of the highest in the world.* Recently the Victorian government granted the owners of Hazelwood permission to open another coal mine, thus extending the lifetime of this ancient, dirty power station by up to 22 years."


----------



## jbocker (25 May 2009)

I have been watching cfu and other alternative energy stocks for a while and bought in a little while ago. While taking some hits I have stuck with them and took up the offer at 5c, so a some shortfall has been relieved. I was pleased to see the BlueGen announcement on Friday, but did not see any mention of it in the WA papers. Can anyone tell me if the papers in the east picked up the story? I was searching for news and came accross this site (impressed so I joined).


----------



## noco (25 May 2009)

jbocker said:


> I have been watching cfu and other alternative energy stocks for a while and bought in a little while ago. While taking some hits I have stuck with them and took up the offer at 5c, so a some shortfall has been relieved. I was pleased to see the BlueGen announcement on Friday, but did not see any mention of it in the WA papers. Can anyone tell me if the papers in the east picked up the story? I was searching for news and came accross this site (impressed so I joined).




jblocker;438814
Go to CFU website www.cfcl.com.au/news
You should be able to pick up all the news you are looking for.


----------



## gohawks (25 May 2009)

jbocker said:


> I have been watching cfu and other alternative energy stocks for a while and bought in a little while ago. While taking some hits I have stuck with them and took up the offer at 5c, so a some shortfall has been relieved. I was pleased to see the BlueGen announcement on Friday, but did not see any mention of it in the WA papers. Can anyone tell me if the papers in the east picked up the story? I was searching for news and came accross this site (impressed so I joined).




Had a buy order in at 0.068 when they were sitting at 0.071 kicking myself I didn't raise that price slightly right about now.


----------



## Boyou (25 May 2009)

Here is the link to Boardroom Radio interview with M D Brendan Dow.

Explains the plan for deployment of BlueGen.. 

http://www.brr.com.au/event/57804/cfu-bluegen-product-launch-mr-brendan-dow-managing-director


----------



## jbocker (26 May 2009)

Thanks noco. The company site is very informative. Was wondering if the BlueGen news was in the newspapers, as it could promote new investment interest in the company (Is that a good guide?). Looking at todays prices and volume there is certainly still some good attention on the stock. And dont fret too much Gohawks after this rush of interest the prices will probably retreat somewhat and another buy opportunity will come. The completion of the manufacturing plant and (hopefully) an eventual big European uptake would certainly give this company a much greater future. Are ceramic fuel cells an accepted form of energy source already? I cant say I have heard much of the idea, at least being used at a commercial scale. 
Cheers.


----------



## fureien (26 May 2009)

well i think the chance has come go hawks (maybe not at 7 cents though). i bought in at 0.255 this morning. watched it go up to 0.28 relaxed and went for lunch. came back and i lost what i would have gained lol. but 20 cents might be a new support and this stock has a bright future. so i guess im not worried


----------



## fureien (26 May 2009)

ok wow closed at 20 cents today. my $500 profit turned into $500 loss lol
i shud really start using stop losses...i just didnt expect it to drop the day i bought it haha

buy and sell volume are about equal with only 1.5 mill more selling volume. i think we might see a drop tommorrow.

i wish i scraped togther capital yesterday instead of today -_-

but cfu in the medium and long term looks great. but does anyone know if we shall be expecting any more news soon? need to recover my losses first lol


----------



## johannlo (26 May 2009)

Furien I've had that happen to me a few times in my short trading life so I've decided never to chase a 0-day spike (so to speak) until I've monitored it for a few more sessions,  or I've already researched it thoroughly, esp. with small caps. 

I've had biotechs that spike from 1 to 7, I buy in around 5 then it falls back to 3 in the same day or the next day etc. harsh but necessary learning experiences

your mileage may vary, do your own research etc.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (26 May 2009)

fureien said:


> but cfu in the medium and long term looks great.




What makes you think this? Personally I wouldn't be getting too excited. 

Interested as to what you can see in it, I might have missed something.


----------



## basilio (26 May 2009)

CFU does look very exciting... but then it has looked exciting many times in the past 17 years. 

I remember a couple of years ago it appeared to be developing its Fuel cell for a European market.  All on the go.

And then  ? What happened?

Certainly want to believe the current prototype will make it to market and will be successful.  It's just that the track record to date is not great.


----------



## bugmenot (26 May 2009)

fureien said:


> buy and sell volume are about equal with only 1.5 mill more selling volume. i think we might see a drop tommorrow.




I sure hope your right Furien, if this stock drops much lower I will thank my lucky stars and pick up even more. Buying opportunities like this rarely knock twice. Now that the product has been officially launched in Australia CFU will finally get the recognition it deserves.


----------



## Ricky123 (26 May 2009)

bugmenot said:


> I sure hope your right Furien, if this stock drops much lower I will thank my lucky stars and pick up even more. Buying opportunities like this rarely knock twice. Now that the product has been officially launched in Australia CFU will finally get the recognition it deserves.





I think you are absolutely right. It could be matter of few days then will start to go up!!!!. Interested to know that what is the openion of the chart expert!!!. A nice chart explantion would explain everything.


----------



## craigj (26 May 2009)

with this company i look at the ratio of risk versus reward

in this green environment and carbon neutral world the upside for the stock can be huge

what will new housing energy requirements be like in 2016 ?
will a product like this receive govt subsides like solar energy is now ?

i look to the future hold a parcel and put it away in the bottom drawer


----------



## joeyjoejoe (26 May 2009)

ive been watching this stock every day for the last 2 weeks.

i was going to "buy in at 12 cents then 12.5 then 13.." but like many do i guess i kept watching watching watching.

today i put an order in 30,000 @ 0.25 

it opened at 0.26, 0.26.5 27.0 then it went back down to 0.255

at which point it appeared that it wasn't looking good (when i examined the market depth) for the day so i cancelled the order. then i saw it go to .28c. at which point i stopped looking at it until after the close where i saw the 20c closing price. but none the less.

i will be having a closer look at this in the pre open again on wednesday

its getting to an attractive price and think there is room to more

im only looking for a swing of a few cents to make 1k for example.

for ex. 30,000 bought at the open for 20c and sold for 23.5 would net 1050 minus brokerage of 39.95 for a net of $1010

something like that


----------



## Ricky123 (26 May 2009)

craigj said:


> with this company i look at the ratio of risk versus reward
> 
> in this green environment and carbon neutral world the upside for the stock can be huge
> 
> ...




Somebody from other forum has seen the BlueGen from one of the uk forums, he assume it was the sky news thing played over the weekend. Following is the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3jiZPEDmyk


----------



## jbocker (27 May 2009)

basilio said:


> CFU does look very exciting... but then it has looked exciting many times in the past 17 years.
> ...
> Certainly want to believe the current prototype will make it to market and will be successful.  It's just that the track record to date is not great.




Hi Basilio
I am encouraged that 17 years research and development has gone into this product, (thanks I hadnt realised that till your note).
The road to success is not an easy one, back then I guess this concept would have been really out there (and probably still is). Looks to me like a potential gamechanger (but I am no expert). I like the idea of selling something back to a utility.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 May 2009)

Some of the daytraders got shaken out yesterday.
Looking forward to the continuation of more substantial rises this week though it has to level out at some point.

I like the company because it is so close to mahufacture (leter this year) and competes so well with the major power companies. I don't think it wwill ever be that big in Australia as we don't need the heating. Japan and Northern Europe should find their product very competitive as well as green.


----------



## TROUT323 (27 May 2009)

Hi all,

My first forum. Have been following and holding CFU for several years . My first purchase was 5000 @ $1 about two years ago and averaging in since, closing with a 100,000@ 5 cents rights issue. CFU are only months from production in Australia and Germany and have major distribution companies set up to market the product in many cold countries( ie.Germany, Japan etc.) around the world. It produces hot water which will replace existing boilers (for warming) which are in every house in cold climates. If this bluegen replaces existing hot water systems which are huge power burners in the warmer areas and generates enough electricity to power a house it's got the thumbs up from me. For what it's worth, if you were to purchase a [solar] energizer system for power,you would require 2 x 8000-9000kWh solar systems @ $42,000 each after the $8,000 Gov. rebate each not to mention the solar hot water system you would still need to purchase. Why would you do that if you could purchase a Bluegen for eight grand to do the same job. Do your own research.


----------



## fureien (27 May 2009)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> What makes you think this? Personally I wouldn't be getting too excited.
> 
> Interested as to what you can see in it, I might have missed something.





like many have said already they close to production and the product looks very promising. we are in a greener age. and CFU's product seems not only environmentally friendly, but its more efficient and cheaper too. isnt that a win win for everyone?
government would be mad not to utilise it.


----------



## bagasas (27 May 2009)

Has anyone looked at various scenarios of future earnings to determine what this stock might be worth? For example, what are the company's own projections/hopes for BlueGen sales and profits?


----------



## ROE (27 May 2009)

all hot air until they can show me the money

the figure of unit price they show are for victoria seem very cheap
not sure it works with other cities...you need to look up the unit price for gas and electricity for each city

ie it's all dependent on how much you pay for you gas and electricity


----------



## bugmenot (27 May 2009)

ROE said:


> all hot air until they can show me the money
> 
> the figure of unit price they show are for victoria seem very cheap
> not sure it works with other cities...you need to look up the unit price for gas and electricity for each city
> ...




Roe, in Australia we get very cheap hydrocarbon fuel compared to the main commercial markets for SOFC technology. This is part of the reason why CFU are focusing their efforts on UK, Europe and Japan. Climate and population are also obvious factors, aswell as government support.

If this unit can work in Australia with a ROI of 7 years then it is going to kick some serious **** in countries where most of those factors are positives (in Australia they are negatives).

We have low population, low fuel costs, low government support and warm climate and Bluegen is still very competitive. I think it is largely a marketing excercise in Australia, although it could provide some initial cashflow to get mass production supported in Europe.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2009)

TROUT323 said:


> Why would you do that if you could purchase a Bluegen for eight grand to do the same job. Do your own research.



The solar, once installed, is free for the next 25+ years although even then it's not really economic. The Bluegen has ongoing costs for gas that would likely increase over time. 

It's a lot more complicated than simply comparing capital costs.


----------



## bagasas (27 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The solar, once installed, is free for the next 25+ years although even then it's not really economic. The Bluegen has ongoing costs for gas that would likely increase over time.
> 
> It's a lot more complicated than simply comparing capital costs.




Also, solar has zero emissions and the sun won't run out, while BlueGen still produces CO2 and is dependent on a fossil fuel. It is a vast improvement on coal-fired power stations, but less of an improvement on the most modern gas-fired power stations, which can have an efficiency of 60%.


----------



## bagasas (27 May 2009)

ROE said:


> all hot air until they can show me the money
> 
> the figure of unit price they show are for victoria seem very cheap
> not sure it works with other cities...you need to look up the unit price for gas and electricity for each city
> ...




The important figure is the ratio of the cost of electricity to the cost of gas. The higher this ratio, the more cost-effective the BlueGen will be. I've just spent the last 15 minutes trying to find the retail cost of gas and electricity around the world, with little success. Can anyone else do any better?


----------



## fureien (28 May 2009)

lol u guys are making me lose confidence. personally i think it will do well. but we wont see any of that anytime soon. in terms of bluegen. i think cost of gas is a big issue. i do believe its efficiency and overall cheaper electricity is a big plus. it may not be say, an alternative or a better solution than solar energy, but if you replace coal stations with it at least thats a win win for everybody. i dont see solar panels replacing coal stations, i dont think they can feasibly handle as much output


----------



## brty (28 May 2009)

I've been following this development in fuel cell technology from the perspective point of a user. I have a need for a remote power source (pumping water). 

This device needs to be connected to power, natural gas and water? It needs yearly maintenance and a new fuel stack after 5 years, with a 'life' of about 15 years.
Seeing that the current govts solar subsidy is making solar arrays exceedingly cheap to install, yet millions have not bothered, why would those with electricity and gas already installed (no maintenance required) bother to buy this?? 

Those likely to want the clean and green, have probably already installed the solar panels using the govt subsidy.

I see great potential for the technology when they get it right, ie remote power or vehicular power.

Sorry to be a fly in the ointment.

brty


----------



## ROE (28 May 2009)

bugmenot said:


> Roe, in Australia we get very cheap hydrocarbon fuel compared to the main commercial markets for SOFC technology. This is part of the reason why CFU are focusing their efforts on UK, Europe and Japan. Climate and population are also obvious factors, aswell as government support.
> 
> If this unit can work in Australia with a ROI of 7 years then it is going to kick some serious **** in countries where most of those factors are positives (in Australia they are negatives).
> 
> We have low population, low fuel costs, low government support and warm climate and Bluegen is still very competitive. I think it is largely a marketing excercise in Australia, although it could provide some initial cashflow to get mass production supported in Europe.




Dont forget to read the fine print as well, you have to replace the cell every 5 years and they don't tell u how much it cost 

it could be another 5K who knows ..like I said sound good until they can show me they can make real money out of this, this stock still remain speculative at best and a lot of hot air media.


----------



## bugmenot (28 May 2009)

Guys, comparing solar panels to Bluegen is a bit ridiculous frankly. From a purely economic point of view, *subsidised* 1kw Solar Panels take between 2 and 3 times longer than a *non-subsidised *Bluegen to realise return on investment.... Yes, A Bluegen takes 7yrs and solar panels take 15-20 years with government free money, without government free money it can be up to 50yrs ROI....

Once CFU gets some government support those solar numbers will really become obsolete in my opinion. In fact this Choice article summarises that you are better off spending $4-$7 per week on "green" electricity than installing a solar array.

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticl...008&p=3&title=Solar+panels:+counting+the+cost


----------



## brty (28 May 2009)

> Once CFU gets some government support




Priceless, relying on govt support to hold up an investment. Better off going to the casino and betting on red or black.

When working out what the numbers are to me, the average mug punter, then the numbers given are not so rosy. Bluegen takes 20 hours startup time, so it is for continuous use, not just peak times. Solar arrays happen to produce electricity during the day (strange about that), during peak times. I pay for electricity at 2 separate rates, a high for peak periods and a low for off peak.

Seeing that the fuel cells are the heart of the bluegen device, I would expect them to be one of the more expensive replacement parts of the system. Replacing them at 5 years is likely to make the whole thing uneconomic, especially when you take into account of the opportunity cost of the $8,000 investment.

If they had brought to market a device that could be used remotely on lpg, (no electricity connection) the immediate market would have been large enough to enable further research. The only competition would have been expensive to run diesel generators, or expensive large solar arrays. 

Instead they have a product that is expensive, high maintenance, needs electricity, gas and water connected.......
..to produce electricity, at times that you ofter don't need it.

brty


----------



## basilio (28 May 2009)

Few more points to consider about CFU.

First electricity is much dearer overseas and the capacity to use the heat output more pronounced. (its colder in Japan and Norther Europe). As noted earlier that makes it an even better  economic proposition from a European perspective.  In fact a few years ago they seemed to announce a European model and rollout - but then nothing happened...

The fact that it runs all the time is not necessarily a problem. It just means that users will be selling surplus electricity to the grid. Hopefully this will be at a good price and not dirt cheap off peak rates.

One fly in the ointment is the life of the fuel stack.  Again a few ways to view this...
1) It represents  a significant cost to the customer which has to forked out every  5 years  and /or

2) It represents a substantial profit opportunity for CFU  (and the investors) who get to get a second and third crack at the customers to boost overall return on investment...

Thinking about the second scenario it should be understood that almost all whitegoods, electronic and motor industries have adopted  deliberate obsolescence practices in their products to keep up sales and profitability. For example the life span of refrigerators and  washing machines declined rapidly from the 60-'s to the 90's as robust  30 year construction was replaced by 5 and 7 year motors and gearboxes.

Similarly hot water systems up until the 70's were made from copper with an average life of around 25 years. The accountants decided that forcing people to change hotwater systems every 10 years was far more profitable for them so from the early 80's engineering systems were modified to ensure a maximum life of around 12-14 years (if you were lucky..).

Isn't progress wonderful ?

So the "limitations" of the ceramic fuel cell may be in the engineering but I'd be pretty confident that the same conflict between  the long term interest of the customer (and our society) versus the company also figure in the process. ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 May 2009)

basilio said:


> Similarly hot water systems up until the 70's were made from copper with an average life of around 25 years. The accountants decided that forcing people to change hotwater systems every 10 years was far more profitable for them so from the early 80's engineering systems were modified to ensure a maximum life of around 12-14 years (if you were lucky..).



Off topic but there's an easy way around this problem. Change the anode and flush the tank every 5 years and it ought to last quite a while.

Needless to say, the average consumer isn't told about this but it's all very simple. A new anode is worth less than $50 and the underlying principle of corrosion avoidance is used extensively to protect bridges, pipelines, ships and so on. Indeed it's what stops the water heater rusting during the warranty period - until it runs out and the consumer fails to replace it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 May 2009)

Fundamentally, Bluegen is a small gas power station located somewhere that the waste heat can be utilised. 

It's sensible only as long as it makes sense to be using gas to produce baseload electricity and/or heating. They might be common in 10 years time, but they won't likely be around in 100 years.


----------



## bagasas (28 May 2009)

bugmenot said:


> Guys, comparing solar panels to Bluegen is a bit ridiculous frankly. From a purely economic point of view, *subsidised* 1kw Solar Panels take between 2 and 3 times longer than a *non-subsidised *Bluegen to realise return on investment.... Yes, A Bluegen takes 7yrs and solar panels take 15-20 years with government free money, without government free money it can be up to 50yrs ROI....
> 
> Once CFU gets some government support those solar numbers will really become obsolete in my opinion. In fact this Choice article summarises that you are better off spending $4-$7 per week on "green" electricity than installing a solar array.
> 
> http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticl...008&p=3&title=Solar+panels:+counting+the+cost




That doesn't sound quite right. It appears you can buy a 2kW solar panel system for about $23K, or $15K after the government subsidy (eg. http://www.solazone.com.au/SOLPOWER.htm). That's about twice as much as the BlueGen. However, you don't have to pay for gas with the solar panel system, and maintenance costs are minimal. Also, if you take the long term view, once the solar panels have paid for themselves it's free energy from then on, while the BlueGen has to be replaced every 15yrs. Still, the BlueGen may be more attractive as it has a lower initial capital cost and it may still pay for itself faster, depending on the cost of gas and the cost of maintenance. What would really make it take off is if there were a substantial price decrease for the unit due to mass production.


----------



## bagasas (28 May 2009)

brty said:


> If they had brought to market a device that could be used remotely on lpg, (no electricity connection) the immediate market would have been large enough to enable further research. The only competition would have been expensive to run diesel generators, or expensive large solar arrays.
> 
> Instead they have a product that is expensive, high maintenance, needs electricity, gas and water connected.......
> ..to produce electricity, at times that you ofter don't need it.
> ...




The long startup time would be a problem, except that what you don't use of the 2kW is exported to the grid. This is the same principle as is used for solar cell systems, which then need not have expensive and limited lifetime storage batteries. When you are away from home, the BlueGen or solar panels continue working and you make a profit selling electricity to the utility company. If the economics is right, you could in theory set up your own micro power station business. On the other hand, when you are home and have all your electrical devices going at once, you take and pay for extra current from the grid.


----------



## MACCA350 (28 May 2009)

bagasas said:


> That doesn't sound quite right. It appears you can buy a 2kW solar panel system for about $23K, or $15K after the government subsidy



Don't forget that the solar panels only generate while the sun is out and less than their rated kW when there is cloud cover, the BluGen will output rated kW 24/7.

cheers


----------



## MACCA350 (28 May 2009)

bagasas said:


> The long startup time would be a problem, except that what you don't use of the 2kW is exported to the grid. This is the same principle as is used for solar cell systems, which then need not have expensive and limited lifetime storage batteries. When you are away from home, the BlueGen or solar panels continue working and you make a profit selling electricity to the utility company. If the economics is right, you could in theory set up your own micro power station business. On the other hand, when you are home and have all your electrical devices going at once, you take and pay for extra current from the grid.



That's why you look at it over a year, CFU mentioned that the BlueGen would produce about twice the average household electricity usage.

I think anyone planning on using the BlueGen would try to use it at it's full efficiency potential and utilise the hot water generated to supplement their current hot water service
I've already been looking at other methods of home heating and one is water heating in the floor, simply plumb the BlueGen into the system and you can use the heat for better efficiency.

cheers


----------



## bagasas (29 May 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> Don't forget that the solar panels only generate while the sun is out and less than their rated kW when there is cloud cover, the BluGen will output rated kW 24/7.
> 
> cheers




Yes, that's a point. The average power output per day of the 2kW solar array would be much less than 2kW.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2009)

bagasas said:


> Yes, that's a point. The average power output per day of the 2kW solar array would be much less than 2kW.



Realistically 2900 - 3700 kWh per annum from the 2kW solar panels versus 17,500 from 2kW baseload generation from any source (eg the Bluegen).

That said, running the Bluegen baseload 24/7 only works as long as the idea doesn't become too popular. It falls in a hole big time in terms of overall system generation and primary energy supply if scaled up beyond reasonable limits. Same applies to grid-connected solar, although in practice it's less likely the limits would actually be reached.


----------



## basilio (29 May 2009)

> That said, running the Bluegen baseload 24/7 only works as long as the idea doesn't become too popular. It falls in a hole big time in terms of overall system generation and primary energy supply if scaled up beyond reasonable limits. Same applies to grid-connected solar, although in practice it's less likely the limits would actually be reached.




One big change that could occur in the next few years would be rapid rise in electric vehicles which would look for off peak recharging.  Would fit in nicely with a Bluegen system either in the home or as a means of boosting off peak electricity supply . (which of course doesn't need boosting...)


----------



## ems (29 May 2009)

I bought 8000 @ 0.27 on a few days back so have been hit with the recent falls....With the announcement of the Bluegen last week I wonder why it has fallen by so much. Any ideas?


----------



## craigj (29 May 2009)

the price has dropped because a lot of people are taking profits or selling shares they purchased at 5c in the capital raising

i think about this company long term and see the falling price as an opportunity to buy more shares


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2009)

basilio said:


> One big change that could occur in the next few years would be rapid rise in electric vehicles which would look for off peak recharging.  Would fit in nicely with a Bluegen system either in the home or as a means of boosting off peak electricity supply . (which of course doesn't need boosting...)



Possible though I'd see a move to gas powered vehicles and a global repricing of gas as a transport fuel as far more likely. Both of those points are already a lot more "market ready" than electric cars, and the move towards gas price globalisation has been gaining momentum for years (already a reality in WA, hence the renewed interest in coal-fired power generation).


----------



## bagasas (29 May 2009)

ems said:


> I bought 8000 @ 0.27 on a few days back so have been hit with the recent falls....With the announcement of the Bluegen last week I wonder why it has fallen by so much. Any ideas?




Who can say what its true value should be? You can't get a P/E ratio or compare it to what similar companies are trading at. With such speculative stocks the price tends to fluctuate wildly when there is any news, and in the case of CFU I suspect that a lot of day traders got on for the ride, decided it had hit the top, then sold out. I expect it will drift along in a range to be established over the next few days until the next announcement.


----------



## sydneysider (29 May 2009)

I did a simple cost analysis on our useage of electricity and gas. This is for an Atlanta (USA) area home with 4,500 square feet of space heated and cooled on two levels. Our peak gas useage in winter was $150 more (around $380 for month) than our peak AC/ electric useage in summer. So gas is more expensive than electricity (8 U.S. cents per KWH). 

There are very inexpensive ways to cut down on gas useage. One way to do this is to replace the gas heated water tank with a tankless system. This step cuts gas consumption by about 50% to the water heater and results in a saving of about $25 per month. System costs are around $500 and can come with a 10 year guarantee. Over 10 years you save about $3,000 before inflation and installation costs. 

CFU is proposing that you install a complex A$8,000 plant that needs maintenance and battery replacement within 5 years AND I assume burns more expensive gas. I do not know about warranties or operational history / efficiency of such as system and assume that it will be some time before any of these issues are known to consumers.  It all sounds very expensive and complex when compared with the substantial savings of a tankless system which just happens to also substantially cut your carbon footprint. 

Using such a system in the USA based on current pricing and above comments makes no sense. It would be interesting to know how many therms of gas it takes to produce 1 KWH of electricity? Then would give us a better idea of the economics of this type of technology. The exhibited plant is also advertized as plugged up to an ancient technology tank water heater. IF the technology were so advanced you would think that they would plug it up to a tankless system? None of which makes any sense.

I understand that according to recent press releases the technology was tested and dropped by one European utility. It will be interesting to see what happens next? 

The fact that the technology is so expensive seems to be a very limiting factor. What would happen if the batteries or system failed? You would go completely dark. My sense is that CFU has too many unanswered questions floating around it to draw any meaningful conclusion. Warren Buffet once said that if you cannot understand something then stay away. This might explain why the recent massive placements were done at 5 cents and not higher. 

On technical/ charting grounds many of the signals have turned down such as OBV, stochastics and MACD.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 May 2009)

sydneysider said:


> Using such a system in the USA based on current pricing and above comments makes no sense. It would be interesting to know how many therms of gas it takes to produce 1 KWH of electricity? Then would give us a better idea of the economics of this type of technology. The exhibited plant is also advertized as plugged up to an ancient technology tank water heater. IF the technology were so advanced you would think that they would plug it up to a tankless system? None of which makes any sense.



I'm better with the technical (electrical) than the share price charts so I'll offer a few comments.

1 kWh is by definition 3.6 MJ (megajoules) of energy. In Australia, gas is sold in MJ so that makes calculation easy (gas is sold under different systems of measurement in different countries).

At the claimed 60% efficiency of converting gas to electricity, it would thus require 6 MJ of gas to produce 1 kWh of electricity. 

You'd need to check local prices to work out the economics of that but in Australia gas (wholesale or retail) is generally quite a bit cheaper than electricity in the same situation (wholesale, retail) so converting gas into electricity is, on paper at least, profitable on a day to day basis (ignoring capital costs of equipment). It's still viable to build new baseload gas-fired power stations in Australia for this reason.

Main reason for the cheap gas is that Australia is still on the up ramp of gas production with production capacity exceeding domestic consumption and available export (LNG) capacity. That will all change once enough LNG plants or built, production peaks or domestic demand rises - then we'll end up with international gas prices that are higher than typical Australian prices. That situation already exists to some extent in Western Australia but not the other states (noting that there is no gas pipeline between WA and any other state and that WA is Australia's dominant gas producing and LNG exporting state).

As for the water heater, that relates to the means of operation. The heat produced is a by-product of power generation and is produced at a relatively constant rate throughout the day. In rough terms, I'd estimate that about 0.85 kW of heat is extracted which is nothing compared to the typical 40 kW output capacity (from 50 kW gas input at 80% efficiency) of a continuous flow (known as tankless in the US) domestic water heater. Hence producing the hot water slowly and storing it for when it's needed is the only practical option here. 

For reference, a typical electric water heater with a tank would have an input of 1 to 6 kW with ratings of 3.6 or 4.8 kW being very common in Australia for tanks connected to off-peak electricity. 

It's worth noting that this concept of generating power and having heat as a by-product applies to all power stations that burn fuel or nuclear. Large (or small) scale coal, oil, gas, wood, nuclear etc plants all produce massive amounts of by-product heat. Only problem is there's not much use for it all in the one location, hence it's generally regarded as waste and disposed of via those huge concrete cooling towers many people commonly associate with power stations. 

Only those processes that do not start with heat, such as hydro or wind power, do not produce large amounts of waste heat (though there is still some, it's just not enough to be either useful or a problem to get rid of). Some of the older hydro plants just let the heat into the building and they literally leave the windows open to keep the inside temperature reasonable. But you'd never be able to do that with the huge amounts of heat from coal, nucelar etc.

Even your car engine is much the same. It produces mechanical power with heat as a by-product. You use a small amount of that heat to warm the interior of the vehicle with the rest going to waste.


----------



## fureien (31 May 2009)

this stock is begining to make a real dent in my portfolio. im already down 30%. i keep holding cause i see long term potential and the buying volume is still high. how it keeps dropping is beyond me


----------



## Hedders (31 May 2009)

fureien said:


> this stock is begining to make a real dent in my portfolio. im already down 30%. i keep holding cause i see long term potential and the buying volume is still high. how it keeps dropping is beyond me




Same for me- it's a real drag just now. It's too volatile to see any trend other than spikes when good news comes out. It'll probably be that way until real sales of the hardware start coming in large volumes


----------



## sydneysider (31 May 2009)

Smurf1976,

The other interesting issue that is lacking in commentary are the installation and management/ maintenance costs. Three/four sets of tradesmen are required to instal such a system. (1) As the unit deals with water, gas and electricity and gives off heat it will require venting systems for gas and heat. Typically tank water heaters have a heat vent off the top that goes to the outside of the dwelling and the gas unit will also require venting. Possibly also requires some sort of floor seal and drain around the unit if it sprang a water leak (2) electrical connections to the whole house probably require some sort of control or fuse box and extensive wiring? (3) gas connections to the unit
(4) some sort of maintenance contract to make sure it operates at 100% all of the time. What happens if it fails? (5) Battery management as even CFU says they have a 5 year life. Do they gradually die down like a power bulb in a movie projector or just shut down on a hot day like a bad car battery? (6)
I suspect that all of this may require a building permit from local authorities and inspection on completion? 

How much cost does all of this add to the unit cost. Other issues that may get raised include house insurance adjustments etc?


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 May 2009)

sydneysider said:


> Smurf1976,
> 
> The other interesting issue that is lacking in commentary are the installation and management/ maintenance costs. Three/four sets of tradesmen are required to instal such a system. (1) As the unit deals with water, gas and electricity and gives off heat it will require venting systems for gas and heat. Typically tank water heaters have a heat vent off the top that goes to the outside of the dwelling and the gas unit will also require venting. Possibly also requires some sort of floor seal and drain around the unit if it sprang a water leak (2) electrical connections to the whole house probably require some sort of control or fuse box and extensive wiring? (3) gas connections to the unit
> (4) some sort of maintenance contract to make sure it operates at 100% all of the time. What happens if it fails? (5) Battery management as even CFU says they have a 5 year life. Do they gradually die down like a power bulb in a movie projector or just shut down on a hot day like a bad car battery? (6)
> ...



It will depend on local regulations but:

1. A "smart" electricity meter to accommodate import and export from the grid. The electricity utility will supply this, with installation by either them or an electrician depending on location (state, country according to local rules).

2. Plumbing connections. In Australia, many plumbers will be able to do both gas and electrical but that's not always the case. Likewise the vents could also be installed by a plumber. 

3. The water tank will require a base and drain if installed anywhere where a leak would cause property damage.

4. Electrical connection from the unit back to the switchboard and some work in the switchboard as well.

5. Possibly some building work to accommodate wherever it is located. In most cases that wouldn't be necessary but it depends on th specific circumstances.

That's assuming the property already has water, gas and electricity connected.

As for the likely consumer uptake in practice, well I'll just say a few things and let you judge for yourself.

A. Right now it's possible for anyone with a taxable income under $100K in Australia to get a 1kW solar (electric) system supplied and installed free or very close to it due to government rebates. Despite this, the vast majority of eligible people have not applied.

B. Similar with solar hot water. A reasonable idea given the rebates but electric water heating still dominates with gas accounting for most of the rest.

C. Energy saving globes have been around since the 1980's. It took legislation to force people to use them despite the financial and environmental advantages.

D. Diesel engines have always been far more efficient than petrol. Yet despite various oil crises, concern about climate change and the cost of fuel, most cars on the road in Australia are petrol powered. That varies in some countries however - generally those where petrol costs a lot.

So my point here is that even if it stacks up on paper, that doesn't mean consumers will adopt the technology unless forced. And the nature of this device is that it isn't suitable for installation in all situations, thus making it difficult to force consumers to use it.

Half of Australian homes don't have gas connected to start with. And if you look at a country like France, New Zealand or the US then from a national energy / policy / strategic perspective they're not likely to want to shift a large portion of power generation to gas no matter what the generation technology. Such a move just wouldn't make sense no matter how you look at it. Russia and the Middle East dominate global gas reserves, the US has diminishing gas resources but heaps of coal, Europe depends on imports (hence France with all those nuclear plants), places like NZ are heavily reliant on renewables (mostly hydro) and looking to increase that further.

Only real exception to all of this is heating in cooler climates. Most homes in Victoria, Tasmania or colder parts of Europe have reasonably economical heating systems. And that comes down to the outright running cost - if it costs $2000 a year to run then consumers will scrap it in favour of something cheaper but if it's only $500 then they won't bother no matter what the efficiency or possible % savings. Hence oil heaters died out quickly in cooler climates when prices rose but incandescent lights are still with us today and solar water heating struggles to gain market share after half a century of development and marketing. Likewise taxi drivers run LPG or in some countries diesel but ordinary motorists aren't as interested and nobody bothers with, for example, trying to make a lawnmower more fuel efficient - it comes down to actual costs not some possible % saving.

Overall, yes I can see a market for this technology. But go forward 20 years and I'm very confident that the vast majority of global electricity generation will be from coal, nuclear, hydro and large scale gas-fired plants with non-hydro renewables accounting for most of the rest.

Look at the situation in the EU. With increasing reliance on imported gas, they're just not going to deliberately rely almost entirely on it for everything. They'll either make renewables work somehow, go back to coal or build a whole lot of nuclear plants. Most likely we'll see some of each.

Looking at Australia, we're not likely to burn all the gas at home when coal's a lot cheaper and international buyers are willing to pay an increasing price for LNG. We'll build some gas-fired plants until prices rise, then we'll focus on coal, renewables and possibly nuclear. Gas is a major power source (as a % of the total) in WA, NT and SA but it won't likely end up that way in Qld, NSW or Vic unless someone finds a truly massive gas field that nobody's seriously expecting. 

And Tas will just keep pushing on with renewables as it's done for the past 116 years, a situation driven by local resource availability and economics rather than CO2 etc. Tas is actually a pretty good place to demonstrate all of this. No known commercial oil or gas and very little (poor quality) coal. But there's a massive world class wind resource, millions of tonnes of wood going to waste and still more untapped hydro than the entire Snowy scheme. Looks like there's some good prospects for geothermal too. Now, with all of that do you honestly believe we're about to start spending a fortune on imported gas? Short term yes, it's an easy and reasonably chap (for now) way out of the present power generation shortfall given the time it takes to develop renewables. But it's long been the plan to get out of it or offload the risk onto some unsuspecting investment bank before it gets expensive. 

There's a market for Bluegen yes, but it's a supplement to centralised generation and not a replacement for it unless you're in someplace where it makes sense to run everything on gas and there's a use for the heat.


----------



## newanimal (31 May 2009)

Any thoughts on the technical picture? Looks to have made a very steep run from the second week of May from about .08 to .28 breaking two resistance points and has  retraced about 50% of that now at support bout .15.


----------



## S73417H (31 May 2009)

newanimal said:


> Any thoughts on the technical picture? Looks to have made a very steep run from the second week of May from about .08 to .28 breaking two resistance points and has  retraced about 50% of that now at support bout .15.




I have a buy on this stock at 0.15 but I would also love to know other opinions of this stock from a technical side of things. If it blows through 0.15 looks like it will probably drop another 2/3 all the way down to 0.10. 

Thoughts, comments?


----------



## bagasas (31 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Looking at Australia, we're not likely to burn all the gas at home when coal's a lot cheaper and international buyers are willing to pay an increasing price for LNG. We'll build some gas-fired plants until prices rise, then we'll focus on coal, renewables and possibly nuclear. Gas is a major power source (as a % of the total) in WA, NT and SA but it won't likely end up that way in Qld, NSW or Vic unless someone finds a truly massive gas field that nobody's seriously expecting.




There are truly massive gas reserves in Australia which have only recently started to be appreciated: coal seam gas in Queensland and NSW. Most of these reserves are yet to be certified. Arrow Energy, for example, estimate that they control 70,000 petajoules of CSG. For comparison, the North West Shelf has 40,000 petajoules of gas. The various LNG projects have been proposed because the gas can be produced much faster than the Australian population can consume it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 June 2009)

bagasas said:


> There are truly massive gas reserves in Australia which have only recently started to be appreciated: coal seam gas in Queensland and NSW. Most of these reserves are yet to be certified. Arrow Energy, for example, estimate that they control 70,000 petajoules of CSG. For comparison, the North West Shelf has 40,000 petajoules of gas. The various LNG projects have been proposed because the gas can be produced much faster than the Australian population can consume it.



Indeed that is true.

But the aim of current thinking is simply to get the gas out of the ground as fast as possible so as to maximise shareholder returns. They're not going to sell it cheaply for domestic use when there's the option of LNG. 

What they'll almost certainly do is price domestic sales at the world market price for LNG less the cost to produce LNG from raw natural gas.

An example with another commodity illustrates the point. If I have 1000 tonnes of wood then that's worth $100,000 as cut firewood delivered to households or $100 per tonne. If it costs me $60,000 to employ someone to cut and transport the wood, then the wood I have "as is" is worth the remaining $40,000 or $40 per tonne. OK so far...

Now let's say the market price of fire wood doubles to $200 per tonne. Now my wood is worth $200,000 on the market less $60,000 to get it there. Hence my uncut wood "as is" is now worth $140,000 or $140 per tonne.

Bottom line is if that situation happened then I'm not going to be selling anyone wood for $40 once I've got the option of selling for $140. The only way I'd agree to sell it cheaply is if I had no other way of selling it.

Same with the gas companies. At the moment they can't sell all they can produce and it's been that way for 40 years, hence it's cheap. 

But let them build a lot of LNG plants and all of a sudden you'll find that the value of gas for domestic sales is now set by the international value of LNG. They're not going to sell it to you for $3 if it's worth $5, $10 or $20 going into the LNG plant, now are they? That situation has already arisen in WA.

Same with any commodity. You only get it below international pricing if there's a transport bottleneck giving rise to an isolated domestic market. The more LNG plants are built, the more that gets removed.

Now here's the bit of speculation on my part. I note that Russia dominates global gas reserves with Middle East countries coming next. This situation is intensifying with the depletion of EU, US etc reserves.

Now, does someone having an effective monopoly sell their product cheaply? I'm willing to bet that the answer is "no" and that gas ends up going the same way as oil did in the 1970's. With diminishing competition, the Russians etc aren't likely to sell cheap. If that happens and enough LNG plants get approval then Australian producers won't be selling cheap either.


----------



## newanimal (1 June 2009)

I'm new to using market depth. Buy orders below last price and sell orders above seems to me only half the picture. Anycase, givin that info I see market depth heavily weighted to the buy side. With that added to the picture, I'm putting a buy in at .155. Guess we'll see.


----------



## adobee (12 June 2009)

Getting a fair bit of interest again following a big retrace could look to push up again with the strength of buyers... I think there are alot of traders on this one though....


----------



## Knobby22 (12 June 2009)

adobee said:


> Getting a fair bit of interest again following a big retrace could look to push up again with the strength of buyers... I think there are alot of traders on this one though....




There are some traders but the way the pullback occurred and the solid buying shows that there are plenty of investors also. You need to be a bit of a trader in this stock as it is so volatile.

The next swing should get us near 40c imho.


----------



## adobee (12 June 2009)

Well I have taken an entry at 18c.. I will be happy to take around 26c if it can push out early next week..


----------



## andione1983 (12 June 2009)

adobee said:


> Well I have taken an entry at 18c.. I will be happy to take around 26c if it can push out early next week..




 i got in at 25c a couple of weeks ago when this was up 30% or so, so im just hoping to make my money back lol


----------



## Hedders (12 June 2009)

I got in at a similar amount (23 cents). I know it only climbed 2.5 cents today, but that's a whole lot better than the caning it's had of late! Can anyone see anything promising from the charts?


----------



## S73417H (14 June 2009)

Hedders said:


> I got in at a similar amount (23 cents). I know it only climbed 2.5 cents today, but that's a whole lot better than the caning it's had of late! Can anyone see anything promising from the charts?




I too wouldn't mind seeing what some chartists think of this one. Anyone out there have some input?


----------



## M34N (14 June 2009)

Had CFU on my watch list since they were brought to my attention by a fellow workmate a few months ago. From my analysis, it seems to have found a nice solid base at 15 cents in the past couple weeks, and held on. Friday was a nice up day with some solid volume behind it; looks like to me that it is potentially heading back up towards 25-30c range, so looking for some weakness in the next few days to jump on board. My only worry is it's still in a major downtrend (for the past 2+ years) and yet to breach that, but something is telling me it has potential to take off 

3-year and 3-month charts (attached below) tell the story, and the 3 month chart looks pretty bullish IMO, and EMA looks positive.


----------



## rhen (14 June 2009)

G'Day
Seeing no one else has (oops...just saw M34N...did I take so long!), I'll put my charts up with the understanding:
1. On the charts the 1 is a first stage (for me) buy and the 3 is a warning of a buy on the horizon. The 2 and 4 turn off the buy call...they are not a sell.
2. These are my programmed indicators so treat them as such, as reason to watch for other signs that the share is ready to rise.
3. My second stage analysis is necessary before I decide to buy. My indicators have been reasonably accurate...just wish I could follow more, or have fewer to follow. They are not infallible (goes w/o saying).
4. Had a beautiful call on BCI recently (but, of course, did not buy).

I came in for a second stab at CFU too.

Oh, and please note what Etrade, in the Co. profile says:
"Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd (CFU) is a company which develops solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology to provide reliable, energy efficient, high quality, and low-emission electricity from widely available natural gas and renewable fuels."
Notice the last 2 words...not just natural gas. Another source of income for our embattled farmers???
Barring overseas' problems intervening, the charts' forecast are positive. But, it takes much more than positive charts to be a winner.


----------



## Boyou (14 June 2009)

It is encouraging to see that someone is doing charts on this stock ..wasn't too long ago they were copmpletely off the radar.

Thanks M34N AND rhen for posting these.I don't do or follow charts,but take note of any info which leads to understanding.

Crucial to the rapid movement of CFU is a deal with one or more of the utility companies in Europe or Asia.Have no up to date info on the manufacturing plant in Germany,but ,assuming it is on track for production..the Ducks would all be lining up nicely for a surge...if such a deal were locked in.Too bad about the NUON pullout... but that leaves a few other players.

Cheers ,Ya'll


----------



## rhen (14 June 2009)

Hedders said:


> I got in at a similar amount (23 cents). I know it only climbed 2.5 cents today, but that's a whole lot better than the caning it's had of late! Can anyone see anything promising from the charts?




The caning was predictable.
When you are feeling uncomfortable about CFU, try this
http://www.brr.com.au/event/58216

It works for me...and that's not beginning to cover all the possibilities of this great little Aussie machine. Anyhow, 2010 should be a big year. Who knows where this goes! (hopefully not stolen).


----------



## S73417H (14 June 2009)

Thanks for the charting insight guys. Much appreciated. Generally speaking I approach technologies such as these with some skepticism, but it just looks so polished. Time to take a punt I think.


----------



## rhen (14 June 2009)

S73417H said:


> Thanks for the charting insight guys. Much appreciated. Generally speaking I approach technologies such as these with some skepticism, but it just looks so polished. Time to take a punt I think.



Thank you S73417H.
May I suggest you (go to a library to) read relevant chapters from many fine technical charting books and then (if you haven't already done so) decide if you are a "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs; a doubter". It's important to know what the _accepted beliefs_ are. 
I've just read a little book by an Aussie girl, Justine Pollard, and, as a start, it's got a message (imo) for skeptics of technical charting.

Vive la difference...

I hope you are right...about the time, that is.


----------



## S73417H (14 June 2009)

rhen said:


> Thank you S73417H.
> May I suggest you (go to a library to) read relevant chapters from many fine technical charting books and then (if you haven't already done so) decide if you are a "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs; a doubter". It's important to know what the _accepted beliefs_ are.
> I've just read a little book by an Aussie girl, Justine Pollard, and, as a start, it's got a message (imo) for skeptics of technical charting.
> 
> ...




Cheers rhen, although, I think you may have jumped to conclusions just a tad. Whilst admittedly I am no expert, I do apply technical analysis in my trades (along with fundamental). Several books by Michael Kahn and Michael Saul have been particularly helpful to me, and I would recommend their works to any investor.

As far as being a "doubter" or otherwise... I'd like to think I apply enough logical thinking to fall under the other category. 

These forums are great because one can do their own research and then use the research of others as a bit of extra validation.

Whilst we are on the topic of books, I highly recommend Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely. It's a fantastic read which offers some insight into the way humans think, and some of the social economic factors that shape our decision making.


----------



## Hedders (15 June 2009)

rhen said:


> The caning was predictable.
> When you are feeling uncomfortable about CFU, try this
> http://www.brr.com.au/event/58216
> 
> It works for me...and that's not beginning to cover all the possibilities of this great little Aussie machine. Anyhow, 2010 should be a big year. Who knows where this goes! (hopefully not stolen).




Thanks for the info and the charts, Rhen- much appreciated. Thanks for your charts too, M34N. CFU looks like one to watch for sure. I didn't realise that it didn't have to run on just gas either.


----------



## bagasas (15 June 2009)

Hedders said:


> Thanks for the info and the charts, Rhen- much appreciated. Thanks for your charts too, M34N. CFU looks like one to watch for sure. I didn't realise that it didn't have to run on just gas either.




It can use natural gas, LPG, biogas or ethanol according to the product information. Biogas is actually mostly methane, same as natural gas.

http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/BlueGen_Launch_Information_(Web)_May-2009.pdf


----------



## M34N (15 June 2009)

FWIW guys, I took a long position on this one this morning at $0.18, strong volume again convinced me to do it. Here's hoping!


----------



## Boyou (17 June 2009)

Seems to be edging back up.Heartening to see it hold on to its daily high.
I would rather a steady climb..albeit with some falls than the Yo yo of pump 'n dump 

Volume of around 14 mil is still respectable.


----------



## MACCA350 (17 June 2009)

Boyou said:


> Seems to be edging back up.Heartening to see it hold on to its daily high.
> I would rather a steady climb..albeit with some falls than the Yo yo of pump 'n dump
> 
> Volume of around 14 mil is still respectable.



I've been hoping it would fall over the last few days so I could pick up another parcel, but it's not following the market trend ..........good for my current holding, not so good for me wanting to pick up a bunch more

Kicking myself now I didn't take up the 5c entitlement

cheers


----------



## Boyou (17 June 2009)

Macca.I know a decision on when to buy is as personal as each individuals expectations and targets BUT...CFU may never be cheaper than now.

Will you be kicking yourself harder if you don't get in at the current price?

Not advocating anything ,just observing the" benefit of hindsight perspective" you show.
I bought my first parcel way up in the 90 cents ..got some more in the rights issue at 5 cents..took another look at all the facts and now have averaged down to 30cents break even.
Sure my timing was anything but impecable,but I don't mind a punt


----------



## Boyou (18 June 2009)

Continuing to buck the trend of a falling market.
And adding to the gains of yesterday at 21 cents...  with good volume.

For those interested here is a link to Peak Energy Blog.Fills in a  few gaps about where the competition is in relation to CFU

http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/03/cogeneration-at-home-ceramic-fuel-cells.html

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## M34N (18 June 2009)

Boyou said:


> Continuing to buck the trend of a falling market.
> And adding to the gains of yesterday at 21 cents...  with good volume.
> 
> For those interested here is a link to Peak Energy Blog.Fills in a  few gaps about where the competition is in relation to CFU
> ...




Yeah this one has been doing well for me lately, still think it has a bit further to run. Had a feeling this one would out-perform, their volume has been unusual, obvious sign to me is that the volume spikes on up days versus the lower volumes on down days; signaling that there may be some solid accumulation going on. And no news to cause this movement? Hmmm.


----------



## MACCA350 (26 June 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The vast majority of coal-fired capacity in Vic is operating at 27 - 30% thermal efficiency with only one plant lower than that range.
> 
> It might not sound like much, but 30% efficiency is 20% better than 25% when you do all the maths...



I was just reading through the Bluegen FAQ sheet and they show how they worked out their percentages on page 4

Basically 65-70% loss at the station to heat plus 5-8% loss over transmission lines for 22-30% efficiency at the home

Bluegen(page 5) is 50-60% efficient + 25-30% if you use the heat (since it' produced at the home there's no loss over transmission lines). CFU state up to 85% efficiency.

Output is 48kWh electricity + 200L hot water per day at a cost(inc gas+maintinance) of $5.33 per day. Take off the input tariff for excess electricity produced of 28kWh@16.5c/kWh=$4.62 from the total running costs(not inc initial outlay) and you have a cost of 71c per day for all your electricity and hot water needs(based on their figures) or $65 per quarter compared to $330(not inc cost of hot water)

Personally I was hoping for cost neutral(or positive) outcome but it's pretty close, and if you use less than what they used for their figures then you could be cost neutral, or if you also used solar panels to produce 4.3kWh per day(which would only need a 500W unit) you would be cost neutral.

cheers


----------



## MACCA350 (26 June 2009)

Silly 20min edit timeout..........

Here's my edit:

I was just reading through the Bluegen FAQ sheet and they show how they worked out their percentages on page 4

Basically 65-70% loss at the station to heat plus 5-8% loss over transmission lines for 22-30% efficiency at the home

Bluegen(page 5) is 50-60% efficient + 25-30% if you use the heat (since it' produced at the home there's no loss over transmission lines). CFU state up to 85% efficiency.

Output is 48kWh electricity + 200L hot water per day at a cost(inc gas+maintinance) of $5.33 per day. Take off the input tariff for excess electricity produced of 28kWh@16.5c/kWh=$4.62 from thetotal running costs(not inc initial outlay) and you have a cost of 71c per day for all your electricity and hot water needs(based on their figures) or $65 per quarter compared to $330(not inc cost of hot water)

*Say your hot water currently costs $50 per quarter, you will save about 83% on your electricity and hot water costs(not inc the $8k outlay for the BlueGen unit, which would be a 6.3 year payback)*

Personally I was hoping for cost neutral(or positive) outcome but it's pretty close, and if you use *4.3kWh/day* less than what they used for their figures then you *w*ould be cost neutral, or if you also used solar panels to produce 4.3kWh per day(which *may* only need about a 500W unit) you would be cost neutral.

cheers


----------



## antzlovinit (3 July 2009)

So when did CFU say the manufacture plant will open (the one in germany)?
I remember reading october somewhere but that was a while back. Hmm wonder if they share price will skyrocket. Anyone possibly know when the plant will open?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 July 2009)

If you read the latest appendix 4C, plant completion is still October this year. 
I believe it will won't be until Christmas that the plant will be able to operate at full capacity.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

So where is thing headed? It bumps between 15.5c and 17c on a regular basis. What is the factory gonna do other than "allegedly" produce the units themselves? Why Germany? Would it not be cheaper in China?

Any other announcements other than that on the horizon? How about a nice big fat contract for twenty million units to heat houses and generate electricity from the Brits? That would have to give it a kick?


----------



## DVEOUS (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> ... Why Germany? Would it not be cheaper in China?



IMO, it makes perfect sense to manufacture in Germany, IF they intended to target EU customers, and ship direct from factory to customers/distributors, without warehousing back in Australia.

German workmanship is hard to beat to, except for perhaps the Japanese.
They _should_ have won the war, but let's not go there!!!
China wouldn't know what "quality" was, even if it bit them on the bum. Many Chinese I have spoken to (when in China) regard their own locally made stuff as crap!


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Thank you DVEOUS. "Made in Germany" does have certain ring to it. And as far as the EU clientelle go it makes perfect sense for distribution etc. point of view. Looking at all their recent statements has not filled me with a great deal of joy. Show me a signed contract/purchase order. NIL.


----------



## MACCA350 (19 July 2009)

I called the head office to enquire about purchasing a BlueGen unit and have added to their early notice list. They expect to have production units available early next year.

cheers


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

*thanks Macca350* for the update. Can you order another twenty million or so just for comedy purposes to get this baby up and running?


----------



## MACCA350 (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> *thanks Macca350* for the update. Can you order another twenty million or so just for comedy purposes to get this baby up and running?



Why.........did you loose all your cash on the pokies:

......I wish mate, if I had that much cash I'd be sipping tequila on my own island

Still think this mob has a good future, my father is considering contacting CFU about using their units(or the larger units) in his private schools eco project(or something like that) he believes ceramic fuels have a big place in our eco friendly future.

cheers


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Bwahahahahahaaahahha a haaah ahha ... no, just the shirt off my back.

I reckon they are onto something here. Anything that generates heat and puts electicity back into the grid has got to be good for the environment. All in the size of a washing machine to boot. Way of the future ...no doubt !

Just annoyed that someone is having a HUGE buy in at 15c and dropping a bundle at 17c. And it's not me ! Boo hoo.


----------



## berbouy (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> So where is thing headed? It bumps between 15.5c and 17c on a regular basis. What is the factory gonna do other than "allegedly" produce the units themselves? Why Germany? Would it not be cheaper in China?
> 
> trainspotter, i recall seeing this spike up to about 24cents recently, where it got traded pretty heavily for a while, before settling into this range-certainly in my eyes has some upside with its green credentials, and that is a large potential market in europe-i believe they have an agreement with e.on (uk) in place, and once production starts ,hopefully the product will catch on in a big way-e.on is a large energy entity in uk, so they must see some merit in bluegen-cheers


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Thanks berbuoy. How recent was 24 cents? I jumped in at 18c on the downslide. Got to admit the concept really caught my eye. I reckon once they can actually mass produce these things and evidence the ecological benefits then all of Europe will want one. But alas. I will wait until then and place them in the bottom drawer for the moment.


----------



## MACCA350 (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Bwahahahahahaaahahha a haaah ahha ... no, just the shirt off my back.







> I reckon they are onto something here. Anything that generates heat and puts electicity back into the grid has got to be good for the environment. All in the size of a washing machine to boot. Way of the future ...no doubt !



Certainly hope so, though I think it will have a bigger market in europe than here in aus



> Just annoyed that someone is having a HUGE buy in at 15c and dropping a bundle at 17c. And it's not me ! Boo hoo.



Smartypants eh.........I was watching them climb and bought a bunch more at 20c......then the market dropped now sitting about 10% ahead overall

cheers


----------



## berbouy (19 July 2009)

trainspotter, it was on the product launch , about 23rd may -there was some big volume for a couple of days-perhaps some instos got on board with the new product launch.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Any reason for the drop? I read/heard/braille that they had dumped a lot of money into some country or another whose economy went KAPUT ?


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

berbouy said:


> trainspotter, it was on the product launch , about 23rd may -there was some big volume for a couple of days-perhaps some instos got on board with the new product launch.




Thanks berbuoy. Heated at the launch only to settle back to reality by the sounds of that ! Was kinda hoping that it would start to show signs of a pulse about now. MID JULY that is.


----------



## suhm (19 July 2009)

Been looking at this one for awhile, there was a whole page on it in the age today (an advertising feature though and seemed to just rehash stuff from their announcements), it seems like a good idea and provides baseload power as welld but 8k seems like a lot for people to fork out to retrofit their existing homes. 

It might have a place for new estates though.


----------



## berbouy (19 July 2009)

pulse may quicken a bit as news of the production startup gets closer- and if the company updates holders of its progress with eon and other euro and japanese power interests-hopefully an interesting 6 months ahead for cfu-good luck if you still hold ....


----------



## bagasas (19 July 2009)

suhm said:


> Been looking at this one for awhile, there was a whole page on it in the age today (an advertising feature though and seemed to just rehash stuff from their announcements), it seems like a good idea and provides baseload power as welld but 8k seems like a lot for people to fork out to retrofit their existing homes.
> 
> It might have a place for new estates though.




I just don't think a lot of people will buy it for $8000 (plus maintenance and installation costs, plus the the cost of replacing the ceramic core every 5 years and a complete new unit every 15 years, plus the cost of a water boiler if you want to avail yourself of that as well). It would have to be not much more expensive than a conventional hot water service to have a high take-up rate, or else be very heavily subsidised by the Government.


----------



## berbouy (19 July 2009)

It might have a place for new estates though


having been involved on large estates in the building game in europe, i have seen first hand the huge push towards green alternatives and energy efficiency-and many of the uk estates for example have thousands of new homes under construction;and the mega builders over there like barratt-wimpey-persimmon etc build or plan to build hundreds of thousands of homes - new homes are massive business over in europe, now if there was a tie up with builders-cfu-and energy providers, who knows what would be the result as more and more homes are needed-and the unit price would surely be reflected in the order sizes.dyor as they say.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Stamp "CARBON NEUTRAL" all over it and some other fancy, new age, save the whales slogan and it will sell in the millions. I can see the packaging now "This device will help fix the hole in the ozone layer" and "No baby seals were clubbed to death in the making of this product". Millions it will.


----------



## Hedders (19 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Stamp "CARBON NEUTRAL" all over it and some other fancy, new age, save the whales slogan and it will sell in the millions. I can see the packaging now "This device will help fix the hole in the ozone layer" and "No baby seals were clubbed to death in the making of this product". Millions it will.




Maybe they can also claim that it's organic too? I can see a picture of the clay being lovingly removed from the ground to make the ceramic plates...


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2009)

Perfect Hedders, you are a marketing guru ! Some big boobed, scantily clad model thrusting her hands into oozing clay and rubbing it all over her body demostrating how "organic" the product is. Perfect. They are starting to form a queue just to get close to the thing let alone buy one.


----------



## Hedders (19 July 2009)

Your talents lay wasted here Trainspotter- CFU's marketing dept will be on the phone to you shortly no doubt. Maybe CFU could sponsor mud wrestling? I just need something to make the SP go back over 22c- been holding them for a while now and not sure if I should top up at the current price.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2009)

The share price has consoldated quite well and the 3 times price of the raising is still going strong. I am expecting that CFU will continue flat for a few months until we get confirmation manufacture has begun. Then we should expect another decent rise. 

You must remember the energy cost savings in Europe of this technology is better than it is for us as electricity is more expensive that in Australia. Also the fact that the units provide waste heat is useful in the colder countries of Europe and Japan. I would expect payback to occur over quite a short time frame for an apartment block using this technology. 

Also, if you are bringing out a new product, you don't promote the lowest price. The idea is to get back your capital before you start discounting.

We should see some marketing reasonably soon. Can't wait!


----------



## trainspotter (24 July 2009)

Happy days !! This pregnant rollerskate has given birth at last ! Climbing it's way above 18 cents ! Maybe they made the TV advert with the sexy bikini clad girl afterall? Any news anyone?


----------



## mastatrada (24 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I am expecting that CFU will continue flat for a few months until we get confirmation manufacture has begun. Then we should expect another decent rise. !




I am of the same opinion- the big spike happened after announcement that the bluegen had been completed, they will need to show evidence of its marketability before we will see another, bigger rise


----------



## awg (24 July 2009)

I suspect that the price rise has to do with the upcoming price rises in electricity.

People dont realise that we are about to get whacked with price rises of UP TO 20%, at least in NSW....and other states as well

Its not getting much publicity. surprise surprise

As hot water accounts for a very high % of power use, CFU will be in a good position to benefit.

I am about to get a heat exchange hot water system fitted, which, with rebates will cost me $500, for a $4700 system.

The installer claims this saves about 75% on hot water power usage, normally meaning a 15 to 20% reduction in total power consumption.

I am a CFU holder, but their technology is not ready yet


----------



## noco (24 July 2009)

awg said:


> I suspect that the price rise has to do with the upcoming price rises in electricity.
> 
> People dont realise that we are about to get whacked with price rises of UP TO 20%, at least in NSW....and other states as well
> 
> ...




 Two Questions were asked :-
* Will the initial cost be more expensive to install than other alternatives.
* When will production start in Germany and if you have any firm orders to date. 

The following information was received today from CFU which may be of interest to all share holders:-

 Like all technolgy, early units will cost more than commercial units - costs are driven by volume. But we come down the cost curve in relatively low volumes _ we don't need to sell 10,000 to be competitive.
Cost comparison depends on what the alternative is:  if it's "doing nothing" and just using grid power, then yes, that may be cheaper (at least until power prices start to rocket!). If the alternative is another form of mCHP system (Stirling engine, I/C engine etc), then the value proposition is quite different. They are all "heat-led" _ they make a lot of heat and a small amount of power. If the heat can't be used they have to be turned off (eg.during summer)  We are the opposite: we make power with a small amount of heat.
We have deliberately designed our technology to maximise electrical efficiency (which means morepower, less heat) because power is more valuable than heat.(And the incumbent heating techology, a condensing boiler, is >95% efficient _ tough to beat.The power grid is 35% efficient _ so beating that creates value. If a mCHP  can't make power or heat more efficiently than the incumbent then we'renot sure what benifits it gives....) Our modelling indicates our product can generate significant returns and create value, even at higher unit prices than some of these alternatives.

Heinsberg is on track for opening in October 09.


----------



## trainspotter (24 July 2009)

Thanks noco for the bit of fluff. Has assisted in my decision making somewhat on this stock. Especially the bit about Heinsberg opening. Ta.


----------



## Boyou (24 July 2009)

noco ,thanks for the hard info..I was just searching the company website for any gleanings of news...Mind me asking where this intel comes from? I wouldn't mind being privy to it myself.

The best fact is the completion date for the factory...one more step on the long road.

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## noco (24 July 2009)

Boyou said:


> noco ,thanks for the hard info..I was just searching the company website for any gleanings of news...Mind me asking where this intel comes from? I wouldn't mind being privy to it myself.
> 
> The best fact is the completion date for the factory...one more step on the long road.
> 
> Cheers Ya'll




I just E-Mailed the company and they answered the questions.

If you are a share holder, you ask the questions  and they will respond to what ever you need to know. You are entitled to do so to any company.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 July 2009)

noco said:


> Two Questions were asked :-
> * Will the initial cost be more expensive to install than other alternatives.
> * When will production start in Germany and if you have any firm orders to date.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that Noco. Pretty much what we thought is still true. 
I was talking to a guy and he is keen to start using the units now, and you can bet with the smart metering starting latest this year in Victoria with its terrible prices for peak loads that everyone with large house to keep cool will be screaming for these units by this time next year. In fact, I doubt they will be able to keep up with supply once it gets well known.


----------



## gypsysbt (26 July 2009)

just some info 
thought you might like to know
CFU got a mention on the business channel twice this week, business night and business view. the more media coverage the better i recon. 

for your info, i got in at .36cents .05 cents and yesterday at .185 cents ave=.135cents and im in for the long term.
here's hoping this stock will make a luna landing.

regards mick


----------



## trainspotter (26 July 2009)

Put on your space suit Neil Armstrong ... It's one small step for mankind ... I am in for a penny and in for a pound. Similar situation. Bring on the opening of the factory in Heinsberg Oct 09.


----------



## antzlovinit (27 July 2009)

Is CFU also building anything related to this article.

Power company Nukissiorfiit has allied itself with India's H2 Logic in an experimental project to produce hydrogen. The agreement is part of an effort to reduce Greenland's dependence on oil and coal by investing in hydropower and hydrogen. 

Nukissiorfiit has entered into an agreement with H2 Logic to establish a hydrogen and fuel cell system in Nuuk. H2 Logic was selected after a tendering process to build a test plant that could be up and running by the end of the year. 
The project, nicknamed 'H2KT', will demonstrate whether it is possible to use hydrogen and fuel cells as energy storage in Greenland. 

The facility will also serve as a demonstration plant to increase public awareness of hydrogen and fuel cells, according to Louise Johansson, a spokesperson for Nukissiorfiit. . 

http://d1.openx.org/afr.php?n=a1033f49&zoneid=11243&target=_blank&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE


----------



## frankblack (27 July 2009)

Anyone have any thoughts on where this may settle in the near future? I first looked at this stock in October 2008 at around 0.35c. With the crash and a bit of capital raising it dropped to around 0.05c. Then climbed a touch until it launched the BlueGen, and up to 0.27c. Has since found support at around 0.18+c. I assume as more people get wind of this, some of the expected rise will from the factory opening will get priced in, and it will get a bounce on announcement. Obviously there is a portion of guesswork involved. Thoughts on November price?


----------



## Boyou (29 July 2009)

Share price predictions? No way..I just watch the action. ..wondered why the SP did a bit of a wiggle on Monday.This may be the reason..let's see if the market thinks it is a milestone or a dissapointment.

Ceramic Fuel Cells and GDF Suez move ahead with development of combined heat and power units for French market

Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (ASX/AIM: CFU), a global leader in fuel cell development, has extended its agreement with GDF Suez to develop and deploy fuel cell micro combined heat and power (mCHP) units in France.
Ceramic Fuel Cells’ heat and power units convert natural gas to electricity and heat, providing power and heating for homes and other buildings.
GDF Suez has agreed to fund their share of the development of a fully integrated mCHP, comprising a fuel cell module from Ceramic Fuel Cells together with a condensing boiler from the De Dietrich Remeha Group. The mCHP unit will produce up to 2kW of power and provide hot water for use in French households.
Ceramic Fuel Cells and De Dietrich Remeha expect to deliver the first fully integrated unit to GDF Suez in late November 2009. The integrated mCHP will be operated at GDF Suez’s test facilities in Paris. This mCHP will have all the functionality expected of a commercial mCHP product. In parallel the parties will work on the next version of the mCHP for deployment in large numbers.
This agreement to move to the next stage of product development follows the successful completion of the first phase of the partners’ product development. In this phase a semi-integrated prototype unit was developed in order to meet GDF Suez’s performance and lifetime requirements for the French market.
The company’s heat and power units have achieved electrical efficiencies of 60 per cent while exporting power to the grid. This electrical efficiency is far higher than any other micro combined heat and power technology.
Ceramic Fuel Cells is also developing products with leading utility and appliance partners in Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan.


----------



## antzlovinit (29 July 2009)

i think its a milestone... cause if it was a dissapointment then they will have broken ties and perhaps the SP will have fallen to maybe 15c..


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

Just dumped the lot at 18.5 cents ... looking at 968,000 on offer did not give me the horn at all. Bye bye.


----------



## Boyou (29 July 2009)

Hey spot..you are easily spooked! This one is for the visionaries..

Mind how you go there mate...

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

I can envision this thing hitting a wall real soon. My earlier posts were glowing in regards to the products biodiversity. My analysis is that they have ZERO orders. Building a factory in Germany to make WHAT? How can you tool up a factory when you only have a prototype of sorts. Too much blue sky for me.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 July 2009)

The French are putting up their own money to develop their own version of the product. I can't see how this can be anything but good.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

Each to their own I guess. More than happy for everybody with shares in CFU if I am wrong (and I truly hope I am) Great idea and no doubt will be a succes at some stage. Just not for this spotter of the trains today.


----------



## Knobby22 (29 July 2009)

Plenty of good choices out there, Trainspotter. 
This one is riskier than many.
Good luck. 

As a trainspotter you can watch us leave the platform!!!:


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

Choo Choo "All aboard ... this one is going to Riskville by express"  *waving frantically* Clickety Clack


----------



## jbocker (29 July 2009)

Hmmm certainly is a concern 'spotter, I have been edgy with 'no orders' while proposing to open the new factory ...with its only order just to build a fully functioning unit for tests in Paris. The Nuon pull out (was it 50,000 units?) a few months back probably needs a replacement order verry soon from one of the other promising big European utilities.

I am sweating on some news of sustainable orders. How much drain on the company will the factory be without orders, what will happen to the personnel I assume are being sort to run the factory?

Good news that the French are still commiting money at least...


----------



## antzlovinit (30 July 2009)

LOL no point opening the plant if there are no orders. As spotter said all they do is tests here and there. There should be a pre-order by now, why would utillity companies wait until plant opens? Maybe somethin else out there....Any1 know what kind of marketing CFU doing in europe and japan?


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

ZERO orders. I repeat ZERO orders. Why build a factory that is going to make what again? More prototypes? Massive factory sitting there full of personell and all sorts of machinery or is it a "production line" basis. Skip the last part of that sentence. Still in propotype phase. What is stopping the French from developing the technology and saying "Embrasser mon fond, vous les idiots stupides, la technologie est maintenant le nÃ´tre"

http://ets.freetranslation.com/ for translation purposes.


----------



## antzlovinit (30 July 2009)

Theres got to be some sought of highlights when the quarterly report comes out. hopefully an ORDER from some european utillity company! I cant think of anything else other then that and maybe something like ...plant commenced to open in october. and they signed an MOU with VicUrban to deploy Bluegen units in demonstration homes. With the first unit to be installed at the end of 2009. 

Heres the submitted report for the 'inquiry into the approvals process for renewable energy projects in Victoria' which was scheduled for 27/7/09 at 1:30pm. 
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/en...ubmissions/002 Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited.pdf 

Any1 got any other ideas of what the highlights might be?

GL to all CFU holders


----------



## antzlovinit (30 July 2009)

Oh train when are you going to arrive back to CFU. Looks like people on UK forums see CFU with great potential.

According to worsleybird on 
http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?code=cotn:CFU.L&display=discussion 
there is going to be an update on Friday..I think it will be the quarterly results.

and found some good news on uk website if people like to read...came out 13th July 2009http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/13/manchester-report-fuel-cells?commentpage=1

Have a listen to this podcast from Sky News Helen Dalley business views in Australia from 25th July show. Its the 5th podcast down the column listed as business view every Saturday. Starts at around 41.40 minutes on gas and then cfcl get a fantastic plug at around 42minutes
http://www.businesschannel.com.au/podcast/


----------



## Boyou (30 July 2009)

Thanks for feretting these out ,antz..good to get a global view of things.

The market here has digested the news from France and looks like it is supporting the SP at 18 cents.

Of course the critical thing is to get some orders on the books,but they have lots of irons in the fire.Patience is required here ..good luck to the faithfull


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Go you good thing. I hope this thing pulls out of the station at full speed for all concerned. Unfortunatley business needs customers. No orders means NO customers. YET. Good luck.


----------



## MACCA350 (30 July 2009)

What's that saying............"Build it and they will come"

But seriously, there may be many in the wings just waiting for the plant to be built and production models produced before they sign on the dotted line. These things have been 20 years and millions in the making, I don't think they'll choke at the last turn with the finish line in sight

But then again as with anything..........it could go all pear shaped Though I doubt it

cheers


----------



## noco (30 July 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> What's that saying............"Build it and they will come"
> 
> But seriously, there may be many in the wings just waiting for the plant to be built and production models produced before they sign on the dotted line. These things have been 20 years and millions in the making, I don't think they'll choke at the last turn with the finish line in sight
> 
> ...




One could not believe a company would spend millions on a new factory without doing their homework on the prospects of orders. They would have to be pretty sure of themselves before proceeding. I suspect  all will be revealed to those who wait.


----------



## antzlovinit (31 July 2009)

Its good to see that they selling powder for bio products. atleast they dont have to rely on just producing CHP units. Just need the CE approval and we are there. No bad debt and almost 30Mill in bank. 
Finally they doin somethin about the bad investments. It was mentioned what like 3months ago in The Australian.  
hmm 3 years away for the plant to produce 160k of units. could see sp in june 2010 to reach $1 if were lucky...


----------



## jbocker (1 August 2009)

Some more clarity in an informative 1/4ly report. I take it the customer utility companies are to produce the housing components (with their own branding) and CFCL (cfu) supply the core fuel cells etc for the mCHP and BlueGen. BlueGen is a parallel modular product focussed on power generation but can be coupled for hot water. The factory in Germany is to have initial capacity to build 10000 fuel cell stacks and the premises are sufficient to allow expansion to 160000.
Looks like cfu units are passing all the ongoing 'tests'.
Lots of promising talks with potential partners and manufacturers, with plans to finalise sales and partnerships over the next few months. Potential sales of its ceramic powders too.
I like the statement that govt feed-in tariffs are good for early deployment (i.e. helps marketing); it implies that the company is not looking for the tariffs to prop up the long term sales.
Anyways, well worth a read, lots of promises, sales expected early 2010.

I for one would feel more comfortable when I see some of those finalised agreements and sales orders coming in. I would think each of the (successful) announcements there should be quite positive impacts on share value. What makes me nervous, one company saying 'no' and the rest follow suite.


----------



## Boyou (1 August 2009)

Spot,mate...your last few posts on this thread come close to down ramping the stock..something which can get you into trouble with the mods on this very well run forum. IMO

We'd all hate to see you grounded..would miss your eloquence and wit 


Cheers Ya'll


----------



## trainspotter (1 August 2009)

Sorry Boyou ... did not mean to drop the stock so heavily. I apologise profusely to the mod squad if I have offended anyone. I also previously tried to talk the stock "UP" to no avail. It is what it is.

*grovelling apology with curtsy and pirouette  at the end*


----------



## Boyou (1 August 2009)

Apology ,not needed ,but thanks anyway.

I readily admit this one is still risky...but the upside is so good,it makes the risk worth it.There is so much "Kinetic" energy in CFU ,that IF and when it gets the first orders for units it will move very fast.

Then it may be hard to catch up with.. toot toot


----------



## trainspotter (1 August 2009)

I will be there on the bid when it happens. Dropped the stock due to no coverage mainly. great idea and biodiversity, kinetic, symbiotic, eco friendly (insert many save the world words here)_* ie*_ ... it's not moving !!!!!  *long slow whistle to let off steam out of boiler*


----------



## Sean K (1 August 2009)

Depends on what you mean by 'not moving'. Has certainly moved well down hill the past 3 years, but I spot a pottential bottom at 5c. Seems to have paused the downward move and tracking sideways. While there might be some short term trading opportunities between 5c and 20c, it's going sideways until it breaks 20c and there's some higher highs and lows after. Could just be reflecting the overall market at present too, and has no real substance. That volume around the bottom and up to now looks encouraging.


----------



## trainspotter (1 August 2009)

Thanks Kennas for the graphical information. I NEVER hold a stock longer than 3 months. Don't believe in "trends" and looking at screens. I buy a stock after doing a lot of research and sell it once it has three zeros behind it. _*ie *_as soon as I make $1000 I sell. Don't care if it goes from 17 cents to $1.32 after I have sold. If it gets to 3 months and has not moved I sell. This is the lamest strategy in the world I know comparing it to Trembling Hands conversion rate and others but it works for me. So far my worst *LOSS *has been $80.00 AUD. That's it. I make $2000 a week.


----------



## bagasas (1 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Thanks Kennas for the graphical information. I NEVER hold a stock longer than 3 months. Don't believe in "trends" and looking at screens. I buy a stock after doing a lot of research and sell it once it has three zeros behind it. _*ie *_as soon as I make $1000 I sell. Don't care if it goes from 17 cents to $1.32 after I have sold. If it gets to 3 months and has not moved I sell. This is the lamest strategy in the world I know comparing it to Trembling Hands conversion rate and others but it works for me. So far my worst *LOSS *has been $80.00 AUD. That's it. I make $2000 a week.




Sounds like a great strategy if it has worked this well for you! Now the interesting question is, how long have you been doing this?


----------



## Sean K (1 August 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Thanks Kennas for the graphical information. I NEVER hold a stock longer than 3 months. Don't believe in "trends" and looking at screens. I buy a stock after doing a lot of research and sell it once it has three zeros behind it. _*ie *_as soon as I make $1000 I sell. Don't care if it goes from 17 cents to $1.32 after I have sold. If it gets to 3 months and has not moved I sell. This is the lamest strategy in the world I know comparing it to Trembling Hands conversion rate and others but it works for me. So far my worst *LOSS *has been $80.00 AUD. That's it. I make $2000 a week.



The overall numbers don't mean too much to me TS, it's the % that matters.


----------



## trainspotter (1 August 2009)

bagasas said:


> Sounds like a great strategy if it has worked this well for you! Now the interesting question is, how long have you been doing this?




This time around I have been back in the market for about 14 months. SIP Rule. *S* hares first *I* nterest second *P* roperty third. Move your money when ONE of these things are moving. *ie* Sharemarket is hot right now for bargains. Interest rates will go up in the next few years when Kruddys stimulus package comes home to roost in 2014. Property will jump in between, cyclic, has done so for 4 times I have been in and out of the market. Just observing the critical mass.


----------



## antzlovinit (13 August 2009)

looks like cfu on hold position. although big trades yesterday! wont see any market surprise until october . ...where is the media attention?


----------



## antzlovinit (19 August 2009)

So with the Renewable Energy target (ret) being a done deal between the labor party and the coalition. Does this affect CFU by any means. Is there an advantage for CFU here to take part of this scheme. Cause it looks like its solely on Wind farms and Solar panels. Anyone know how CFU is affected?


----------



## bugmenot (21 August 2009)

antzlovinit said:


> So with the Renewable Energy target (ret) being a done deal between the labor party and the coalition. Does this affect CFU by any means. Is there an advantage for CFU here to take part of this scheme. Cause it looks like its solely on Wind farms and Solar panels. Anyone know how CFU is affected?




Until the Govt or CFU can give the market firm guidance regarding whether CFU is considered renewable, its stock wont benefit much from this sort of announcement. Technically CFU say you can connect renewable energy to a Bluegen, but the entire business plan would change (no piggyback infrastructure like LNG has). This is a game maker/breaker for CFU IMO.


----------



## noco (21 August 2009)

antzlovinit said:


> So with the Renewable Energy target (ret) being a done deal between the labor party and the coalition. Does this affect CFU by any means. Is there an advantage for CFU here to take part of this scheme. Cause it looks like its solely on Wind farms and Solar panels. Anyone know how CFU is affected?




IMHO I can't see Solar energy being of much benifit in countries like England, Europe and Japan; wind farms maybe?? Furthermore solar energy and wind farms are very expensive to set up and their efficency rating is some where around 15%. Coal fired 35 % and CFU are now up to 60% with extremely low CO2 emmissions.  

Whilst the Victorian Power Authority have endorsced CFU, I believe the main markets will be in Europe and Great Britain hence their reasoning for building BLU GEN units in Germany which will be closer to the major markets.


----------



## MACCA350 (27 August 2009)

CFU jumped up 20% today on HUGE volume and there's still a heap of buying volume sitting in the market depth, reminds me of the when they launched BlueGen

Wonder if there is a positive announcement coming

cheers


----------



## DAZT49 (27 August 2009)

46 million shares on no news.
A query from the ASX should shake out the reason.
If not, I hope its not a p n d


----------



## noco (27 August 2009)

DAZT49 said:


> 46 million shares on no news.
> A query from the ASX should shake out the reason.
> If not, I hope its not a p n d




It certainly is a big turnover but not unexpected. Manufacturing starts in Germany Oct 2009. There is good prospects for sales in Europe, Great Brittain and Japan having meet all of the conditions requested by Japan in particular.

Our own state of Victoria  appear to be quite interested as well.

IMHO, good times ahead!


----------



## craigj (27 August 2009)

anyone know when the government grants are announced ?
maybe that is coming up soon
it certainly has been consolidating for a while now so on the charts this breakout should continue

other stocks meo + cnx  that i hold have had similar good moves the last two days
often  meo + cnx track each other in the market  

maybe more confidence in market for risk in last 2 days


----------



## Boyou (3 September 2009)

Another healthy rise in SP today. to 22
On good volume also ..14mil

Perhaps an anouncement in the wind? Or maybe the manipulators at it again

Sure wish I had picked it in the stock comp this month..good luck to you craigj and all holders


----------



## Knobby22 (3 September 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Choo Choo "All aboard ... this one is going to Riskville by express"  *waving frantically* Clickety Clack




Bye Trainspotter! <waves frantically as train pulls away>

I was juggling between CFU and BAU and chose BAU for the competition. Both in the top 4 at present, we shall see who wins.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2009)

antzlovinit said:


> So with the Renewable Energy target (ret) being a done deal between the labor party and the coalition. Does this affect CFU by any means. Is there an advantage for CFU here to take part of this scheme. Cause it looks like its solely on Wind farms and Solar panels. Anyone know how CFU is affected?



Natural gas is not a renewable energy source so, in theory at least, there's no relevance to a technology based on it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2009)

noco said:


> IMHO I can't see Solar energy being of much benifit in countries like England, Europe and Japan; wind farms maybe?? Furthermore solar energy and wind farms are very expensive to set up and their efficency rating is some where around 15%. Coal fired 35 % and CFU are now up to 60% with extremely low CO2 emmissions.



The efficiency of converting wind or solar into electricity isn't relevant unless there's a shortage of those resources which, in most situations, there isn't. 

It's not like coal (30 - 40% efficiency depending on grade and technology), oil/gas (30 - 55% efficiency depending on technology) or hydro (roughly 85% efficient) where the primary resource is limited globally and/or locally, polluting and/or expensive to develop such that efficiency in use is of major benefit. But it doesn't really matter if we waste sunlight - there's plenty of it and it's free. 

If wind costs $80 per MWh then the only benefit of increased efficiency is if either (1) it lowers costs (possible but not necessarily - the increased efficiency would likely come at a price) or if it enables more power to be produced from a limited wind resource. But unless you want to generate 1000 MW on a tiny island, lack of wind (ie space to put the turbines) isn't normally a problem, in which case it comes down to cost and efficiency doesn't really matter.

It's like how a clothes line in the backyard is usually less energy efficient than an electric clothes dryer (true). But since the sun shining in the backyard is free and otherwise goes to total waste, it makes sense to use it in preference to electricity (which is neither free nor wasted if not used to dry clothes) even if it's done inefficiently. We're not going to run out of sun by using it inefficiently - it will keep shining regardless and nobody sends you a bill for the amount you actually used. 

Free sunlight used via a cheap and easily manufactured device (clothes line) works nicely even if it's inefficient - a more efficient version would only be useful if it had some non-efficiency benefit (eg cheaper, easier to use) or in places not big enough to physically fit the low-tech, inefficient design we're all familiar with.

Using the clothesline example, I could increase efficiency by using solar to generate the power to run a heat pump drying machine. But that's going to cost well over $10,000 so there's no point - cheaper to just stick with the inefficient line in the backyard unless there's no space to put it etc.


----------



## antzlovinit (8 September 2009)

Check out the UK forum website. 

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/det...on&code=cotn:CFU.L&threshold=0&pageno=2&it=le

By the author of 'outtheresomewhere' has spoke to the Shadow Minister for climate change 'Greg Hunt about CFU. 

If it doesnt work i will post here...Thanks 'outtheresomewhere'!

"I have just finished a phone conversation with Greg Hunt the Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water in the Federal Parliment. He expressed what seemed to be sincere interest in emerging technologies and particularly in CFU.

I raised a number of points that we here are all aware of. He was responsive and along with all things technical, he seemed impressed with the recent listing of CFU in the Top 300 on the ASX last week, the high ranking of CFU at the Guardian Manchester Festival of ideas in July and the fact that this technology could be seen to play a role in the debate as a low emmissions based tecnology. 

I raised the Govt's White Paper (Dec 08') re: 'The Climate Change Action Fund' where, in part, provision is made for Capital Allowances and Grants for investment in Energy Efficiency and Low Emmissions Technologies. 

I felt it appropriate to recommend the CFU website and all announcements for 2009 as a comprehensive site. 

Mr Hunt also raised the South Korean Govt subsidies as a highlighted interest and asked for more details. 

To all of this Mr Hunt was dead keen for me to forward info to him and importantly he was going to actively seek out the company in Melbourne and initiate a visit. 

Maybe I can act as conduit or quazi Shadow Ministry researcher. I feel we have someone with considerable influence in the debate who has an open door approach and genuine interest in emerging technologies.

Well there are probably a few cynics, however let me say, this man seems genuine and the debate is definitely on the agenda.

The future looks pretty good."


----------



## antzlovinit (8 September 2009)

http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/det...on&code=cotn:CFU.L&threshold=0&pageno=1&it=le - post on Mon 3:30!

Even better news! again from same author 'outtheresomewhere' posted wonderful news!

Here is the post if link doesnt work- Thanks again 'outtheresomewhere'!

"Having sent some requested info through to the Shadow Minister (RH Greg Hunt) after our conversation on Sunday, I received a return email from him. He informed me that he has arranged to meet with Brendan Dow this coming Friday. 

I have sent similar info to various Govt MP's and I hope for a response from them as well. 

We'll see."


----------



## antzlovinit (8 September 2009)

http://www.i4u.com/article26768.html

Volkswagen entering our game as well. They should just buy out CFU rather starting from scratch, since CFU is ahead of the game. Unless VW buy out Ceres Power. Then CFU will have to worry. 

Heres the article if link doesnt work.

"Volkswagen is bigger than ever with the merged in Porsche, but making cars seems not enough for the company. According to German Spiegel Volkswagen is supposed to revolutionize the energy market with small power plants for homes. 
Together with the German Green Power supplier Lichtblick VW wants to sell tiny natural gas power plants people can install in the cellar of their homes. Besides power the VW home power plants also generate warm water and heating. 
The tiny power plants are supposed to be networked and feed power into the grid when it is needed most. The plan is to replace at least two nuclear power plants. 
If Volkswagen can do for the energy market what they once did with the Beetle than traditional energy suppliers have to worry."


----------



## antzlovinit (9 September 2009)

Article realesed today on business spectator:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...&src=blb&is=resources _ energy&blog=powerline

Very nice article. According to Dow' "a 2kW BlueGen unit will save 18 tonnes of residential emissions in Victoria per house compared with three tonnes (his estimate) for a 2kW solar system". 

As we get to the opening of the plant i guess where seeing more media press!


----------



## Knobby22 (9 September 2009)

It's all rather exciting.

The branding of the units is going to be very important as the lesser copies come out. This could be the difference between the company becoming a profitable operator or an operator like "Apple" with their iPods.


----------



## Boyou (9 September 2009)

Yes very exciting..another solid advance today taking it to 23.5


"Volkswagen entering our game as well. They should just buy out CFU rather starting from scratch, since CFU is ahead of the game. Unless VW buy out Ceres Power. Then CFU will have to worry."

Thanks ,ants for feretting out the latest...agree ,better hope VW don't go after Ceres.


----------



## bugmenot (9 September 2009)

Thought it was worth posting this comment from the UK forum:
_
I have asked CFU if they are aware of the Volkswagon plan to enter this market. I got the following answer:

Yes we are aware of VW's plans. They plan to use a small internal combustion engine technology. There are existing mCHP products using similar technology - eg the Honda "Ecowill" mCHP product. These units typically have an electrical efficiency of less than 20% (in some cases less than 10%) so we do not see them directly "competing" with our high efficiency product. It is actually good for us to have large well known companies move into the market - it validates that mCHP is a "good idea" and builds customer awareness. We can then come along and offer a product with a key advantage - the highest electrical efficiency.

It shows that they are on top of the market!​_


----------



## Theta (9 September 2009)

I came across an article on CFU last month on the Australian Energy Report at energyreport(dot)com(dot)au and I bought in based on the article.  I am UP about 28% in 2 weeks.    It sounds like their technology could be a goer.  I wonder how they will be affected by the RET legislation that got passed?  Any views?


----------



## jbocker (9 September 2009)

Theta said:


> I came across an article on CFU last month on the Australian Energy Report at energyreport(dot)com(dot)au and I bought in based on the article.  I am UP about 28% in 2 weeks.    It sounds like their technology could be a goer.  I wonder how they will be affected by the RET legislation that got passed?  Any views?




Gday Theta, I believe Smurf1976 covers a valid point with respect to the RET.



Smurf1976 said:


> Natural gas is not a renewable energy source so, in theory at least, there's no relevance to a technology based on it.




Not to say that the efficiency of the system is a very worthwhile 'green' consideration. I agree that the company has exciting prospects.


----------



## antzlovinit (10 September 2009)

Environment and Natural Resource Committee 
Inquirey into the approval process for renewable energy projects
Melbourne 27 July 2009

Witness

Mr B. Dow, Managing Director, Ceramic Fuel Cells.

CFU holders must read, and potential buyers should read. Its good i got in Dec and topped up more at 5c. Hopefully June 2010 a 1500% return and retire at 21! or am i dreaming to much....lol

http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/en...gy/transcripts/27_7_09_Ceramic Fuel Cells.pdf


----------



## Knobby22 (10 September 2009)

Thanks for the post bugmenot.

Antz, that talk in front of the Environment and Natural Resources committee just shows what exasperates me about Australia. In Europe, many of the leading people in the most important positions are technologically trained, engineers, scientists and such. We seem to have lawyers and similar degrees in those positions and they just can't grasp technological breakthroughs. Just no understanding of an electrical grid.

When the French bring out their version of the unit and call it "Le Cerami", they'll want it then.


----------



## S73417H (10 September 2009)

antzlovinit said:


> http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/en...gy/transcripts/27_7_09_Ceramic Fuel Cells.pdf




Cheers for that post it was a good read. There are some interesting facts in there.

Stunned by the fact that first units will cost around $25K!


----------



## MACCA350 (10 September 2009)

Thanks for the link antzlovinit, interesting read



S73417H said:


> Stunned by the fact that first units will cost around $25K!



That one surprised me also, considering they mentioned an expected RRP around $8k at the product launch.........although just reading though the launch pdf they said "When mass produced" which is what they have said in the committee transcript. Looks like they are working on reducing the early adoption costs with subsidies until mass production cost efficiencies are achieved, similar to what Germany(IIRC) have approved...........this in itself should help fastrack mass productions pricing

At minimum they are looking for a 'fair' feed in tariff equal to the retail consumer charge.............I say go for broke and get the same tariffs and subsidies as the solar guys

cheers


----------



## antzlovinit (16 September 2009)

CFU is soon going to be on the Front page...Like we all hope it will be soon!

The opening of the Plant on the 2nd of October will increase the Sp by a few cents. Victorian gov backing up the Blu gen unit. Now we know this should be good cause no minister wants to invest in something that would make them look bad.

Then early 2010 hopefully units will sell across europe and 2012 we win the court case and the signage of a 100 000 unit/unit contract...but whose to say CFU will be around...O great a take over bid from one of the big players who are watching us now and waiting to see if CFU will kick off!

Are we strong enough to play our own game or does are well recognised player change the world for us? Nuclear plants are fading and we need to tackle climate change as fast as possible! 

O Mr World Leaders have you seen the Blu gen unit. It saves 18 tonnes a year of Carbon Dixode compared to solar energy that saves 2. hmm do the math > 1mill homes with BLU Gen units will save us ...?  O if the blu gen unit was mass produced and o how cheap it will cost for everyone to buy! O how our SP will be US$150 in 2 years!


----------



## antzlovinit (16 September 2009)

And so the race is on!  media attention is increasing....

1) http://www.switchfuel.com/ng-fuel-cell-vehicles-instead-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles/ 
(dated 15/09/2009)

2) http://www.switchfuel.com/natural-gas-fuel-cells-to-compete-with-hydrogen-fcvs-part-2/
(dated 16/09/2009)

3) http://www.thebull.com.au/articles_detail.php?id=5977 
(dated 14/09/2009)


----------



## MACCA350 (16 September 2009)

Looks like someone got the CFU bug

...........US$150 SP, now that would be nice..........might just retire to the Bahamas with my $60M <slaps self> Wake up Macca

cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (16 September 2009)

antz - to what court case are you referring?????
.................................I wasn't aware of one.


----------



## antzlovinit (17 September 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> antz - to what court case are you referring?????
> .................................I wasn't aware of one.




Bad investment advice CFU with big losses. IMF funding the litigation.  

Have a look at page 12.
http://www.imf.com.au/announcements/Investor Presentation August 2009 - 26 Aug 09.pdf


----------



## antzlovinit (17 September 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> Looks like someone got the CFU bug
> 
> ...........US$150 SP, now that would be nice..........might just retire to the Bahamas with my $60M <slaps self> Wake up Macca
> 
> cheers




I was going to retire in the bahamas once the first major contract was signed! I will build my 9-star resort and you will have somewhere to stay!


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2009)

antzlovinit said:


> Bad investment advice CFU with big losses. IMF funding the litigation.
> 
> Have a look at page 12.
> http://www.imf.com.au/announcements/Investor Presentation August 2009 - 26 Aug 09.pdf




Oh yes. I forgot about that. Hopefully the company might get a cash settlement.
I thought for a second you were talking about some technology infringement.
K22


----------



## antzlovinit (17 September 2009)

antzlovinit said:


> And so the race is on!  media attention is increasing....
> 
> 1) http://www.switchfuel.com/ng-fuel-cell-vehicles-instead-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles/
> (dated 15/09/2009)
> ...




More news dated 16/09/2009

1) http://www.earthwitness.net/2009/09/european-energy-companies-eyeing.html


----------



## bugmenot (22 September 2009)

Keith Orchison from Business Spectator is really starting to jump on the CFU bandwagon. I think I will sell off some of my other speccies and top up on CFU shortly, there are certainly whispers in the corridors around this stock.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...nd-disadvantage-pd20090921-W47WX?OpenDocument

Home ground disadvantage

My recent post about fuel cell power generation has led me on to a piece of reading that highlights how difficult it is to get workable energy policy in Australia.

Contemplate this: while the Melbourne inventors and manufacturers of an alternative energy source are battling to get support here, their product has qualified for a leg-up in Germany and Britain! The details of this home ground disadvantage are set out in the Victorian Parliament Hansard transcript of an Environment and Natural Resources Committee hearing in Melbourne on 27 July.

Giving evidence was Brendan Dow, chief executive of Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited, developers of solid oxide fuel cell technology to provide low-emission electricity from natural gas. This is my truncated version of his story:

The company’s BlueGen micro-generator is a steel box, dishwasher sized, that can be put in place outdoors alongside a home’s gas and hot water tanks. (Dow’s talking about Victoria, where direct gas use has made considerable inroads in the residential market because of the long availability of the fuel, chiefly from Bass Strait). It does not make any noise to annoy the neighbours. Installation does not require a special permit or environmental approval. It will make double the electricity that your home needs and the excess can be returned to the power grid. It will save 18 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per house per year compared with three tonnes for the solar PV unit on your neighbour’s roof because using the latter will still require more than half the electricity needed to come from brown coal generation.

Here’s the catch. The solar neighbour, under Victorian law, gets a premium of 61 cents per kilowatt hour from the electricity supplier for energy available to be fed back to the grid but an installer of the fuel cell unit doesn’t get any support at all. The neighbour probably also qualified for the federal government subsidy for installing the PV system. Gas is not renewable, so fuel cells don’t qualify.

The solar equipment, by the way, may well be made in China.

Meanwhile, BlueGen units will qualify for a feed-in tariff in Britain from April next year under new Brown government policy to encourage cleaner technologies. In Germany, buying one of the units – CFCL aim to be in mass manufacture here and there by early 2010 – will not only attract the a feed-in tariff but also a subsidy to encourage early buyers equivalent to about $5,800 a year.

Nuts, it seems to me, is too polite a word to describe this situation.

In the refined atmosphere of Melbourne’s Parliament House, of course, Dow did not indulge in any such vulgar abuse. He explained to state MPs that CFCL was not even calling for the premium feed-in tariff available to solar PV users – “although that would be nice,” he said – but would be pleased to see a one-for-one arrangement, where the homeowner received the retail price of electricity, about 17 cents per kWh at present.

Apart from its capacity to contribute to emissions abatement, the fuel cell unit, like solar PVs, can bring relief to power network providers who are hard-pressed to deliver the system expansion required to meet burgeoning demand – not least the multi-billion dollar outlays required to meet peak demand.

“Network companies,” Dow told the MPs, “are incentivised to outlay capital to build more substations, more poles and more wires by receiving a return (paid through network charges) on the investment.” Micro-generation can free up that capital.

The technology, Dow asserts, is ready for the market. Kick-starting its use, as governments are doing with solar PVs, would enable the unit purchase cost to be cut back from as much as $25,000 initially to around $8,000.

As they say, go figure.


----------



## Boyou (23 September 2009)

SP has just broached 30 ..the chartists might be able to tell if this  is a resistance point...

Has been trading very strongly all day.Looks like the news from the UK re Brown's decision to support these types of tech has been a catalyst for action.

Good luck to all holders


----------



## antzlovinit (23 September 2009)

I hope u topped up yesterday. The sp is up 7% which is alot and I can only see more positive news to come from europe. It will never be too late to get in now and wait till next yr. 

I could see expansion in the asia market!
China and Japan are planning to reduce emmissions by 2020. Hopefully soon we can get a contract going with palomo and something with china. Just hope China dont buy us out.

GL to all, I hold!


----------



## DAZT49 (23 September 2009)

shes looking a bit overcooked ATM.
Popped out of top bolly and RSI up in the 70's
Maybe a chance to take some profit and buy back in on the dip...or just hang on.
Hmm chart didnt attach....


----------



## DAZT49 (23 September 2009)

will not give up...puff...puff...must paste image lol
Also must get 100 charactors in to make post work lol


----------



## antzlovinit (23 September 2009)

DAZT49 said:


> shes looking a bit overcooked ATM.
> Popped out of top bolly and RSI up in the 70's
> Maybe a chance to take some profit and buy back in on the dip...or just hang on.
> Hmm chart didnt attach....




Hopefully that ditch will be 25c, so i can top up more. Although i predict that dip to happen ............there prob be a trading halt coming soon for the opening of the factory. so i will get in on friday before the announcement.


----------



## MACCA350 (28 September 2009)

Announcement out today and CFU has bolted from the gate. Currently up 14.3% at 32c. 

It's been almost a year since SP has been over 30c, and this is the first time since the downturn. CFU tried to breach 30c last week but just bounced off it, now it's breached 30c it may be in for a run. If it can stay above 30c this may be a resistance level

I picked up a bunch more at 28.5c

cheers


----------



## Boyou (28 September 2009)

Very good to come home and see they finished the day at 31.5

Good onya ,Macca! I have finally broken into a modest profit.The accounts look to have pleased the market on a generally ordinary day.

Toot Toot ..where is trainspotter??


----------



## Knobby22 (28 September 2009)

Boyou said:


> Very good to come home and see they finished the day at 31.5
> 
> Toot Toot ..where is trainspotter??




He's at the station 

There are a lot of good announcements coming up over the next three months relating to final prototypes and manufacture. Exciting times


----------



## Boyou (28 September 2009)

Captain_Chaza said:


> Ahoy Sea-Cadet Boyou
> 
> The Potential may excite you but I find the Technical much less flattering
> I wish you Gods speed and Safe harbour
> ...




Not gloating Captain..just reminding you I am still riding the winds of fortune..favourably may I add... 

Cheers Ya'll


----------



## antzlovinit (2 October 2009)

New announcement that is positive but i dont like it.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20091002/pdf/31l40zz3p1fpnc.pdf

" announces today that a leading Australian energy utility has agreed to install a BlueGen gas-to-electricity generator in a showcase sustainability home."

Why couldn't you tell us which utility it is. We know Vicurban is goin to install blugen units by the end of this year, but it doesnt mean its this utility that there talkin about.

"Under the agreement with the utility Ceramic Fuel Cells will supply a BlueGen unit for a six month demonstration, beginning in February 2010."

So is it VicUrban? February 2010 is a long way for short term investors. Well its good atleast we know CFU sold 1 unit in feb 10.  :

Hopefully we get more orders when the announcement for factory opening. SP at 27c-30c is CFU true value when these announcements come out, i think.


----------



## satanoperca (2 October 2009)

Got smashed today, would have liked to buy more but portfolio already weight to heavily on this share. Gone from a short trade to a long term investment. I believe this company has a lot to offer and is a shame that our government does not support companies like this more, instead support polluting coal industries. Easier to dig something out of the ground than support true innovation.

Cheers


----------



## frankblack (2 October 2009)

so it is,

2 October 2009


CERAMIC FUEL CELLS OPENS HIGH VOLUME FUEL CELL MANUFACTURING PLANT



Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM / ASX: CFU) a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission power products for homes, today officially opened its high volume manufacturing plant, one of the first in the world for the volume production of solid oxide fuel cell stacks.


Ceramic Fuel Cells makes fuel cell 'modules' which appliance companies can integrate into different products for many large global markets.  The first products to be powered by the Company's fuel cells will be compact generators for homes and other buildings that produce low emission power as well as heat for hot water or space heating.  These products will meet the growing need for energy whilst also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.


The manufacturing plant is located in an existing 4,200m2 building in the Industriepark Oberbruch, 40 minutes' drive from Dusseldorf in the North Rhine-Westphalia region of Germany.  


The plant has a design capacity of 10,000 fuel cell stacks per year.  Ceramic Fuel Cell's investment  in the plant construction, including state of the art automated manufacturing equipment, will total 9.5 million Euros.  All pieces of equipment have been commissioned on-site and are operational.  


The plant was officially opened by Dr Jens Baganz, State Secretary for the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia, before more than 100 invited guests, including Government representatives and key customers, suppliers, investors and media.  


State Secretary Dr. Baganz welcomed the start of fuel cell production in Heinsberg: "Fuel cells with high efficiency are a key technology of the future with significant economic potential. In Oberbruch it is now possible that a future industry can be developed.  Given the global challenges of climate change, there are very promising market opportunities for fuel cell technology."


Ceramic Fuel Cells Chairman Mr Jeff Harding said: "On behalf of the Board of Ceramic Fuel Cells, we are delighted to open our factory in Heinsberg, Germany. This is an important milestone for the Company because it allows us to move from making expensive 'hand built' products to making semi-automated manufactured products at commercially competitive costs, and reflects two years' work from our staff and key suppliers. We look forward to our Heinsberg plant making fuel cell stacks to go into our clean energy products for Europe, Australia and other global markets."

JUST ANNOUNCED LONDON


----------



## jbocker (3 October 2009)

Both announcements made after the ASX market close. So the drop in price (2 Oct) is not because of the announcements, it was a pretty sad day mostly all round. Monday will be interesting, buying on Friday may prove to have been good timing. 
I think the Factory opening announcement was late in the day on the London market too.


----------



## frankblack (3 October 2009)

Company  	  Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited  	
TIDM 	CFU
Headline 	HIGH VOLUME FUEL CELL MANUFACTURING PLANT OPENS
Released 	12:29 02-Oct-2009

Can confirm the time of the announcement 12:29, that's midday.
In London trading, if you can call it that, i don't believe there were 50 trades,
all day, CFU finished down -4.54%,  that despite them being great fans of the stock in the past.
So wait and see if Monday is a better day.
Just a reminder too that Monday is labour day holiday for a lot of Australia,
but not Melbourne Vic.
Rumor is trading will be on the light side.


----------



## jbocker (3 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Company  	  Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited
> TIDM 	CFU
> Headline 	HIGH VOLUME FUEL CELL MANUFACTURING PLANT OPENS
> Released 	12:29 02-Oct-2009
> ...




Thanks frankblack for the clarification on announcement release time. No holiday in the west on Monday either.


----------



## jbocker (3 October 2009)

Had a listen to their webcast on the CFCL site news page. From the Heinsberg factory Brendan Dow mentions "distribution and utility partners selling products to their customers.. ..some further announcements in the not too distant future"  
I suppose that means over the next month or two   ...or three.

http://www.cfcl.com.au/webcasts/


----------



## MACCA350 (3 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> So wait and see if Monday is a better day.
> Just a reminder too that Monday is labour day holiday for a lot of Australia,
> but not Melbourne Vic.
> Rumor is trading will be on the light side.



Futures are looking down across the board also, will be interesting to see if CFU can buck the trend on this news, though I think it may be another day for the bears. 

Plenty of small caps have been sold down beyond the overall market, once the market trend changes we should see some strong upward swings all round.

cheers


----------



## bugmenot (5 October 2009)

Articles in both the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (Melbourne) today. If it continues to follow the market down, I'm in for more.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/ceramic-fuel-cells-opens-german-factory-20091004-ghy5.html

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ceramic-fuel-cells-opens-german-factory-20091004-ghy5.html


----------



## frankblack (5 October 2009)

Personally i think CFU is way cheap. If the share price only goes up from here, i am happy. Anyway CFU still has a long way to go.


----------



## noco (5 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Personally i think CFU is way cheap. If the share price only goes up from here, i am happy. Anyway CFU still has a long way to go.




Cfu are on a big wave; hang on for da ride. Automated Plant in Germany is up and running today to produce 10,000 BluGen sets per year with capacity to up the anti to 160,000.


----------



## Zird (5 October 2009)

Ceramic Fuel Cells opens Germany plant
TOP News


" Melbourne-based alternative energy company Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd (CFC) has opened its large-scale fuel cell manufacturing plant in Germany.

CFC is developing solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology to provide energy efficient and low-emission electricity from natural gas and renewable fuels.

The company is currently making fuel cell "modules", which appliance companies can integrate into various product.

The first products to be powered by the company's fuel cells will be compact generators for homes and other buildings that produce low-emission power as well as heat for hot water or space heating.

"These product will meet the growing need for energy whilst also reducing greenhouse gas emissions," CFC said in a statement on Monday.

Chairman Jeff Harding said opening the factory in Heinsberg, Germany, was an important milestone for the company because it allows the move from making expensive "hand built" products to making semi-automated manufactured products at commercially competitive costs.

"We look forward to our Heinsberg plant making fuel cell stacks to go into our clean energy products for Europe, Australia and other global markets," Mr Harding said.

The plant has a design capacity of 10,000 fuel cell stacks per year and to meet future growth the plant can be expanded to a capacity of up to 160,000 fuel cell stacks per year, the company said.

CFC was formed in 1992 by Australia's Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organisation (CSIRO) and a consortium of energy and industrial companies.

The company is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange and the London Stock Exchange.


----------



## bugmenot (5 October 2009)

This is well worth watching, even if it is in German:

http://www.wdr.de/mediathek/html/re.../lokalzeit_aachen.xml?offset=27&autoPlay=true


----------



## bugmenot (10 October 2009)

Sounds like CFC have a new MD, "Brendan Gow" 

*Ceramic Fuel Cells*

Some companies should prove resilient however, including Ceramic Fuel Cells, which has pioneered a way to introduce cheap electricity into the home. Most fuel cell companies are still at the experimental stage.

Ceramic Fuel Cells (CFC) has already begun to manufacture products and has agreements in place with leading utility groups, such as EWE inGermany, Gaz de France and Paloma of Japan. The company has also signed a contract with UK energy provider, E.On to create a special product for the British market.

CFC has two basic products, one of which provides heat, hot water and electricity for the home - a combined heat and power unity - and the other of which provides heat and electricity. The combined units are being developed in partnership with various utility companies but the heat and electricity units have been launched independently by CFC. Known as BlueGen boxes, the units are about the same size as a dishwasher.

They generate electricity using natural gas so they are not entirely 'green' but they are much more efficient than mainstream commercial generators, converting each kilowatt of gas into 0.6 kilowatts of electricity, compared to conventional conversion rates of 0.4. This means they use less gas so energy bills are lower.

BlueGen boxes are not cheap to buy. Coming on the market in Britain next year, they will probably set early users back by £7000 but they do pay their way. Each year, they make around two and a half times more electricity than the average home needs and this can be sold back to the National Grid.

CFC is based in Australia and run by chief executive Brendan Gow, whose career has spanned manufacturing and investment banking both domestically and overseas. Chairman Julian Dinsdale has spent 30 years working with high-tech companies and helping them to turn their ideas into commercial ventures.

The company is enthusiastically supported in the City, particularly since it adopted a two-pronged approach to market, developing the BlueGen product independently and the combined heat and power unit in partnership with utilities. Many of these big energy companies have been dragging their heels over the introduction of the new units into the home but the recent launch of BlueGen should engender some competitive tension and encourage them to move more quickly.

Gow hopes to sell up to 500 BlueGen boxes next year and begin to roll out the combined units too. The company is talking to smaller utility groups, white goods manufacturers and retailers and sales should pick up substantially over the next two to three years.

Midas verdict: Ceramic Fuel Cells has had an eventful year. The company joined Aim in 2006 and asked an external fund manager to look after the money it raised. This manager put CFC's money into assets such as allegedly top-rate mortgage bonds, the value of which collapsed in the wake of the credit crunch. CFC was forced to seek emergency funding and its shares fell to below 3p. But shareholders supported the group, it now has plenty of money in the bank and the stock has risen to 15p. Even at this level, there is plenty of potential. Virtually every country in the world is looking for ways to be more environmentally friendly. CFC has not only pioneered a unique technology but it is already turning that technology into viable, commercial products, on sale today. The company is expected to move into profit by 2012 and the shares should rise steadily between now and then. *Buy.*


----------



## bugmenot (10 October 2009)

Over in the UK they are trialling the connection of sewage treatment plants to the LNG pipes. This means that instead of Methane escaping to the atmosphere (worse than carbon apparently) it is mixed with LNG to cook your dinner. 

If the trials are succesful this would bring CFU a step closer to running off "renewables" which is a bit of a stumbling block for them it seems. I'm not sure of the maths, but surely this could push BlueGen's effective at the plug efficiency a few points above the current 85%?

_The people of Manchester will soon be contributing to a green energy revolution - just by flushing the loo!

In a UK first, United Utilities has teamed up with National Grid to convert a by-product of the wastewater treatment process into gas for injection into the local gas pipeline network and fuel for a fleet of sludge tankers. The ground-breaking initiative is centred on one of the country's largest wastewater treatment plants at Davyhulme in Manchester.

The scheme has been given the green light by winning funding from Defra, coming via WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme).

Caroline Ashton, United Utilities biofuels manager, said: "The team is thrilled to have won this funding which will give the project a huge boost. It has been in development for some time, but now we can put our plans into action and the people of Manchester will soon be using 'poo power' to heat their homes."

Biogas is produced when wastewater sludge is broken down by the action of microbes in a process known as "anaerobic digestion".

The biogas needs to be upgraded to biomethane which is a renewable fuel with similar properties to natural gas. The biomethane can then be safely compressed for use in vehicles or injected into the gas grid.

Caroline explained: "Sewage treatment is a 24-hour process so there is an endless supply of biogas. It is a very valuable resource and it's completely renewable. By harnessing this free energy we can reduce our fuel bills and reduce our carbon footprint."

Janine Freeman, head of National Grid's Sustainable Gas Group said: "Biomethane is a fuel for the future. Renewable electricity from sources such as wind power is already available, but this is the first time we will be able to supply renewable gas to consumers. This pilot is an important step in helping deliver a low carbon energy future.

"Not only are we reusing a waste product, but biomethane is a renewable fuel, so we helping to meet the country's target of 15% of all our energy coming from renewable sources by 2020."

"This pilot project should supply gas to about 500 homes and the overall potential of biomethane from a plant like Davyhulme would be to supply a small town of about 5,000 homes. "

The plans involve installing the upgrade equipment, a gas compression and fuelling station, plus a pipeline to link into the local gas distribution network. The £4.3 million project should be operational by early 2011.

One of United Utilities' sludge tankers has already been converted to run on diesel and compressed natural gas, and this has confirmed that a dual fuel system does not affect the engine performance of such heavy vehicles.

Caroline explained: "When we have the kit in place to utilise the gas produced on site, we should be able to save hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in fuel costs with the 24 tankers we aim to convert initially."

*National Grid say there are no fundamental technical difficulties to injecting biomethane into the gas distribution network. Several plants in Europe have demonstrated this is a safe way to deliver renewable gas generated from domestic sources.*

Dr Richard Swannell, Director of Retail and Organics at WRAP, said: "The United Utilities' project was chosen because it will demonstrate cutting edge technology, helping to drive the effective use of Anaerobic Digestion. Working with National Grid, the project aims be the first in the UK to process and inject biomethane into the gas grid on a commercial scale. By using biomethane as a fuel for sludge tankers it could also help our country make more widespread use of renewable energy."

To meet the conditions of the grant, the new installation at Davyhulme will be used as a demonstration plant for engineers and politicians to visit from around the world.

Caroline Ashton added: "This is just the latest exciting chapter in the story of Davyhulme. The plant was leading the world nearly 100 years ago when modern treatment processes were developed there, and it's wonderful that this kind of innovation continues today." _​


----------



## frankblack (12 October 2009)

Yes, there seems to be a lot happening in the world of fuel cells.
From the USA 
one mob want to make the same ceramic fuel cells, validating CFCLs work
http://tinyurl.com/yg54k8z
still over there, support from Obama himself, in the form of tax credits for anything.
http://tinyurl.com/yfz3z7z
Rudd and Brumby need to be made aware.
I am starting to believe that the Copenhagen meeting might be slowing things down a bit. no doubt there will need to be adjustments made to all the figures
when the out comes are known. last time around Europe made Co2 emissions cheaper, this time surely its going to be more expensive.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Yes, there seems to be a lot happening in the world of fuel cells.
> From the USA
> one mob want to make the same ceramic fuel cells, validating CFCLs work
> http://tinyurl.com/yg54k8z




The way I read it is that the US have realised the potential of CFU's invention and are now looking for ways to get round the patent by doing the same thing using a slightly different alloy, sponsored by the government. Standard USA practice. 

We are producing now however and that gives CFU a window to become a major supplier before the yanks do the usual. If CFU can get another factory open in China or Thailand before the US get their facility made then the future is assured. If we get too far ahead, I would not be surprised to see a takeover bid turn up.

The USA is good at stealing like this, look at the competitor to Cochlear.


----------



## frankblack (12 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> We are producing now however and that gives CFU a window to become a major supplier before the yanks do the usual. If CFU can get another factory open in China or Thailand before the US get their facility made then the future is assured. If we get too far ahead, I would not be surprised to see a takeover bid turn up.
> 
> The USA is good at stealing like this, look at the competitor to Cochlear.




I don't see CFU going to China or Thailand at all in the near future, unless a huge market opens up there. CFU are manufacturing now, right. so they must be stocking up. they are able to make up to 160 000 units where they are now, where is all the demand going to come from? 
But most of all I don't see the cost of labour being a factor.

I would be very surprised to see a takeover bid turn up. Where from?
From whom? And why?


----------



## Knobby22 (12 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> I don't see CFU going to China or Thailand at all in the near future, unless a huge market opens up there. CFU are manufacturing now, right. so they must be stocking up. they are able to make up to 160 000 units where they are now, where is all the demand going to come from?
> But most of all I don't see the cost of labour being a factor.
> 
> I would be very surprised to see a takeover bid turn up. Where from?
> From whom? And why?




The 160,000 units are for the standard units.
What about the small ones to be put in cars?
What about the very large ones, there is a big market for these.

The takeover bid could be from anywhere. It depends on how good the patents are. Did you know that Australia invented the film used in water filtration plants?

A big UAS competitor took them out.


----------



## MACCA350 (12 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Yes, there seems to be a lot happening in the world of fuel cells.
> From the USA
> one mob want to make the same ceramic fuel cells, validating CFCLs work
> http://tinyurl.com/yg54k8z



Thanks for posting, I've emailed the link to CFCL and they have passed it onto their Chief Technology Officer who also manages their patent portfolio.

cheers


----------



## frankblack (12 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> The 160,000 units are for the standard units.
> What about the small ones to be put in cars?
> What about the very large ones, there is a big market for these.
> 
> ...




I certainly dont know everything about CFU, was there ever mention of them working with a car maker ?  Car makers seem to be more interested in hydrogen at least from what I can see.

In fact the biggest threat to CFU may be from the hydrogen fuel cell industry.
Hydrogen fuel cells are understood by most people everywhere, popular I would suggest. I dont believe people get what CFU are doing with natural gas and are put off by the apparent release of CO2.

Has any-one been watching Panasonic?
http://tinyurl.com/ykj6sl9
http://tinyurl.com/ygxo3za

May be too late to go after CFU for their IP, it will come at a hefty price, and as far as the business goes its a bit too early for that. Yes its possible there may be take over, just doesn't seem probable too me.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> I certainly dont know everything about CFU, was there ever mention of them working with a car maker ?  Car makers seem to be more interested in hydrogen at least from what I can see.




Hydrogen isn't the way cars are going. It is battery technology.

If you could run a fuel cell fuelled from natural gas alongside the battery, then you don't need the combustion engine. No catyltic convertors, no electronic control, no timing belt etc. Big savings. And you can run the car a lot further than just battery alone. That's why car makers are looking at it.


----------



## frankblack (12 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Hydrogen isn't the way cars are going. It is battery technology.
> 
> If you could run a fuel cell fuelled from natural gas alongside the battery, then you don't need the combustion engine. No catyltic convertors, no electronic control, no timing belt etc. Big savings. And you can run the car a lot further than just battery alone. That's why car makers are looking at it.




Yes I understand about the  battery technology. Is there any evidence of car makers working with CFU or looking at their stuff , because I may have to buy some more.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 October 2009)

Look at post 232. antz mentions Volkswagon.

....................................................................................


----------



## frankblack (12 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Look at post 232. antz mentions Volkswagon.
> 
> ....................................................................................




Yes that's true, however VW were looking at generators for the home not car.
When this was put to CFCL the reply from them was it has nothing to do with fuel cells at all. Or them


----------



## MACCA350 (12 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Yes that's true, however VW were looking at generators for the home not car.
> When this was put to CFCL the reply from them was it has nothing to do with fuel cells at all. Or them



Yes and nothing innovative about them either, they're simply a VW engine running on natural gas, weighs nearly a ton and is probably loud enough to be annoying, not to mention the polution would far exceed CFCL's method. They do state though that they use the heat generated for the house and as such their efficiency is up to 92%(though I'd say it would produce far more than could be used in an average house so 92% is probably a pipe dream). It also outputs 20kW @ 400v so I assume you'll need 3 phase installed(they mention 32Amps, yet 400v@32A = 12.8kW maybe the 20kW is at max RPM and 32A is at the most efficient operating RPM)

Would be interesting to see a comparison of the emissions. 

Link


> Volkswagen is actually really using a car engine inside the BluEco power plant.




The thing is huge compared to the BlueGen, not sure I'd want one in my garage

cheers


----------



## frankblack (12 October 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> Yes and nothing innovative about them either, they're simply a VW engine running on natural gas,
> The thing is huge compared to the BlueGen, not sure I'd want one in my garage
> 
> cheers




Sad and sorry tale it is too
Why couldnt they use the brilliant CFCL fuel cells, the world would be a better place for us all


----------



## StevieVW (12 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Sad and sorry tale it is too
> Why couldnt they use the brilliant CFCL fuel cells, the world would be a better place for us all





Especially those who are shareholders in CFU! Me being a holder albeit very small!  

Stevie.


----------



## bugmenot (13 October 2009)

This sounds suspiciously similar to CFU's compound. Are the americans trying to steal CFU's IP/ patents without paying licensing or even giving them credit?

*
“Mystery” Ceramic Could Lead to Cheaper, Stronger Hydrogen*

A team of researchers at Georgia Tech University has developed a new high-tech ceramic material that could make solid oxide fuel cells less costly and less finicky, and much more durable and efficient. The material is called *Barium-Zirconium-Cerium-Yttrium-Ytterbuim Oxide*. [Ed note: Say that three times fast and you get a gold star.] I don’t know if it’s any less of a tongue twister, but it’s known as BZCYYb for short.

Solid oxide fuel cells are of interest because they can generate energy without the need for an expensive catalyst such as platinum, which is typically used in hydrogen fuel cells. While nanotechnology is enabling the development of hydrogen fuel cells that use less platinum, with BZCYYb the prospects look good for ditching the precious metal entirely in favor of more sustainable technology””if solid oxide systems can be developed in a commercially viable form, that is.


----------



## frankblack (13 October 2009)

bugmenot said:


> This sounds suspiciously similar to CFU's compound. Are the americans trying to steal CFU's IP/ patents without paying licensing or even giving them credit?
> 
> *
> “Mystery” Ceramic Could Lead to Cheaper, Stronger Hydrogen*
> ...




Yes, this topic was briefly covered yesterday when I supplied a link to said story. MACCA350 has emailed CFCL about it I think. 
I certainly hope this doesnt lead to a long drawn out expensive legal action in the near future.


----------



## MACCA350 (13 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Yes, this topic was briefly covered yesterday when I supplied a link to said story. MACCA350 has emailed CFCL about it I think.



Yep, yesterday: "I've emailed the link to CFCL and they have passed it onto their Chief Technology Officer who also manages their patent portfolio"

I'll let you know if I get any further communications.



> I certainly hope this doesnt lead to a long drawn out expensive legal action in the near future.



Hopefully their patents are up to scratch.

cheers


----------



## frankblack (14 October 2009)

bugmenot said:


> This sounds suspiciously similar to CFU's compound. Are the americans trying to steal CFU's IP/ patents without paying licensing or even giving them credit?




Sadly,I have been giving this more thought.

This is good news for CFU, its validating all their work, showing the world its the way to go, and its a bit of free publicity.
Advertising the virtues of Solid oxide fuel cells is a good thing.
Unless they have a proven product, something to offer, a manufacturing plant,(and no body else has that), they are not going to be a threat to any one.
I have been searching and can't find any competitor for CFCL with a product or business plan, that works.

MY   any one interested in CFU will need to wait for a result out of Copenhagen as this will determine the look and feel of the marketing for CFU and the level of upside, for all of us.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 October 2009)

frankblack said:


> Sadly,I have been giving this more thought.
> 
> This is good news for CFU, its validating all their work, showing the world its the way to go, and its a bit of free publicity.
> Advertising the virtues of Solid oxide fuel cells is a good thing.
> ...




What about that English mob? From memory they plan to be producing within 2 years. They are mentioned earlier in the thread.


----------



## frankblack (14 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> What about that English mob? From memory they plan to be producing within 2 years. They are mentioned earlier in the thread.




Yes, http://www.cerespower.com/ 
Cant find anything substantial, I think they are testing their fuel cells, no results,  unless they are hiding their info, nothing but dreams. And if they are saying 2 years now, that really means 3-4 now doesnt it.
By then, even in 2 years, where will CFU be.  Lets assume CFUs product works as advertised, and get taken up by the market, there's no catching CFU they are too far out in front. Really only CFU can stuff this up.
The next competitor, if there is one, will have to be cheaper or better, and thats going to be too hard for Ceres.

The nearest to CFU would have been Panasonic,
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/04/15/panasonic_punts_fuel_cell/
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/10/0...ome-fuel-cell-cogeneration-facility/#comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMAj2MqUkzU

Especially being in Japan, I wonder how they are going ? Maybe they are having problems, running too hot ?  not as efficient either.

The truth is if CFU cant make this work, no body can. And that will be the end of the dream.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 October 2009)

Good points, frankblack. 2 years looks like a dream to me also.

The Panasonic fuel cell is not a threat. There is no infrastructure for Hydrogen. Maybe in 20 years but not now.


----------



## frankblack (14 October 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Good points, frankblack. 2 years looks like a dream to me also.
> 
> The Panasonic fuel cell is not a threat. There is no infrastructure for Hydrogen. Maybe in 20 years but not now.




The way I understand it though, this Panasonic box takes natural gas in, then converts this into Hydrogen.
Sounds more expensive and has too many parts if this is the case.
I don't like, but why would I.
I'm an unashamed CFU fan.


----------



## Craigomatic (15 October 2009)

Saw this on NewScientist, whilst it doesn't mention CFU, I wonder what might result from the dollars, especially the $10m "policy advice" fund.



> *Billionaire pledges $1 billion to develop green technologies *
> Shanta Barley, reporter
> 
> Billionaire George Soros, one-time railway porter, will invest $1 billion of his own money in *clean energy technology* to combat climate change, says The Guardian.
> ...




I hold CFU.


----------



## Eddie (15 October 2009)

Hi guy's as i disclosed previously i'm a massive noob and hav no idea wat is goin on

Wats the go with CFU!!! Why has it dropped to 26 cents?????


----------



## frankblack (15 October 2009)

Eddie said:


> Hi guy's as i disclosed previously i'm a massive noob and hav no idea wat is goin on
> 
> Wats the go with CFU!!! Why has it dropped to 26 cents?????




The price of shares fluctuate all the time, even more so for small companies like CFU. And CFU is still highly speculative stock, high risk, high reward. 
Bigger more experienced players can at times pull the strings, they can stage manage to their advantage, provided the fundamentals don't change.
No news is bad news.
And then comes the time when stop losses are triggered, so the small players cover themselves.
Theres no reason, its about the dollar.
But if its cheap enough could be an opportunity to buy some more.


----------



## bugmenot (15 October 2009)

Not sure if this is related to the previous Georgia Tech article a few posts up?

New material could hold the key to one type of clean-fuel technology.
*
Researchers announce breakthrough in fuel-cell technology*

Researchers say the ceramic-like substance - detailed recently in the journal Science - could help expand the applications for solid oxide-fuel (SOF) cells that generate electricity directly from various liquid or gaseous fuels without the need to separate hydrogen.

Though the long-term durability of the new mixed ion-conductor matter must still be proved, development could address two of the most vexing problems facing SOF cells - tolerance of sulfur in fuels and resistance to carbon buildup known as coking, the experts explain.

They say the new material could also allow SOF cells - which convert fuel to electricity more efficiently than other fuel cells - to operate at lower temperatures - potentially reducing material and fabrication costs. The research was supported by the Department of Energy's Basic Energy Science Catalysis Science Program.


----------



## awg (15 October 2009)

anyone know what is the present outcome re the company assets that were held in CDOs that went sour, neccesitating the cap raising at 5c.

Is it irretrievably lost, or might some be recovered?


----------



## frankblack (15 October 2009)

awg said:


> anyone know what is the present outcome re the company assets that were held in CDOs that went sour, neccesitating the cap raising at 5c.
> 
> Is it irretrievably lost, or might some be recovered?




Yes, CFU is proceeding with legal action to recover the money lost or most of it, and is confident of a successful out come for the shareholders. This may take some time though.


----------



## Boyou (18 October 2009)

While we watch some (ahem) consolidation in the SP...here is a link from the company website on the manufacturing process and the factory in Heinsberg ,Germany

Nice robots  

http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20091002_CFCL_Heinsberg_Opening_Background_Paper.pdf


----------



## frankblack (18 October 2009)

Boyou said:


> Nice robots
> 
> http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20091002_CFCL_Heinsberg_Opening_Background_Paper.pdf




Very nice robots, and the Japanese cant wait to build us some more, in return for some lovely fuel cells, hey, every ones a winner.


----------



## Boyou (27 October 2009)

I lifted this from another forum. 

From Timesonline..the last paragraph might be portentious for CFU


An influential think-tank, supported by the government, will tomorrow urge £150 billion of new green taxes on businesses and households ”” including a £3,300 levy on new cars.

The recommendations from the Green Fiscal Commission (GFC), to be presented by Lord Turner, head of the committee on climate change ”” and chairman of the Financial Services Authority ”” could bring a drastic reshaping of the tax system to curb greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in low-carbon technology. Among the proposals are a tripling of fuel duty over the next decade, a household energy tax, and the hefty tax added to the price of every new car.

Greg Barker, the Tory environment spokesman, Alan Whitehead, a Labour MP on the energy select committee, and Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, will speak at the launch of the 100-page report from the commission ”” a body of academics, industrialists and politicians set up to advise government.

The GFC, which is chaired by Robert Napier, chairman of the Met Office, argues for a “fundamental rebalancing of the tax system” based on the “polluter pays” principle.



    * 'Green’ tax will end up depriving the needy 

    * Matt Cooper: Lenihan sorely taxed to get his way on cuts 

It wants to double the proportion of green taxes in the overall tax take from the current 7%. The government’s total tax income would not rise because the hikes in green levies would be offset by cuts to income tax and National Insurance contributions.

The report sets out different models for the tax system depending on different commodity-price assumptions and required levels of investment for clean technologies and energy-efficiency measures.

The broad theme is for a raft of new “eco taxes” aimed at curtailing activities, of both individuals and businesses, that use natural resources or create pollution.

Paul Elkins, a professor at University College London and the author of the report, said: “It’s really a question of moving a mindset. We’ve had it as a given that energy is cheap, so we have been wasteful. This has to change and the only way to do that is to make the polluters pay.” Elkins said he was “hopeful” that the recommendations will be adopted by the leading political parties.

Among the most controversial proposals would be a £300 tax on new cars, increasing annually to £3,300 by 2020.

Representatives from the Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour were closely involved in drafting the report.

The Tories have been briefing power companies on a scheme that would provide £6,500 to every household in Britain to spend on energy-efficiency measures. The sum would come in the form of a low-cost loan to energy suppliers, which would be repaid over several years via contributions through domestic energy bills.


----------



## Boyou (8 November 2009)

Have just learned that CFU will be the subject of an interview/report on Inside Business ..ABC..With Alan Koheler.

Goiing to air now...but delayed 1 hour for us Qld'ers


----------



## jbocker (9 November 2009)

Boyou said:


> Have just learned that CFU will be the subject of an interview/report on Inside Business ..ABC..With Alan Koheler.
> 
> Goiing to air now...but delayed 1 hour for us Qld'ers




Totally missed it Boyou, how did it go? Nothing posted on the CFCL website as yet.
I trust it was postive.


----------



## Boyou (9 November 2009)

Yes,positive.Only a short piece.

A mini tour of the Noble Park facility with Brendan Dow and mention of the Heinsberg plant.

Nothing new for us,just good to know it's on the mainstream radar.

The Insiders show ,which contains A K's Business report is available on i View from the ABC website.Thay have it up there now ,but not sure if the CFU segment is covered.


----------



## Boyou (9 November 2009)

I did some ferreting and found the transcript from the report.

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2009/s2736377.htm


----------



## jbocker (10 November 2009)

Well done Boyou. 
Yes a good little article, nothing new to those who have been following the company, but the more times the media pick up the CFCL story the better for the company. 
I wonder how the power utility and the gas supplier utlity / companies feel about the concept of distributed power generation (ie people creating their own power, using gas).


----------



## Boyou (10 November 2009)

Thanks ,Jbocker.
I think CFCL's strategy for marketing the units in other countries,those where it has agreements with power utilities ,is to supply the units directly to them ,they then lease /hire them to consumers ,thus generating revenue that way.

Not sure how these utilities view the prospect of individuals owning them outright..might have implications for their revenue stream.

The other issue  that someone raised (can't remember where i read it) ,is Safety... the problem of isolating sections of the grid when power lines are being serviced /repaired ,if the grid is also taking power from individual units  feeding back into the grid..might be  asubject of interest to the unions ,if no -one else...


----------



## MACCA350 (10 November 2009)

Boyou said:


> Thanks ,Jbocker.
> The other issue  that someone raised (can't remember where i read it) ,is Safety... the problem of isolating sections of the grid when power lines are being serviced /repaired ,if the grid is also taking power from individual units  feeding back into the grid..might be  asubject of interest to the unions ,if no -one else...



That won't be specific to CFCL, and other methods are already returning power to the grid so they must have it sorted.

On the flip side there is a benefit in that the more individual generators(of any kind) in the grid alleviates base(and especially peak) load meaning less demand on infrastructure(supply chain) causing less blackouts, and when blackouts do occur less area would be affected.

cheers


----------



## Boyou (10 November 2009)

Good info MACCA350

I would suppose you are right ..the issue must have been dealt with before.

Your other point about the grid is astute..it randomises ,or perhaps diversifies the generation sources.. the old saying about not putting all your eggs in one basket comes to mind


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (10 November 2009)

Boyou said:


> The other issue ... is Safety... the problem of isolating sections of the grid when power lines are being serviced /repaired ,if the grid is also taking power from individual units feeding back into the grid..might be  a subject of interest to the unions ,if no -one else...




This IMO is a bull**** concern raised by the power distributors. With any solar panel installations, the inverter (used to convert the 24V to 240V) requires 240V to operate. If they have isolated the power lines in order to work on them, there will be no power reaching the house and no power to power the inverter - hence NOTHING getting back onto the grid.

Surely the fuel cell will have something similar installed - it must have to have power in order to make it. It can't just magically turn on like a transformer robot!


----------



## gman027 (20 November 2009)

Eddie said:


> Hi guy's as i disclosed previously i'm a massive noob and hav no idea wat is goin on
> 
> Wats the go with CFU!!! Why has it dropped to 26 cents?????





As someone said spekky shares will be particularly affected by market sentiment. I noticed that NASDQ has made a bottom on the second of the month and a top on the 23rd for the last two months and November is looking much the same.

I don't own any CFU - but I was thinking, by that pattern I might see an opportunity to buy some on the next overall dip in the markets.

G


----------



## Boyou (20 November 2009)

gman027,this is still a high risk play.

Current Sp reflects the market's aversion to that risk.They still have to deliver on "expectations" of orders from their major utility partners..when and if they do CFCL are going to move fast.

The Rand D phase is behind them..guess it is all down to marketing and the market 

Good luck if you buy in..I keep buying on the dips also


----------



## yma (1 December 2009)

I think the share price will start going up as the Copenhagen meeting is coming, any thought? 
hopefully another big jump.


----------



## noco (1 December 2009)

yma said:


> I think the share price will start going up as the Copenhagen meeting is coming, any thought?
> hopefully another big jump.




IMHO I do not believe Copenhagen will have influence on the share price.

The increase will come when CFU get up to full production in Germany. They are currently looking at 10,000 Blu Gen Units in the first 12 months, increasing to 160,000 down the track. Once CFU start to show a substantial profit and the dividends start to flow, then you could expect to see some movement in the share price. Just when that will happen, you should seek info from the CFU Directors. They will most definetly respond to your queries.

Japan is keen to use this technology and have one on trail with the prospects of 50,000 units if they meet the criteria. The countries who will be the main users in the future will be the EU, Brittain, Japan and maybe Canada, where in particular the EU and Brittain who do not have sufficient sunshine to support renewable energy. BLU GEN sets not only produce electricity but can heat something like 200 litres of hot water per day, which will benifit users in Brittain and the EU.

I have held CFU shares for a couple of years now and I'm not about to give up on them ATM. I have faith in the product and its all about time.


----------



## frankblack (1 December 2009)

noco said:


> IMHO I do not believe Copenhagen will have influence on the share price.
> 
> The increase will come when CFU get up to full production




If, anything concrete comes out of the Copenhagen talk fest, all bets are off.
No one knows if an agreement can be reached in december.
A change in the CFU share price will occur regardless of any facts because the market will re rate the share price well in advance.


----------



## yma (2 December 2009)

frankblack said:


> If, anything concrete comes out of the Copenhagen talk fest, all bets are off.
> No one knows if an agreement can be reached in december.
> A change in the CFU share price will occur regardless of any facts because the market will re rate the share price well in advance.




It doesn't need to be any agreement as long as getting more focus, i believe that  low emission energy will be hot for a while.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 December 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> On the flip side there is a benefit in that the more individual generators(of any kind) in the grid alleviates base(and especially peak) load meaning less demand on infrastructure(supply chain) causing less blackouts, and when blackouts do occur less area would be affected.
> 
> cheers



This is not necessarily a function of distributed, small generators - a large power station does exactly the same thing in that it adds base / intermediate / peak generation to the grid.

One potential major problem with fuel cells or any other distributed generation relates to its load profile given that they are not subject to centralised control. In short, if these units are not generating (for whatever reason) when demand is highest they they are essentially useless in terms of managing peak demand and do not provide an alternative to conventional power generation. That means that at times the fuel cell needs to be running flat out when nobody is home in order to meet the total load on the grid.

If this is going to work on a large scale then I'd be very seriously looking at some form of centralised control via a communications system (preferably NOT the internet as it just isn't reliable enough). Either that or they aren't a true alternative to centralised generation for the majority of supply (though they could operate satisfactorily at the margins).

To be specific, the real danger if these became common is that people might not have them running during Summer afternoons since they don't need the heat or hot water produced. That WILL bring down the entire grid unless the grid and conventional power stations continue to be built and expanded as though distributed generation did not exist, a situation which makes the fuel cells uneconomic at best.

I'm not against the idea, as long as people realise that to be a real alternative it has to be just that - a real alternative. And that does mean that household units will be running flat out at times when the house is unoccupied in order to export power to the grid if they are to be a major source of generation.

As for the technical issues about isolating lines for maintenance etc, that is quite easily solvable by incorporating voltage rise protection and anti-islanding into the system. That is conentional technology so no big deal.


----------



## frankblack (2 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> This is not necessarily a function of distributed, small generators - a large power station does exactly the same thing in that it adds base / intermediate / peak generation to the grid.
> 
> That means that at times the fuel cell needs to be running flat out when nobody is home in order to meet the total load on the grid.
> 
> To be specific, the real danger if these became common is that people might not have them running during Summer afternoons since they don't need the heat or hot water produced. That WILL bring down the entire grid unless the grid and conventional power stations continue to be built and expanded as though distributed generation did not exist, a situation which makes the fuel cells uneconomic at best.




The whole idea, for the bluegen or any of CFCLs machines is to run 24/7, 365.
always on, at the same speed. Excess power sold/put into the grid. If excess power can not be sold to the grid at a fair price, the owners can not pay the gas bill, and so it can not work at all.

"To be specific, the real danger if these became common is that people might not have them running during Summer afternoons since they don't need the heat or hot water produced." what the?

You would definitely need it to run then, to power the air conditioner, fridge,  and have a hot shower 
It's not for the "owner" to to turn on and off, which can not be done practically as it takes 24 hours to start up. Not sure there's any low, medium or high, just on.


----------



## MACCA350 (2 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> This is not necessarily a function of distributed, small generators - a large power station does exactly the same thing in that it adds base / intermediate / peak generation to the grid.



I was referring to the transmission lines. If there are many individual units in the grid the load over the lines are less then if they are not in the circuit. This means the transmission lines can accommodate a higher number of houses/etc without the need to be upgraded.



> One potential major problem with fuel cells or any other distributed generation relates to its load profile given that they are not subject to centralised control.



Just to expand on what Frank has mentioned, the BlueGen units have an Ethernet port for communication between the unit and a central control. Not sure if this is for over the internet, but it may be intended for some kind of closed network.

I read somewhere that CFCL did this to allow the units to be controlled by a central system by the electricity supplier for that particular area(they also mentioned that in this case the supplier would most likely bear some/all of cost of individual units, or some other subsidy). In which case the individual units can be ramped up to full capacity in peak loads and reduced in lower usage times. The benefit of this was that the BlueGen units can increase capacity far quicker then the usual supply methods resulting in less blackouts due to a lag in supply.

cheers


----------



## frankblack (3 December 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> Just to expand on what Frank has mentioned, the BlueGen units have an Ethernet port for communication between the unit and a central control. Not sure if this is for over the internet, but it may be intended for some kind of closed network.
> 
> I read somewhere that CFCL did this to allow the units to be controlled by a central system by the electricity supplier




I wonder who controls all the solar panels all ready up and running?
or dont they need controlling because they dont contribute much?
Surely a reliable constant supply doesnt need much controlling at all?
Its for the 'base load' generators to adjust themselves to what extra might be needed.


----------



## MACCA350 (3 December 2009)

frankblack said:


> I wonder who controls all the solar panels all ready up and running?
> or dont they need controlling because they dont contribute much?
> Surely a reliable constant supply doesnt need much controlling at all?



My thoughts exactly. As a direct to customer product, it would be up to the customer to decide what output capacity it runs, and if it were mine I'd run it at it's highest output/efficiency to earn it's highest return.



> Its for the 'base load' generators to adjust themselves to what extra might be needed.



Problem is, as I understand it, the current 'base load' generators are slow to adjust, meaning there are blackouts during the lag time. CFCL's option would make these type of blackouts a thing of the past...........at least that's what I took from their literature. Though I'm not sure how much of an issue this really is, as we tend to only have blackouts when a car takes out a pole on the nearby main road.

cheers


----------



## frankblack (3 December 2009)

Read this the other day, i found it interesting,
and was amazed they could claim 80% energy efficiency!
another market being mentioned all the time is California.
seems to be alot of demand, yet the orders/announcements are not coming.
i wonder why????????  
http://tinyurl.com/yk5razb
Tokyo, Japan ”” Japan, as a country with few natural energy resources, is eager to come up with alternative energy sources and has been taking the lead in developing this field. This year the world's first household hydrogen fuel cell was made available here. It can provide for a family’s energy needs, but there are some problems.
Japan's major gas companies started selling the Ene-Farm system, which generates electricity and hot water at the same time using the city’s gas supply, in May in major cities. It achieves 80 percent energy efficiency, twice what a conventional power generation system has.

Although it emits a certain amount of carbon dioxide, it still cuts 30 percent of emission of the gas, comparing to a general household using a conventional hot-water system and electricity generated by heat power plants.

If the system becomes widely used, it could contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Japan, the world's fifth-biggest emitter of the gases. For a midterm goal, the country aims to cut its emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

The weak point of the system is that it cannot be an alternative to fossil fuels as the Ene-Farm relies on the city gas supply, made from natural gas, to manufacture hydrogen. Still, since the system reduces primary energy consumption by 33 percent due to its high energy efficiency, it is worthwhile, according to Professor Kazunari Sasaki, director of the International Research Center for Hydrogen Energy at Kyushu University in southern Japan.

"From the viewpoint of promoting the effective use of primary energy, the Ene-Farm fully achieves its purpose," Sasaki said. Energy saving by households is also very important and cutting 30 percent of the emissions from the residential sector is enough, he added.

Another weak point of the system is that it does not work without ordinary electricity, meaning that it cannot be used as an emergency power source in case of a power outage.

But most problematic is the system’s high cost. The Ene-Farm system is priced at US$39,000. The government subsidizes each system by US$15,000, but the buyer still has to pay US$24,000 for the power generation system. This is not cost-effective, as it reduces expenses for electricity and gas by only around US$700 per year, on average.

Noayoshi Ogake, public relations director of Japan's largest gas utility Tokyo Gas, admitted that buyers cannot recover their initial investment even in the long term. From May to October this year, Tokyo Gas has sold 1050 systems, half its target, and planned to sell 42,000 by 2013, Ogake said.

It is not easy to bring down the high cost of hydrogen fuel cells, as manufacturing hydrogen in abundance at a low price is not easy. There are difficult challenges with its manufacturing, storing and transporting.

"Using renewable energy to make hydrogen is under review, but recently we realized that making it efficiently is not easy," said Kenichiro Ota, a professor at Yokohama National University, in a recent speech in Tokyo. "Based on the current infrastructure, we need to promote hydrogen energy with realistic thinking. Of course, depending on fossil fuels is one option."

Speaking to the Hydrogen Energy Systems Society of Japan in late October, Ota, former president of the society and now its adviser, emphasized the importance of introducing a hydrogen economy from the viewpoint of environment preservation. "Since hydrogen is good for the environment, we have no alternative though it costs more," Ota said.

Sasaki also agrees with Ota. "We will manufacture hydrogen by reforming natural gas in the coming 10 to 20 years, but want to use renewable energy in the long and medium terms," Sasaki said.

Japan, which has almost no underground fossil fuels, hopes to introduce hydrogen technology little by little, utilizing current infrastructure to the maximum extent possible. Manufacturers of household fuel cells and fuel-cell vehicles, another leading experimental technology, are counting on this trend to continue.

Some energy experts remain skeptical about hydrogen, however. "Making cars run by electricity is efficient and its zero emissions are wonderful, but it is fatal that the process takes too much energy," said Osamu Amano, a fellow at the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry.

Hydrogen experts believe that its weak points will be resolved in the future, but Amano thinks this is a myth. “I don't think there is a solution," he stressed.

Yasumasa Fujii, a professor at the Graduate School of Engineering of the University of Tokyo, is also skeptical toward hydrogen, pointing out that it cannot compete with electricity because it is economically inefficient.

As for manufacturing hydrogen from water using electricity generated by renewable energy, Fujii says, "The manufactured hydrogen from renewable energy is used to generate electricity again. It takes a roundabout way. We should use electricity generated from renewable energy as electricity itself."

However, he concedes that hydrogen could be useful only as a fuel for vehicles. "In the future, an application that must definitely use hydrogen might be found, but I do not know," Fujii said.


----------



## Boyou (3 December 2009)

Interesting article...but what do you make of this quote?

"Another weak point of the system is that it does not work without ordinary electricity, meaning that it cannot be used as an emergency power source in case of a power outage."

What is ordinary electricity? .That which is generated in the conventional way ,using coal fired power? ..and why doesn't it work with conventional?


----------



## StevieVW (3 December 2009)

Boyou said:


> Interesting article...but what do you make of this quote?
> 
> "Another weak point of the system is that it does not work without ordinary electricity, meaning that it cannot be used as an emergency power source in case of a power outage."
> 
> What is ordinary electricity? .That which is generated in the conventional way ,using coal fired power? ..and why doesn't it work with conventional?




If the grid goes down it does not produce.  Prevents backfeeding when there could be a grid fault. I believe same as solar systems.


----------



## frankblack (3 December 2009)

Boyou said:


> Interesting article...but what do you make of this quote?
> 
> "Another weak point of the system is that it does not work without ordinary electricity, meaning that it cannot be used as an emergency power source in case of a power outage."
> 
> What is ordinary electricity? .That which is generated in the conventional way ,using coal fired power? ..and why doesn't it work with conventional?




Yes, the truth is CFCLs system doesnt work without the grid, or if there is power supply failure from the grid.
exactly why i dont know.
but how many days a year is that likely and how that affects the customers,
is the question??????


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2009)

frankblack said:


> Yes, the truth is CFCLs system doesnt work without the grid, or if there is power supply failure from the grid.
> exactly why i dont know.




Because you would trying to feed everyone still connected to the part of the grid that has been disconnected from power stations with the CFU unit or PV system. A really big load from tiny generators, it can't work. 
Plus you may be feeding a fault. 

There is also the problem of the frequency of the AC with no base load but there's no point getting into detail with that.

Hard to explain, I've got an education in this area.


----------



## Boyou (4 December 2009)

Thanks for the technicals on this ,Knobby22.I don't have a background in this,so will ask another rube question...or rather suggest something.

So ,granted ,the unit won't distribute when the grid is down ,but,surely it can be isolated so that it can still be used in the house.A simple switch ,either manual or automatic could be set up.

It gives the owner "power autonomy" ..Independence from the grid,in times of outage.Yes?  No?


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2009)

Boyou said:


> Thanks for the technicals on this ,Knobby22.I don't have a background in this,so will ask another rube question...or rather suggest something.
> 
> So ,granted ,the unit won't distribute when the grid is down ,but,surely it can be isolated so that it can still be used in the house.A simple switch ,either manual or automatic could be set up.
> 
> It gives the owner "power autonomy" ..Independence from the grid,in times of outage.Yes?  No?




It could be done, Boyou. It is not a UPS so there would need to be a short period of down time. Also, there would need to be an automatic changeover switch and software so it would obviously cost more. In countries where power is poor such as Indonesia, it would be a real plus. Maybe they will build a version with this capability one day.


----------



## MACCA350 (4 December 2009)

You'd probably need a bank of batteries in that case also due to the fluctuations of individual demand.

cheers


----------



## Tanr (4 December 2009)

In regards to power feeding back to grid when grid down have been advised by electricity(Aurora) here in Tas that if system is down your house has to be down. Problem from there view is you could feed power back in and zap a worker. They also advise that it is illegal to have a switching unit in place to use power yourself when grid is down and there are large fines if caught.
Was trying to use a micro hydro system and had to do research.


----------



## noco (4 December 2009)

Tanr said:


> In regards to power feeding back to grid when grid down have been advised by electricity(Aurora) here in Tas that if system is down your house has to be down. Problem from there view is you could feed power back in and zap a worker. They also advise that it is illegal to have a switching unit in place to use power yourself when grid is down and there are large fines if caught.
> Was trying to use a micro hydro system and had to do research.




Can anyone tell me if this applies to Solar power?

Have a friend in Townsville who tells me his excess goes back into the grid and reverses his meter.

Am interested in any opinions as I'm a dumb bu*@ger when it comes to sparks.


----------



## frankblack (4 December 2009)

Tanr said:


> In regards to power feeding back to grid when grid down have been advised by electricity(Aurora) here in Tas that if system is down your house has to be down. Problem from there view is you could feed power back in and zap a worker. They also advise that it is illegal to have a switching unit in place to use power yourself when grid is down and there are large fines if caught.
> Was trying to use a micro hydro system and had to do research.




And all of this is not unique in the world.
back in the U.S.A. they are doing stuff too.

The intent of the ClearEdge5 is to provide your base and load power, supplementing energy use from a major power grid, not to replace it completely. In the event of a power outage, the unit will disconnect from the grid. If the customer chooses, the site can be configured for the ClearEdge5 to power essential circuits to cover important customer needs, such as lighting, a wine cooler or refrigerator.

for more have a look at the FAQ. ClearEdge are doing the same thing as CFU
only slightly bigger.
http://tinyurl.com/ykuclsz

My view is, if this technology takes off there will be an evolution as to where it goes and what the customers demand, who meets the demand and which companies capitalize.
Early days.


----------



## yma (16 January 2010)

Has any heard anything about CFU to begin sales of fuel cell electricity generators to households? A bit quiet these days


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 January 2010)

noco said:


> Can anyone tell me if this applies to Solar power?
> 
> Have a friend in Townsville who tells me his excess goes back into the grid and reverses his meter.
> 
> Am interested in any opinions as I'm a dumb bu*@ger when it comes to sparks.



Small grid-connected generation (solar PV, fuel cells etc) in the way it is typically applied is not capable of independently maintaining frequency and voltage in an islanded grid. But yes, they can and do feed power back into the grid and this will reduce your power bills.

In layman's terms, that means it generates power but is "tied" to the grid and conventional power stations - your solar or fuel cell doesn't itself maintain a stable 240V 50Hz supply but rather, the grid forces it to do nothing else. In other words, your 1 kW solar panels can't fight and win against multiple large power stations, many of them over 1 million kW each, and will thus maintain frequency as per the grid.

That doesn't affect it producing power, yes grid connected solar installations do work and do feed power into the grid, but it does mean we can't run the entire grid this way. We still need conventional centrally dispatched generation (that is, large power stations) as well as other sources to make the whole thing work. 

Much the same scenario applies to large scale (power company) wind generation and this is one of the things that limits its use. Also it applies to DC transmission links as well.

To illustrate the point, the situation at off-peak times in Tasmania is a good one. Under extreme _minimum_ load conditions (middle of the night in Summer), up to 50% of total load could in theory be supplied from Victoria via Basslink (the Vic - Tas DC power cable) with another 15% from local wind generation if it's windy enough.

Now the problem is this. The wind generation and the DC link are both inherently unstable, they work satisfactorily only because conventional (mostly hydro in Tasmania's case) power stations maintain control of system frequency. And it goes without saying that having 65% of the load supplied from sources that depend on the remaining 35% to work is pushing the limits technically - it only works because of a rather complicated system which automatically sheds industrial loads in the event of a system disturbance. 

Incidents and industrial load trips are fairly common, it's just that the major industries take it for granted (that is why they get cheap power - the product they are getting is very different to what you're paying far more for at home, hence it should be and is cheaper) and the public never hears about it. 

But even with that system in place, flow across Basslink is very often constrained by system stability limits rather than the capacity of Basslink itself or the underlying desirability at the time of transferring power across it. And we still end up with multiple hydro plants operating at very low output (under 10% of capacity, sometimes way below that) ready to take up load in the event that something happens with Basslink / wind.

In the case of your home, it's not impossible to install an isolating and change-over switch to run the house from some source other than the grid. That can be done perfectly legally. However, you'll need a PV (solar) inverter that is set up to handle such operation for it to work, and you will find it _very_ problematic for a single small system given the constant wide variation in solar output and also the variations in your consumption unless you've got a big inverter and some batteries to balance the load. 

With a fuel cell it could in theory work better, except for the reality that they are baseload units not intended for load following. That is, it would work to keep your aquarium, clocks and other constant loads running nicely but the sudden load change when you turn the kettle on is a major problem.

In short, yes all these fuel cells, solar etc can work (I've got panels on my roof) but only up to a point. We still need the grid and conventional power stations under centralised control in order to keep the system balanced. If we're going to use renewables for that, then hydro or pumped storage is really the only option available that's reasonably cheap, doesn't involve a huge amount of toxic materials and which actually works.

Realistically, if you want back-up power at home then in most situations a diesel, petrol or gas (internal combustion engine, not fuel cell) generator or alternatively an inverter of some type with a large battery is the way to go for most people. Sure, put PV (solar) or a fuel cell in if you want to cut your bills and do something for the environment, but it's not the best way to protect yourself from blackouts under most circumstances.

What's worthwhile as blackout protection depends on how much you want to spend and what you want to use it for. If you're in the bush and just want to keep the fridge and a couple of lights going during an extended blackout then a petrol generator and an extension lead will be your cheapest and easieset option. But if you're sitting in front of the computer day trading then a UPS is sensible and you might want a permanently installed generator as well if you stand to lose enough $ due to a power failure to make such insurance measures worthwhile.

Don't forget however that grid power is about 99.95% reliable for the average consumer (yes I know it's nowhere near as good in some areas). So unless you really do need something better, for most people it wouldn't be worth spending the money on back-up. How much are you really prepared to pay for 4 hours a year?

I'm a licensed electrician and if you look closely at my avatar (as of now, will probably change it someday) you'll see it's a power station control room...


----------



## noco (17 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Small grid-connected generation (solar PV, fuel cells etc) in the way it is typically applied is not capable of independently maintaining frequency and voltage in an islanded grid. But yes, they can and do feed power back into the grid and this will reduce your power bills.
> 
> In layman's terms, that means it generates power but is "tied" to the grid and conventional power stations - your solar or fuel cell doesn't itself maintain a stable 240V 50Hz supply but rather, the grid forces it to do nothing else. In other words, your 1 kW solar panels can't fight and win against multiple large power stations, many of them over 1 million kW each, and will thus maintain frequency as per the grid.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that run down Smirf, I feel better informed now.

With the extreme cold weather in Europe this winter, perhaps we may see some movement in the sale of Blu Gen sets. No wonder they are being manufactured in Germany.


----------



## ShareDevil (19 January 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Small grid-connected generation (solar PV, fuel cells etc) in the way it is typically applied is not capable of independently maintaining frequency and voltage in an islanded grid. But yes, they can and do feed power back into the grid and this will reduce your power bills.
> 
> In layman's terms, that means it generates power but is "tied" to the grid and conventional power stations - your solar or fuel cell doesn't itself maintain a stable 240V 50Hz supply but rather, the grid forces it to do nothing else. In other words, your 1 kW solar panels can't fight and win against multiple large power stations, many of them over 1 million kW each, and will thus maintain frequency as per the grid.
> 
> ...




CFU have nothing to do with maintaining a households power during a blackout, the same way grid PV doesn't. They don't claim to either.  The grid interactive inverters used in both systems, sync with the grid. Like you say, get batteries if that floats your boat.

CFU's advantage is that the units can be controlled from afar, regardless of sunlight or wind, and produce electricity to fill a gap. This gap can be caused by many things, kettles being one. Oh and heat is also a bonus for heating water. 

To quote your example of the kettle. If we knew the kettles were going to be turned on (ie:it's over 40 degrees and AC's are going mental) then we could fire up another fuel cell to cover it, or in the case of a power company, a shed load of them located all over the place. 

I agree, a central power station is still necessary, but these units can allow a power company to expand a section of grid and cover high demand use locally, therefore being more efficient and saving on grid upgrades.

What if an entire SkyScraper was powered (covered it's load) by it's own set of fuel cells by day, and fed excess to grid at night, WHEN needed? 

Kind of like turning all the solar panels in Australia on at night. That would be handy to a power company wouldn't it?


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 January 2010)

As peaking generation there's a huge attraction in fuel cells in theory at least. Trouble is, the product on offer seems to have a very slow response and be intended for baseload operation only, thus making it unable to follow load.


----------



## naughtynickers (25 January 2010)

news just released they have sold into europe finally... 

Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited [AIM/ASX: CFU], a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings, has sold its first BlueGen power and heating units in Europe, to leading German utility EWE.
EWE has ordered three BlueGen units, for delivery in Q2 and Q3 2010. EWE will install and operate the BlueGen units in EWE facilities and family homes in the North West of Germany.
BlueGen is the latest breakthrough in small scale electricity generation. About the size of a dishwasher, each BlueGen unit can produce twice the electricity needed to power an average home, with the surplus electricity being sold back to the grid. BlueGen also produces heat, to make enough hot water for an average home.
BlueGen units can generate electricity more efficiently than the current European power grid, significantly reducing a home’s carbon emissions and cutting energy bills.
Ceramic Fuel Cells has achieved the highest electrical efficiency of any product in the large market for small scale power and heat products.
Ceramic Fuel Cells has been working with EWE since 2005. EWE has deep experience with fuel cells and distributed generation.
ENDS


----------



## yma (25 January 2010)

Sounds good, hope to hear more sale news. Also was the news released before or after today's market close?


----------



## jbocker (26 January 2010)

Well spotted NNickers!
Should have been very good news. I see the announcement on the ASX but didnt notice the ASX notification on the day, (25 Jan). News did nothing locally -9.5%, London market -8.8%. Which is a pity because I see it as a breakthrough piece of news albeit only a few bluegens. Now people can see them in action (in Europe), hopefully they then really market them and the fuel cells.

YMA, I couldnt find the time of release of the news. Still snooping.

See what happens in London tonight (26th) and ASX tomorrow.

Cheers


----------



## jbocker (26 January 2010)

yma said:


> Sounds good, hope to hear more sale news. Also was the news released before or after today's market close?




I can see one article report (timed) 25 January 2010 @ 09:52 am BST (British Summer Time?), I think it may have been announced at the opening of London exchange.


----------



## brty (26 January 2010)

> EWE has ordered three BlueGen units,




This is probably the bad news, as in 'only 3'. If you have a manufacturing facility you need to be selling more than 3 to large potential customers to experiment with.

brty


----------



## yma (26 January 2010)

jbocker said:


> Well spotted NNickers!
> Should have been very good news. I see the announcement on the ASX but didnt notice the ASX notification on the day, (25 Jan). News did nothing locally -9.5%, London market -8.8%. Which is a pity because I see it as a breakthrough piece of news albeit only a few bluegens. Now people can see them in action (in Europe), hopefully they then really market them and the fuel cells.
> 
> YMA, I couldnt find the time of release of the news. Still snooping.
> ...




Thanks jbocker, let wait and see how the market reflects this news.



brty said:


> This is probably the bad news, as in 'only 3'. If you have a manufacturing facility you need to be selling more than 3 to large potential customers to experiment with.
> 
> brty



couple months ago,Australian energy utility has agreed to install a BlueGen gas-to-electricity generator in a showcase sustainability home. i think it is all based on how good is the product, thought that only 3 this time,  hopefully more news to come once it is a proven good product


----------



## yma (28 January 2010)

The price bounce back a bit yesterday even with the market lost almost by 2%, looking forward to hear more news for it.


----------



## naughtynickers (28 January 2010)

It's the first time since September that the share price is hovering under 20 cent region... The news of the germany sales got a bit of action as the last couple of days volume is well over double. I get a hunch if it doesn't hold 20 you one may suggest you are going to get some serious selling pressure from people who only got on board recently. 

I see this as an opportunity to get in this as I have been watching since for ages and also been too soft to get in!


----------



## craigj (29 January 2010)

this is a long term investment with big upside in europe
if you like the story dollar cost average into the share price


----------



## gypsysbt (31 January 2010)

craigj said:


> this is a long term investment with big upside in europe
> if you like the story dollar cost average into the share price




I agree and see any short term weakness in the SP as a great buying opportunity and have been averaging in over last year. It is early days but I for one believe this to be a blue chip company of the future and quite happy to buy on the dips and hold long term, it is possible you may never see the SP at these levels again


----------



## Johnny Utah (2 February 2010)

Positive news overnight. See attachments.

Stock is up 3c in first 15 mins of trading. up 17.6%. (20c)


----------



## yma (2 February 2010)

Hi Johnny Utah, from the doc it didn't mention about the quantity, do you know the exact figure? more than 3 this time?


----------



## DAZT49 (2 February 2010)

this stock is DOWN 50% from sept 09.
There must be a reason for this, bring it bad direction from the company ot "the market' doesnt think it will get up.
i have lost a bucket load because of some CFD trades so i guess I am shoity about it.


----------



## naughtynickers (2 February 2010)

DAZT49 said:


> this stock is DOWN 50% from sept 09.
> There must be a reason for this, bring it bad direction from the company ot "the market' doesnt think it will get up.
> i have lost a bucket load because of some CFD trades so i guess I am shoity about it.




Perhaps the reason was a long over due correction.

The stock may be down 50% since then but from a year ago it is up almost 400%....  I mean it went from below 5 cents to around mid 30's in the space of 6 months. What a run it was!


----------



## tunrida (2 February 2010)

7 years of negative cash flow and little indication of that changing soon, shares on issue going from 27mil to over a billion - wonders if the original prospectus suggested those numbers


----------



## Meltrader (23 February 2010)

Does anyone know what's going on with CFU today? Up 9% and more than 27 million shares traded? Who is buying??


----------



## Miner (23 February 2010)

Meltrader said:


> Does anyone know what's going on with CFU today? Up 9% and more than 27 million shares traded? Who is buying??




One newsletter (Not Eureka Report ) has recommended it as a buy at a certain price. The report was released on Monday night obviously giving opportunity to its own mates to buy on Monday. 

I have seen however most of their recommendations have dived down drastically and they have stated SELL  trailing stop after 35% loss. So although I have subscribed to it but not tempted to buy at their recommendation. Some times they were correct (obviously to keep the subscription list alive and getting a herd of sheep to follow their advise being subscribers) . After many failed recommendations probably this time could be right but recommendations have not been supported with any tangible data, I visited website and not impressed unless something fishy behind the curtain. The same newsletter has also said - high risk speculation.

So bottom line - it could be the effect of traders' manipulation and just read reliable data analysis before jumping into conclusion.

DNH and did some reading after reading the speculative recommendation. 

DYOR .


----------



## eddyeagle (23 February 2010)

Meltrader said:


> Does anyone know what's going on with CFU today? Up 9% and more than 27 million shares traded? Who is buying??





Tipped in a small cap newsletter yesterday! The newsletter has a large reader base and the stocks tipped normally get a bit of a boost (in the short term anyway).


----------



## basilio (24 February 2010)

Just noticed that there is going to a launch of Bloom Box in America. This a solid state fuel cell that "promises" to be  substantially cheaper  than anything else on the market.

It has been commercially trialled for  over 9 months with 20 large companies (Google, Fed Ex,  E Bay etc) so it isn't complete bs.

I also noticed on another thread that a company called AFC in England has a cheap alkaline fuel cell on the market. They already have an arrangement with LINC energy to  produce electricity from the coal to gas plant LINC has operational.

The point of all this?  Is it possible that CFU's  technology, while very good, might be overtaken ?

http://dvice.com/archives/2010/02/bloom-box-could.php

http://www.afcenergy.com/2010/02/22...rst-milestone-in-coal-gasification-agreement/


----------



## moXJO (24 February 2010)

basilio said:


> Just noticed that there is going to a launch of Bloom Box in America. This a solid state fuel cell that "promises" to be  substantially cheaper  than anything else on the market.
> 
> It has been commercially trialled for  over 9 months with 20 large companies (Google, Fed Ex,  E Bay etc) so it isn't complete bs.
> 
> ...




This would be one of the concerns with CFU. Will it become the Betamax of the fuel cell world? Technology does not need to be overtaken. A cheaper, similar version with the right marketing just has to get up and going.


----------



## roland (24 February 2010)

The Bloom Box interview was quite inspiring and always good to have a couple of high profile cutomer installations. The cells used in the Bloom Box are presented to be very low cost in materials - I wonder why the actual generator is so expensive. Although it was mentioned that the aim was to get costs down to around $3K - now that would be something.

The AFC offerering doesn't seem to be too much of a threat due to the fuel input being hydrogen.

The input tarrifs and Government assisted purchases is what is really going to push along the acceptance and excitement in this market.

There is going to competition in any market and truthfully I don't see it as a bad thing. It creates awareness of the offerings and it certainly has the potential of being a huge market.

CFU has a point of difference, the BlueGen is a hot water heater as well and is so much smaller than the Bloom Box. CFU also have a patented process for refining their ceramic material and have a side line market in selling the material.

CFU's cash burn is a little concerning, selling one BlueGen a month is not going to cut it. Going by the financials, I wouldn't be surprised if CFU will need to do a cap raising before the end of the year.


----------



## Dono (24 February 2010)

Agree with roland,

The publicity on Bloom box may be a good thing, You have to remember most people don't know what a fuel cell is.

I saw the 60 minutes presentation shortly after it air-ed and it created a massive amount of articles and links on the web. half of the postings seem skeptical about the Bloom Box and the other half seemed really interested although they were unaware of the fuel cell technology. 

I hold CFU and my first thought was CFU has just been over taken by a better product.... although I watched the video again and it just seemed like one of those late night infomercials where the presenter feeds the sales man's sales pitch.

for instance he held up the actual fuel cell about the size of half a loaf of bread and tells everyone this is enough to power a home... then in the background all the other components that go with it make the device the size of a fridge! probably twice the size of Bluegen.

We can't really compare the products yet because the company hasn't officially released any information to the market but on Wednesday (I believe) they will open their website to the public with more details on what cards they are actually holding. One thing this company does have going for it is it has a lot of money 400 mil apparently.

Interesting times and I would recommend everyone check out the 60minutes Bloom Box and decide for yourselves


----------



## Dono (25 February 2010)

The Bloom Box offical press release

news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20000091-248.html?tag=rtcol;txt

It went live at 8:30 PST, A question was raised in the Q/A which I thought was interesting:

Q: How is this different from existing fuel cells?
TJ Rodgers (founder and chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor) says: Oxygen ion goes through a membrane, and it's the movement of oxygen through the cell that create the power. It's a completely different technology. It's much more robust. It doesn't require the more expensive metals as old style fuel cells do.

if it is so cheap to make why are they selling it at 700k - 800k, seems pretty expensive to me. Anyway it looks like they are aiming to market this as distributed power stations.


----------



## roland (25 February 2010)

Dono said:


> The Bloom Box offical press release
> 
> news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20000091-248.html?tag=rtcol;txt
> 
> ...




I sent CFU an email to see if we can get a comment out of them 

I don't really expect a response, but you never know


----------



## roland (26 February 2010)

I did get a response from CFU.

Andrew Neilson
Group General Manager - Commercial
CERAMIC FUEL CELLS LIMITED

I am just waiting on permission to post up the response.


----------



## roland (26 February 2010)

OK, I have permission to post up the response.

For the mods and copywrite watchers....:




> Yes, no problems.
> 
> Regards
> Andrew
> ...







> Hi Roland
> 
> Thanks for your note. Yes we've seen the Bloom Energy PR machine crank
> into overdrive. They have been around for about 8 years (they used to be
> ...





I have also attached the PDF document that Andrew sent through.

Happy Reading!


----------



## Dono (26 February 2010)

Good work Roland,

I am pretty impressed that they are willing to comment and replied so quickly... bit of an ASF exclusive  

It is true that the think lacking at the moment from getting this fuel cell market moving is publicity. These PR stunts from Bloom Box wouldn't have come cheap, I am happy for them to spend the money on eductaing the masses whilst CFU continue to publish factual achievements.

Also Interesting what Andrew Neilson had to say about scaling the technologies up and down.

Interesting times.


----------



## MACCA350 (27 February 2010)

Thanks Roland, 
I've also had good experiences with CFU's correspondence and my father has also contacted them about using one of their larger units in their new environmentally friendly school buildings and from what I recall the feedback from CFU has been helpful.

They seem like a great bunch of people who take the time to correspond and inform as best they can, which is more than I can say for many companies..........keep up the good work guys

I'd say it's put some investors minds at ease and they(CFU) may benefit from a press release or at least a market update to ensure investors have accurate information given recent events.


Oh and by the way there's something funky going on with the links provided in your quotes

cheers


----------



## roland (27 February 2010)

I also noticed that the links didn't come across very well.

The text was copied and pasted verbatim, but if you try hard enough you can work it out 

Here they are again

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15580848

http://www.cleantechblog.com/2010/02/saving-cleantech-bloom-town-silicon.html


----------



## roland (27 February 2010)

Another story on the wire:

From the Guardian in the UK a few hours ago.

Link is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/25/bloom-box-innovation



> Does the Bloom Box represent a substantial technical advance over Ceramic Fuel Cells? On the information provided so far, I could see no obvious technical innovation that puts Bloom ahead of the Ceramic Fuel Cells machines. But Ceramic Fuel Cells works from Melbourne, not Silicon Valley, and can't get the California Governor and Colin Powell to come to its product launches. We'll soon see whether the unflashy Australians have just lost their market to Bloom or whether Ceramic Fuel Cells long and painful development has just been validated by Bloom's hyperbolic endorsement of the potential of the SOFC.




At least Bloom has gotten us in the news. The real stories will of course be looking at the technology and getting through Bloom's hype, this will spot light CFU as well. - all good


----------



## jbocker (27 February 2010)

_unflashy Australians _?  Huh!
I like it, 
Oh it does sooo sound like us dont you think ... _cobber!_:

Great work Roland, thanks for the articles and news. Certainly some good exposure for CFCL.


----------



## craigj (27 February 2010)

excellent work roland this is a stock in my long term portfolio bought last year at 7.6c  no reason to sell this product has a niche market to fill


----------



## McCoy Pauley (3 March 2010)

Bloom Box gets more publicity with an article in today's Age about the company (noting that the Governator and Colin Powell were present at the launch).  No mention of CFU, unfortunately (but what do you expect from a dud newspaper like the Age?)

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...re-promises-cleaner-energy-20100225-p4bt.html


----------



## Boyou (17 March 2010)

latest on Blue Gen..going to the land of fine chocolate..didn't expect it to move the SP much ..and it hasn't. ...just more of the same 

From the company website:-

CERAMIC FUEL CELLS EXPANDS INTO SWITZERLAND
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited [AIM/ASX: CFU], a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings, has expanded its European operations, with the sale of a BlueGen power and heating unit to Swiss utility Cosvegas.
Cosvegas supplies natural gas to more than one hundred municipalities in Switzerland.
From mid 2010 Cosvegas will operate a BlueGen unit in Lausanne, Switzerland to evaluate the technology for further deployment in Switzerland.
The order from Cosvegas follows recent orders for BlueGen units from other major utilities in Germany and The Netherlands, including E.ON Ruhrgas, EWE, RheinEnergie, Alliander and Gasterra. Ceramic Fuel Cells has also made BlueGen sales to customers in Australia and Japan. Ceramic Fuel Cells is also operating fully integrated power and heating products with leading energy companies E.ON UK in the United Kingdom and GdF Suez in France.
About the size of a dishwasher, each BlueGen unit can produce twice the electricity needed to power an average home, with the surplus electricity sold back to the grid. BlueGen also produces heat, which makes enough hot water for an average home. BlueGen units can generate electricity more efficiently than the current European power grid, significantly reducing a home’s carbon emissions and cutting energy bills.
Ceramic Fuel Cells has achieved electrical efficiency of 60 percent, far higher than any other technology in the rapidly expanding market for small scale power and heating generators. When heat is recovered from the electricity production process, total efficiency is up to 85 percent – twice as efficient as the average among current European power stations.
By generating power close to where it is used, Ceramic Fuel Cells’ products can meet the future demand for electricity without the need for huge investments in electricity transmission and distribution infrastructure.
ENDS


----------



## noco (17 March 2010)

Boyou said:


> latest on Blue Gen..going to the land of fine chocolate..didn't expect it to move the SP much ..and it hasn't. ...just more of the same
> 
> From the company website:-
> 
> ...




IMHO, I can't foresee much movement in the SP untill they receive a substantial order to boot the German Factory with some 10,000 units which is currently the maximum number that can be produced in one year.
CFU have lots of units on trial in various countries, so untill they prove their worth, we won't see much movement. Just how long these countries need to prove  success or otherwise is unknown.  
One should imagine a few weeks or even months.


----------



## Boyou (22 March 2010)

The news keeps on coming.The market seems to have given this release  a lot more cred than the previous one.. SP up 20% at this moment.

Perhaps the Japanese might be the kick that is needed to tip the balance and get CFU moving forward  

CERAMIC FUEL CELLS FORMS PARTNERSHIP WITH MITSUI & OSAKA GAS
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM/ASX: CFU), a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings, has formed a partnership with leading Japanese companies Mitsui & Co. and Osaka Gas.
Mitsui & Co. has ordered a Ceramic Fuel Cells BlueGen gas-to-electricity unit, to be tested and demonstrated by Osaka Gas at its testing facility in Osaka.
Osaka Gas is a leader in developing and selling home power and heating products in Japan.
Since 2003 Osaka Gas has sold more than 56,000 co-generation products to residential customers. These products use internal combustion technology to generate up to 1 kilowatt of electricity with an electrical efficiency of 22.5 percent. In mid 2009 Osaka Gas began marketing a co-generation product based on PEM fuel cell technology, which can generate up to 0.75 kilowatts at an electrical efficiency of up to 35 percent.


----------



## jbocker (23 March 2010)

Boyou said:


> The news keeps on coming.The market seems to have given this release  a lot more cred than the previous one.. SP up 20% at this moment.
> 
> Perhaps the Japanese might be the kick that is needed to tip the balance and get CFU moving forward
> 
> ...




Quite encouraging news, considering the access to yet another big market.

What I like about this, the Japanese companys appear to have already sold similar 'units' in the past with much less efficiency. If their sales are supported by ongoing demand then surely they will be impressed by the improved efficiency of the bluegen unit, which also has greater output capacity. Not sure of the inital purchase cost comparison or if either company sells excess back to the grid.

To answer an earlier query by noco on how long countries need to prove the viability of the unit; I suspect the answer is several months. It appears tests need to prove ongoing long term performance, from what I recall from the past news on the product.


----------



## robusta (25 March 2010)

Finally took the plunge a couple of days ago. The rest of my portfolio is long term growth. Hope this technology works out. The sp should get another boos soon when the European's give regulatory aproval.


----------



## roland (25 March 2010)

robusta said:


> Finally took the plunge a couple of days ago. The rest of my portfolio is long term growth. Hope this technology works out. The sp should get another boos soon when the European's give regulatory aproval.




Looks like you timed it well, CFU had a very good day today. I'm still $0.02 behind.

The CE approval is another stepping stone. I'm just wondering how long it is going to take the utilities that have a BlueGen, to give it the thumbs up. One would think it reasonable to run the unit until the cells need replacement, that would at least, benchmark the consumable side of the BlueGen.


----------



## MACCA350 (26 March 2010)

roland said:


> One would think it reasonable to run the unit until the cells need replacement



Hope not, from memory the cells should last 5 years or something like that......I had a long term outlook on this one and have been holding and accumulating for over a year now, but that's longer than I had in mind. 

I had a 3 year outlook so I'm down to under 2 now. I am assuming this is the year they start producing in numbers. So far they have numerous companies trialing the units for themselves, CFU have already performed extensive tests on the units to prove the productivity and reliability, so I believe these companies are using trial units to assess hands on for themselves and nut out the implementation and integration for their markets. I'm sure they will be testing their durability, but I doubt they will wait 5 years(if I remembered that correctly) to make a decision, considering they will have the data from CFU's testing.

I'd say these companies will start making a move over the course of this year, they may just be waiting for the CE and other approvals. Once that first bulk order is announced the sp should respond strongly as this will be conformation of all that CFU have worked towards for the last 18 years.

That's my 2c anyway

cheers


----------



## jbocker (26 March 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> Hope not, from memory the cells should last 5 years or something like that......I had a long term outlook on this one and have been holding and accumulating for over a year now, but that's longer than I had in mind.
> 
> I had a 3 year outlook so I'm down to under 2 now. I am assuming this is the year they start producing in numbers. So far they have numerous companies trialing the units for themselves, CFU have already performed extensive tests on the units to prove the productivity and reliability, so I believe these companies are using trial units to assess hands on for themselves and nut out the implementation and integration for their markets. I'm sure they will be testing their durability, but I doubt they will wait 5 years(if I remembered that correctly) to make a decision, considering they will have the data from CFU's testing.
> 
> ...




Macca350, I also recall it being 5 year fuel cell life, and 15 years for the bluegen unit. Also recall some utilities will manufacture and brand their own units, installing the CFU fuelcells.
Replacing the fuelcells is good for ongoing repeat business revenue. Just have to get a major company to commit to commercial sales orders, and I reckon a few others will follow, and then the company is up and away.
I am expecting (ok hoping) that 2010 to be the year. May happen late in the year, my worry is how much does the factory cost to run till commercial orders arrive?

I plan to hold long term, hoping for a an eventual dividend payer into retirement... (a.k.a. long term punt! )


----------



## frankblack (27 March 2010)

Its good that we are seeing more traction, cant wait for Australia especially Victoria to get on-board and support the best aussie product for a long time. Just found out what Ceres are up to,
http://tinyurl.com/yl3pz9e
about 2 years behind CFU.


----------



## Boyou (27 March 2010)

Thanks for the article,frankblack. 
Interesting that they mention Protonex and Bloom ,but not CFCL.Bloom aren't even chasing the same market as Ceres.

Perhaps that is a bit "selective" of the reporter


----------



## MACCA350 (27 March 2010)

Boyou said:


> Thanks for the article,frankblack.
> Interesting that they mention Protonex and Bloom ,but not CFCL.Bloom aren't even chasing the same market as Ceres.
> 
> Perhaps that is a bit "selective" of the reporter



Don't know how they got those 2 contracts(53,500 units over 4 years), they seem too far behind the eight ball to supply and at current production(100's to low 1,000's per year) they will not meet their obligations.

CFU are in a much better position and are ready to supply in such numbers(currently 10,000/year with ramp up capacity to 160,000/year) and already have supplied 9(if I counted correctly) companies with trial units starting in Nov last year.............all we need is those contracts to start rolling in

cheers


----------



## roland (1 April 2010)

I'm still trying to understand why CFU have Neco as their Australian partner.

As far as I can tell, they are just an online web store, hardly what is required in my opinion:



> Neco was founded in March 2004 in response to the ever-increasing pressure that the modern economy places on the environment. Neco is now Australia's leading online eco store, with over 12 staff located in Blackburn, Victoria and in excess of 3500 eco products on offer.


----------



## roland (1 April 2010)

Bloom gets a kick in the butt from Business Insider:



> Sorry, The Much-Hyped "Bloom Box" Is Not The Holy Grail Of Alternative Energy
> 
> Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/my-verdict-on-the-bloom-box-2010-3#ixzz0jqYFJ2IB





I think the cost of ownership and Return On Investment is going to be a major hurdle for CFU as well.


----------



## omac (1 April 2010)

hmmm, interesting read, thanks for the link. A good reminder to remain realistic about things.

I think a few points aren't quite accurate though. I'm sure that natural gas reserves are vast and don't look like running out anytime soon. Russia and Qatar have the huge reserves. I think there is also data on the CIA WorldBook site that states very little of the reserves have been extracted so far.

Also the CFU unit appears to be more versatile than the bloom unit. It also heats water thereby increasing efficiency and performing a second function as a boiler (?), which are quite common overseas (I had no idea what one was until recently)

What are energy prices like in the EU compared to USA, does this make the CFU unit more viable? Given the targeted market is EU. 
The article is rather US-centric. Goes to show what a bit of publicity can do for your cause.


Im not sure about Neco, I feel that it may be a contract they picked up that wasn't necessarily aimed for (my feeling only). Ideally a contract with AGL or Origin would have happened, but they aren't targeting the Oz market (main manufacturing plant in germany). Oz seems to be behind in regard to tariffs and policy etc, so better off for CFU to expend their effort in markets more prepared for the technology.

I am keenly watching CFU, they are selling test units to parties in a range of countries (9 parties from AUS, JPN, UK, GER, NED, SUI on my count) which is encouraging, suggesting to me that the technology is promising and widely applicable.

Just a matter of waiting to see the outcome of these tests and whether they result in any high volume sales.

Also I believe that CE decision is not too far away.

Disclosure: I don't hold


----------



## basilio (1 April 2010)

> I'm still trying to understand why CFU have Neco as their Australian partner.
> 
> As far as I can tell, they are just an online web store, hardly what is required in my opinion:
> 
> ...




Actually NECO have quite a large premises in Blackburn, Melbourne .  They probably have many extra items which are available on line.

As far as being a partner for CFU ? Well it makes sense given the environmental nature of the product. Real question will be the figures - costs , returns maintenance. Would be great to see that information.


----------



## goosmurf (2 April 2010)

omac said:


> I think a few points aren't quite accurate though. I'm sure that natural gas reserves are vast and don't look like running out anytime soon.




A month or so ago when I first started looking at CFU I had this exact question.  A bit of Googling reveals that there's over 60 years reserves, and historically humanity has managed to discover new reserves faster than than the growth of consumption.



omac said:


> What are energy prices like in the EU compared to USA, does this make the CFU unit more viable? Given the targeted market is EU.




Have a poke around _ukpower.co.uk_ to get some rough retail UK pricing.  I couldn't get the math to work in favour of the CFU units even at the most optimistic end-unit pricing.

Had a look at Neco's website:
"_BlueGen forecast to generate electricity at a cost of 11.1 cents per kWh Includes the value of the heat and carbon credits ~39% cheaper than current Victorian electricity prices (18.1 cents per kW incl GST)._"

That's a reasonable approximation of retail electricity pricing but what's missing is the gas input cost and the BlueGen unit (+installation) cost.  And I assume there is a difference in installation cost of a electricity & heat co-gen vs plain power generation.

I find it disconcerting that the BlueGen costs are not publicly available - if it was a clearly positive investment then you'd think they would make that obvious so I'm going to assume that its not.

This reminds me of solar products - when the NSW Govt announced its GFIT I contacted 3 different solar providers and none was willing to give even a rough estimate of the cost.  If a customer can't gather the facts to do the sums and work out the ROI why would anyone buy this?  Except maybe to be green.

If anyone is doing the sums keep in mind the future value of the up front capital investment.  i.e. if you spend $10k (hypothetically) on purchasing & installing a BlueGen today you're also missing out on say a cash rate of 7%, and when the payback period might be 5 years or more its significant.

I don't mean to down-ramp CFU as I do believe the technology has a future but with the lack of price information ATM I don't think its reasonable to consider investing in CFU on a financial basis.  I am trading CFU on a short term basis as there is a lot of positive bias towards it at the moment.  It showed some weakness today but that might be just because of the upcoming Easter break.


----------



## MACCA350 (2 April 2010)

The Australian distributor has yet to set local RRP. 

From the BlueGen press release last year 


> BlueGen forecast to cost around $8,000 per unit in mass production




Here is CFU's submission to the Department of the Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water for the Feed-in Tariff Scheme

You'll notice the incentives from other countries which will greatly reduce the upfront costs and payback period for the units sold in those countries. CFU actually made a presentation to them and there is a transcript of that somewhere.

Currently Australia is lagging well behind for alternatives such as the BlueGen. Hopefully this will change in stage 2 of the feed-in tariff scheme. I believe one of the Australian electricity companies have already stated that they will pay feed in tariff's for BlueGen customers regardless of what government schemes are in place.

There is another path that CFU have mentioned previously and that's to supply the electricity companies with the units, not just customer sales through retail outlets.

cheers


----------



## frankblack (2 April 2010)

The way i see it CFU is not marketing to individuals who might only look at ROI.
Rather they are pitching to collectives, those who make electricity those who sell gas.
Even fully priced i dont believe any other means can provide power cheaper than ceramic fuel cells. Apart from that i believe the reduction of CO2 is a huge factor when they are costing this in Europe. i wouldnt be surprised if they were generating carbon credits which could be traded/offset making the whole package even more attractive.  if i was Origin energy i would kill to get a million of these babys out there.


----------



## roland (6 April 2010)

Yes! - CFU Obtains CE approval for BlueGen product.

CERAMIC FUEL CELLS OBTAINS ‘CE’ APPROVAL FOR BLUEGEN PRODUCT
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM/ASX: CFU), a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings, has successfully obtained ‘CE’ safety approval for its BlueGen gas-to-electricity generator product.

That should move things along a little


----------



## jbocker (7 April 2010)

roland said:


> Yes! - CFU Obtains CE approval for BlueGen product.
> ...
> That should move things along a little




Well 'a little' was right. I expected a bit more excitement from the CE approval. A significant milestone was the long awaited safety approval. 
Just indicates to me how lame the current market is for fledgling enterprises like CFCL. 

Hang in there CFCL!


----------



## roland (7 April 2010)

jbocker said:


> Well 'a little' was right. I expected a bit more excitement from the CE approval. A significant milestone was the long awaited safety approval.
> Just indicates to me how lame the current market is for fledgling enterprises like CFCL.
> 
> Hang in there CFCL!




It's not always a price move that will tell the story. Look at the volume - over 13,000,000.

On no news days the volume hangs around 5-8 million, so one would assume that weak holders were being relieved of their holdings. 

High volume with little or no SP movement on good news indicates market absorbtion - which in this case is a good thing


----------



## roland (12 April 2010)

Looks like CFU hasn't drawn any attention from institutional buyers yet.

Other than a little flurry of buying with good news we seem quite stagnant. Every time we get up to our resistance level the profit takers come in and sell out.

We have very weak closes nearly everyday. I suspect a lot of short term trading activity looking for the 1 or 2 ticks - been guilty of this myself.


----------



## frankblack (13 April 2010)

roland said:


> Looks like CFU hasn't drawn any attention from institutional buyers yet.
> 
> Other than a little flurry of buying with good news we seem quite stagnant. Every time we get up to our resistance level the profit takers come in and sell out.
> 
> We have very weak closes nearly everyday. I suspect a lot of short term trading activity looking for the 1 or 2 ticks - been guilty of this myself.



Looks like you have hit the nail on the head, Roland.
Without 'NEW' money this stock will go nowhere.


----------



## frankblack (17 April 2010)

Well if this is the world view of fuel cell technology, we will be waiting a very long time.  http://tinyurl.com/y5gefm6

"The third type of stationary fuel cells, SOFCs, shows the potential to be one of the key power generation technologies in the future owing to their high electrical efficiency. They can run on many fuels, including hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide and biogas. SOFCs are estimated to have potential revenues of $3.8million by 2018 at a compound annual growth rate of 15 per cent. The technology's key geographical markets are Germany, the UK and Italy."


----------



## Boyou (19 April 2010)

The Hanover Messe Fuel Cell trade fair begins tonight our time (I think)

This showcase has proven quite fruitfull for CFCL in the past.The eyes of the world are upon them again! 

General market sentiment beat the SP up a bit today..darn it...


----------



## roland (30 April 2010)

some very nice news this morning:

*VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS THIRTY CERAMIC FUEL CELLS’ BLUEGEN UNITS*
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM/ASX: CFU) – a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings – has received a conditional order for 30 BlueGen gas-to-electricity generators from the Victorian Government’s Office of Housing.

It is conditional - read the news release for full details.

Cheers


----------



## noco (30 April 2010)

roland said:


> some very nice news this morning:
> 
> *VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS THIRTY CERAMIC FUEL CELLS’ BLUEGEN UNITS*
> Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM/ASX: CFU) – a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings – has received a conditional order for 30 BlueGen gas-to-electricity generators from the Victorian Government’s Office of Housing.
> ...




Yes, great news. Let's hope this is the begining of a new era for CFU.
All CFU need now is a good order in the UK and Europe to boost things along.


----------



## MACCA350 (30 April 2010)

I'm honestly surprised the first bulk order came from Australia. When you consider the lack of rebates and feed in tariffs in Australia for the BlueGen unit when compared to all the other countries it's quite a statement.

Surely now the Victorian Government are getting behind CFU we may see a change in the BlueGen units exclusion status from the Australian Governments renewable energy rebates and tariffs scheme. 

Remember the first trial unit was installed with the VicUrban project just 4 months ago and, assuming there is a connection to the Vic Govt(surely they've been watching the trial), now they've showed the success of the trial with a bulk order.

Given that in the last 4 months there have been 17 BlueGen units sold to 12 customers in 6 countries, we may very well see orders piling in over the coming months. This may also be the catalyst that spurs other potential customers who have been watching from the sidelines to make a move.

Exciting time for CFU

cheers


----------



## Dono (30 April 2010)

Totally agree, I think there is a bit of concern that the company may need to do a capital rasing so alot of money maybe on the sidelines...

Current status:
Money in bank aprrox 16mil
Last financial report:
cash burn approx 4.5mil
revenue approx .5mil
(overly simplistic I know)

Brendan has mentioned he wants to be cash flow positive by the end of this year which is good signs.

If they raise enough of these orders the speculation they need to raise capital will be gone and I think the share price will open up.


----------



## Boyou (30 April 2010)

Great to see such positive vibes about CFCL 

A sweet way to get them ,too. Although it is only a small order..it comes from right in their own backyard.
Here's the latest Boardroom Radio presentation..very slick!! 

http://www.brr.com.au/event/65389/ceramic-fuel-cells-corporate-video?log=1


----------



## Boyou (4 May 2010)

A signifigant upgrade for CFCL from the Australian Energy Report

Here's the story

http://www.energyreport.com.au/

They  have been upgraded from spec buy to BUY  

Anyone know how much cred they have with the market? ..perhaps we will find out soon


----------



## frankblack (4 May 2010)

Boyou said:


> A signifigant upgrade for CFCL from the Australian Energy Report
> 
> Here's the story
> 
> ...



Thanks for that Boyou, we are all hoping CFCL gets the recognition it deserves.
thus-far however no good news is enough, though.
so those watching this stock, and there are many, obviously think they have it worked out and are biding their time.
lets hope they miss out.


----------



## roland (5 May 2010)

The "Inside Trader", within their free Stock Alert, have recommended CFU as follows:



> Stock Pick of the Week: Ceramic Fuel Cells (CFU)
> 
> Ceramic fuel Cells is a company that has developed (from CSIRO technology) highly efficient power generators for decentralised power generation or in conjunction with existing power supplies for resale of excess energy back to the grid.
> 
> ...




To give the Inside Trader a free plug, (I am not a paid subscriber), their research and service maybe worth having a look at. You can trial it for 2 weeks free (from memory).


----------



## JonathonF (8 May 2010)

Hi All, 
       I am a newbie to the share market, currently doing my finance degree, and extremely keen on investing into this company. I have been doing a bit of research on the company and mainly turning to forums (mostly this one) to see what other people think. I was wondering if now (at an offer of .18) is the most opportune time to get into CFCL seems as though i already missed the low of .17 Friday morning or does anyone have prediction of a further decline in the sp??


----------



## WiseMum (8 May 2010)

Jonathon,

No-one can ever predict if the SP of a particular share has bottomed out.  Forums like ASF are great for hearing a variety of peoples' points of view but they are not for giving specific investment advice and it's dangerous to make investment decisions this way.  You should always do your own research. 

Re CFU, I've been watching them for a while too and I think their product looks very interesting.  As far as knowing when to enter, that depends on so many things including market forces outside of CFU's control.  I'm going to keep watching them but will wait and see how the world's economy pulls through the current crisis before many any decisions.

Good luck to you ....


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2010)

Not a lot going on with this stock. 

Couple of questions:

How long can it last with the current cash burn before a fundraise?
Surely this stock has a chance of revisiting under 10c if fundraising takes place?
CFU needs to sell how many units before they cover costs (2350ish)?

Potential is great, but some short term concerns are making this stock look a little doggy. Of course a surprise partnership may suddenly appear and boost the cash flow. 

I don't know any number crunchers out there.


----------



## Boyou (13 May 2010)

I'm not a number cruncher ,moXJO,but I have found something useful to those interested in green energy's progress in the world.CFCL could benefit from the change of government in Britain.

From the Conservative Party's platform.

Climate Change and Energy

With urgent action needed to combat climate change, and with our energy supplies increasingly insecure and dependent on imports, it’s time to rethink the way we supply and consume energy in Britain.

A Conservative government will take immediate action to give Britain leadership in a low carbon world. We will cut carbon emissions and promote low carbon energy production. We will safeguard our energy security and make it easier for families to go green.

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the world, but it provides us with opportunities too. To cut emissions and encourage new low carbon energy production, we will:

    * Introduce an Emissions Performance Standard to set a legal limit on the emissions from power stations;
    * Deliver a 10 per cent cut in central government carbon emissions within 12 months of coming to office;
    * Create four carbon capture and storage equipped power plants;
    * Deliver an offshore electricity grid and establish at least two Marine Energy Parks;
    * Allow communities that host renewable energy projects like wind farms to keep the additional business rates they generate for six years; and,
    * Provide incentives for smaller-scale energy generation.

Britain needs a clear, consistent and stable energy policy that safeguards our energy security. We will take immediate action to secure the UK’s energy supplies, including:

    * Putting in place supply guarantees in the gas and electricity markets – ensuring that sufficient electricity generating capacity is maintained and setting an obligation on gas suppliers to ensure that supplies are in place throughout the year;
    * Reforming the Climate Change Levy to provide a floor price for carbon, delivering the right climate for investment;
    * Transforming electricity networks with 'smart grid' and 'smart meter' technology; and,
    * Clearing the way for new nuclear power stations – provided they receive no public subsidy.

A Conservative government will make it easier for families to go green, whilst taking action to reduce energy bills. We will:

    * Create a ‘Green Deal’, giving every home up to £6,500 worth of energy improvement measures – paid for out of the savings made on fuel bills;
    * Ensure that every energy bill provides information on how to move to the cheapest tariff offered by their supplier and how their energy usage compares to similar households; and,
    * Reform the Post Office Card Account to give up to 4 million people access to lower tariffs.


----------



## Boyou (20 May 2010)

A wider look at the whole electricity scenario,This from the Business Spectator

CFCL must have opportunities here.

Ripping Profits From Power Lines         Giles Parkinson

There’s a pretty big reason why most energy utilities don’t want to provide their consumers with greater access to energy usage data: they don’t want to lose their business.

The global energy sector – a dull, regulated, protected and predictable industry – is facing its greatest upheaval, not from the threat of an emissions trading scheme or a carbon price, but from information hungry technology companies that want to turn the industry on its head by offering electricity to consumers for free, bundled in a package that could include home entertainment systems, household appliances or software management systems.

It has been estimated by management consulting firm McKinsey that an investment of $US520 billion over the next 10 years could reduce national energy demand in the US by 23 per cent and result in $US1.2 trillion in savings. Little wonder that the utilities sector – which has based its business model in selling as many electrons as it can – is stonewalling. International Power’s rear-guard action to resist any government energy efficiency measures – it argues that any regulation that requires its heavy emitting Hazelwood and Loy Yang B power stations would destroy their value – reflects the fear in the sector.

But they are under attack, not just from environmentalists or government climate change policy, but other businesses that see an opportunity presenting itself as smart grid technology matures and the industry grapples with a potential lack of capacity. Last month, a group of 45 major US companies and organisations – including Google, Intel, GE, Whirlpool, and AT&T – asked President Obama in an open letter to promote greater consumer access to energy usage data. "By giving people the ability to monitor and manage their energy consumption, for instance, via their computers, phones or other devices, we can unleash the forces of innovation in homes and businesses," they said. And what they didn’t say was that these companies could emerge to dominate the energy industry in ways that the utilities sector could never have imagined.

A report by Ernst & Young this week entitled Seeing Energy Differently underlines what’s at stake for the utilities sector. It says about $US200 billion will be spent world-wide on smart grids in the next five years in response to the need to incorporate renewable energy sources, meet increased demand and improve efficiency and replace outdated infrastructure.

How they manage that transformation could decide their future and how much third party corporates such as Google, Intel and others come to dominate the industry. EY defines the options as one of evolution or revolution.

In the former, EY sees the simple business of energy supply evolving into a new, sophisticated form of energy service, in which utilities form partnerships with third parties help consumers manage their energy use and react to prices to find the best deals. That way, they (the utilities) retain the power, so to speak.

Under the revolution scenario, the power and utilities companies come under competitive attack all along the value chain. New interactive customer relationships and new competitive models will allow third parties to enter the market. “This creates a revolution,” EY notes. “Market rationalities and business strategies change completely.”

It could be exciting for the consumer, if less so for the utility. Which is why the likes of Google, GE, Intel, AT&T and Whirlpool are so keen on bypassing the utilities to get access to more information about energy usage.

By packaging offerings such as appliances, home entertainment and communications systems with an energy service, the likes of these companies don’t lose business if the customer uses less energy, as they will be encouraged to do. Power utilities, however, have a business model that means less energy consumption equals less profit. That will have to change, and may need to do so quickly.

“The power utilities industry has no interest in revolution,” says Helmut Edelmann, the German-based head of the global power and utilities smart program at Ernst & Young. But if a Microsoft, Apple or a Google can come up with a 'killer application' then there will certainly be a revolution. "They have got strong brands and could emerge as dominant players, at least on the consumer end of the business,” Edelmann says.

Indeed, the EY report identifies exactly where the utilities are vulnerable. In home services, they are under threat from automotive, real estate, consumer product, media, entertainment companies that can provide home automation, electric vehicles and energy management services.

In billing and information, the threat comes from telecommunication, technology and retail companies specialising in monthly billing and energy consumption information, specialist metering companies will muscle in to the utilities market, telecommunication and technology companies will grab the communication and IT side of the business, industrial service companies will emerge to deliver electricity to the consumer, and clean-tech automotive and retail groups will provide decentralised and or renewable generation.

And then there is the prospect that the likes of Google, which has investment all along the value chain, will celebrate in the creation of a new 'energy internet' and try to put it all back together again under a single brand name. Their own, of course.


----------



## Boyou (27 May 2010)

Some good PR for CFCL.From the website.Interestingly they have announced  that Blue Gen and the installation is available for inspection by the public,by appointment.

That might generate some good press coverage

BLUEGEN GAS-TO-ELECTRICITY UNIT OPERATING
AT AURORA, ONE OF AUSTRALIA’S LARGEST SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM/ASX: CFU) – a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings – has begun generating low emission electricity from its BlueGen unit installed at Aurora, in Epping North, Victoria, developed by VicUrban, the Victoria Government’s sustainable urban land development agency.
The BlueGen unit at Aurora was powered up on 29 April and is performing as expected:

Current electrical efficiency of 58%, compared to about 25% efficiency for coal-derived electricity.

Constant output of 1.5 kilowatts of electricity.

Cumulative power exported to the grid of 876 kilowatt hours of electricity – equivalent to approximately 12,500 kilowatt hours of electricity over the course of a year, which is about twice the amount used by the average home in Melbourne.

Cumulative carbon dioxide savings compared to the Victorian grid of 823 kilograms – equivalent to 12 tonnes over the course of a year.1 This is equal to 240,000 “black balloons”. These carbon savings would effectively make the average Victorian home ‘carbon neutral’: the average Victorian household produces around 10.7 tonnes (213,000 black balloons) of greenhouse gas emissions each year from energy used in t2

Creating enough heat for 200 litres of hot water each day.

Origin Energy is buying the power that BlueGen is exporting to the grid.


* Ceramic Fuel Cells is arranging group visits to the Aurora site to view the BlueGen unit in operation. To register for a scheduled site visit please contact CFCL at receptionist@cfcl.com.au or phone 03 9554 2300. The BlueGen unit is not open to the public for unscheduled visits.


----------



## JonathonF (28 May 2010)

re: Boyou, I was extremely excited when the 3 announcements were posted on Wednesday morning, but semi-disappointed when there was barely any movement in sp that day. 
Let me preface by saying my knowledge in CFCL and shareholding/trading is extremely minimal, but I was wondering if the reason we aren't seeing any movement in sp when price sensitive news is released can be narrowed down to the fact that people aren't aware of this stock?? OR is it because people are waiting for something real (e.g. operating cash flow increase through contracts) to occur?? 
I have been told that when news is released we can assume that within minutes, if not seconds, that will be factored into the sp, is this not the case for CFCL?


----------



## roland (28 May 2010)

JonathonF said:


> re: Boyou, I was extremely excited when the 3 announcements were posted on Wednesday morning, but semi-disappointed when there was barely any movement in sp that day.
> Let me preface by saying my knowledge in CFCL and shareholding/trading is extremely minimal, but I was wondering if the reason we aren't seeing any movement in sp when price sensitive news is released can be narrowed down to the fact that people aren't aware of this stock?? OR is it because people are waiting for something real (e.g. operating cash flow increase through contracts) to occur??
> I have been told that when news is released we can assume that within minutes, if not seconds, that will be factored into the sp, is this not the case for CFCL?




The news releases are positive and show the potential of the company's future, but news releases alone don't necessarily increase the value of the company.

Until CFU show that they have positive cash flow from orders then there is still a risk the company is not viable - even with the progress of their demonstration installations.

CFU still doesn't have a mass market product. All the units sold so far are demo and trial units. There is going to be a fine line between product acceptability cash reserves and investors to keep the company going.


----------



## Boyou (29 May 2010)

Exactly as roland says ,JonathonF

CFCL needs volume sales to boost its SP.Some brokers have been recommending it as a safe buy..which is a turnaround from Spec Buy.

BUT ,in many investors eyes, it is still a highly speculative proposition.What we have to remember is this technology is so new.It will take time to become acceptable to the market.

I think the management team are first class, they continue to agressively drive their products worldwide and the steady flow of news keeps the close watchers of CFCL well informed.

As prices for distributed electricity rise ( They are about to go up by 13% here in Queensland) this tech becomes more and more affordable.I see it as the inevitable future of power generation..along with a whole mix of renewable/green tech


----------



## JonathonF (29 May 2010)

Thank you very much 'roland' and 'Boyou'; very helpful 
I was also wondering what type of Government legislation would fast-track CFU's growth; I was having a look through current bills of State and Commonwealth Parliament, didn't find much other than:

in South Australia 
Statutes Amendment (Electricity and Gas - Price Determination Periods) which was adjourned on the 12/05/2010.. soo I gather they intend to get back to it.. at some stage. 

Commonwealth
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme 2010  but that was adjourned at the introduction to the senate on the 22/2/2010. 

Will the proclamation of such bills have little impact because of what you ('roland') said with respect to management not having a mass market product ready yet? OR would bills like these be likely to trigger a definite increase in the demand for more efficient energy and hence, force CFU to produce that market friendly product in a timely manner?

[P.S. sorry about the lack of links to the Bills, I've only done 3 posts and you apparently need 5 in order to do that]


----------



## frankblack (30 May 2010)

JonathonF said:


> Thank you very much 'roland' and 'Boyou'; very helpful
> I was also wondering what type of Government legislation would fast-track CFU's growth; I was having a look through current bills of State and Commonwealth Parliament, didn't find much other than:
> 
> in South Australia
> ...




Here's a novel idea,
1. how about a price for carbon? a carbon tax or ETS. that would get things moving.
2. how about a level playing field where power companies must pay a fair price for the excess electricity the Bluegen produces?
CFCL have a market ready product its called the Bluegen, ready to be mass produced, it works and has the EC stamp of approval. The only thing missing is for CFCL to get the orders/SALES in the thousands, see point 1 and 2.


----------



## roland (30 May 2010)

I haven't checked the other states, but it seems in NSW the feed in tariff is only available for PV and Wind:



> *What renewable energy generators are eligible to participate in the Solar Bonus Scheme?*
> 
> Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels and wind turbines (up to 10 kilowatts in capacity) that connect to the electricity network through an inverter (up to 10 kilowatts in capacity) will be eligible for the Solar Bonus Scheme. Solar PV systems installed and connected after 1 January 2010 must be installed by a person, who at the time of the installation had a Grid-connect Design & Install accreditation from the Clean Energy Council to be eligible for the Solar Bonus Scheme.




from: http://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/ener...ble-to-participate-in-the-Solar-Bonus-Scheme?

I know that this relates to "Solar", but I haven't found anything yet on other forms of feed in tariffs.


----------



## frankblack (30 May 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> The Australian distributor has yet to set local RRP.
> 
> From the BlueGen press release last year
> 
> ...




Thanks to MACCA we can read about the problem, its only a matter of time before its all fixed.                           .


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 May 2010)

Boyou said:


> Power utilities, however, have a business model that means less energy consumption equals less profit. That will have to change, and may need to do so quickly.



There was an attempt nearly 17 years ago in Tasmania to fundamentally change the electricity industry business model so as to remove the industry's incentive to maximise sales in order to maximise profit. This was done simply by separating out costs and charging consumers accordingly, such that each additional kWh sold no longer recovered disproportionate revenue (ie profit) for the industry.

Bottom line was an uproar and it became a significant election issue that was universally opposed by just about everyone. Labor hated it, Greens hated it even more.

And so the industry reluctantly accepted a rather big slap in the face and adopted a more publicly acceptable strategy. Just sell as much electricity as possible to anyone who will buy it, encouraging them via an incredibly blatant marketing campaign "use our energy". Much easier that way, and still quite profitable.

It's not just the industry that doesn't like change. The public and politicians don't like it either. The other states were certainly known to be watching at the time, but never did actually try the same experiment. Worth noting though that the public doesn't seem too impressed with the lesser reforms, interval metering, that some states are pressing ahead with. 

I hear lots of talk, lots of people saying the industry should do all sorts of things but that support has a habit of disappearing the moment the industry actually tries to do what people supposedly want. 

I wonder how many people realise that the very concept of a feed-in tariff requires by its very nature that the vast majority of consumers do not install such a device? And I wonder how many people realise that if we did put a fuel cell unit in every home and shift to renewables generally then in order to make it work we'll also be building more dams, primarily in NSW? Lots of things people haven't really thought about when it comes to energy... 

I'm not against it, under the right circumstances I'd actually buy a fuel cell unit. But there's a lot of issues that most haven't thought about when it comes to fuel cells and distributed (or any non-hydro non-biomass renewable) generation.


----------



## mark_au (31 May 2010)

Given the 14% electricity price rise just around the corner thanks to the brilliance that is privatisation  Id be happy to put one in. I am lucky to have mains gas and could replace my electricity and aging gas hot water system in one hit and possibly still make a profit by selling excess capacity back. Much more attractive than solar PV in the short to mid term.

cheers


----------



## frankblack (31 May 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> There was an attempt nearly 17 years ago in Tasmania to fundamentally change the electricity industry business model so as to remove the industry's incentive to maximise sales in order to maximise profit. This was done simply by separating out costs and charging consumers accordingly, such that each additional kWh sold no longer recovered disproportionate revenue (ie profit) for the industry.
> 
> Bottom line was an uproar and it became a significant election issue that was universally opposed by just about everyone. Labor hated it, Greens hated it even more.
> 
> ...




For all your skepticism, i am not sure what point you are making, yes it is your opinion based on what happened in the past  , the rest is speculation.
Eventually something will be done about the amount of co2 coming from power stations today, this is just fact.
what will be done maybe determined by the market or government, but change is inevitable. i am sure lots of people have and are thinking of all the issues, as i am sure mistakes will be made, that is the way of the world.
And for those who missed reading this http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/en...gy/transcripts/27_7_09_Ceramic Fuel Cells.pdf , i found it interesting anyway.


----------



## JonathonF (1 June 2010)

re 'frankblack': Awesome contribution with the link to the transcript; Has really cleared up a few ambiguities I had with the product 
Just a further question on it; I am quite confused about the feed-in tariff. Is B. Dow asking the Govt. to impose a tax on utilities in Australia when they utilise what the fuel cell puts back into the grid? Or have I completely misunderstood what was said??


----------



## frankblack (1 June 2010)

JonathonF said:


> re 'frankblack': Awesome contribution with the link to the transcript; Has really cleared up a few ambiguities I had with the product
> Just a further question on it; I am quite confused about the feed-in tariff. Is B. Dow asking the Govt. to impose a tax on utilities in Australia when they utilise what the fuel cell puts back into the grid? Or have I completely misunderstood what was said??




No tax.  very simple 1 for 1, meaning if it costs 20cents to buy a watt of electricity from the provider, when i make excess electricity with the bluegen, fed into the grid i get my 20cents for a watt from the provider , or whatever the price is. could be a different price in every town. thats fair. after all you have to pay for the gas going in to make power. 1 for 1 is less than what the power companies are forced to give people with solar panels they didnt even pay for!


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 June 2010)

frankblack said:


> For all your skepticism, i am not sure what point you are making, yes it is your opinion based on what happened in the past  , the rest is speculation.
> Eventually something will be done about the amount of co2 coming from power stations today, this is just fact.
> what will be done maybe determined by the market or government, but change is inevitable. i am sure lots of people have and are thinking of all the issues, as i am sure mistakes will be made, that is the way of the world.



Do your own math using whatever cost for the equipment you deem fit.

A 2kW unit is going to produce 17520 kWh of electricity per annum if run at constant 100% output.

Conventional large scale generation can produce this power for about $700 per year.

Large scale renewable generation can supply this power at about $1500 per year.

Now, do you think this really stacks up financially? Or does it only work due to various subsidies? Subsidies tend not to remain in place forever, especially not if something actually becomes popular (witness the abrupt disappearance of the solar grants as soon as a large number of applications began to be received).

I'm not against the concept, but there's a lot of barriers in terms of it being an actual replacement for large scale conventional power generation. I don't doubt that there is a viable market for this device, I'm very confident that there is, but I don't expect to see too many in residential use anytime soon. 

Commercial applications with a need for heat are an entirely different story and potentially very profitable...


----------



## brty (1 June 2010)

I know a lot of people here are really keen on this, but from a consumers perspective it does not do a lot for me.

$20-25k according to Dow for the initial units  The cost of money alone to buy one is ~$1400-$1750 pa before you add installation costs and maintenance and depreciation over the 15 year lifespan. Plus there is then the $3.62 for gas per day (worked out at current prices from gas supplier).

Costs left out include the water connection and use plus the electricity use of the unit.

This easily works out at over $4,000 pa before 'extras' are added (maintenance, breakdowns etc). 
 Allowing $1500 for the 'exported' power to the grid assuming 50% of generated, leaves one with 8760 kwh of power for the price of $2500 with a bit of heat left over for a hot water service (that if you already have something like solar is not really usefull).

Where does this benifit consumers without subsidy??

brty


----------



## newbie trader (2 June 2010)

brty,

Was recommended that I take a look at this stock the other day it seems a few people are very keen on it as you say. Anyway this was my first port of call to take a quick look (havn't had much time). From what I know they have proposed a rebate equivalent to the current domestic rate charged to customers for consumption from the grid at the given time, and not at a higher which applies to solar. It may be possible that they get a higher rebate? I'm not sure. But with all this talk of rising electricity costs one would think that maybe these would become quite appealing in the future. I don't pay any bills of that sort so it is of no concern to me anyway.

What kind of subsidy/rebate do you think would be needed for this to be seen as a viable option.


----------



## frankblack (2 June 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Do your own math using whatever cost for the equipment you deem fit.
> 
> A 2kW unit is going to produce 17520 kWh of electricity per annum if run at constant 100% output.
> 
> ...




And thats my point, you cant assume to do any accurate math on this until,
1. we know what the price of carbon is/will be long term, as the price is adjusted up.
2. when power companies pay a fair price for the excess, what that price is.

Given a fair and level playing field, once the math is/can be done, Ceramic Fuels Cells will be able to beat all and any opposition from power generation options available today.  WITH NO NEED OF SUBSIDIES 

do not ignore the huge costs of infrastructure/investment, dont ignore the cost of transmission loss.

when its comes to CFU its not about replacing all large scale production, maybe 10% or less, not only that at some stage they will not be able to keep up with all the demand from around the world. Europe will get serviced first.

Please go back and read this from CFCL, its has heaps of facts and figures (maths), unless you believe its all lies you cant ignore it,
http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20090522_CFCL_BlueGen_Launch_22May09.pdf

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE NOTHING WILL BE DONE ABOUT THE AMMOUNT OF CO2 COMING FROM POWER STATIONS TODAY??????????


----------



## roland (2 June 2010)

As mentioned, the Australian market is certainly not the major focus. Don't forget the Mitsui partnership which highlights the potential of just one market:



> *Since 2003 Osaka Gas has sold more than 56,000 co-generation products to residential customers.* These products use internal combustion technology to generate up to 1 kilowatt of electricity with an electrical efficiency of 22.5 percent. In mid 2009 Osaka Gas began marketing a co-generation product based on PEM fuel cell technology, which can generate up to 0.75 kilowatts at an electrical efficiency of up to 35 percent.
> Ceramic Fuel Cells’ BlueGen product can generate up to 2 kilowatts of electricity with a peak electrical efficiency of up to 60 percent.


----------



## mr. jeff (2 June 2010)

to bring the tone of the conversation down a bit, CFU sp is trading at a very good price at the moment - as soon as they announce full scale production and the first utility sales contracts, it's got to be off to the races?

I do agree that there is a limited lifespan on (especially VIC) coal generation (especially brown coal) but the great thing in a disgusting way is that because we have among the dirtiest coal generating plants in the world - and the political system chained to it short term, the CFU units will be so eeeassssy to market!

as a post script, I am dismayed that we do stick with this brown coal...


----------



## brty (2 June 2010)

newbie,



> What kind of subsidy/rebate do you think would be needed for this to be seen as a viable option.




Probably something like the solar rebate upfront but higher, ie $15000 plus. The reason being that the initial cost of the units at $20-25k will by itself kill the thing.

By spending that type of money you can get a very good solar system that does not have ongoing costs, does not need gas.

What most are overlooking is that as the price of electricity rises so will the price of gas, the main input of the unit.

So we have cost of money being high, (interest on $20-25k) depreciation, (life of 15 years) high and rising inputs (gas).

From a green perspective this is not as good as solar panels, (still uses ghg) and has maintenance.

brty


----------



## mr. jeff (2 June 2010)

there has been talk of CFU selling units to utility companies and then the company absorbing the upfront cost and in effect owning the unit that they install and thus controlling rates on electricity fed back into grid etc. Origin for example may like that setup. Sounds pretty conflicting though.


----------



## frankblack (2 June 2010)

brty said:


> newbie,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, you may be correct as of today, but all that is about to change, when CFCL go into mass product the estimated cost is only $8000. 
Making your calculations and any need for subsidies redundant.

Not only will it be easy to market in Victoria, Brumby can not believe his luck,
he can deal with supply shortages, the co2 pollution problems, the greens, the coal miners and power generators, create jobs for ordinary working families, all in one fell swoop, all at no cost to the government, keep everyone happy.


----------



## Dono (18 June 2010)

Found this while scanning the web, very good information on the fuel cell industry, couple of months old now:

http://www.itm-power.com/cmsFiles/investors/Tradition_FuelCellReport_Apr2010.pdf


----------



## aussie_guy00000 (18 June 2010)

I don't suppose anybody heard anything about these guys lately , there was a decent sell off today that drove their share price to a new low point of $0.15


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 June 2010)

mr. jeff said:


> as a post script, I am dismayed that we do stick with this brown coal...



The reason is simply that the only alternatives available at the time of building those plants were:

Nuclear (which is more expensive than brown coal)

Imported fossil fuel (eg black coal from NSW / Qld)

Everything else that is actually available in Vic either lacks sufficient scale (eg hydro), is intermittent (eg wind) or only a short term solution that will run out well before the brown coal power stations wear out (eg gas).


----------



## Coal Face (22 June 2010)

The CSIRO research is s good report on BG CO2 but no way does it suggest CFU is anything like a stock to buy. It is still a sell IMO until fund raising is complete. Only 6 weeks to the next Quarterly report, which will show the cash is now very low and funding can be determined by the burn rate at that time. I still say 5p but could easily be 2p if CFU do not get funding in place before they run down to the point of high risk of failure. Not my problem, get the cash in place I say, then investors can buy the stock in confidence that the company will not go bust in November 2010 when cash will be all gone.

Comparing a BG to 2kW of solar is a bit naff really, especially when they do not compare the cost per Kw or offer any power storage option for the solar.

I just checked out the cost of Solar in Victoria and I can get 18kW to20kW for the price of a BG(this is at the standard A$2,499 per 1.5kW not the postcode 3 offer of A$1,899). Just imagine how much power I could sell back to the grid with that lot. Alternatively I could get 10kW and a power storage solution, this way my CO2 saying would be equal to or higher than a BG and I would have a lot of spare power to sell to the grid, with no need at all to draw any power from the grid.

Note the Solar is also gauranteed for 25 years. Compare that to a BG that will last 15 years and need a new stack every 5 years. Solar will pay back in less time and will keep paying back for far longer with zero maintenance and zero replacement parts, guaranteed

It took me seconds to find the prices below, so therefore anyone else who lives there could easily do the same, in fact they probably have these offers dropping through the letterbox or salesmen canvassing all the time, whereas CFU are 99.99% an unknown to them.


Solar PV Offers in VIC
Fully installed 1.5kW solar PV system from $2,499
If you live in Victoria and sign up for one of Nu Energy’s solar power systems now, you could be in line for stunning savings.

Thanks to the state’s generous Feed-In Tariff scheme (FIT), not only will your system help reduce your annual electricity bill, you could be paid for every additional kilowatt hour of renewable energy generated that you don’t use and send back to the grid.

Sign up now and a 1.5kW fully installed system using high quality solar panels and inverters could be yours for only $2,499 

If you live within a Solar Zone 3 postcode (click on this link to find out if your postcode is eligible) you could sign up for a 1.5kW fully installed system using high quality solar panels and inverters for as little as $1,899

Panels:
Accredited for use in Australia
With a 25 year power output warranty2
High conversion efficiency
And excellent low light performance

Inverters:
Installed in a weatherproof box
With a 5 to 10 year manufacturer’s warranty2
Fully accredited for use in Australia
An LCD display

http://www.nuenergy.com.au/for_your_home/special_offers/vic/detail/solar_pv_victoria/solar_pv


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (22 June 2010)

Coal Face said:


> I just checked out the cost of Solar in Victoria and I can get 18kW to20kW for the price of a BG(this is at the standard A$2,499 per 1.5kW not the postcode 3 offer of A$1,899).




The $2499 figure is the discounted price IF you live in the 3XXX postcode listed on the site. When you consider where the 3XXX postcodes are - they're all in the NW and NCentral of the State and isn't applicable for most people. The 1.5kW system is probably a "special" price and anything bigger will come at a premium. Typical costs for a 1.6kW or 2.0kW system (from Origin) are around $6000-$7500 (after REC discounts).

I also suspect that some of the 3XXX postcodes for which these discounts apply, don't have access to Natural Gas (possibly LPG only). These discounted prices also rely on a REC price of $42.

If you read the Choice review (independent reviewer): "... The standard one kilowatt solar panel system including installation costs around $10,000, before the solar credit rebates."
http://www.choice.com.au/Reviews-an...olar/Solar-panels-counting-the-cost/Page.aspx



Coal Face said:


> Thanks to the state’s generous Feed-In Tariff scheme (FIT), not only will your system help reduce your annual electricity bill, you could be paid for every additional kilowatt hour of renewable energy generated that you don’t use and send back to the grid.




Victoria still uses the NET tariff rather than the GROSS tariff like NSW/ACT. Lets say you produce 7kWh (on a good sunny day) with a 1.5kW system. But the average single-person household uses around 9kWh per day (you'll be surprised how much a kettle and toaster uses).

On a GROSS tariff, you would be paid $0.60 * 7 = $4.20 and pay $0.22 * 9 = $1.92. Total profit: $2.28 per day.

On a NET tariff, you would have to pay 2 * $0.22 = $0.44 to the power company. You're running at a loss and will need a much bigger system. 

One consideration: there are typically two types of panels - Thin Film and Crystalline. Thin Film is a continuous dark panel while crystalline looks like hexagon-circles under the glass. If shading occurs (due to a tree) on even 10% of the panel, big differences occur. Thin Film generates 90% for that panel. Crystalline fails open-circuit (0% production for that panel).


----------



## Boyou (22 June 2010)

The reason for Coal Face's comparison of Solar versus Fuel Cells becomes quite transparent when you view it in the context of his primary goal..

Have a look at his/her other posts.All concerning Linc Energy. C F is quite a devotee of them.

CFU is a real threat to base load power stations..solar is not 

Clear enough??


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (22 June 2010)

Boyou said:


> CFU is a real threat to base load power stations..solar is not
> 
> Clear enough??




I've just thought (when you mention "base load" power)... if the sun doesn't shine, solar doesn't produce anything. If you are "off grid" then you have to rely on huge (and very expensive) banks of batteries.

If you had a small solar panel to charge/recharge a battery (with an inverter to 240V) could you run the BlueGen "off grid" and simply have gas connected? Obviously, you wouldn't get the benefits of pumping back to the grid, but at least you could still watch telly when the power companies have switched off your local street (through their new smart meters) because there are too many plasma tvs and a/c units running. 

I am a holder of CFU.


----------



## frankblack (22 June 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> I've just thought (when you mention "base load" power)... if the sun doesn't shine, solar doesn't produce anything. If you are "off grid" then you have to rely on huge (and very expensive) banks of batteries.
> 
> If you had a small solar panel to charge/recharge a battery (with an inverter to 240V) could you run the BlueGen "off grid" and simply have gas connected? Obviously, you wouldn't get the benefits of pumping back to the grid, but at least you could still watch telly when the power companies have switched off your local street (through their new smart meters) because there are too many plasma tvs and a/c units running.
> 
> I am a holder of CFU.




You could do it if you had the technical know how, but you would still need a bank of batteries to store the produced energy and to draw power from,
you cant get it from the BlueGen.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 June 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> I've just thought (when you mention "base load" power)... if the sun doesn't shine, solar doesn't produce anything. If you are "off grid" then you have to rely on huge (and very expensive) banks of batteries.
> 
> If you had a small solar panel to charge/recharge a battery (with an inverter to 240V) could you run the BlueGen "off grid" and simply have gas connected? Obviously, you wouldn't get the benefits of pumping back to the grid, but at least you could still watch telly when the power companies have switched off your local street (through their new smart meters) because there are too many plasma tvs and a/c units running.
> 
> I am a holder of CFU.



In a technical sense yes it could be done but:

1. Batteries are an expensive, polluting and relatively inefficient means of storing energy.

2. The BIG problem will be having enough peak capacity to meet your household peak demand which in most cases far exceeds the capability of the fuel cell and a small inverter combined. 

That is actually one of the main reasons why we have grid electricity in the first place - not everyone will have their maximum load at the same time, thus meaning that generating capacity can be shared and the overall cost reduced. 

If you look at the power stations alone, the upfront investment to supply just one house is around $30,000 and that's without distribution and transmission. But since not everyone's peak is at the same time, we can get away with having a fraction of that capacity and it still works fine, grid electricity being about 99.95% reliable on average in Australia.

3. Smart meters. Turning off your TV isn't really the objective here. Making you pay a fortune to watch it is another matter...

Practical loads that can be turned off to manage demand are things like hot water (very commonly switched already in Australia and NZ), pool pumps (commonly used this way in Qld), deep freezes, heat banks etc. Turning the lights off really isn't the objective.


----------



## Boyou (23 June 2010)

Thanks for all the tech smarts on CFCL ,Smurf1976.Always enjoy your posts 

For those interested CFCL.They will be featured on tonight's 7.30 Report .ABC

Brendan Dow ,interviewed by Kerry Obrien..just what we need ..mainstream media exposure


----------



## noco (23 June 2010)

Boyou said:


> Thanks for all the tech smarts on CFCL ,Smurf1976.Always enjoy your posts
> 
> For those interested CFCL.They will be featured on tonight's 7.30 Report .ABC
> 
> Brendan Dow ,interviewed by Kerry Obrien..just what we need ..mainstream media exposure




Thanks for that tip Boyou on the 7.30 report.

The rap CFCL received tonight should see a boost on the market tomorrow.
Think I will top up and support an exciting project. 

Good luck to all holders.


----------



## jbocker (23 June 2010)

Boyou said:


> Thanks for all the tech smarts on CFCL ,Smurf1976.Always enjoy your posts
> 
> For those interested CFCL.They will be featured on tonight's 7.30 Report .ABC
> 
> Brendan Dow ,interviewed by Kerry Obrien..just what we need ..mainstream media exposure




I missed the report on TV but have read the transcript.  Did it go well?

Supports my suspicion that the coal industry is quite protected by the federal govt, considering SENATOR NICK XENOPHON comments solar heat pumps are allowed for consideration in renewal energy target although in some areas using coal as a feed stock but SENATOR PENNY WONG claims Ceramic Fuels are not because it uses gas as a feed stock, albeit much more efficiently.
Oh and to include it would "crowd out" the other technologies.. ??? Nice one Penny CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER. Get with the program, and support industies that are supporting your own precious carbon challenge. 
Do you expect industries to really bother with that sort of encouragement?


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 June 2010)

jbocker said:


> ISupports my suspicion that the coal industry is quite protected by the federal govt, considering SENATOR NICK XENOPHON comments solar heat pumps are allowed for consideration in renewal energy target although in some areas using coal as a feed stock



I will simply point out that a heat pump used to heat either the air or hot water will, for a quality installation, use 70% less electricity than a conventional electric heater used the same way.

That is comparable to the performance of commercially available solar water heaters in climates such as Sydney or Perth, and substantially exceeds the performance of those units in Vic / Tas.

In the case of room heating, there really isn't a practical solar option that can be easily retrofitted to existing houses. That leaves heat pumps, gas, and efficient wood burners as really the only options in terms of energy efficiency. Now, a great many people have no access to mains gas and wood isn't suitable in many applications. That leaves either heat pumps (reverse cycle air-conditioners) or energy guzzling direct electric heating.

Heat pumps seem to cop an awful lot of criticism. All I can really say is that installing one will save far more CO2 emissions than you'll ever save catching the bus to work and switching off a few lights. Indeed it will in many cases save more than if you got rid of your car and lights completely.

All that said, there are plenty of poor quality heat pumps around that I would strongly recommend avoiding. Smurf has recently installed a Siddons Solarstream heat pump for water heating and it's doing fine despite the frost on the ground outside at this time of year. In due course, I plan on also installing a Panasonic reverse cycle air-conditioner to replace the wood heating. They aren't the only decent brands, but they are among them. 

Don't buy things promoted by former cricket players or TV execs and don't buy heat pumps made by companies that also make chemical drums. Lots of control board faults with the former, and even the company's own service techs seem to struggle with the latter. Get something that works instead...


----------



## Boyou (24 June 2010)

jbocker said:


> I missed the report on TV but have read the transcript.  Did it go well?
> 
> Supports my suspicion that the coal industry is quite protected by the federal govt, considering SENATOR NICK XENOPHON comments solar heat pumps are allowed for consideration in renewal energy target although in some areas using coal as a feed stock but SENATOR PENNY WONG claims Ceramic Fuels are not because it uses gas as a feed stock, albeit much more efficiently.
> Oh and to include it would "crowd out" the other technologies.. ??? Nice one Penny CLIMATE CHANGE MINISTER. Get with the program, and support industies that are supporting your own precious carbon challenge.
> Do you expect industries to really bother with that sort of encouragement?




I thought the report was reasonably comprehensive..albeit too short (of course)
Penny Wong's attitude is regrettable,but the thing  to remember is that CFCL's focus has always been on sales to Europe and Asia.Kicking goals (been watching too much world cup ) at home is all very well for our image as a progressive carbon reducing nation ,but the big gains are offshore.
Brendan Dow did  seem to be engaging in some histrionics when he said they had no choice but to go OS for buyers! it was in the business model from day one.
What would be most informative is if we could see an interview with Penny Wong's equivalent in Germany or France or Japan ....


----------



## robusta (26 June 2010)

Brendan Dow said on the 7.30 report "If I had 10,000 units available right now today, I could sell all 10,000 units really easily"

The factory in Germany is all tooled up and apparently in production why arent we getting ASX announcements of further sales/orders?


----------



## Boyou (27 June 2010)

I think BD was engaging in a bit of hyperbole for the cameras...

They certainly have the capacity to produce 10K of units per year,but the orders aren't forthcoming yet.

Patience is the name of the game..the rewards will be great


----------



## frankblack (1 July 2010)

The Victorian Government has now begun a review to consider the cost effectiveness of 
extending the feed-in tariff provisions to low-emissions technologies, including fuel cells.   

The Government has released  a consultation paper and is  seeking submissions.  The 
closing date for submissions is 23 July 2010. 

I guess, as i have been predicting, John Brumby is making his move to save his neck, now that polls today are showing a huge swing to the GREENS, who by the way oppose the use of government support in using CFCLs CO2 busting technology.                                                                           
In the end something will have to be done about victoria's polluting power stations, you cant rely on solar or wind to make a difference.                   
So Brumby will come to CFCLs rescue after all, not that it makes any difference to the CFU share price.


----------



## sharezum (1 July 2010)

Been hanging onto this company because the technology makes perfect sense - low emission generator based at the point of use so no line loss.  Also the optional bonus of hot water.  But the Government and Greens don't seem well disposed to this system because it runs on gas which is not renewable.  That attitude is going to be the main thing to hold this product back.


----------



## ShareDevil (2 July 2010)

well in that case geothermal is not renewable either... 

tipgas, methane from a tip, is that renewable? 

I guess not, but it's good to use it, is it not?

Humans need to eat more to fuel their bike riding, it's just a more EFFICIENT use of fuel to ride a bike. The human body can use all sorts of fuel and turn it into energy very efficiently.

But then whats the point in riding a bike if you eat baby seal eyes imported from the North pole in an oil burning tractor? May aswell just drive a car and live in an enormous house heated and cooled by a massive coal fired power station. 

I hold CFCL and live in hope that people in the real world (10years from now) can see the benefit of making your own energy at the point of consumption.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2010)

ShareDevil said:


> I hold CFCL and live in hope that people in the real world (10years from now) can see the benefit of making your own energy at the point of consumption.



A wind farm or hydro dam, for example, actually "makes" energy in that it turnes an otherwise untapped resource into something useful (electricity).

Fuel cells on the other hand are simply a means of converting one energy form (natural gas) into another (electricity). Yes they are efficient, but ultimately that is all they are - a more thermally efficient fossil fuel power station. 

Even taking the higher efficiency into account, fuel cells still involve the use of at least 10 times as much fossil fuel as do large scale wind or hydro generation sources. It wouldn't be overly different for geothermal, large scale solar towers etc either.

It's a bit like switching to low tar cigarettes and cooking your chips in canola oil because you're getting worried about your health. A step in the right direction maybe, but you'd be better off giving up the smokes and chips entirely.

The fuel cell product has merit, but it also has limitations. Using Victoria as an example, where would they get all the gas to run them from?


----------



## roland (2 July 2010)

From a different perspective, foregoing the Green View - for some it's about getting your power as cheaply as possible.

Of course all of the marketing for CFU has to be aimed at the Green Brigade to encourage Governments to provide RET's or purchasing assistance or whatever.

If CFU can position their product to be an economical and viable way to reduce an average household power bill, then it will be a winner.

Personally I don't give 2 hoots about how dirty my power is, there are enough other's worrying about the Green side on my behalf. For me, it's about getting the cheapest power possible


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 July 2010)

roland said:


> Personally I don't give 2 hoots about how dirty my power is, there are enough other's worrying about the Green side on my behalf. For me, it's about getting the cheapest power possible



If you look at what people actually do, rather than what they say, then the vast majority of Australians would seem to agree with you.

I have solar panels on the roof for electricity, heat pump for hot water, gas cooktop and wood for heating. Needless to say, I don't use too much electricity. But I've yet to meet anyone, apart from engineering and technical types, who has asked me any question about all of this other than financial ones.

Every now and then there's a bit of a fuss about some specific source of power, but at the end of the day people just want the lights on and the bill low. A lot of words, but very little action from most.

From a marketing perspecitive, fuel cells face the same problem as other energy saving technologies. Consumers are generally reluctant to make an up front investment in something that will in due course save them money. Witness the relative lack of interest in solar hot water etc.


----------



## roland (3 July 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> From a marketing perspecitive, fuel cells face the same problem as other energy saving technologies. Consumers are generally reluctant to make an up front investment in something that will in due course save them money. Witness the relative lack of interest in solar hot water etc.




I agree, also I am a renter, so there is no way I would invest in someone elses property. So for me the solution would also have to be extremely portable.


----------



## frankblack (3 July 2010)

roland said:


> From a different perspective, foregoing the Green View - for some it's about getting your power as cheaply as possible.
> 
> Of course all of the marketing for CFU has to be aimed at the Green Brigade to encourage Governments to provide RET's or purchasing assistance or whatever.
> 
> ...



This is correct, but do you assume there will not be a price put on carbon (CO2), or that it will a very low price?
Because in some states, take Victoria for example, this would make the price 
of power go through the roof. 
It seems like nobody considers this?


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 July 2010)

frankblack said:


> This is correct, but do you assume there will not be a price put on carbon (CO2), or that it will a very low price?
> Because in some states, take Victoria for example, this would make the price
> of power go through the roof.
> It seems like nobody considers this?



"some states" in this context means, in practice, all of Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA since they are all interconnected.

Something I've thought for a while is this. In 2010, people get all excited about interest rates and the Reserve Bank because interest is a significant expense for many. Very few worry too much about energy.

In 2030 I fully expect that energy prices will be routine headlines, and that nobody will care too much about RBA board meetings since, relatively speaking, interest won't be as important to household finances as the price of energy.


----------



## frankblack (3 July 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> "some states" in this context means, in practice, all of Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA since they are all interconnected.
> 
> Something I've thought for a while is this. In 2010, people get all excited about interest rates and the Reserve Bank because interest is a significant expense for many. Very few worry too much about energy.
> 
> In 2030 I fully expect that energy prices will be routine headlines, and that nobody will care too much about RBA board meetings since, relatively speaking, interest won't be as important to household finances as the price of energy.



O.K. so I dont understand the issue with interconnection,? wouldnt Victorians still get 90% or so, dont know the figure ?? of power from brown coal, making them more pay more???
And when you say "price of energy", do you mean electricity??
And so, do you expect the prices to be fluctuating or just going up??
And why? Sorry I didnt get your reasoning.


----------



## Boyou (4 July 2010)

On an entirely different note from the latest postings..

Ceres power ,perhaps our closest competitor is having tech delays.

This bit of news could prove to be to CFCL's advantage in the market place.Far be it from me to gloat over a competitors bad luck,or bad management ,but it happens to the best of us.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE6610GZ20100702


----------



## Knobby22 (5 July 2010)

Thanks Boyou for that information.

I am investing some additional cash in this company. Its success is becoming very important to me.

We won't get a substantial rise until the European and Japanese utilities start selling them. I am hoping for an announcement sometime over the next two months.

I wish it would move faster.


----------



## Boyou (5 July 2010)

I hear you  ,Knobby22

I have loaded up on more of these recently ..like you, waiting as patiently (as I can)

Would give me great pleasure to see you rocket to the top of the stock picking ladder riding the CFU rocket!! 

There is no doubt that they are becoming signifigantly less risky by the week,but the market won't settle for anything less than volume orders

Good luck to all the faithfull


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 July 2010)

frankblack said:


> O.K. so I dont understand the issue with interconnection,? wouldnt Victorians still get 90% or so, dont know the figure ?? of power from brown coal, making them more pay more???
> And when you say "price of energy", do you mean electricity??
> And so, do you expect the prices to be fluctuating or just going up??
> And why? Sorry I didnt get your reasoning.



In short, Qld / NSW / ACT / Vic / Tas / SA are the same grid and electricity routinely flows between regions.

If prices in Vic (for example) double, then that will simply cause a greater supply into Vic from NSW, SA and Tas. The end result will then be simple supply and demand in those other states, such that prices there will rise closer to that of Vic. 

Meanwhile the lower demand will reduce prices in Vic, such that prices in Vic will fall closer to that of the other states.

End result - most of the time, prices in all regions are fairly similar. It's only when power lines between the states are fully loaded that large differences in price occur.

It's a bit like saying that if shares in XYZ purchased through a broker in Melbourne go up in price, then they will also have risen in price for someone selling them in Hobart. It's the same share, traded on the same market whether you're in North Queensland or southern Tasmania.  

Looking at the situation right now:

Qld price 1.741 cents / kWh. Net export (to NSW) 1288 MW.

NSW price 2.551 cents / kWh. Net import (import from Qld less export to Vic) 723 MW.

Vic price 2.895 cents / kWh. Net export 494 MW (importing from NSW, exporting to Tas and SA).

Tas price 3.126 cents / kWh. Net import (from Vic) 435 MW.

SA price 3.577 cents / kWh. Net import (from Vic) 467 MW.

So yes there is some difference in prices, but only because there are limits on the capacity to transfer electricity between states. If they were sustatined permanently, someone (possibly a for profit company) would simply build another line to transfer the power from where it is cheap to where it is expensive. 

Market price at any given time reflects both supply and demand as well as the fundamental costs of production. Qld and Vic have very low marginal production costs, they are higher in NSW and higher again in SA and Tas. No surprise then to find that NSW, SA and Tas tend to import a lot of power in the middle of the night cheaply from Qld and Vic, only running local production at high levels (often to export to Vic) when demand and prices are high.

Note that all prices I've quoted are wholesale spot market prices at the time of posting. I've converted them to cents per kWh for ease of understanding.

As for my comments about the price of energy - I mean all commercial energy, particularly petrol / diesel. Look at the oil situation - rising demand, stangnant production...


----------



## frankblack (7 July 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> In short, Qld / NSW / ACT / Vic / Tas / SA are the same grid and electricity routinely flows between regions.
> 
> If prices in Vic (for example) double, then that will simply cause a greater supply into Vic from NSW, SA and Tas. The end result will then be simple supply and demand in those other states, such that prices there will rise closer to that of Vic.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply, if I understand you correctly then, any increases in the cost of power will be shared by most of the country.
It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
On the other hand if the cost of energy become too prohibitive, I could see business/economies stalling, a fall in demand keeping price pressures in check. Such as in a recession situation, prices deflate.
What about all the searching for new energy sources going on ?
Geothermal, Wave power, Biogas, Coal seam, Gas to Liquid (Diesel),only to name a few. 
Dont forget the humble Fuel Cell.
It might just work.


----------



## frankblack (10 July 2010)

Hold on to your hats.
From The AGE,   http://tinyurl.com/27xd2co
Government sources said closing two of Hazelwood's eight power units translates to a cut of 4 million tonnes of carbon emissions a year - just over 3 per cent of Victoria's annual emissions and 0.7 per cent of annual national emissions.

Environment groups have been running a strong campaign for Hazelwood's closure, with government sources saying the indefinite shelving of the emissions trading scheme had forced Victoria to act.

News of the planned closure comes just four months before the state election and will be seen as the Brumby government trying to boost its environmental credentials under the threat of losing crucial inner-city seats to the Greens. The staged closure of Hazelwood is expected to headline the state government's long-awaited climate change white paper.


----------



## Dono (16 July 2010)

Looks like Neco (CFU's Australian retailer) opening up Bluegens for sale:

http://www.neco.com.au/index.php/fuel-cell/bluegenfaqs/

be interesting to see what kind of results come through this channel.


----------



## frankblack (16 July 2010)

THE Brumby government has beaten its federal counterparts to the punch in launching an election climate-change policy, expanding an energy-saving scheme to target up to 500,000 small and medium businesses.

The doubled Victorian Energy Efficiency Target is promised to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.4 million tonnes a year - roughly equivalent to 1 per cent of national emissions.

It requires energy retailers to make savings by encouraging the uptake of efficient technology, including new-generation appliances and lighting, heating and water systems.


----------



## yma (16 July 2010)

45k for the first two years is very expensive, it is not for home user yet. We need some kind of government grant.


----------



## MACCA350 (18 July 2010)

> The current price for a BlueGen unit including installation is *$45,000 for a 2 year contract *(the same price given to the Victorian Government for 30 units).*After 2 years, users would be able to extend their contract a *further 3 years at a cost of around $24,000.* Further contracts will be offered after 5 years out to 15 years, with pricing dependent on fuel stack prices. Current BlueGen pricing reflects the small volumes available, and the fact that early units will likely be sold to large customers like energy utilities and Governments.



What the?

These were supposed to be selling around AU$10,000 on small volumes with prices dropping as volumes increase. 

Now it's nearly $70,000 for 5 years plus whatever they're going to charge for the remaining 10 years of it's life who's screwing the pooch here what's that, payback NEVER!! They've lost the plot

Cheers


----------



## jbocker (18 July 2010)

Dono said:


> Looks like Neco (CFU's Australian retailer) opening up Bluegens for sale:
> 
> http://www.neco.com.au/index.php/fuel-cell/bluegenfaqs/
> 
> be interesting to see what kind of results come through this channel.




Not expecting to see ANY results with the figures quoted!! Necos marketing looks very average - whats does a "contract" mean??



MACCA350 said:


> What the?
> 
> These were supposed to be selling around AU$10,000 on small volumes with prices dropping as volumes increase.
> 
> ...




Exactly Macca, about $10 000 was the number. My power bill for last year was a touch over $2000, I will need to export to 10 homes to cover the contract and more exports to cover the gas bill. I appreciate that Necos says this will only suit companies and govt at present - maybe they should take the figures off their site till they have _more details_. From the Neco site...

_What is the payback on BlueGen?
The payback period on a BlueGen unit is dependent on a range of factors, including purchase price, maintenance costs, electricity and gas tariffs, and energy consumption at your site. We have put together some scenarios based on our own modelling at Neco as a guide. Stay tuned for more details._

I am dissappointed, and will be asking CFCL a few questions


----------



## brty (18 July 2010)

People investing on the 'potential' of this thing really need to look at the cold hard facts.

$70k for 5 years??, yet only 6-8 weeks ago, this was the price for the *INITIAL* units.....



> $20-25k according to Dow for the initial units.





The company expects governments to waste money (ie my taxes) on this ....



> Current BlueGen pricing reflects the small volumes available, and the fact that early units will likely be sold to large customers like energy utilities and Governments.




Nothing different here to a solar setup...



> BlueGen is not available as a stand-alone power solution. Like a grid-connect solar power system, it is connected to the electricity grid at all times. In the event of a general power failure or blackout, BlueGen will disconnect itself in a similar way to a grid-connect solar power system.




This is encouraging.......


> As an early adopter, you may also experience some problems, risks, and annoyances common to early-stage product testing and deployment,




For $70,000 you can easily get a 12kw solar set-up going. At an average of only 4 hours of sunlight a day, this produces 48kwh/day, the same as a BlueGen operating at maximum power. It also produces the power at peak use times, compared to high amount of off-peak produced by the BlueGen.
There are no GHG produced by the Solar array, unlike the use of gas and ongoing cost of the BlueGen.

In perspective, a solar set-up, will produce more power (an average of 4 hours of sunlight is very low, most places average 5 hours plus, even southern states), at the peak times of electricity, at a much lower cost and with a longer life.
Another perspective. A small diesel generator that produces 5kva, ~4kw/h, would require a total cost of ~$55,000 to run for the same amount of power over 5 years (and that is at a cost of $1.50/litre for the diesel) 

Another perspective. At $70,000 for 5 years excluding input costs of gas, still costs $38/day for the production of 48Kwh of power, a cost of 80 cents per Kwh. 

Any government organization that pays for one of these things is wasting my tax dollars.

brty


----------



## frankblack (18 July 2010)

Yes maybe you would like to have a Bluegen of you own, who wouldnt? 
But at current prices that wouldnt make sense.
If you were a major utility though, buying 100 or so units the price would
come down considerably.
If you were really impatient, I guess you wouldnt be too happy.
Medium term however, everything about CFU is good news.
There will be a price on carbon, the price of electricity will rise, the cost of a Bluegen will fall. These things are guaranteed.
All the dynamics will change.


----------



## frankblack (18 July 2010)

brty said:


> People investing on the 'potential' of this thing really need to look at the cold hard facts.
> 
> $70k for 5 years??, yet only 6-8 weeks ago, this was the price for the *INITIAL* units.....
> 
> ...




You are right the facts do speak for themselves.
That is why there are so many companies in the world trying to do just the same thing as CFCL, they would so love to be in their position right now.

The Government are in a very difficult position, what do you propose they do in order to meet their Kyoto obligations to cut CO2 ??

I suggest you re-read the CSIRO study/comparison on solar vs ceramic fuel cells, they are the facts.


----------



## brty (18 July 2010)

Frank,

If the unit was free, it would still cost ~$4.30 per day in gas, a cost that is going to rise with the introduction of a carbon tax. This works out at ~9 cents per Kwh, a good price for peak, but not that good compared to off-peak current rates. This still excludes ongoing maintenance.

Solar beats this thing hands-down in every aspect, before any subsidies for solar. Why should any government or utility buy any of these at $70k for 5 years worth?? They are clearly wasting money.

This then leads to the conclusion that the company should struggle to get the sales needed to bring the price down. You need large volumes to be able to produce at cheaper prices, but they wont get to large volumes on any economic criteria. 



> I suggest you re-read the CSIRO study/comparison on solar vs ceramic fuel cells, they are the facts.




Could I please have a link??

brty


----------



## brty (18 July 2010)

Frank,

I just found the report, it is here...

http://www.cfcl.com.au/Assets/Files/20100621_CFCL_CSIRO_Report_BlueGen_Emissions_Savings.pdf

I assume this is the one you mean. It is a good comparison of eels to flamingos.

Whenever anyone pays for a report from an 'independent' authority they are always careful in setting the parameters, so that the right answer is produced.



> they are the facts.




To base a business venture on those 'facts' would be a very blinkered approach. You want the real numbers, real comparisons of likely production of electricity, selling back to the system, and overall cost, not excluding highly relevant comparisons.

The example I gave earlier of spending the $70k on a BlueGen (for 5 years of use only, plus cost of gas) compared to spending $70k on solar and selling excess back to the grid (in both cases), would not even rate a mention in such a report, because solar would win hands down on every parameter.

brty


----------



## frankblack (18 July 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> I just found the report, it is here...
> 
> ...




Some of these things may be true, if you focus purely on the current cost of
the Bluegen.
However if you focus on how you want to reduce overall CO2 emissions to meet obligations set in stone, these meager targets must met, CFU is the way to go because it reduces CO2 faster than solar can.
I am not arguing that the Bluegen is cheaper/affordable option for the average consumer today, just that there wont be a choice because solar can not get the the job done. 
And that is what the CSIRO study proves.
Tell me one thing, do you believe the cost of a Bluegen will not come down?
When in history has the price of something not come down??  has the cost of solar panels come down? YES

What about all the competitors out there, the race is on and its real.


----------



## brty (18 July 2010)

Frank,

I think you need to remove the rose coloured glasses.

BlueGen creates GHG. Solar does not. Every increase in carbon taxes will have a greater effect on this unit than solar.

I cannot see the company being able to sell enough of these at the high price to warrant ramping up production to a point of them being cheaper per unit.

I do not doubt that fuel cells will become more efficient and cheaper in the future, but I cannot see how CFU and their BlueGen will be part of that future. You need to get to the future economically. If you have something that is way too expensive, how do you get to the cheaper future?? Where does the money come from to get there??

After years of research, grants, and new share issues to get to this point, having a product that is way too expensive does not help in the way forward. All carbon taxes now will do, is make the operating costs of the units go up, while solar stays the same, further pushing the balance to solar.



> However if you focus on how you want to reduce overall CO2 emissions to meet obligations set in stone, these meager targets must met, CFU is the way to go because it reduces CO2 faster than solar can.




No it doesn't. Solar clearly wins here. 

brty


----------



## frankblack (18 July 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> I think you need to remove the rose coloured glasses.
> 
> ...




I guess you must believe in conspiracy theories, this is the finding

"CSIRO is the Australian Government national science agency and Australia’s pre-
eminent research organisation. 

In its report – Desktop Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparison of the BlueGen Fuel Cell 
Unit with Other Means of Providing Electricity and Heat to Australian Homes, prepared by 
Peter Campbell – CSIRO determines that a 2-kilowatt BlueGen unit can save up to 33 
tonnes of carbon dioxide a year when replacing power derived from brown coal.   

The average household in Victoria produces around 10.7 tonnes of greenhouse gas 
emissions each year from energy used in the home.
1 
 A home with a BlueGen unit can 
offset all of these carbon emissions – and more.   

By comparison, a home with a 2-kilowatt solar panel using the grid as a back-up can 
save 3.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. "

what dont I understand about that?


----------



## brty (18 July 2010)

> By comparison, a home with a 2-kilowatt solar panel using the grid as a back-up can
> save 3.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.





> what dont I understand about that?




You understand the limited study well. Provided the parameters of the comparison are set to show the BlueGen unit favorably this will be the case.

Change the parameters to something realistic, like both connected to the grid and feed power back into the grid. Plus add in spending $70,000 on each.

A 10kw system will cost less than $50,000. It will produce more electricity in Melbourne...



> There are an average of 2079 hours of sunlight per year with an average of 5.7 hours of sunlight per day.




... than a BlueGen unit over the course of a year (at max power output). 

BlueGen unit : 2kw x 24 hours x 365 days = 17,520 Kwh
10 kw Solar  : 10 kw x 5.7 hours x 365 days = 20,790 Kwh

BlueGen will use 110,376 Mj of gas at a current cost of ~ $1545 per year. There is a fair amount of GHG being produced.

Solar will use no gas for the electricity produced, no GHG.

Fuel Cells will get cheaper in the future, so will solar panels.

Solar produces power when needed during peak consumption, especially in summer when Air conditioners are on. With the introduction of Smart meters, this is when costs will be highest and extra power needs to be generated.



> I guess you must believe in conspiracy theories




No, just cold hard facts, and not necessarily those produced by a report by CSIRO. They will only produce the report that goes with the original parameters set in the contract to produce said report. Like I stated earlier, take a good look at the total picture.

If my numbers above are 'out' please show where they are wrong.

I am really disappointed in all aspects about this technology with this company. There is real potential for fuel cells running off-grid stand-alone systems for remote areas. The price people would pay per kw is much higher and everything else is very inconvenient. Yet they chose to go into competition with solar with a grid connected system.

Surely if you needed higher prices for the units, you would choose the market that could potentially bear the higher prices in the initial stages, while giving time to lower costs for the mass market.  

brty


----------



## frankblack (18 July 2010)

brty said:


> You understand the limited study well. Provided the parameters of the comparison are set to show the BlueGen unit favorably this will be the case.
> 
> Change the parameters to something realistic, like both connected to the grid and feed power back into the grid. Plus add in spending $70,000 on each.
> 
> ...




In most instances I will use my gut instincts, and they are telling me that i am right.
For one, solar is a done deal, been there done that, its not something likely to be revisited by governments, to get 50k worth of solar on roofs of working families.
something new and exciting made in victoria/australia more fits the bill.

History tells me if the government isnt going to push/market the switch to clean and green, Australian working families are not going to pay 50k for something.

So lets see.


----------



## brty (18 July 2010)

Criteria for investment.....



> something new and exciting made in victoria/australia more fits the bill.






> I will use my gut instincts, and they are telling me that i am right.






> Australian working families are not going to pay 50k for something.




Yet BlueGen costs $70,000 for a 5 year contract and has running costs of ~$1500 pa for gas alone.

I must admit. I cannot argue with that logic. Funny, I always thought that when we talked about investment it had something to do with money and efficient use of that money. 
If investment is about new-exciting-gut instincts then I had better change the way I invest.

brty


----------



## frankblack (18 July 2010)

brty said:


> Criteria for investment.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am sure there is nothing wrong with the way you invest or your decision making process.
Just that these are very different times we live in and there is no pure way to approach a product as unique and new as ceramic fuel cells.
Its very speculative, since we dont have all the information yet to make an informative decision, you can only use your gut instincts.
1. I dont believe the world would be after the technology if there was no money in it.
2. I still think it will be used because its so efficient and carbon friendly.

I dont accept it will cost as much as 70k, I do believe there will be an input tariff at least 1 to 1 in victoria, maybe more in other countries, and no matter the cost of gas it will be covered


----------



## mark_au (19 July 2010)

New announcement just released on comsec has stated that Harvey Norman commercial division will be reselling bluegen units. Seems to have pushed up the price to 18cents


----------



## sharezum (19 July 2010)

This is the best news as it puts BlueGen in front of and able to be bought by the Australian public.  Is there any rebate available in Australia though?


----------



## yma (19 July 2010)

The price went up to 19.5c, if the actual sale happening than it will be even better. I am holding of CFU ATM


----------



## basilio (19 July 2010)

Congratulations!! What a fantastic dishwashing unit !! Well at  least that is way it's being reported.



> Electricity unit developer Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd (ASX:CFU) has today appointed Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd (ASX:HVN) to distribute the company’s BlueGen generators through the retailers commercial division franchisee.
> 
> The BlueGen *dishwashing* !!! units use patented fuel cell technology to convert natural gas to electricity with high efficiency.




http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network15207.html


----------



## sharezum (19 July 2010)

The units are the size of a dish washer and one day may be as common but at least CFU don't make vacuum cleaners!


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (19 July 2010)

brty said:


> Change the parameters to something realistic, like both connected to the grid and feed power back into the grid. Plus add in spending $70,000 on each.




Where is the $70,000 price tag prediction coming from? In one article I read last year, the price was around $AUD8000 - almost a 1/10th of your suggested price:
"...
_Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd  plans to make the BlueGen product available in Victoria from early 2010. The company is in discussions with potential local manufacturing partners. It is also talking with potential purchasers of the BlueGen product in other markets, including Europe and North America. When mass-produced, the BlueGen products are forecast to cost around A$8000 (US$6200) each, with a payback period of seven years and a product lifetime of 15 years.
_..."
Source: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com...nches-modular-solid-oxide-fuel-cell-generator


----------



## moXJO (19 July 2010)

Europe is where the money is. I don't think the market over here is that big for this type of product.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (19 July 2010)

But if the cost was 10 times it is in Europe, what would stop someone importing them? Some baggage companies (ExcessBaggage) use volume rather than weight to calculate the cost of shipping. Surely it wouldn't cost $AUD60,000 to transport a dishwasher from Europe.

The UK / Europe is also 220-240V and as far as I know natural gas from the North Sea is pretty similar if not the same as the natural gas from Bass Strait.


----------



## frankblack (19 July 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> But if the cost was 10 times it is in Europe, what would stop someone importing them? Some baggage companies (ExcessBaggage) use volume rather than weight to calculate the cost of shipping. Surely it wouldn't cost $AUD60,000 to transport a dishwasher from Europe.
> 
> The UK / Europe is also 220-240V and as far as I know natural gas from the North Sea is pretty similar if not the same as the natural gas from Bass Strait.




The 70,000 price tag originates from the neco website.
Now, I dont think the cost will be 70k.
However now that it does, the shares are up 17%.
So go figure:


----------



## hmmm (19 July 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> Where is the $70,000 price tag prediction coming from? In one article I read last year, the price was around $AUD8000 - almost a 1/10th of your suggested price:
> "...
> _Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd  plans to make the BlueGen product available in Victoria from early 2010. The company is in discussions with potential local manufacturing partners. It is also talking with potential purchasers of the BlueGen product in other markets, including Europe and North America. When mass-produced, the BlueGen products are forecast to cost around A$8000 (US$6200) each, with a payback period of seven years and a product lifetime of 15 years.
> _..."
> ...




From Dono's post on page 24... i think this explains what you're looking for.
http://www.neco.com.au/index.php/fuel-cell/bluegenfaqs/


----------



## MACCA350 (19 July 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> Where is the $70,000 price tag prediction coming from? In one article I read last year, the price was around $AUD8000 - almost a 1/10th of your suggested price:
> "...
> _*When mass-produced*, the BlueGen products are forecast to cost around A$8000 (US$6200) each, with a payback period of seven years and a product lifetime of 15 years.
> _..."
> Source: http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com...nches-modular-solid-oxide-fuel-cell-generator



I thought that was the initial pricing as there was mention of mass production pricing around $3,500............although I may be mixing that up with the UK pricing

Nice tick up on that announcement today, wasn't expecting that one.


----------



## Dono (19 July 2010)

Wow, plenty of post on recent news... I know the price for the unit sounds expensive but I think it is a good place to start. 

1. This is one of the first fuel cell's in the world to run off natural gas and be accessible to the public, that has to command a decent price.

2. They probably only have 50 or so sitting on the shelf so no good selling them for 10k a piece and have a thousand orders in the back log.

3. I am sure the price includes installation, maintenance, as well as the product itself (these costs add up) I think this is why they put it under the "contract" banner rather than saying you own it. Neco is supposed to take care of the whole lot. I am not sure if Harvey Norman will operate the same way but will be interesting to see.

Sure I wont be buying one but i'm sure there will be people out there that will. 

The Harvey Norman announcement represents accessibility to the public and that is the key. The stock has had a good rise today but will need a good update on sales to keep it there. Brendan talked about getting cash flow positive this year and that is what will really push up this stock. 

Haven't done the maths on how many they will need to sell to overcome cash burn and the production cost but will be one to look at in the next quarterly announcement.


----------



## gypsysbt (19 July 2010)

Dono said:


> Wow, plenty of post on recent news....




should be good for the share price  
20 million shares bid for with only 4 million on offer should be good for the share price as well


----------



## jbocker (19 July 2010)

I was surprised to see the announcement today re Harvey Norman to sell the Bluegen units initially in NSW and ACT. Good that it is as a non exclusive distributor, allowing other retailers to arrange sales agreements with CFCL too.

Go Harvey Go.


----------



## brty (20 July 2010)

I rang NECO to have a chat about the units. They are for lease, not for sale.
The lease is $45,000 for the first 2 years, then $8,000 per year. 

The fuel stack will be replaced after the second year, then the fifth year, then the tenth year. 
The lease cost includes installation, maintenance and the fuel stack replacements.

Given that the cost of the gas will be about $1545 for a full years operation, at current residential rates, and produce a maximum of 17,520 kwh of electricity, these units will produce electricity at a cost of $1.37 per kwh in each of the first 2 years, then at 54 cents per kwh after that.

Those are insane prices. Any organization that purchases at these prices is clearly throwing money away.

The company has $16m in cash at the end of March quarter, and a burn rate of $6m for the quarter. They need to lease out enough of these units in the next 6 months to stay in business, a number that would be over 130 per quarter. From October 09 to April 10, a period of 7 months, they had orders for 17 units. By the 13th of July, the company had "secured orders for just under 50 BlueGen". 
When you add in Vicurbans 30, to the prior 17, means the company does not have many other sales since April (if any).

I cannot see where a huge increase in orders would come from at these high lease rates.
I can only assume from the numbers that the company will have to either go back to shareholders for more cash, or sell the part of the technology with-in the next few months, if they wish to stay in business.

brty


----------



## jbocker (20 July 2010)

Thanks for the info brty. 
I suspect that there is a lot more to this, perhaps the numbers are those derived from the Vic govt installs where the govt is paying a premium to Neco for their early involvement in the early commercial development and consequently high level of support. The govt would be prepared to pay for this as it would be seeking a good commercial green option for the future. And good on them for giving it a go!
Any other business would need to understand the terms (and reasoning for the price). What business driver they would need to consider?  Get their name marketed as being involved with the 'technology', who knows.

Brty, any reasons for the quick replacement of stacks after the first two years? I am guessing it would be for analysis / research of the performance of the cells.

Need to also consider that CFCL main market is outside Aus, and not restricted to selling just Bluegens for cost recovery. Even so appreciate your comment on the cash burn rate.

Be interested to see what the Harvey Norman model will eventually be, by comparison.

While the costs are prohibitively high, I can understand that they would need to be, initially. I am however excited that there are some commercial commitments being made, but I would like some better explanation from those involved, as quoting these numbers without an explanation, is not good marketing and leaves us all guessing.

Need to keep in mind that CFCLs main market is outside Aus, and is not resticted to selling Bluegens for cost recovery. Even so appreciate your comment on the cash burn rate.


----------



## frankblack (20 July 2010)

All and Any of Dollar numbers quoted around here are pure fiction and guesstimates at best.
I mean, how can you flatly leave out the feed in tariff.?

Nor do they matter, once a utility like Origin, gets involved, they are already by the way running the Bluegen at Aurora.
Origin have a ton of cash and own the gas and supply electricity.
You call that vertical integration, or a cash cow.
Origin will get a good deal when they go to Gerry Harvey or CFCL.

All you can say, if you want to, is that we dont know, and on that basis it's a risk to buy CFU.
If you dont believe the story, dont buy the shares.


----------



## brty (20 July 2010)

JB,



> Brty, any reasons for the quick replacement of stacks after the first two years?




The reason I was given is that "they don't know how long they will last". I asked for the difference in replacement times for the second and third stacks, it is assumed the technology will get better and the company will learn from the longer term operation of the initial units.

My point/question in regard to the "cash burn rate" is how does the company get to the future where the cost of the units is cheap enough to compete with solar generation, that has no ongoing costs?? Current revenues do not even cover the remuneration packages of directors and 'key personnel'. So where does the money come from for further research or production, or ongoing maintenance as per existing leases??

Frank,


> All and Any of Dollar numbers quoted around here are pure fiction and guesstimates at best.




Which numbers are you referring to?? The ones I have used are actual current existing numbers, no fiction whatsoever. If you have different, real existing numbers please provide them.

Feed-in tariffs for solar are at maximum 66c/kwh (Origin Energy in Vic) for less than 5kw systems, larger than that it is close to ordinary retail tariffs. The solar systems produce zero GHG emissions in the creation of electricity.  
The BlueGen unit creates GHG in the production of electricity, certainly it is less than coal fired production, but it still produces them. It does not qualify for the rates attributed to solar, nor should it. 
Assuming that it attracts the same feed-in rates as other small scale generation ~23 cents/kwh (peak and ~9 cents off-peak),  what is the point of producing electricity at a cost of $1.37 /kwh during the first 2 years??



> Origin have a ton of cash and own the gas and supply electricity.




As a former, and about to be new again shareholder of Origin, to have one or two makes sense in terms of research. However considering that the cost of generating plant at a new modern large scale gas turbine plant is around $1200-$1500 per kw of capacity, and the efficiency of these newest gas turbines is around 57%, around the same as the BlueGen unit, then unless the cost of the units were to be ~$3,000, with ongoing maintenance at an equivalent to the large scale operation in terms of $/kwh of production, then it makes no economic sense to buy any more. 



> All you can say, if you want to, is that we dont know




What don't we know??

Frank, your failure to acknowledge the existing numbers, begs me to ask the question of whether you have an association with the company in any capacity other than being a small shareholder??

brty


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2010)

Brty

What you have missed in your analysis is:

a) the fact it is a technology breakthrough for fuel cell technology, so much so that companies are now paying CFU to licence the technology.
b) that the fuel cell cost will be much less than it is now once volume commences in Europe. (which will occur very soon).
c) in Europe and Japan, where the climate is colder, solar cells are less efficient and electricity is dearer therefore:
(i) the payback period is short (1 year in some cases)
(ii) the heat produced can be used to heat water or the home
(iii) their use results in load being reduced off the supply network as well as reducing greenhouse gas emmission hence government encouragement.

Finally, Australia will eventually join Europe in encouraging its use.
The problem is that our politicians are all lawyers and such and don't understand technology. Earlier in this thread when CFU had a meeting with some, which you can read, the sheer inability of the politicains involved to understand how this works acts to show the base quality of the people in charge. We will follow though, we are good at copying bigger countries. 

I agree with you as solar energy costs drop and they become more efficient, then solar will have the advantage in Australia however worldwide this is not the case.


----------



## Dono (20 July 2010)

Cheers for the research brty.

IMHO the issue isn't whether people will buy them (sure it is expensive) but see post below, there is definately a market there. The question is will people buy them quick enough to avoid a capital rasing. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-sparks-solution/story-e6frg9no-1225894288727

I have a feeling we will have a big announcement on the way whether it will be good or bad. Have to wait and see but been happy about the positive news lately.


----------



## Miner (20 July 2010)

Dono said:


> Cheers for the research brty.
> 
> IMHO the issue isn't whether people will buy them (sure it is expensive) but see post below, there is definately a market there. The question is will people buy them quick enough to avoid a capital rasing.
> 
> ...




I got a feeling that the upside of CFU will be more shown after the election and how the climate change policy shapes up by Julia (I have already assumed she will win not because she was like Brutas but because she got an easy target - beating Mr Abott and Mr Hockey - the weakest links in liberal).

No matter who wins the climate change is a big thing. It will be then a competitive advantage between CFU and Solar Energy Sellers (which means the sellers have to keep so many competing products to sell to customers leading high inventory cost, product aware ness, after sales service and headache). 

This variety of Solar Energy players in the market makes CFU task an easy one. Their publicity costs also reduced considering Harvey Norman and Victorian Government blessing.  The other company could have competed with CFU was ERJ products. But ERJ has a comparative poor set up and high dependence on import making them now laggard in the market.

So IMO I look forward to see something by October when new government (labor or liberal whosoever)  gets its feet on the ground.

Disclaimer : I do hold CFU and  looking for opportunity to build up at fall in CFU price.


----------



## brty (20 July 2010)

For Germany as a whole,


> There are an average of 1738 hours of sunlight per year with an average of 4.8 hours of sunlight per day.




http://www.climatetemp.info/germany/



> The Feed-in Law fixes tariffs for approved renewable energy projects for a 20-year period from the plant commissioning and will apply incremental price cuts. Tariffs were initially set at 48.1 cents per kilowatt hour for solar energy, 8.6 cents per kWh for wind, from 9.6 to 8.2 cents per kWh for biomass, 8.4 to 6.7 cents per kWh for geothermal and 7.2 to 6.3 cents per kWh for hydropower, waste and sewage gas.




http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsGermany.htm



> While the average cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity in Europe for the second half of 2008 and the first half of 2009 tallied â‚¬0.165,




http://www.thelocal.de/money/20100528-27497.html

That converts to $A0.243, my current peak electricity costs from the last bill were 24 cents kwh.



> Of the major cities, Perth is the sunniest (3,200 hours annually) and Melbourne is the least sunny (2,200 hours annually).




http://www.livingin-australia.com/sunshine-hours-australia/

Yes, Germany has less sunlight hours than Melbourne, but more than the average of only 4 hours/day that I worked out earlier as being much better for solar over the BlueGen. A 10kw solar system in Germany will still produce as much electricity as the BlueGen over a year, with zero GHG emissions and no ongoing costs for the 110,000 Mj of gas used.

The 110,000 Mj of gas would cost over 1000 pounds in the UK, converted to $Aus is ~ $1,750. That is higher than the prices paid here.
There is no unique advantage for these BlueGens in Europe over solar. In fact the reliance on gas that increasingly is coming from the FSU countries, places it at a higher disadvantage.

Please do your homework on this company and do not rely on bluesky and spin, despite what the short term shareprice movements may do.

brty


----------



## moXJO (20 July 2010)

brty said:


> Yes, Germany has less sunlight hours than Melbourne, but more than the average of only 4 hours/day that I worked out earlier as being much better for solar over the BlueGen. A 10kw solar system in Germany will still produce as much electricity as the BlueGen over a year, with zero GHG emissions and no ongoing costs for the 110,000 Mj of gas used.
> 
> 
> brty




Space restriction for solar panels on roof tops is key regarding Europe & Japan. Not to mention ideal positioning of panels towards the sun (which a majority do not have). Solar imo is impractical in dense cities. Australia on the other hand is better off going the solar option.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2010)

moXJO said:


> Space restriction for solar panels on roof tops is key regarding Europe & Japan. Not to mention ideal positioning of panels towards the sun (which a majority do not have). Solar imo is impractical in dense cities. Australia on the other hand is better off going the solar option.




Also many more live in apartment blocks.
As an electrical engineer I could have saved a client a lot of money recently if I could have upgraded their supply with a bluegen. Instead we got an upgraded supply from the power company costing tens of thousands of dollars.

My experiance with solar is that the panels rarely operate at peak efficiency to get the say 10kW suggested. Secondly you have to spend a lot of money on infrastructure, frams for the panels, invertors etc. The losses in the invertor are not insubstational by the way.
Thirdly they do depreciate over time (as does the CFU unit).


----------



## brty (20 July 2010)

moXJO,



> Space restriction for solar panels on roof tops is key regarding Europe & Japan.




Good point, I agree space restrictions will apply. How much room will there be inside apartments for a BlueGen unit, in a non-living area??

knobby,



> As an electrical engineer I could have saved a client a lot of money recently if I could have upgraded their supply with a bluegen. Instead we got an upgraded supply from the power company costing tens of thousands of dollars



Interesting. How much extra power did the upgrade supply them, If only 2kw, did the upgrade cost them  over $70,000  (of course $70,000 will only buy 5 years of use with BlueGen, I suspect the upgrade will last longer.)

A 10 kw solar system can be obtained for under $70k fully installed, including the frame, inverter,wiring etc. The panels alone would work out to  ~$40-50k.

My real contention is that there is a huge demand for something like this off-grid, in remote locations where people currently use solar, plus diesel generators plus battery storage. To connect to a stand alone fuel cell, that could produce power on demand, from LPG/petrol/diesel would sell like hotcakes at high prices.

brty


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2010)

brty said:


> moXJO,
> 
> 
> Interesting. How much extra power did the upgrade supply them, If only 2kw, did the upgrade cost them  over $70,000  (of course $70,000 will only buy 5 years of use with BlueGen, I suspect the upgrade will last longer.)
> ...




I really only needed an additional 10kW.

As you say it is horses for courses.
Solar and PV both have their place. It will be interesitng to see how it all pans out.

Some of the new solar product like flexible film is quite amazing.


----------



## frankblack (20 July 2010)

brty said:


> JB,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'll say it again, there is nothing wrong with they way you are evaluating CFU,
IF you were looking for a safe and secure place to park your money.
Please dont take the risk if you dont believe the story.
In my opinion though, you will be proven wrong.
No I dont have any affiliations with CFCL, the company.
And I will continue to ignore, for the most part, the figures bandied around here because they are only speculation, not proved.
Has any-one actually leased a unit for whatever price yet,??
I dont think so,
With this in mind, also, I can not prove a negative.

The Feed in Tariff nobody knows what that will be, my best guess, 1 for 1.
Make no mistake, the Bluegen product will not be seen around here, with out
a feed in tariff.

As for Origin Energy, they make gas and they want to make more, but they they sell electricity and buy more than they can make themselves.
Yes they could build a gas generator, but what if you could get your customers to pay for leasing/owning a Bluegen, and with the governments help?
Well that is what I would do.

Only time will tell, all we know for sure is that WE dont know,
I personally value every contribution to this thread, thanks.


----------



## Dono (20 July 2010)

Didn't know about this one, thought you guys might like to check it out (don't know if the assessment would cover CFU, but can't see why not):

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/sustainbus/smallbusenergy.htm


----------



## brty (20 July 2010)

Frank,



> And I will continue to ignore, for the most part, the figures bandied around here because they are only speculation, not proved.




Again I ask which figures are speculation. If you refer to any of mine they are all fact, so please explain which figures you refer to as speculation.



> I dont think the cost will be 70k






> I dont accept it will cost as much as 70k




Why do you find the actual numbers so difficult to believe?? Please look at the NECO website...

http://www.neco.com.au/index.php/fuel-cell/bluegenfaqs/

Ring them up yourself... 


> contact a Neco Green Living Consultant on 1300 882 640




Once you have the actual numbers, get out a calculator, the numbers do not lie in this case.



> Please dont take the risk if you dont believe the story




In terms of investment, one should never believe "the story". The facts and numbers are the only guide, whether by technical analysis or fundamental analysis. I have no fear of the markets and only take proportionate risks. I have no money invested in this for a very good reason.

brty


----------



## frankblack (20 July 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Obviously time will tell who is right or wrong about the future of CFU.
I certainly wont be buying into what the thing costs until I see actual proof.
Even then, as I have already argued Utilities might not tell us what they are paying.
This has along way to run yet.

This person (Andrew Main) has a different price he is telling the world about,

"We won't all be buying more than one straight away, as the cost is about $55,000. However, John Harrison of Harvey Norman Commercial said last night that there had been significant interest from government bodies and organizations with specific energy requirements. "Just to put it in perspective, that's around $10,000 less than a photovoltaic system with a similar output," he said, adding that such a system might require more roof space on a commercial building than was physically possible." 

I am not giving investment advice,
I am looking for answers, but not unproven speculation.
What if something is for lease for $70 000, and no-one takes it up at that price, well it never happened.

Wait and see, we just dont know yet.


----------



## brty (20 July 2010)

Frank,



> We won't all be buying more than one straight away, as the cost is about $55,000. However, John Harrison of Harvey Norman Commercial said last night that there had been significant interest from government bodies and organizations with specific energy requirements.




You don't think that is the wholesale price to the reseller, who then puts his margin on top??
They seem to be buying only one.

Also in the Australian newspaper article, found here...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-sparks-solution/story-e6frg9no-1225894288727

... was the following....



> Andrew Neilson of Ceramic Fuel Cells said his company had so far sold "just under 50 units", of which about a dozen were so far in operation




Apart from Vicurban's 30, total sales are still only 18-19 for the rest of the world since October 09, with 17 of those occurring before the end of April.

brty


----------



## MACCA350 (21 July 2010)

Anyone consider that CFU may have gone looking for other retailers, in this case Harvey Normans, because Neco were setting pricing and this 'lease' deal too high and they couldn't simply dump them due to contracts......might have to wait to see what Harvey Norman do with it.

You are right there has been only a small number of sales, but these 20 odd sales have been trial units purchased by key companies in the industry. For example the Japan sales went to a company who already has infrastructure and have used/sold something like 40,000 small petrol run generators in their current program. They purchased the Bluegen to assess it as a replacement or addition to their current program. It's these kinds of companies, who have/will have trial units, who will drive mass production not the general public.

In fact the 30 unit order by the Vic govt was the first bulk(if you could call it that) order.   

I can see your skepticism of the Bluegen as a viable product at the quoted $70,000 odd and agree as I too balked at it, but I'll wait and see how things pan out.

Cheers


----------



## frankblack (21 July 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> Anyone consider that CFU may have gone looking for other retailers, in this case Harvey Normans, because Neco were setting pricing and this 'lease' deal too high and they couldn't simply dump them due to contracts......might have to wait to see what Harvey Norman do with it.
> 
> You are right there has been only a small number of sales, but these 20 odd sales have been trial units purchased by key companies in the industry. For example the Japan sales went to a company who already has infrastructure and have used/sold something like 40,000 small petrol run generators in their current program. They purchased the Bluegen to assess it as a replacement or addition to their current program. It's these kinds of companies, who have/will have trial units, who will drive mass production not the general public.
> 
> ...




Absolutely right, all we can do is wait and see how things pan out.
It might take longer than we think, 
The fact that CFU is the first and only in the world with this kind of product,
is slowing things down with all the testing.
And because there is no competitor ready, prices are being set a bit too high,
maybe to justify the company financially.
The nearest competitor is maybe 2 years behind but maybe 5.
When the competition finally arrives to market the price of a bluegen will drop substantially.
This technology is the new kid on the block, there's a lot of excitement about it in the world, the pent up demand wont go away, it really needs to fail for this to change.


----------



## frankblack (21 July 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have listened to you, your findings are correct, CFU is not a safe investment yet.
Your pricing for the units is out there, yet unconfirmed until it becomes the norm, which it wont.
Now listen to me , I am not speculating on the price, because I dont know more than you, so far nobody posting here knows any more.
I will accept, that at the moment the price is set far too high for the average person who should look for a payback of the purchase, and more than what I would have thought given a possible cost around $10 000 once in mass production.
Theres a long way to go wait and see.


----------



## Dono (21 July 2010)

PR machine working hard, Brendan on ABC radio

http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2010/07/cerammic-fuel-cells-another-australian-innovation.html


----------



## skc (21 July 2010)

Isn't there a sizable backup / perpetual power market that BluGen units are perfect for?

Sure the per kWh cost is not cheap, but as emergency back up power the unit cost become less relevant.

If there is such a market than relative costs and performance comparison should be made to alternatives like a diesel generator (capital costs, ongoing costs, reliability, power output etc).

And given that BluGen can earn feed in tariff, as long as the marginal cost of the gas is less than the tariff earned, you would actually run the machine even though it is only intended for backup use.


----------



## sharezum (21 July 2010)

I have been told that at the moment the BluGen units cannot act as a backup power unit if connected to the grid as there is no isolation from the 240AC.


----------



## nioka (21 July 2010)

A different kettle of fish but as a comparison on value for a small investor compare this;  
For an investment of $9,500 I am getting a 3KW solar system installed. The deal includes a contract with Country Energy to pay me 60c unit for power fed back to the grid for 6 years. With my current usage it has been calculated that the surplus power alone will return me around $3000 PA. 

While it may be considered that a CFU power generator would be a proposition for a business to purchase you have to consider owning part of the company that that produces the unit as an entirely different proposition.

I see the jury is still out on a verdict for CFU.


----------



## pixel (21 July 2010)

The jury may well be out on where the retail price for a unit may be headed;
the Market, however, appears to have taken notice of the potential upside.

Technically, the recent trading pattern has been following a perfect double bottom setup: drop to 15c, rise to 18c resistance, drop back, and breakout on huge volume to 21c.





I took part profit at 20.5c and have already started to buy some back at lower levels. I would expect support to hold between 18 and 19c, delivering upside targets at 24, 27, and 30.5c.




For fundamental support, re-read those early reports from Germany: How many stacks does the plant in NRW produce annually?  See page 7 in the last HY Report


----------



## brty (22 July 2010)

Pixel,

Well done on your trading. Using the technicals is the only way to trade this, with lots of profit taking. There has been plenty of pump and dump in this stock over the years.



> For fundamental support, re-read those early reports from Germany: How many stacks does the plant in NRW produce annually?




There is a difference between 'design capacity' and 'stacks produced'.

I've spent a bit of time looking at all aspects of this company and the technology and come to the conclusion that many of the high hopes for the technology do not necessarily flow through to the performance of the company.
The fuel cell technology has many applications for its use in the medium termed future and eventually costs of fuel cells will be competitive with other forms of electricity generation. Those who pay the highest now, for off grid electricity use are eagerly waiting for a silent electricity generator, that can ramp up or down the electricity production quickly.

This company CFCL has not produced such a unit. 

The BlueGen is a generator that uses fossil fuel and creates GHG. Certainly it is more efficient than coal-fired, but in terms of modern Gas fired turbines, and excluding the heat generated, not that much more efficient (possibly only a couple of percent). It does not fit in with the real criteria of being green (renewable). It also must be grid connected to both gas and electricity.

Any business that wants to be green, will still look at the bottom line of the different choices of being green. All the tax deductions that have been bandied about as reasons to take up the BlueGen apply to all other forms of generator as well, so no advantage here. Going green for a business can be as simple of ticking the green option for bill payment, or if something visable is required then chuck a few solar panels on the roof.

The forecast price for the units from the company themselves has changed markedly in the last 12-15 months. To start with the planned price was going to be $8,000, then a few months ago it changed to $25,000, now the actual price (and this is what was charged to Vicurban) is $45,000 for a 2 year LEASE, (with a 20% deposit up front), with the LEASE rate of $8,000 pa thereafter.

Also at present, there is no need for more off-peak power to be fed into the grid. The price a utility is prepared to pay for such power will be low and I'm sure that a utility that currently generates power from gas at ~4 c/kwh, is going to point out to the Govt that a fuel-cell that produces ~ the same amount of GHG should not be rewarded for this off-peak power production that is not needed.

There are many here who think this price will come down quickly with bulk sales, problem is how does a company with a cash burn rate of $4-6m a quarter and only $16m in the bank (as of the end of March) get to produce in bulk without orders?? The June quarter cash-flow summary is due out in the next week or so. 
Because of lack of orders announced it can be easily assumed that more cash (another $4-6m??) has been used leaving only ~$10m cash by end of June. 
The only conclusion I can draw is another capital raising in the next month or 2, is an absolute necessity, which means a further dilution in shareholdings. There are already over 1 billion shares on issue.

brty


----------



## basilio (23 July 2010)

> The forecast price for the units from the company themselves has changed markedly in the last 12-15 months. To start with the planned price was going to be $8,000, then a few months ago it changed to $25,000, now the actual price (and this is what was charged to Vicurban) is $45,000 for a 2 year LEASE, (with a 20% deposit up front), with the LEASE rate of $8,000 pa thereafter.




Well brty it seems that the good business energy  men in Germany are only to happy to pay such prices (or whatever )  *and then install them free in peoples homes *!  All the customer has to do is pay for the gas.

Sounds pretty good doesn't it ? That is the current story coming from  CFU. No doubt if they sell say 10,000 of these units  all will be well in the world.

I would really like to see some  hard details  on the article I have noted. It smells....

[







> B]Key Aussie invention ignored locally[/B]
> 
> It generally produces more than enough electricity to power the average household - unless it is summer and you're constantly running the air-conditioner - and enough heat to produce a tank of hot water daily.
> 
> ...




http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-...invention-ignored-locally-20100723-10nqp.html


----------



## brty (23 July 2010)

Basillio,



> Well brty it seems that the good business energy men in Germany are only to happy to pay such prices (or whatever ) and then install them free in peoples homes ! All the customer has to do is pay for the gas.
> 
> Sounds pretty good doesn't it ? That is the current story coming from CFU.




I think you are referring to this quote from the newspaper article.....



> In Germany, utility companies supply the device free of charge to households, who then pay for the natural gas they use.




Of course this bit helps from B.Dow....



> The big guys are spending money




Sounds great, How many have they sold to the utilities that have been installed into customers homes free of charge??? I think that is what everyone would like to see.

From a utilities perspective, to buy say 10,000 of these to put in peoples homes will cost $450 million for a 2 year contract at today's advertised prices (and existing sales to Vicurban) to produce 20,000 kw, = 20Mw of electricity from gas. By enlarging an existing facility that uses gas would produce over 200Mw for that type of money.
If the utility controls the units from an external point, so that they can ramp up and down electricity generation when they need it, how does this help the homeowner if they need extra hot water and the utility has turned them off?? If the homeowner is in control, what does the utility do with all the extra power created off-peak and sent back to the grid when they don't need it??

Also from the same article is the following from Professor Bell....



> The technology is great, but there are two main problems, he said.
> 
> "It still does produce CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions, so it's not going to get us all the way toward our emissions reduction target, and the second issue is it still uses natural gas.
> 
> "There is a finite supply of natural gas and it is much less than coal.




As I have stated earlier, I think the technology is brilliant and has many applications, but I think it is a separate issue to what the company is doing with the technology. I think the strategy is all wrong, and this product is not the correct application of the technology.
It is now nearly 15 months since the product was launched and nearly 10 months since the factory was opened, yet sales/orders are only "nearly 50".

brty


----------



## Boyou (23 July 2010)

It is great to see so much back and forth on CFCL 

At least it means a few on here are crunching numbers and coming up with scenrios/forecastes..although some are not as bright as others. 

The key point to remember here is this is all new tech.To look purely at the bald figures based on today's reality is to look at it through the wrong end of the telescope.
This is a visionary company! 

Good luck to the faithfull


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (23 July 2010)

brty said:


> If the homeowner is in control, what does the utility do with all the extra power created off-peak and sent back to the grid when they don't need it??




Power generation is based on power draw. If individual units are producing power (injecting current into the grid @ 240V) then the demand from the power company is lower. It will never be zero. Therefore, they simply turn back the water supply (for hydro-power station), they turn down the gas supply in the furnace (for gas fired power station - or limit the steam pressure to the turbines) or they slow the coal conveyor belt (for coal fired). I doubt there will ever be a "virtual" power company which relies on individual power generators. Even at night, street lighting, heaters, hot-water units, refrigerators, freezers, city office blocks, all consume large amounts of off-peak power.

In the UK they have massive power (usage) surges at the end of popular TV programs. At the end of the show, everyone turns on a kettle for a cup of tea. It is simple things like this that cause massive peak demands on power companies which they must source from other backup power stations and even other countries.


----------



## mr. jeff (23 July 2010)

Boyou,
interesting your thoughts on the telescope use; I guess every company starts off looking questionable and borderline that has a new product that hasn't been seen before, but with the questioners / doubters here I sort of agree.
they haven't actually really achieved anything yet other than build a unit that costs in reality around A$100,000 to produce, then make as many glorious ASX releases as possible...where have they given us any sold figures to work with!

Also, yeah good point with the observations on the product promise being separate to the SP, very true. Buy them reliably every 2 months at 15.5c then wait for a release and sell at 20c. quite a lot of hopeful observers waiting and watching! It could be any day in the next few months when they could announce that their plant problems is solved, full scale production is slated and the roll out begins. Thats when it gets exciting this yoyo of massive share issue and cap raisings is tiring!
good luck to the believers, it has some very strong points, but Dow must give us some concrete not jelly!


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> Power generation is based on power draw. If individual units are producing power (injecting current into the grid @ 240V) then the demand from the power company is lower. It will never be zero. Therefore, they simply turn back the water supply (for hydro-power station), they turn down the gas supply in the furnace (for gas fired power station - or limit the steam pressure to the turbines) or they slow the coal conveyor belt (for coal fired). I doubt there will ever be a "virtual" power company which relies on individual power generators. Even at night, street lighting, heaters, hot-water units, refrigerators, freezers, city office blocks, all consume large amounts of off-peak power.
> 
> In the UK they have massive power (usage) surges at the end of popular TV programs. At the end of the show, everyone turns on a kettle for a cup of tea. It is simple things like this that cause massive peak demands on power companies which they must source from other backup power stations and even other countries.



Conventional power plants can only operate down to a certain level before efficiency falls of a cliff or the plant simply can not operate.

For coal, this is generally in the 30 - 50% of total capacity range but there are situations, generally involving lower grade coal, where it is even higher. Coal-fired plants tend to run best at high loads, especially those using lower grade coal.

For gas it is around two thirds capacity for gas turbine plant, below which efficiency seriously falls. Ideally, these plants run close to full capacity. 

For gas-fired steam turbine plant, the lower operating limit is typically around 20% for the larger units and a bit higher for the smaller ones.

For hydro, there is no real operating limt between 0 and 100% but peak efficiency tends to be around either 60% or 90% depending on the type of turbines used. At very low outputs, efficiency can be terrible and the same can happen in hydraulically integrated systems of multiple power stations when operating at very high loads where some stations will spill in order to maximise downstream output.

The above is based on actual generating plant in operation in Australia at present.

As for rapidly changing loads and peak demands, the BlueGen does zero to help cope with that other than through increased baseload generation since they are relatively inflexible in operation compared to conventional generation.


----------



## frankblack (24 July 2010)

The problem here is we dont have all the facts or they are not available yet.
Also Australia is not yet dealing with the real world/future.
Central Europe has higher electricity costs, higher gas costs and a CO2 emissions price. Its different world to ours, but most of their issues are coming to us Aussies soon.
This puts the Europeans ahead of us, they have crunched the numbers believe me, they are not stupid, the part answer for them is fuel cells.
I have crunched the numbers too.
I will compare the efficiency of the bluegen to the nearest and best fossil fuel generation today,that being combined cycle, natural gas power station.
At best the efficiency of the gas power station manages 60%, even though this has been recorded, typically when they are up and running they manage only 50% efficiency.
When looking at the fuel cell generator alone the efficiency is 60%,
However nobody is considering the power generation on its own, its the co-generation which makes the product stand out.
In co-generation the Bluegen has efficiencies of 80%.
I will not factor in considerations for transmission loss of off site generation.

The final figure, a fuel cell based co-generation product is 60% better than the nearest rival, when it comes to fossil fuel energy conversion.

60% less fuel needed,
60% less co2, carbon footprint

Is it any wonder the world is excited about this.?
Fuel cells are not the all and everything, just part of the electricity supply mix,
of which there are many.

On the subject of what to do with Off peak power,
What you do is encourage people to use it, first you install a smart meter,
then you hike up the price of peak use power, sounds easy because it is.
If and when we get electric cars they will be charged over night.

Whether or not CFU is a good investment, I dont know,
What they have, what they are doing is right though.


----------



## brty (24 July 2010)

Frank,

Nobody is arguing that the technology is not efficient. However there are still some issues to be dealt with. The current operating BlueGen unit at aurora is operating at 58% efficiency over the first month of operation. The fuel cell stack will be replaced after 2 years as part of the lease contract. The reason it will be replaced is that the fuel cell degrades over time. A couple of years ago there was evidence that the fuel cell degrades at about 1% per couple of thousand hours, hence why they will replace the fuel cell stack in such a short time. The answer I received from the sales people about replacing the stacks was that they just didn't know how long they would last.

So you are correct...



> The problem here is we dont have all the facts or they are not available yet






What I'm arguing is that the strategy of the company with this technology is not likely to reap huge results for shareholders.
If you just look at the economics of what we do know, the current prices charged for the units do not make sense. This is probably the reason why the company has not been swamped with orders.



> What you do is encourage people to use it, first you install a smart meter,
> then you hike up the price of peak use power, sounds easy because it is.




Problem is, that favors solar power. As the price of electricity rises, so does the price of gas.



> If and when we get electric cars they will be charged over night.




Is that really going to happen in the next 6-9 months?? Because that is all the cash the company has left at the current burn rate. Obviously to get to a future when off-peak power is used at almost the same rate as peak power, therefore no longer being off-peak, the company will have to raise capital. The share price needs to rise so that the company gets a better price for a new share offer, and less dilution for existing shareholders. Raising $5-10m does not cut it, they need at least a couple of years worth of funds. Probably more like $20-30m would be needed just to continue. To upscale the manufacturing to bring the price of the units down to the original suggestion of $8000, would require substantially more.

At what point do shareholders stop putting in more money?? With the last capital raising last year, 2 of the larger shareholders had a dilution in their percentage ownership of the company, which means that they did not take up their full entitlement, nor did they purchase more shares on the open market to make up for the dilution. Also in the last year no director has bought a substantial number of shares in the company.
A capital raising needs to happen very soon, and at a price that already weary shareholders will take up. The current pop in the share price may offer just such an opportunity, better if the overall sharemarket goes up for the next month or so.
If the compant waits too long to raise more money, in the hope of waiting for a large order for the BlueGen units, the existing cash-flow could become critical.

brty


----------



## frankblack (24 July 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> Nobody is arguing that the technology is not efficient. However there are still some issues to be dealt with. The current operating BlueGen unit at aurora is operating at 58% efficiency over the first month of operation. The fuel cell stack will be replaced after 2 years as part of the lease contract. The reason it will be replaced is that the fuel cell degrades over time. A couple of years ago there was evidence that the fuel cell degrades at about 1% per couple of thousand hours, hence why they will replace the fuel cell stack in such a short time. The answer I received from the sales people about replacing the stacks was that they just didn't know how long they would last.
> 
> ...




I am agreeing with you pretty much for the forth time. The company,CFCL may be in strife, I dont really know though, maybe there is something they are not telling us, I hope there is.
I wouldnt be focusing on the Bluegen alone as an income stream, as long as they can sell something, some component.
As far as I am concerned, as long as the technology/product works and makes business sense, in a logical way, I wont give up on it.

I would like your insight as to why you think high peak power cost favors SOLAR.?
 I am not against solar by the way. I see solar as part of the mix.

Also why you think this has anything to do with the price of gas.? 

I am sorry I can not figure it out.
Thanks for your input.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2010)

frankblack said:


> I would like your insight as to why you think high peak power cost favors SOLAR.?
> I am not against solar by the way. I see solar as part of the mix.
> 
> Also why you think this has anything to do with the price of gas.?
> ...



Peak demand in Australia (except Tas) is on hot Summer afternoons. Generally speaking, the sun will be shining if it's 40 degrees outside - solar output is highest when electricity prices are highest.

There's a secondary peak during Winter that is not far short of the Summer peak in NSW. This is in the evening when it's dark. 

Peak load in Tasmania is generally a bit after 8am on a cold Winter morning, with a secondary peak (and the absolute peak on the distribution system in residential areas, the morning peak having a larger share of commercial load) around 6pm in Winter.

Nationally however, overall system peak is Summer afternoons driven by cooling loads with the secondary peak being Winter evenings.

As for the price of gas, gas-fired generation increasingly is the marginal source in the market and sets the price. That is very much the case in NT (where 95% of power is from gas), SA (over 50% gas), WA and in more recent times Tasmania. Vic is the same at times of high demand but not at off-peak times. Qld and NSW are heading the same way gradually.

So if the wholesale electricity price has gone up, you can pretty much assume that the gas and/or coal price has also increased since fuel represents the major ongoing cost of generation. 

Retail prices to households can however rise independently due to a combination of distribution costs (which are largely fixed per household regardless of overall consumption - if loads fall then higher supply charges will need to be introduced) and also political factors.

Where this all gets more complex comes back to the primary energy source used to generate electricity. If you're going to use gas anyway then a fuel cell is certainly an efficient way to do it. But with the geographical concentration of gas in a handfull of countries, it would be risky indeed for Europe etc to generate a large share of their total electricity from gas no matter what generation technology is used. It's not too wise giving another country the ability to turn off ALL your energy (gas already being used extensively for heating, industry etc). Hence continued reliance on nuclear, hydro, wind, coal etc with only a portion of total generation from gas.


----------



## frankblack (24 July 2010)

Thanks for that Smurf,
But it doesnt answer the question of why increasing the COST, (not use)
of peak power favors solar over say fuel cells.

or why increasing the cost of electricity will increase the price of gas?
Assume demand/use for electricity is no different to before only less during peak times and more during non peak.


----------



## brty (25 July 2010)

Frank,



> But it doesnt answer the question of why increasing the COST, (not use)
> of peak power favors solar over say fuel cells.




Because the cost of electricity is highest when solar panels actually produce their electricity. When the BlueGen creates electricity is 24 hours a day, mainly because of the long start up process (20 hours), so it is designed to run continuously. The BlueGen unit will be producing electricity at a lower average price than what solar does, if both received the same type of feed-in tariff equal to current domestic rates plus of course the offset in the householders actual use.



> or why increasing the cost of electricity will increase the price of gas?




One of the main reasons why electricity will go up is because of the increase in fuel, gas being one of those. The other main reason is because of carbon tax or equivalent, or should I say the cost of the fuel going up again. With the BlueGen using ~110,000 Mj of gas a year, the input cost is going to rise. For solar there is no input cost so the discrepancy between the 2 rises.



> I am agreeing with you pretty much for the forth time. The company,CFCL may be in strife, I dont really know though, maybe there is something they are not telling us, I hope there is.




This thread is about the company, yet many have been promoting all the hype surrounding the technology and attributing good technology = good company. If the company is not telling people something, you can bet it is not good news. All the good news is released as quickly as possible, and it always seems to be accompanied with the hype of how good the fuel cell is in terms of efficiency.

Smurf,

Thanks for your input, I regard you as an expert in the area of electricity production/consumption and always seem to learn something new from your posts. As someone in the industry, are there ever discussions about these new types of electricity production like BlueGen or for that matter solar. I'd love to know what the industry scuttlebutt is.

brty


----------



## frankblack (25 July 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for trying, however this doesnt answer the question, so I assume you misunderstood all of it.

What I clearly said was, if you want to increase the usage of off peak power,
all you need do is make peak power cost more than off peak.
You could do this by increasing the price of peak power.

HOW does this change the price of gas if NO more gas is used than before??

No this doesnt favor solar, unless there is an artificial influence, which is incorrectly applied. 
Solar has moved on now, from the domestic where it didnt/wont work to the commercial large scale operation. There is no real competition from solar.
There never was, the Australian government forced it on to the roofs of homeowners, paid for the whole shebang, some people regret doing it, complaining that their bills have gone up not down.

I repeat, as you have said yourself, the only competition in the field of power generation from gas is the gas power station.
Where fuel cell co-generation beats the power station in the energy conversion by a massive 60%

It is this, that keeps me going and gives me hope.


----------



## frankblack (26 July 2010)

Victoria leads the way,
Part of the John Brumby interview, Climate Spectator, its a good read.
http://tinyurl.com/29r733v

"So those three things are really fundamental. I think the fourth area is obviously providing the right environment to turn this challenge into an economic winner, and whether that’s research and development, and new technologies in solar or geothermal, whether it’s through ceramic fuel cells and their development and production, whether it’s through the new technologies that might hypothetically halve the amount of energy that an electric motor uses. I think there is just a huge raft of new economic opportunities that are going to come as the world really focuses on a cleaner environment and knocking down carbon emissions. So they’re the four things I would focus on."


----------



## brty (26 July 2010)

Hi Frank,

Firstly I'd like to thank you for your input into this discussion, it has made me do a fair bit of research on the company and the numbers involved.



> What I clearly said was, if you want to increase the usage of off peak power,
> all you need do is make peak power cost more than off peak.
> You could do this by increasing the price of peak power.




I think they do that now for a lot of people now. My off-peak power is ~10c/kwh our peak is ~23c/kwh (both numbers have the same discount of 7%)
Peak is 7-11 Monday- Friday, Off-peak the rest of the week, and weekends. There are 80 hours of peak and 88 hours of off-peak per week.

Now my point, that I think you misunderstood, is that this difference between peak and off-peak rates is what favors solar, with the assumption that the tariff you pay is reduced by the amount of electricity you produce and consume, and that the residual power fed back into the grid is paid at the same tariffs, in my case 10c for off-peak and 23c for peak.

It becomes quite simple to do the numbers. For Monday to Friday all the power generated by solar panels is at the peak rate price, while on the weekend the solar is produced at the off-peak rate. That means that 5/7 or 71% of all solar generation is at the peak rate.
For the BlueGen unit that operates 24 hours a day, it produces electricity at the peak rates for 80 out of 168 hours in a week, or 47%.

If the solar panel set-up was to match the BlueGen unit in output, say a 10kw system where there is an average of 4.8 hours of useable sunlight per day, then the return for the production of power will always be higher for solar while peak prices are higher than off-peak prices. If peak prices are raised relative to off-peak, then the numbers favor solar even more. In fact the one thing that BlueGen needs is for the price of off-peak to be the same as peak, to take away the advantage of peak pricing when the sun shines.

Added to the above is that solar produces no GHG, has no yearly ongoing cost and that the BlueGen has an input cost of ~$1545 per year for gas. 



> Solar has moved on now, from the domestic where it didnt/wont work




Can you explain this a bit more?? I know of many people who are very happy with their solar set-up and the reductions in their bills.



> some people regret doing it, complaining that their bills have gone up not down.



All they have to do is their sums and go with a retailer that will allow existing discounts to continue, mine does. 

Another aspect that has been overlooked in the debate about the BlueGen units is in terms of infrastructure, not the electricity infrastructure that the company talks about, but the natural gas infrastructure. If the plan was for 10s of thousands of these things to be spread around the suburbs, can the existing gas pipes etc handle the extra load??

Today's action in CFU shares was very high volume for not much upward movement. There seems to be plenty of sellers at these slightly higher prices.

brty


----------



## mr. jeff (26 July 2010)

well it sounds like if they are out of dosh then the best thing to do is short them in to the ground, or until they manage to get their spit together and bring the units to market at an economic price and with all the reliability of the washing machine, sorry - dishwasher.

that shorts comment is for the traders obviously, I am not condoning pressure on the stock, I agree that in theory they have a good product, just cant get it over the line so far!

whats the chance of a takeover bid? 
sounds like a cap raising could be scary.


----------



## Dono (27 July 2010)

Any Lawyers out there? what are our chances?

http://www.governmentnews.com.au/20...l-advisor-faces-25-million-lawsuit/AIEIOZTRKL

I was wondering when this would start... no idea how long it will take though.


----------



## frankblack (27 July 2010)

brty said:


> Hi Frank,
> 
> Firstly I'd like to thank you for your input into this discussion, it has made me do a fair bit of research on the company and the numbers involved.
> 
> ...



I am happy to help where I can, seems like what I am saying falls on deaf ears.
I give up you are right, solar has the edge, but this doesnt matter.
It doesnt matter because no one will spend 50k to buy 100m2 of panels,
and they dont have 100m2 north facing, the 1.5-2kw systems that are on there now barely fit. 
It doesnt matter because we are talking about CFU not solar, no body is going to pay 50k for a ceramic fuel cell system which would fit neatly where the dishwasher used to be.
So what is the Government going to do about it?
That is the real point. 
Why are we talking about solar or fuel cells or windfarm or geothermal etc..., at all, none of these things would/can exist without the government getting
them up.
I would like to know what the government is going to do about CFU, because thats what matters to CFU, nothing else comes close.
In Europe governments have given the 'bluegen' fell cell concept the thumbs up, it will be part of the mix.
Brumbys words tell me Victoria is next, http://tinyurl.com/29r733v
he is also telling us all solar has moved on out of the suburbs and going large scale.
The government has a job to do cut, co2, the average bloke on the street with 50k burning a hole in his pocket, calculator in hand, is not going to do it.

The gas pipes can deal with the extra load 302mj's per day, per unit, I use 380 myself now to run my heater, so if you can build 10 000 new homes, you can keep the gas pressure up to a few bluegens. Summer, autumn, spring, wont be any problem, less heating.


----------



## brty (27 July 2010)

Frank,



> I would like to know what the government is going to do about CFU, because thats what matters to CFU, nothing else comes close.




That is precisely what's wrong with the strategy the company has taken. It is totally reliant on government subsidies, feed-in tariffs etc. Instead of producing a standalone product, that could withstand much higher prices, it must be grid connected, to both gas and electricity.



> no one will spend 50k to buy 100m2 of panels




I agree on grid connected systems, yet many have spent that on off-grid systems.



> no body is going to pay 50k for a ceramic fuel cell system




 Again, for a grid connected system, yet many would buy such a thing for an off-grid system, just like solar.



> would fit neatly where the dishwasher used to be.




I actually like my dishwasher. Where exactly is the BlueGen meant to fit in existing houses?? I have a relatively large home, yet there is not extra room in non living areas to place such a thing. A corner in the garage seems most likely in my situation.



> they dont have 100m2 north facing, the 1.5-2kw systems that are on there now barely fit.




I don't know of which Melbourne you are talking about, but the one in Victoria has hundreds of thousands of vacant north facing roof tops throughout the suburbs, maybe not 100 sqm to equal the output of the BlueGen, but very adequate for the existing 1.5-3kw systems that are popular. Even with the subsidies, that make clear economic sense for the consumers, most don't put them on. Personally, I have over 200 sqm of North facing roof space.

brty






> Brumbys words tell me .....




Politicians words!!  The only thing to believe from politicians is their actions, not their words.


----------



## frankblack (27 July 2010)

Thanks brty

That is precisely what's wrong with the strategy the company has taken. It is totally reliant on government subsidies, feed-in tariffs etc.

Ha ha, thats a joke isnt it.?  Take away the government subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and you wouldnt have a single solar panel on a melbourne roof.

Instead of producing a standalone product, that could withstand much higher prices, it must be grid connected, to both gas and electricity.

Actually no, if you want to make the bluegen standalone, you can, just buy some batteries, some technical knowledge would help.
The market for standalone isnt as big or easy to deal with.

 Again, for a grid connected system, yet many would buy such a thing for an off-grid system, just like solar. 

Well they can.

I actually like my dishwasher. Where exactly is the BlueGen meant to fit in existing houses?? I have a relatively large home, yet there is not extra room in non living areas to place such a thing. A corner in the garage seems most likely in my situation.

Sits outside next to the hot water system.

 I don't know of which Melbourne you are talking about, but the one in Victoria has hundreds of thousands of vacant north facing roof tops throughout the suburbs, maybe not 100 sqm to equal the output of the BlueGen, but very adequate for the existing 1.5-3kw systems that are popular. Even with the subsidies, that make clear economic sense for the consumers, most don't put them on. Personally, I have over 200 sqm of North facing roof space.

Should the government acquire/ lease this vast roof space, and put the solar on? because it wont happen otherwise.
Solar in the suburbs is dead, buried and cremated. Big business will run the solar from Mildura from now on.

Believe it or not.


----------



## moXJO (28 July 2010)

Well at least it is acknowledged by Brumby



> GP: Yes. If you were Prime Minister right now, what policies would you be announcing?
> 
> JB: I think that there will be, well, I hope that there will be announcements over the next few weeks in relation to these areas, but energy efficiency is fundamental. You can make huge savings in carbon emissions in households and small-to-medium businesses, so tackling that – but not just through retrofit-type programs; grants for new industry development are really crucial.
> 
> ...




http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/qa-john-brumby


----------



## brty (28 July 2010)

From quarterly cash-flow statement just released...

Cash in  ~$400,000

Net cash out ~$5,200,000

Cash left ~$11,400,000

About 2 quarters worth.

Sales 49 units in 14 months

Units installed 12.

Lots of repeated hype in first 8 pages of cashflow report.

brty


----------



## moXJO (28 July 2010)

brty said:


> From quarterly cash-flow statement just released...
> 
> Cash in  ~$400,000
> 
> ...




yup not much has changed cashburn wise. 
Now that the environment is off the political agenda, things have been slow going.
Share price is up though. Is there news on the court case?


----------



## UMike (28 July 2010)

Hi mo,

The case is being heard in the Federal Court in Melbourne. Trial is expected to conclude by the end of July 2010.


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2010)

Market expecting a good outcome on the court case? Price is moving slowly upwards. How much of that $25 mill is cfu expected to see?


----------



## MACCA350 (29 July 2010)

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the licensing agreement with NexTech. In the deal CFU will receive royalties from NexTech's worldwide sales for licensing them their patented manufacturing processes. This could be decent revenue stream going forward, so their revenue is not purely from the sale of their own products(which is not just the BlueGen but other larger generation units and the core fuel stacks themselves). From what I understand they have a number of patented technologies and processes that they can sell for royalties.

Nice pump in sp today, wonder if there is an announcement in the wings or if this is from investors digesting the quarterly report released yesterday.

cheers


----------



## adobee (29 July 2010)

mention of CFU in I think telegraph business secton (may have been herald) this morning.. just read whilst getting lunch.. pretty short says CFU has sold to government and department of housing .


----------



## UMike (29 July 2010)

Out today. 30% is good enough for me atm.


Good luck to all holders. Seems like a realy good product.


----------



## subasurf (29 July 2010)

Well done mate. 
I only just got in on this company start of week. Only holding short term, so here's to hoping it shoots up


----------



## craigj (30 July 2010)

the cash flow burn is high cause they are setting up the plant in germany.  think about in a few years time when sales ramp up


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2010)

frankblack said:


> That is precisely what's wrong with the strategy the company has taken. It is totally reliant on government subsidies, feed-in tariffs etc.
> 
> Ha ha, thats a joke isnt it.?  Take away the government subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and you wouldnt have a single solar panel on a melbourne roof.
> 
> ...



Take away the subsidies and the only viable sources of electricity in Australia for large scale application at present are black coal and natural gas. That's it.

Brown coal and hydro historically were viable and indeed extremely cheap. But they aren't viable to build new under present circumstances, one of the reasons for pushing out the life of old brown coal plants as long as possible.

If you can generate baseload at 4 cents per kWh then that is certainly a viable source of generation. Only black coal, efficient natural gas plants and existing brown coal or hydro can do that. Everything else is either viable for peaking only (new hydro, less efficient gas etc) or is subsidised.

Overseas it's much the same. Yes they have "viable" nuclear and renewable industries. But look a bit further and there's almost always some sort of subsidy involved either directly, or through taxing (or outright prohibiting) the alternatives. Nuclear plants that are "profitable" are that way on the same basis that brown coal or hydro are - because the plant was built decades ago and the capital cost is excluded from present calculations because it's either been fully repaid already or has had its' real value inflated away. Hydro, brown coal and to a significant extent nuclear are brilliant hedges agains inflation since most of the total cost is during initial construction. 

As for solar panels in the suburbs, that comes down to something rather fundamental. Economy of scale. It is generally cheaper to produce _anything_ on a large scale be it shoes, cars or electricity. And in the case of electricity, solar panels aren't the cheapest way of producing electricity anyway. And even if you want non-fossil energy, it's still cheaper to use wind, hydro, geothermal or biomass than to use solar panels. 

All that said, I have solar panels on my own roof simply because for me individually it has been profitable even though it is not financially profitable for society as a whole. I'm actually considering two possible options for extending the system depending on what happens with government policy. Neither is profitable as such, but if someone's handing out the taxpayers' money then I might as well have some - at which point it becomes profitable for me as an individual to install additional solar on the roof.


----------



## frankblack (1 August 2010)

Agree Smurf,
What we will get is a myriad of renewable power inputs, which will require a 'Smartgrid', if I am not wrong.
Are we Smartgrid ready?
It is now up to the Governments of the world to decide what role Fuel Cells get to play in all this. Without this government help, its unlikely fuel cells will get the wide appeal and the scale necessary to bring the cost down.


----------



## MACCA350 (1 August 2010)

frankblack said:


> Agree Smurf,
> Without this government help, its unlikely fuel cells will get the wide appeal and the scale necessary to bring the cost down.



The BlueGen is already included in government rebates etc and/or feed in tariffs in every other country they currently export to. 

Australia is the only country who has omitted the BlueGen and similar products from such schemes.

Considering renewable energy sources such as wind and solar cannot supply base load, which restricts them from supplying more than a certain percentage(~20% if I remember correctly) of our total energy requirements and hence cannot replace coal fired generation in of themselves, the government need to support other efficient alternatives that can support base load. I'm not saying products like the BlueGen should be the sole alternative, but there is a place for many alternatives, other than those covered in the current Australian govt schemes, if their goal is to produce a cleaner electricity grid.

Cheers


----------



## frankblack (2 August 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> The BlueGen is already included in government rebates etc and/or feed in tariffs in every other country they currently export to.
> 
> Australia is the only country who has omitted the BlueGen and similar products from such schemes.
> 
> ...




As we all know, Brumby is reviewing the feed in tariff situation regards,
when it comes to the Bluegen and the like, efficient fuel cell generators.

Can I be Frank,
theres one reason why he decided to do this,
to bring Victoria into line with the rest of the world,
and give CFCL the chance it deserves.
Could he live with himself otherwise?
Besides, its a no-brainer, he has even got the libs on his side.


----------



## pixel (5 August 2010)

good news this morning:* First USA sale*

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20100805/pdf/31rqx8v1xgzd20.pdf


----------



## mr. jeff (5 August 2010)

Have to bring the tone down again.
1 (another) trial unit sale does a successful company not make. 

CFCL should be handing trial units out on lease to every utility company around the globe that is anywhere near a good gas supply, let them trial the things whilst they get their production happeningfull scale, then let the orders roll in and watch the units run out the door like iphones do...and if the orders don't come then sell the ceramic technology and production to Linc Energy.

But hang on how much do these things cost? 
$55,000 ? you have got to be kidding. That is seriously bad press.
Yes I know I'm full it. But hey, it's a forum for discussion on CFU.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 August 2010)

mr. jeff said:


> Have to bring the tone down again.
> 1 (another) trial unit sale does a successful company not make.
> 
> CFCL should be handing trial units out on lease to every utility company around the globe that is anywhere near a good gas supply, let them trial the things whilst they get their production happeningfull scale, then let the orders roll in and watch the units run out the door like iphones do...and if the orders don't come then sell the ceramic technology and production to Linc Energy.
> ...




That price is for a single unit, not part of a utility deal.
It will come down.
The fact they have utilities in 3 continents interested in selling it shows that it is a real breakthrough technology. Come back in a year with hundreds being sold every week.


----------



## Dono (5 August 2010)

I can't believe the concensus on this forum that the Bluegen is priced too high, to be honest I am disappointed they are not selling it for more!

let me ask you if you have 100 units do you:

a) sell them for 10k each to collect a million - build cost... 
or 
b) sell them for 55k each and collect 5.5 million - build cost

It is not like they have an unlimited supply of these devices or the infrastructure already setup to install all of the orders, for each country they sell into they need to co-ordinate with new partners for installations and support. It seems this announcement in the US represents another new partner.

All the rest of the analysis about making your money back on feed in tariffs etc is irrelevant so long as the demand is there. Until production ramps up and they get a decent back log of these units why drop the price?

Australia is also competing with the other countries in the world to buy the Bluegen (A number of which have feed in tariffs / and government discounts). They may consider the product reasonably priced when considering these factors... again why sell it cheaper in Australia just because Australian's don't get a feed in tariff / government discounts.

I am sure if someone made a serious volume bid there would be discounts in play

At the moment no other company has a factory producing fuel cells and CFU's closest compeditor Ceres has stated to be still a year off production at least

These are all my opinions maybe there is some sales / marketing priciple that I don't understand but to me CFU's strategy makes perfect sense.


----------



## DAZT49 (5 August 2010)

Dono,
So you would be quite happy to go down to Harvey Norman ,shell out $55k which will take you 55 years (well a long time)to pay for it?
I think prospective buyers would baulk at that price
For me a better plan is to introduce it at a cheap price and ramp up the price as demand outgrows supply.
While I am no great solar fan, as pricing is being hidden away in the government subsidy...
Quote
"With a 1.5kW solar PV system fully installed from $2499*, you could cut your electricity bill by around $726^ every year. That's an incredible 29%^ return on your initial investment "

I guess it will all come out in the wash but $55k


----------



## Knobby22 (5 August 2010)

The first flat screen TVs were $30,000.

Early adopters alsways pay more.

They are not mass produced yet. The company should be charging as much as they feel the market will bear.


----------



## frankblack (5 August 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> The first flat screen TVs were $30,000.
> 
> Early adopters always pay more.
> 
> They are not mass produced yet. The company should be charging as much as they feel the market will bear.




Hear hear, I am glad some of the believers are back providing some balance.
Must be the positive market at the moment.


----------



## mr. jeff (5 August 2010)

Don't get me wrong, their fuel cell units are great products and very promising, our government will come to the party soon, but until they can actually start signing up customers and delivering LOADS of these units, CFU is in struggle town as it has been for quite some time. I believe that the huge amount of engineering that has gone into this will pay off  in the long run, and it is getting closer and closer to coming to fruition. 

The relationships they are building are fantastic and very important for their future distribution and support networks, I agree; I do think they are going about it in an interesting(!) way, but they need a product that is accessible to customers, not for testing and trialling.

I can't find the exact figure, but they have a market cap of 220M approx. and about 1 billion shares out there. Thats before next quarter's capital raising. And their cash flow - it's all brackets because they are still struggling with their product. 

Watch me eat my words very quickly when they announce the first volume order at a lot lower price when production begins. As Peter Lynch always says, then "it's off to the races". Want earnings, not media releases!

One question I will ask, has anyone got any info on where CFU is up to with production, their plant in Germany, current sales plans and forecasts etc.? I feel there is a lack of info, and relatively no negatives in the ASX releases (where avoidable).


Pantene. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> The first flat screen TVs were $30,000.
> 
> Early adopters alsways pay more.
> 
> They are not mass produced yet. The company should be charging as much as they feel the market will bear.



Looking at similar situations...

Solar HWS at $3000 (above the cost of a normal water heater) with a saving of $180 a year captured only a small share of the market, and then only in places where the savings were larger than average.

Solar HWS at $1500 saving $300 a year is still struggling, but is making inroads slowly.

Solar rooftop PV at $10,000 saving $240 a year attracted only a very few customers, most of them either hardline greens or engineering / electrical types with cash to spare.

Solar PV at $4000 saving $240 a year attracted a small but significant number of customers, again mostly deep greens or those with a fascination for things electrical.

Solar PV at $2500 saving $360 a year is still struggling, but is certainly selling in reasonable volume. In NSW where it will return around $900 a year, it's still not mainstream although it is clearly becoming more popular. 

Solar PV at $0 saving $240+ a year resulted in a flood of orders and the scrapping of the government scheme that enabled this deal to occur in the first place. There's plenty of people around who didn't believe that it was real, that it really was at no cost to them, who aren't happy that they didn't act before the gate slammed shut.

If the BlueGen is to sell in large volume in the Australian market then I'd estimate that it needs to produce at least a 20% annual return on investment, and cost no more than $5000 (at the extreme) upfront. Anything less than that and it will remain a niche product along with geothermal heating, condenser dryers and so on unless government actually forces installation of them.

With the exception of slow combustion heaters in Tasmania during the early 1980's, an unusual circumstance driven by the oil price shock and politics surrounding electricity generation at the time, I can't think of a single example of any energy saving technology that has been rapidly embraced by consumers in this country. Not one. Even energy saving lighting with minimal upfront cost went nowhere for 20 years until government mandadted it. Other than that, to the extent that consumers chose efficiency they did so due to some other benefit with energy efficiency being a secondary benefit.


----------



## Dono (5 August 2010)

> Dono,
> So you would be quite happy to go down to Harvey Norman ,shell out $55k which will take you 55 years (well a long time)to pay for it?




Of course not, but that is beside the point... there are rich people / companies that will. No one is going to place an offtake agreement of a thousand units without testing it themselves and seeing how it works etc. This opportunity to test the unit costs 55k.

IMHO the sale of the 30 Blugens for the Aurora project was a marketing ploy to get the Government on side, every other sale has been to a big utility that has the capacity to take on a big offtake agreement later on.

from the last quarterly update:


> Inventory components for BlueGen units are being built up to meet expected future demand. At year end the value of these items in inventory was AUD 1.3m (GBP 0.7m).




if you consider this inventory at 55k, it means there is only 23 Units to sell sitting on the shelf.

At full capacity the factory can produce 10,000 fuel cell stacks per year (also from last quarterly update seems there is an issue with the furnaces so not at full capacity), I don't know how fast they can turn these fuel cell stacks into fully fabricated Bluegen units...

I tell you what If they start selling them at 10k a pop I will buy them and sell them on ebay for double the price 

my


----------



## Miner (5 August 2010)

great interaction and debate on the high price of CFU.
Two dumb questions :


who will invest ona product @$55K from Harvey Norman (Yes I realise it is not sold through normal retail franchise).
why CFU share price is at a rising trend
?

Best of luck


----------



## frankblack (5 August 2010)

Miner said:


> great interaction and debate on the high price of CFU.
> Two dumb questions :
> 
> 
> ...




Answer, 
most people here dont understand what CFCL is about,
what their product is, because it isnt the 'Bluegen",
what its all about,
and how big this is in the world outside of Australia.


----------



## brty (5 August 2010)

Dono,



> I tell you what If they start selling them at 10k a pop I will buy them and sell them on ebay for double the price




That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have read on this forum. However it does beg the question of what price these units would sell to the public.

As the units are currently leased, with the contract including maintenance and renewal of the fuelstack, then attributing a yearly price would seem appropriate. The unit will produce 17520 kwh/year at a cost for the gas (retail) of ~$1545. The electricity produced at my current retail rates of 23c/kwh for peak and 10c/kwh off-peak is worth......
peak        ~8760 kwh/y  x .23 =  $2014
off-peak   ~8760 kwh/y  x .10 =  $876

Total = $2890 value of electricity  - $1545 cost of gas = $1345

On economic terms the unit is 'worth' $1345 per year plus some hot water.
Early adopters, who are probably already green and have solar hot water, will not get much advantage from the hot water.

Sorry Dono but....



> I can't believe the concensus on this forum that the Bluegen is priced too high, to be honest I am disappointed they are not selling it for more!




that statement is also not in the real world.

The BlueGen unit uses 110,000 Mj of gas a year, it is not 'renewable energy', just a little more efficient than conventional gas generation and therefore will not appeal to the 'really green', and utility companies are not stupid.
There are no grounds at the current price for any large orders, and so far with the units being on the market for 16 months, there are no large orders.

brty


----------



## pixel (5 August 2010)

I tend to agree with you, brty;
and it seems an increasing number of market participants come to a similar conclusion - seeing that a strong line of resistance appears to block any further advances above 23c - at least for now.
I had collected quite a large position - but I fed it back today at between 23 and 22.5c. Sure, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. 
But then again, I also concur with your signature tune about making money by selling too soon


----------



## Dono (6 August 2010)

HaHa Alright the ebay comment was a joke, guess that didn't translate on this forum, next time I will use the winking emoticon 

Seriously though I still think they should maximise their sales while they are still building their stock pile. Once the factory gets in full swing (10,000 units per year) then sure lower your price point. To me the pricing is a factor of economies of scale, get the factory producing 10,000 a year and the price will fall, expand the factory to 160,000 a year production and it will drop again, most likely compeditive with solar. The common ETA for other stationary fuel cells to market is 2012, so CFU is definately ahead of the curve.

The problem is, they need to sell more units however according to the last quarterly they havn't built them yet. At this burn rate it is a serious issue.



> There are no grounds at the current price for any large orders, and so far with the units being on the market for 16 months, there are no large orders.




from comsec announcement 28/09/2009 page 14



> Commercial
> The key commercial risks – and mitigation strategies – are described below.
> The Company needs to sell products to generate revenue. There is a risk that large utility
> customers may take too long to buy products in volume. The Company is mitigating this risk by:
> ...




100,000 units is not bad...(obviously conditional) and there are doubts CFU has funding to make it to 2012.

I personally think CFU is in the balance, maybe others here are right, by dropping prices they may be able to secure the big order, but I am sure if a large utility said they want to buy 10,000 etc they would be able to negotiate a decent price.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 August 2010)

...and a big European or Japanes order will occur sometime this year in my opinion, maybe next week, and you can imagine what that will do for the SP.


----------



## brty (6 August 2010)

Maybe its just me but there is a huge difference in my world between....

this from Comsec......



> In February 2009 the Company signed an
> agreement with E.ON UK including a forward order profile whereby subject to
> performance and price targets, in return for maintaining exclusivity for the UK market
> E.ON agrees to place an order for 100,000 units over a six year period from 2012



.

The positive light shone on the above that morphed into this....



> 100,000 units is not bad...(obviously conditional)




....and the reality of what is in the Feb 09 announcement.....



> A minimum order of 100,000 units over six years from 2012 would be required from E.ON to continue to retain exclusivity.




There is no order for 100,000 units, there is no agreement by anyone to order that many. The 100,000 is just a performance hurdle of orders if the company wants to maintain exclusivity, nothing more.

Perhaps the thread should look at what the company is likely to do in the short term, instead of wishful thinking making up non existent orders.

My take of the short term future is a capital raising, and I'm thinking in the order of $30m. This could be by a 1 for 5 issue at around 15 cents, providing the price holds at current levels. As the share price is reaching resistance at the 23-25 cent level, then you would expect the capital raising to be fairly soon. If they wait too long then the next quarterly cash flow report will start to echo warning signals of running out of cash.
At what price would you the holders of stock be willing to fork out more for more shares in an offer??? Can they get away with more than 15 cents a share??

brty


----------



## frankblack (6 August 2010)

brty said:


> Perhaps the thread should look at what the company is likely to do in the short term, instead of wishful thinking making up non existent orders.
> 
> My take of the short term future is a capital raising, and I'm thinking in the order of $30m. This could be by a 1 for 5 issue at around 15 cents, providing the price holds at current levels. As the share price is reaching resistance at the 23-25 cent level, then you would expect the capital raising to be fairly soon. If they wait too long then the next quarterly cash flow report will start to echo warning signals of running out of cash.
> At what price would you the holders of stock be willing to fork out more for more shares in an offer??? Can they get away with more than 15 cents a share??
> ...



Perhaps you shouldnt be so pessimistic, and make up non existent capital raisings.
In the short term, some people in this thread believe there will be orders,
and there is more positive news to come.


----------



## brty (6 August 2010)

Frank,



> Perhaps you shouldnt be so pessimistic, and make up non existent capital raisings.




Made-up, yes, just my take on where/how the company will continue. They need funds.

Where do you think the funds are going to come from??

Did you miss this bit from the most recent quarterly statement....



> Total of 12 integrated units and BlueGen products installed and operating in five countries




It means that most of the 50 sold are not yet delivered, up and running. Therefore the purchasers of those units will need time to assess the operation. This takes time.

Time the company does not have at the current cash burn rate.

Where do you think the money will come from??? made up sales?? wishful thinking??



> there is more positive news to come




What is this news?? Where and how did you get it??

brty


----------



## frankblack (6 August 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My comment was based on yours, where you think belief in orders is made up, so belief in capital raisings is just as made up.
Yet none of us really knows, there is no proof either way.


----------



## brty (6 August 2010)

Frank,

Could you please answer the question that I asked previously,



> They need funds.
> 
> Where do you think the funds are going to come from??




You have already stated that the current price of the units is unbelievable, they have a cash burn rate that leaves only ~6 months of funds.

If a capital raising is not on the cards then where will the money come from to continue?? What are the alternatives??

brty


----------



## frankblack (6 August 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> Could you please answer the question that I asked previously,
> 
> ...




If we can agree there is about 6 months of time to go before the money runs out, while that is not forever, it could be long enough to secure orders for CFCLs fuel cell stacks.

Some money may come from royalties, for the use of their patents.?

There is always the lost millions still before the courts. If CFCL can get some sort of a settlement, could buy even more time.

And going to the bank to get a loan, is that just out of the question.?
I think not.

As I have been saying, really, we dont know.
You are calling it your way, and may be proved right in the end.
However, all I am saying is since you dont have any proof your guess is as good as mine or any-ones here.

Dont get me wrong, I am happy to listen to your thoughts/ideas/whatever,
any news you have, that is what I do.
I am even happier to reply with mine, that is the way it should be.

So how are you calling the feed in tariff for the Bluegen in Victoria.?
Likely or not.?
I would see a positive outcome adding some more to the share price,
dont you.?

Thats why I am still in.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2010)

brty said:


> It means that most of the 50 sold are not yet delivered, up and running. Therefore the purchasers of those units will need time to assess the operation. This takes time.
> 
> Time the company does not have at the current cash burn rate.



Generally speaking, utilities or large energy users tend to be _very_ thorough when contemplating any technology they are not familiar with. That applies even to systems already proven elsewhere. 

Just a few years ago a significant Australian electricity generator undertook substantial "real world" testing of diesel engines so as to work out their actual fuel efficiency. They were considering some large units for peaking / backup generation at the time and weren't happy to take someone else's numbers on fuel efficiency, maintenance requirements etc. So they leased some of the same units they were looking at and put them into operation...

Utilities are generally fairly conservative. They won't likely be ordering anything more than a trial batch of BlueGen's until they've done their own "real world" testing over a number of years (ie until they break or at least need a major overhaul).


----------



## frankblack (7 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Generally speaking, utilities or large energy users tend to be _very_ thorough when contemplating any technology they are not familiar with. That applies even to systems already proven elsewhere.
> 
> Just a few years ago a significant Australian electricity generator undertook substantial "real world" testing of diesel engines so as to work out their actual fuel efficiency. They were considering some large units for peaking / backup generation at the time and weren't happy to take someone else's numbers on fuel efficiency, maintenance requirements etc. So they leased some of the same units they were looking at and put them into operation...
> 
> Utilities are generally fairly conservative. They won't likely be ordering anything more than a trial batch of BlueGen's until they've done their own "real world" testing over a number of years (ie until they break or at least need a major overhaul).




Now lets assume we dont know which utilities/partners of CFCL have been testing what and for how long.
And we dont know any more than we did yesterday.

Testing has been done to death already, in 6 months from today, those testers will know it all.


----------



## brty (7 August 2010)

Frank,



> Now lets assume we dont know which utilities/partners of CFCL have been testing what and for how long.




But we do know. The company keeps telling us each time a utility buys one of them as if it is a pivotal moment.



> Testing has been done to death already, in 6 months from today, those testers will know it all.




Perhaps you should re-read what Smurf stated, they will do there own testing over time, probably years. There are only 12 out there now, the rest are yet to be delivered, the utilities need to get them installed before they START testing.

Do you not have an answer to my question about where you think the money will come from to keep going, given the current cash burn rate??
My take is a new share issue while the current share price rise is in progress as the logical place and time.

brty


----------



## frankblack (7 August 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Did answer your question,                            .
 you might need to scroll back a couple of posts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2010)

frankblack said:


> Now lets assume we dont know which utilities/partners of CFCL have been testing what and for how long.
> And we dont know any more than we did yesterday.
> 
> Testing has been done to death already, in 6 months from today, those testers will know it all.



One issue is credibility and financial backing of the supplier.

If this equipment was being manufactured by General Electric, ABB, Mitsubishi, Rolls Royce, Toshiba, Siemens or anyone else already well known to the utilities and who has fairly solid finances then that alone would add some confidence. 

But it would be a huge risk for any utility to undertake a mass roll-out of a product with unproven long term performance from an unproven supplier. Anything is possible, but doing something like that doesn't fit too well with the inherently conservative business model of virtually all electric / gas utilities who are more likely to purchase a handful of units and see how they go over a period of years before making any major committment to them.

It really comes down to return on investment. If I have my capital returned via energy cost savings within 5 years then the odds are that the device will last at least that length of time. But if it takes 10+ years to break even then questions about longevity of the device, and longevity of any government policy supporting it, immediately come to mind.


----------



## frankblack (7 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> One issue is credibility and financial backing of the supplier.
> 
> If this equipment was being manufactured by General Electric, ABB, Mitsubishi, Rolls Royce, Toshiba, Siemens or anyone else already well known to the utilities and who has fairly solid finances then that alone would add some confidence.
> 
> ...




What it comes down to is, do the people who matter, think this will work.
Other systems are already being used especially in Japan, who along with Germany seem to be leading the fuel cell microgeneration race.
This kind of product is attracting alot of attention from a great many countries though.

CFCLs products have been tested to death, especially by CFCL.
CFCL has 'partners' they have been working with.
Quote, 
"Ceramic Fuel Cells has been working with Paloma since early 2008.   

In September 2008 Ceramic  Fuel Cells installed a demonstration  system at Paloma’s facilities in 
Nagoya. The unit was successfully operated on one fuel cell stack for the agreed six month trial, until 
the end of March 2009. The unit exported power to  the local grid and met all Paloma’s technical 
performance requirements, including daily modulation (where the power output of the unit is turned 
up and down each day, to mimic the power needs of the average Japanese home).  


Ceramic Fuel Cells is also deploying fuel cell products with leading utility customers and appliance 
companies in Germany, France and the United Kingdom.

Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited, (AIM / ASX: CFU) a leading developer of high efficiency and low 
emission microgeneration products for homes, gives an update on its product development 
project with Nuon for the Benelux market.  

The parties have completed a joint review of the project to develop micro combined heat and 
power (mCHP) products based on Fuel cell technology. During the project a semi-integrated 
mCHP unit was installed and operated. The unit comprised a CFCL NetGenPlus fuel cell unit 
connected to a boiler unit and was installed in September 2008.  

The mCHP unit successfully met or exceeded all technical targets set by the partners, 
including power export, electrical efficiency, and lifetime. CFCL’s fuel cell unit successfully 
exported electricity to the local grid, and generated heat for the boiler, from natural gas.  As at 
31 March the unit has been operating for 4,624 hours."  

If they dont know whether the CFCL fuel stack can deliver by now, they most probably will in 6 months.

Chances are no-one will rushing out to install 100 000 units, the approach
will be measured enough to minimize risk.


----------



## brty (7 August 2010)

My apologies Frank, you had indeed answered the question. For some reason my computer went to Smurf's post as the first new one and I missed your reply.

In regard to the 6 months cash, it would be prudent to gain more cash well before the wolves started to sniff. If it to be a capital raising, and the timing is what makes this necessary now, then too wait until cash becomes critical hurts existing shareholders by having the new raising performed at the desperation stage. Nobody wants that except competitors. 



> And going to the bank to get a loan, is that just out of the question.?
> I think not.




This would be a particularly bad thing to do. The company does not have the cashflow to support a loan. If the company gets into debt at this stage then there is a high likelyhood of the shareholders losing the technology should the company be unable to pay the loan or break a covenant set by the lender.



> So how are you calling the feed in tariff for the Bluegen in Victoria.?
> Likely or not.?
> I would see a positive outcome adding some more to the share price,
> dont you.?




Feed-in tariff for Victoria? Because politicians are involved, and there is an election coming up (in Victoria), then there is a high probability of some favourable noises being made. Whether it comes to fruition or not later on, is a different question.



> I would see a positive outcome adding some more to the share price,
> dont you.?




Yes, it probably would kick the share price for a while, but that is separate from whether the unit makes economic sense at the current price or anything near it, eventually the market will realize this and the share price drop back. 



> There is always the lost millions still before the courts.




I would not expect a fast outcome here. Irrespective of the result, appeals would drag the process out for quite a while.

brty


----------



## frankblack (8 August 2010)

brty said:


> My apologies Frank, you had indeed answered the question. For some reason my computer went to Smurf's post as the first new one and I missed your reply.
> 
> In regard to the 6 months cash, it would be prudent to gain more cash well before the wolves started to sniff. If it to be a capital raising, and the timing is what makes this necessary now, then too wait until cash becomes critical hurts existing shareholders by having the new raising performed at the desperation stage. Nobody wants that except competitors.
> 
> ...




Always good to hear from you Brty,
Your points are valid as always, all plausible, all possible, all with a pessimistic leaning though, safety first.

Yet all your points could be countered with possible scenarios.
We dont know so we have to guess one way or other.
Who knows what the company may have up its sleeve,
what arrangements/agreements.?
Nobody.
We will know when the announcement is made.

I have not said you are wrong to say what you do, indeed its food for thought.
I have said many times you may be proved right in the end.
You may be proved wrong, too.
Just think you are being too negative.
All views are valid here, sadly more people dont join the discussion.


----------



## mr. jeff (8 August 2010)

Got to back Brty on this one; those conclusions are logical and the only way to think of the stock at the moment. Although there may be further announcements and excitement, until they have settled their books down and got the sniff of some positive cashflow, they are going to be borderline for a while. Although I do agree that we don't know enough and could find a great release around the corner, I think you all know my opinion by now, CFU just releases anything these days that is positive in any way...


----------



## jbocker (9 August 2010)

Appreciate the good and civil debate on this stock folks. Well done. It does highlight how damn difficult it is for an innovative company to make it to market. I have always liked the ideals of the company, their stickability, and understand the requirement to publish good news to keep supporters encouraged during these difficult (fickle) times.

I hold CFU. I support their ideals, and truly hope they can manage the business through to ongoing success.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 August 2010)

I would like to make another point.
If everyone agreed CFU was on a winner and we didn't have doubters then the price of the company would be too high and we should all sell. 
The fact there are so many people doubting this company can succeed makes it the buy it is ... it is this judgement position that I believe is favourable, that must be weighed in peoples minds.

With regard to the utilites, this could give them additional cashflows with clients as rentals. It is a real positive for them and I am confident it will proceed.

As Brty says. cashflow is the problem near term.
If this is solved it could lead to a rerating. This management impressed with their last raising. I think we may see something innovative.

My faith so far has been rewarded as i am sitting on big profits but the next six months will be very interesting.


----------



## frankblack (10 August 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> I would like to make another point.
> If everyone agreed CFU was on a winner and we didn't have doubters then the price of the company would be too high and we should all sell.
> The fact there are so many people doubting this company can succeed makes it the buy it is ... it is this judgement position that I believe is favourable, that must be weighed in peoples minds.
> 
> ...




Agree Knobby,
So I had a look at how CFU has been going as a stock over the last 12 months.
In the last 12 months compared to the small ordinaries CFU is killing the index,
now.
Compared to RIO TINTO, is beating them as well.
Thats all history now, wonder how we go from here.?


----------



## mr. jeff (13 August 2010)

Ok I'm in with this for the update:

"Company Announcement  

CERAMIC FUEL CELLS’ BLUEGEN SALE TO JAPAN ’S LARGEST GAS COMPANY 

 Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (AIM/ASX: CFU), a leading developer of high efficiency and low emission electricity generation units for homes and other buildings, will install a BlueGen gas-to-electricity unit with Japan’s largest gas utility, Tokyo Gas.  

Mitsui & Co. has ordered the BlueGen unit on behalf of Tokyo Gas.  The BlueGen unit will be installed and demonstrated by Tokyo Gas at its testing laboratory in Tokyo ."

Another trial unit.
Do any of these companies release trial results as an ongoing thing? haven't seen anything. Well it may help keep everyone excited, eventually CFU will get a proper bite! may be getting closer.


----------



## frankblack (13 August 2010)

mr. jeff said:


> Ok I'm in with this for the update:
> 
> "Company Announcement
> 
> ...




Thanks jeff,
clearly this Bluegen unit is SO,SO good, so good, nobody can even believe it,
and so, must test it themselves.
Either that or they are trying to steal the technology. 
It has been tested too death already.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2010)

frankblack said:


> Thanks jeff,
> clearly this Bluegen unit is SO,SO good, so good, nobody can even believe it,
> and so, must test it themselves.
> Either that or they are trying to steal the technology.
> It has been tested too death already.



As I posted earlier, utilities in general are unlikely to undertake a large scale purchae of any system they aren't familiar with, especially if it's not from an established supplier.

Experience does matter. Utilities with a background in coal-fired generation have no hessitation in building another coal-fired plant. They can do just about all the design and construction themselves and know exactly how to go about it. They'll stick with coal unless there's a _very_ compelling argument to do something else. Likewise those with a background in hydro tend to keep building dams and so on. 

Utilities are conservative by nature, and there are more than enough examples of doing something different leading to financial, technical or political disaster. 

A trial they will certainly do. But they'll almost certainly await the results of their own trial before throwing serious $ at something new. History says that those who do otherwise tend to lose money.


----------



## mr. jeff (13 August 2010)

smurf, I agree. I wonder about trial periods, has there been any release by any of these energy companies about the unit trial, as it would be good to get some line on this so that we can all understand trial durations and expected announcements of outcomes etc.
Has the stack reliability (unknown/short? duration to replacement during a service(?)) issue been solved or is this what the utility companies are worried about as well?
Sorry, I have not been reading all the literature on this lately so I may have missed something...


----------



## mrbrisbane (14 August 2010)

The announcements look great, the financials are showing some income and the concept is almost too good to be true except for the commercial innertia that you all keep referring to.
This has got to be something that would surely be of interest to Australian companies such as AGL or Origin who are large scale gas producers and distributors but who have also become electricity retailers as well. It is one way in which they can actually start generating their own electricity with fairly small capital outlay while actually increasing the volume of sales in their core business (gas)

Given the magnitude of dollars that have been sunken into LNG projects and the reserved domestic consumption quotas that are in place, something like this could basically double a household consumption of gas but then provide the bonus of electricity output that is not weather dependent.

From a consumer point of view, would you rather have all that stuff up on the roof and still get a power bill, or something about the size of a washing machine under the house that sees energy bills almost erradicated.

Seems like a lot of ppl have run out of patience with this one (21c down from one time highs of 80 ish) just as all the planets are starting to line up.

My forecast is that an utility company will make an offer of some sort of joint venture and the critical factors will be how desperate the company (cfu) has become to get either the $ or the market exposure.

I still put it in the biotech / small miners basket - try and pick a few goodies and keep exposure to the point that a total loss is something that you have a little weep about but doesn't change your life.


----------



## mrbrisbane (14 August 2010)

Re below - maybe I am an accounting blind man but the attached seems to say to me there is a bout 6 months to get some serious income happening or the venture partner? will just pick up the leftovers for virtually nothing.

OOps it won't let me post the link - but it is in the latest ASX announcement and also on the CFU website.




On Saturday afternoon some ppl go to the races, I write share orders.

CFD = eachway bet ????????


----------



## frankblack (14 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> As I posted earlier, utilities in general are unlikely to undertake a large scale purchae of any system they aren't familiar with, especially if it's not from an established supplier.
> 
> Experience does matter. Utilities with a background in coal-fired generation have no hessitation in building another coal-fired plant. They can do just about all the design and construction themselves and know exactly how to go about it. They'll stick with coal unless there's a _very_ compelling argument to do something else. Likewise those with a background in hydro tend to keep building dams and so on.
> 
> ...




If as you are suggesting , the trialing/testing thus far, is inconclusive, then the units will need to be tested for at least another 4 years to to get a result.
The fuel cells are changed after 5 years or so, everything thing else just goes on working.
The fuel cells have been tested to death.


----------



## brty (14 August 2010)

Frank,



> The fuel cells have been tested to death.




This is clearly not the case from the perspective of the utilities that have been purchasing one or two units. Why else would they buy so few unless they wanted to test them??



> The fuel cells are changed after 5 years or so




The current contracts for the lease of the units, and what is available to the public now, includes replacing the fuel stack after 2 years.

In terms of CFU joining with a large utility, I find it interesting to note that LNC has teamed up with the British firm AFC to develop fuel cell electricity generation from their CTG developments. The AFC fuel cells are much cheaper than CFU's and operate at lower temperatures and have claimed 55-60% efficiency. They plan to make the electricity 'clean' by using carbon capture and storage at the same time.

brty


----------



## frankblack (15 August 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I dont see the recent orders to test the units as real.
This is some kind of relationship building exercise on the part of the utility,
and to get a bit of hands on experience of the goods.
What are you saying then .?
The Bluegen should be tested 15 years to see if it lasts as long as claimed.?
5 years testing for the fuel stack.?
What?
All have been tested to death.
The utilities are waiting for the first serious players orders to come.
Who wants to be the first.?
Then their testing will be forgotten about, the flood gates will open.

I am a big fan of LINC, but totally a different kettle of fish, and long way from actually up and running. And of course so much more testing to do.
As for carbon capture and storage has that even been proved possible.?
Or just something they are working on.?
The speed of which LINC gets things done wait 10 years.


----------



## mr. jeff (15 August 2010)

frank,

 I think that as mentioned by others the utilities are necessarily conservative and if I was in their shoes I would never make a big company wide commitment to partially field tested technology that has a question over its service intervals.
Whether this is sorted or not, they will not commit their reputation and steady way of operating to this until it is clear to them that there is little risk and it offers them the financial rewards they would require, whether its offsets of just dollars and bonus reputation points. 
If I was Origin for example, I would be more inclined to go the wind farm route (understood, developed, feasible and accepted plus supported by gov), burn my gas in turbines, utilize the power lines and sell that and keep bluegen as an interest on test until it is very clear that it is going to do what it is designed for  - which is a fantastic idea (are we allowed to use that word here?)
With CFU, a great product line and looking good, but why would utilities rush in a new technology when the earnings from producing other ways is working for them? (this is not rhetorical, I am asking a question here)

cheers, hope everyone is having a good weekend.
2c


----------



## frankblack (15 August 2010)

mr. jeff said:


> frank,
> 
> I think that as mentioned by others the utilities are necessarily conservative and if I was in their shoes I would never make a big company wide commitment to partially field tested technology that has a question over its service intervals.
> Whether this is sorted or not, they will not commit their reputation and steady way of operating to this until it is clear to them that there is little risk and it offers them the financial rewards they would require, whether its offsets of just dollars and bonus reputation points.
> ...



Fine, that was then, this is now.
I'm am not wasting my time looking back, moving forward, remember.
Things have changed, and energy supply will be changed so the current suppliers wont benefit from selling more power.
Utilities are and will continue to be stripped of their monopolies, with new entries such as Google, Virgin, the like,  not along way off from their entries into the power markets.

You sort of misunderstand that these small generators will only make up a small portion of the mix, not a huge expensive investment or switch at all, for any utility.

No more risk than putting solar on the roof of houses, which they are doing,
no more expensive either. And of huge benefit to gas companies.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 August 2010)

Ceramic fuel cells to recieved $3.9 mil from legal case.

They won the case. Cashflow problem solved

Watch the share price rise today


----------



## Knobby22 (16 August 2010)

They will now have 15.5 mil cash in bank.

I estimate negative cashflow will be -4.5 a quarter as there should be no more capital equipment requirements. That means they have enough money for 3 more quarters easily.


----------



## frankblack (16 August 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> They will now have 15.5 mil cash in bank.
> 
> I estimate negative cashflow will be -4.5 a quarter as there should be no more capital equipment requirements. That means they have enough money for 3 more quarters easily.




I think you are right Knobby,
and further to that, if the orders dont come in, in the next 6 months,
they never will.
That is that, the end of the fuel cell experiment, as far as CFCL is concerned.
If there are no takers, it wont be that the product is not good enough.
It will be that there is no market for it.
At least at this time anyway.
So, this is it, last roll of the dice.


----------



## frankblack (16 August 2010)

By the way,
http://www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/82799/Oakvale-in-6-8m-Ceramic-settlement

After legal costs and IMF's share of the settlement sum, Ceramic said it will receive approximately $3.9 million.

In a separate statement, IMF said it will receive $2.9 million and generate a profit after capitalised overheads of approximately $1.9 million.

"IMF is considering a proposal to fund further litigation by Ceramic Fuel Cells against other parties for the balance of its losses," IMF said in a statement.


----------



## moXJO (16 August 2010)

frankblack said:


> I think you are right Knobby,
> and further to that, if the orders dont come in, in the next 6 months,
> they never will.




Its unfortunate the gfc rolled around when it did for this stock as the oil crisis, environment etc went straight out the window.


----------



## jbocker (19 August 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> They will now have 15.5 mil cash in bank.
> 
> I estimate negative cashflow will be -4.5 a quarter as there should be no more capital equipment requirements. That means they have enough money for 3 more quarters easily.




Gday Knobby22, this hasnt stopped them putting their hand out for more bucks apparently..
_"funds will be used to take the Company to the next stage of development, including scaling up production to meet expected future demand including working capital and manufacturing investment."_

I would have been happier to read to meet *existing *orders.
 .. maybe they have forgotten to tell us something about a big fat juicy sales order.


----------



## trainspotter (19 August 2010)

You would think that this would have been like Icarus and flown too close to the sun by now surely. It creates electricity and places it back into the grid. It replacs old heaters and creates heating to our homes. It is cost effective. It is carbon neutral. IT TICKS ALL THE BOXES !! 

So why oh why isn't this technology readily available and why isn't CFU at $43.17 by now ?? HUH ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 August 2010)

trainspotter said:


> You would think that this would have been like Icarus and flown too close to the sun by now surely. It creates electricity and places it back into the grid. It replacs old heaters and creates heating to our homes. It is cost effective. It is carbon neutral. IT TICKS ALL THE BOXES !!
> 
> So why oh why isn't this technology readily available and why isn't CFU at $43.17 by now ?? HUH ?



Whether or not it is cost effective depends very much on the selling price.


----------



## brty (19 August 2010)

Trainspot,

This statement of your has a couple of errors..



> It is cost effective. It is carbon neutral. IT TICKS ALL THE BOXES !!






> So why oh why isn't this technology readily available and why isn't CFU at $43.17 by now ?? HUH ?




It is not cost effective. 
For a utility to be interested in large orders, say 100,000, the current cost would be $4,500,000,000 for a 2 year lease (perhaps they would be a bit cheaper in bulk  ) 
This is for the equivalent of a 200Mw power station. The 200MW power station built to state of the art gas turbines would cost ~ $250-400m, less than a tenth of the price, with far more researched life span reliability/lifespan (known that is).

Both would operate at 55-60% efficiency for electricity production.

It is not carbon neutral, it just produces less CO2 than coal fired power stations.

For the residential purchaser, it is not cost effective. Earlier in this thread I worked out what  it is 'worth' to residential customers on a cost basis...



> On economic terms the unit is 'worth' $1345 per year plus some hot water.




Again at the current cost of $45,000 for a 2 year lease, it is not in the ball park of being cost competitive, assuming a feed in tariff equal to domestic rates.

brty


----------



## trainspotter (20 August 2010)

brty said:


> Trainspot,
> 
> This statement of your has a couple of errors:-
> 
> ...




Sorry brty I was getting a bit ahead of myself on this CFU bandwagon. I was involved in the beginning and would have thought it had progressed by now ?

You have confirmed why I SOLD OUT. Production costs were the killer for me. Great company, good corporate structure, fantastic product, shares can be shorted on a daily basis (did I say this?)  but NO ORDERS to pay for it. Again.


----------



## frankblack (21 August 2010)

Its beginning to look like it will take longer than thought to get the ceramic fuel cell sales and implementation.

So why didnt CFU get the CUDECO treatment.???????

Taken at face value the CFU shareholders are taking a much longer term view.
Longer than I would have expected.

To figure the fundamentals of this stock out, you need to know what Utilities,
and more importantly Governments are thinking and planning.
I still believe the Governments will need to do something to get this happening.

So what can holders look forward to??
The only thing I can feel sure about, is a Victorian feed in tariff.
But this on its own wont achieve much, more would need to come from Brumby if he alone is to save the company.
Found this CFU quote,
Ceramic Fuel Cells’ products have achieved electrical efficiency of 60 percent, which the 
Directors believe is higher than any other technology in the rapidly expanding market for 
small scale power and heating products.  When  heat is recovered from the electricity 
production process, total efficiency is up to 85  percent – *twice as efficient as the average 
among current European power stations.*

But dont mention the war, maybe the Germans or Japs can get their acts together, heres hoping.


----------



## brty (21 August 2010)

A capital raising!!!

What a surprise!!

At 18.25 cents, this is a little close to the wind with the current share price now 19 cents. If successful it buys the company 2 years at current cash burn rate, and time to look for alternative revenue streams with the technology.

Anyone here planning to take up their entitlement??

Anyone here planning to buy more shares to gain access to the entitlement?? (it goes ex-entitlement on the 24th I believe)

The directors hold ~1% of all shares, a very minor holding, with only one director, R Harding, holding a large amount ~10m shares. The rest have no great capital commitment which helps to explain to me the constant capital dilution of existing shareholders, with buying time being more important than making money.

Frank,


> Ceramic Fuel Cells’ products have achieved electrical efficiency of 60 percent, which the
> Directors believe is higher than any other technology in the rapidly expanding market for
> small scale power and heating products. When heat is recovered from the electricity
> production process, total efficiency is up to 85 percent – twice as efficient as the average
> among current European power stations.




The point is not the efficiency. In the market place it is the cost of that efficiency. Just being efficient by itself is irrelevant if the cost is too high, and this is not something the directors have come to grips with.


----------



## frankblack (21 August 2010)

brty said:


> The point is not the efficiency. In the market place it is the cost of that efficiency. Just being efficient by itself is irrelevant if the cost is too high, and this is not something the directors have come to grips with.




There are only 2 points
1. the efficiency in the face of higher gas costs/gas shortage
2. efficiency in the saving of co2 emissions.
*There is no other reason for this product!!!*

You just said *IF* the cost is too high, if. We dont know for sure.
The cost whatever it is, must be subsidized by Governments, just like solar, just like wind, whatever comes next, no difference.
Only question here, will it.
I havent changed my story, I have been saying this for quite awhile.


----------



## brty (21 August 2010)

Frank.



> There are only 2 points
> 1. the efficiency in the face of higher gas costs/gas shortage
> 2. efficiency in the saving of co2 emissions.
> There is no other reason for this product!!!




Totally disagree. The only point in making the product is for the financial benefit of the shareholders. If you want something that 'feels good' in a green sort of way, then use your own money to do it, not shareholders funds. 



> You just said IF the cost is too high, if. We dont know for sure.




As I have pointed out many times before, we do know. There is a price for the units, whether you buy 1 or 30. The price is a 2 year lease for $45,000.

Only when there is another price, a much lower one, will the big orders flow in, and then only after extensive testing.



> The cost whatever it is, must be subsidized by Governments, just like solar, just like wind, whatever comes next, no difference.




There is a big difference. Solar and wind produce no GHG when producing electricity. BlueGen produces CO2, just not as much as coal, but when compared to modern gas turbines, for the electricity generated it is about the same. Should they also have government subsidies??

brty


----------



## frankblack (22 August 2010)

brty said:


> There is a big difference. Solar and wind produce no GHG when producing electricity. BlueGen produces CO2, just not as much as coal, but when compared to modern gas turbines, for the electricity generated it is about the same. Should they also have government subsidies??
> 
> brty




I hope you voted Green, sounds like you know their policies.

However governments all over the world have already subsidized all the the power generators in some way, since they began. What makes you think they wont subsidize new gas power stations.???
The coal power generators are asking for government to pay for the switch.

Capital subsidies for Bluegen, apply in Holland, California, Japan, Korea, and Germany has other arrangements to subsidize units.

I am not suggesting the govt. do subsidize, merely asking the question, will they.?    Because if they do, the price of the fuel cell power unit to the purchaser comes down, giving CFU a chance.


----------



## Dono (23 August 2010)

Looking at the share price so far seems to be holding rather well considering the announcement people thought would spell the end of CFU's share price. Guess we will have to see what happens after the EX-date. I actually sold after the court ruling thinking there would be no news for the next month or so and my money would be better placed else where very surprised they went for a capital raising so soon. I think they probably were waiting to see how much they would get from the settlement so they could accurately come up with a figure that will see them to the end of 2011 and minimise the dilution as little as possible I think this is good management. 

I have read many articles from financial analysts predicting 2011 - 2012 as the time when Fuel Cells will become financially viable. Of the different uses Stationary fuel cells are predicted to be the first product to break the market and SOFC have been identified as most likely to be the the first choice over PEM and the molten carbonate MOFC.

The price of the fuel cells will come down firstly with "economies of scale" and later as nano technology advances.

I guess the negatives for this stock are:
1) And the biggest one... not having their large furnaces going, let hope they sort it out soon as I believe this is critical to the economies of scale argument and the reason the units are so expensive at the moment.
2) Money... A successful capital raising will fix this.
3) Sales / Orders... true they have no large sales yet however what fuel cell company does? I believe if they fix point 1) the orders will start to come in
4) Diversified management, great they are making all these deals all over the world but worried they are too spread out seems to be an expensive business model.
5) Small, in terms capital when you look at it's peers in the stationary fuel cell market (Ballard, Ceres, FuelCell Energy, Pacific, UTC, Plug Power). Even though to me CFU's product seems superior the large energy companies may see safety in size.

I am back in for the capital raising and wish everyone the best of luck. 

Dono


----------



## Knobby22 (24 August 2010)

Good point. The small size of the company is why there is a need to ensure that the utilities are comfortable that they are making a safe decision. That is why the capital raising is required.

I don't think they technically need the capital raising. They have spare cash and they could have borrowed if required. Having the big buffer of cash though will rest minds and speed up takeoff. It will also reduce the capability of external shocks to throw the company off course.

I am confident the orders will flow.

I also will be taking up the rights.


----------



## roland (26 August 2010)

Finally, we have a real order.

Victorian Government Confirms Order for Thirty BlueGen Units.

Outstanding result, very happy with that


----------



## brty (26 August 2010)

Those 30 BlueGen units for Vicurban have always been counted as a real order. They have always constituted 30 out of the 50 orders they have had. If it wasn't a real order until this announcement, then they had only sold ~20 units up 'til now. 

The current price is just above the price for new shares, not showing a good premium as it does with stocks that get full books of orders for a new issue. This will probably remain delicately poised until we know the outcome of the new issue. A full book of orders will likely see increased demand for the stock and higher prices, while only a partial take up of the new issue will see substantially lower prices.

A hint of which direction it will go is after the books close on the new issue, before the announcement of how it has gone. If a large holder has not taken up their entitlement, then they are likely to sell their other stock, because they know the announcement of them not taking up the entitlement is a negative for the market.

brty


----------



## frankblack (31 August 2010)

Just maybe people will wake up.
http://tinyurl.com/2dlq73e

This situation is the more peculiar when you consider that, for any regions that have good access to gas, Australians now have an alternative to solar PVs in the shape of the BlueGen fuel cell system, a dishwasher-sized generator which requires far less installation hassle and delivers six times as much carbon abatement as PVs – but has no government support whatsoever because it uses a fossil fuel.

It seems to me that the solar love affair is a classic example of the modern political idiom, encapsulated in the Yes Prime Minister television comedy series in a line pinched from a real-life 19th century French socialist leader: “There go the people. I am their leader. I must follow them.”


----------



## brty (31 August 2010)

Frank,

I woke up.

From the article,



> delivers six times as much carbon abatement as PVs – but has no government support whatsoever because it uses a fossil fuel.




It is only by torturing the statistics that you can come at the conclusion of the CSIRO report. Taking something (solar) that has no CO2 emissions and comparing it to something that produces ~7500 kg of CO2 a year, yet calling the latter as having 6 times the CO2 abatement, really is playing to the gullible.


brty


----------



## pixel (31 August 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> I woke up.
> 
> ...




I've read similar claims re: the solar panels.
Apparently, the critics count the energy that goes into mining the metal and materials, as well as manufacture of those solar panels - and presume that it's all made from dirtiest power generation.

We all know how much can be "achieved" by selecting the right statistics


----------



## frankblack (31 August 2010)

We all know there is no problem with solar per say.
Just that solar in the suburbs gives us the worst bang for buck of public monies (Tax Dollar) spent, if we also need to reduce the tonnes of carbon emitted, in a hurry.
If people wake up and realize this and the fact that that a Bluegen is ten times better, we may even reach those Kyoto targets.
Heres hoping anyway.


----------



## brty (31 August 2010)

Frank,

You keep saying this, even though it is wrong..



> If people wake up and realize this and the fact that that a Bluegen is ten times better




Why do you keep ramping this stock with these tortured statistics??

How about comparing a Bluegen unit with solar panels for a home, that gets the rest of the power from the new gas turbines like the ones of Origin Energy at Mortlake, or is a 'green' consumer that gets the rest of the power from wind or hydro??

BlueGen is not clean energy. It is just cleaner than coal fired generation. The true renewables, solar,wind and hydro are needed to meet the CO2 reduction targets.

brty


----------



## robusta (31 August 2010)

Held this stock a little while ago what a great story!!!

However when I took a good hard look at it I realised I was speculating NOT investing.

CFU have never made a profit and even worse they compound these losses with numerous capital raisings.

I was lucky to get out of CFU with a small profit but will not look at it again until they start to make a return on shareholder equity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2010)

frankblack said:


> We all know there is no problem with solar per say.
> Just that solar in the suburbs gives us the worst bang for buck of public monies (Tax Dollar) spent, if we also need to reduce the tonnes of carbon emitted, in a hurry.
> If people wake up and realize this and the fact that that a Bluegen is ten times better, we may even reach those Kyoto targets.
> Heres hoping anyway.



Wind energy can be built on a very large scale at under 10 cents per kWh of energy produced. Far more expensive than coal, but a lot cheaper than anything you're likely to do at home with solar or gas. And it produces far less CO2 than the Bluegen too.

Yes, there are limits to wind energy use. But we are nowhere near reaching those in this country with only South Australia and a few isolated systems, most notably King Island, having a substantial use of wind relative to total power generation.


----------



## frankblack (1 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Wind energy can be built on a very large scale at under 10 cents per kWh of energy produced. Far more expensive than coal, but a lot cheaper than anything you're likely to do at home with solar or gas. And it produces far less CO2 than the Bluegen too.
> 
> Yes, there are limits to wind energy use. But we are nowhere near reaching those in this country with only South Australia and a few isolated systems, most notably King Island, having a substantial use of wind relative to total power generation.




Sadly it seems my point is missed, so i will simplify it further.
The govt. has spent all this money on solar for the suburbs.
This money would have been better spent on installing Bluegens, in effect they would have saved many more tonnes of co2 if they did that in first place.

Smurf, im not picking favorites, dont YOU believe we will eventually end up with a mixture of renewables, like a huge cocktail, spead all over the place. Because thats what it looks like to me.?


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (1 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Wind energy ... produces far less CO2 than the Bluegen




As long as the wind blows... actually if there's no wind then a wind turbine doesn't produce any CO2 nor electricity. Obviously over the sunnier months, solar wins out (as long as it's not too hot - as they lose efficiency if the inverter gets hot) and on the windy days turbines will win. For reliable, very efficient energy production, the Bluegen units (IMHO) also have their place. Not every small town has a gas supply, but then not every small town has a suitable hill for a wind farm either.


----------



## brty (1 September 2010)

Frank,



> The govt. has spent all this money on solar for the suburbs.
> This money would have been better spent on installing Bluegens, in effect they would have saved many more tonnes of co2 if they did that in first place




...and they could have spent the money on hydro and wind, which would also have been much less CO2 than BlueGen. The solar schemes are for RENEWABLE energy, BlueGen is NOT renewable energy. It is just another Fossil Fuel using generator, about as efficient in electricity production as modern gas fired turbines. It should not be classed in the same category as renewable energy production, nor compared to them.

brty


----------



## frankblack (1 September 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



NO,
missing the point again,
If you are wasting money on a decentralized power generation network, then
rolling out Bluegens would have saved more tonnes of co2.


----------



## brty (1 September 2010)

Frank,

It is not me who is missing the point.

In each of your last 4 posts you have mentioned how much CO2 is saved by a piece of equipment that uses ~110,000 MJ of gas a year creating ~7,500 kg of CO2, to technology (solar) that creates NO CO2 in the creation of electricity.

By using the technology that creates NO CO2 will get us to whatever the levels we need to get to faster than using something that creates 7,500 kg of CO2 per year.

All of which is fairly immaterial, as it is how the market perceives it that is important. Currently with lots of units out there being tested, but no larger orders coming in, the utilities are not falling over themselves to become involved. Nor for that matter are businesses bothering to purchase them through the distributors like Harvey Norman.  
The obvious, simple reason is the product is way too expensive for what it offers. Until the company can come up with some other form of revenue or product, or drop the price of the BlueGen by a factor of 10, then the technology will go nowhere and the company will continue to suck shareholder funds.

brty


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2010)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> As long as the wind blows... actually if there's no wind then a wind turbine doesn't produce any CO2 nor electricity. Obviously over the sunnier months, solar wins out (as long as it's not too hot - as they lose efficiency if the inverter gets hot) and on the windy days turbines will win. For reliable, very efficient energy production, the Bluegen units (IMHO) also have their place. Not every small town has a gas supply, but then not every small town has a suitable hill for a wind farm either.



I don't doubt that the Bluegen has a place. But at the price they are asking, it is simply uncompetitive with large scale centralised generation and transmission be that from fossil, nuclear or renewable sources.

It is only cost that is stopping us using 100% renewable electricity. But at the prices being asked, it is cheaper to use more renewables than to undertake a mass roll out of Bluegen's. Therein lies the problem.

Why use fossil fuels more efficiently when it would be cheaper to do away with them altogether?

Why eat at McDonald's if a top restaurant nearby is selling meals more cheaply?

Why stay in a 2 star hotel if a 4 star hotel nearby is offering cheaper accommodation?

I have nothing against Bluegen, McDonald's or 2 star hotels. But right now large scale wind represents a cheaper means of reducing emissions than does the Bluegen.

In short, they need to drop the price to a level where it makes financial sense to buy and install one of these units.

Etc.


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> It is not me who is missing the point.
> 
> ...




Brty, with you're favouring of renewable energy, do you believe we can do without base load power stations that are fired by coal or nuclear?


----------



## noco (1 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> I don't doubt that the Bluegen has a place. But at the price they are asking, it is simply uncompetitive with large scale centralised generation and transmission be that from fossil, nuclear or renewable sources.
> 
> It is only cost that is stopping us using 100% renewable electricity. But at the prices being asked, it is cheaper to use more renewables than to undertake a mass roll out of Bluegen's. Therein lies the problem.
> 
> ...




I believe wind and solar powered units are only 15% effiecient and would be very expensive to install without Government subsidy.  Coal fired are 35% efficient, whereas Blugen units offer 60% + when used for water heating as well. So with all that in mind which would be the more efficient to use?

I can't see the Government subsidising solar power indefinetly, so what happens then?


----------



## robusta (1 September 2010)

I am not sure what other peoples idea of a investment is but to me CFU is pure speculation.

Great invention + blue sky growth potentual does not = great investment.

CFU may be long gone before fuel cells make any money or another company may come up with a much better alternative.

If all goes to plan CFU may be a great story just beware of the risks you are taking.


----------



## frankblack (1 September 2010)

robusta said:


> I am not sure what other peoples idea of a investment is but to me CFU is pure speculation.
> 
> Great invention + blue sky growth potentual does not = great investment.
> 
> ...



I would speculate 90% of ASF is all about speculation.
Informed speculation, different ideas on speculation. Surely as soon as you you have all the facts, its too late to get in you are out of the race.
Everything to do with shares is risky from the get go, so really all you can do is minimize risk to the level you tolerate.
Until the final curtain comes down, on CFU, the fat lady sings, all we are left to do here is speculate, someone may be right, someone wrong.
I want to hear it all, so I know what I can rule out.
Not betting my house on CFU by the way.


----------



## brty (1 September 2010)

noco,



> do you believe we can do without base load power stations that are fired by coal or nuclear?




...not for a long time if at all. Governments are trying to encourage gas turbines to take over from coal, with the best ones reaching around the same efficiency as the BlueGen unit for electricity production, but at a fraction of the cost.

From the Origin Energy web site...



> 550MW Mortlake Power Station project at an expected cost of $640m.




That is a cost of $1,163 per KWH. To be competitive with that BlueGen would need to cost $2,327 on a purely electricity generation aspect only. The first stage of the Mortlake power plant is not the most efficient, but the second stage will be, at similar cost. 

275,000 BlueGen units would be needed to be operating to mimic the electricity output of the first stage of Mortlake. The generation of power from Mortlake can be ramped up and down fairly quickly in response to demand for power (I'm sure Smurf could inform us just how quickly). Only if the utility controlled the 275,000 BlueGen units could they do the same, however BlueGen takes a long time to power up 20 hours? and longer to power down. It would also be very inconvenient for the households that were relying on hot water from the unit to find their unit had been powered down and there was no hot water. If the households control the units themselves, then a lot of power could be generated when the system does not need it. 

As base load power, the BlueGen does not make sense to me at all.

brty


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2010)

noco said:


> I believe wind and solar powered units are only 15% effiecient and would be very expensive to install without Government subsidy.  Coal fired are 35% efficient, whereas Blugen units offer 60% + when used for water heating as well. So with all that in mind which would be the more efficient to use?
> 
> I can't see the Government subsidising solar power indefinetly, so what happens then?



Efficiency isn't really important when you have a free source of fuel (wind, sun etc) that is effectively unlimited. That is very different to using, say, oil where the resource is limited and costly, hence there is a benefit in efficient use. But we're not going to use up the sun or wind by installing inefficient solar panels or wind turbines.

What does matter is (1) cost and (2) practicality as a source of electricity generation.

Wind and solar are intermittent sources that can not be counted on to be operating at the time of system peak demand that is certainly true and a big downside. But unless the Bluegen is under centralised dispatch, that is the householder does not have control of the operation of the unit, then it too has serious limitations. It would work technically as a means of effectively reducing net residential / small business load on the distribution system, but not as a major source of generation for the system as a whole. 

A more significant issue however is the inflexibility in operation. We already have a growing issue with variability in demand now that hydro development, the traditional and most flexible source of peaking generation, has effectively ended in this country. 

Adding a new baseload source not under centralised dispatch, Bluegen, only makes the daily load changes on conventional power stations even larger than they are now. And the practical way to deal with that is to build less technically efficient power stations, and operate them less efficiently. That's what actually happens in order to meet high peaks relative to baseload demand on conventional generation. Other than hydro, peaking generation is either incredibly expensive or it is inefficient and polluting and in some cases it is both (a good reason to avoid using power at peak times if possible).

The same argument does apply to wind too. To some extent the benefits of wind energy are offset by a reduction in the design and ongoing operating efficiency of the conventional generating plant which still acounts for the majority of generation. Practical reality is that if you are adding conventional (coal, gas) plant to a system that incorporates a substantial amount of wind then you won't be building a state of the art plant designed for maximum efficiency. Instead you'll drop the efficiency by a third right at the design stage, simple due to the way in which it will need to operate.

In the Australian context Tasmania, due to being predominantly hydro, is the sole exception to that situation and the only state in which construction of wind (or other intermittent generation) represents an actual alternative to construction of additional conventional generation. However, a significant portion of that ability has already been utilised to support the system on mainland Australia (mostly Vic and SA) although there is certainly still potential to add what is effectively baseload wind (through integration with hydro) in Tas.

If Bluegen was capable of (1) reasonable load cycling on at least a daily basis (ie ramp up in the morning, ramp down in the evening) and (2) was capable of centralised dispatch in some way (so they can be forced down overnight and up again during the day) and (3) was cost competitive with gas turbines then I would be a lot more optimistic about it. But as it stands today, it is in the same category as solar - it will happen only if government props it up. 

Meanwhile conventional gas turbines, and if allowable environmentally then also black coal, are far cheaper options to meet foreseeable electricity demand going forward. And if we did want to cut CO2, then wind is a cheaper (though still expensive) way of doing it than Bluegen.

It really comes down to price. The Bluegen unit has a viable use that is for sure. But not at the price being asked. It is simply far too expensive for what it actually is. And those attracted to it on environmental grounds would generally be the same people who have already installed solar for the same purposes.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Efficiency isn't really important when you have a free source of fuel (wind, sun etc) that is effectively unlimited. That is very different to using, say, oil where the resource is limited and costly, hence there is a benefit in efficient use. But we're not going to use up the sun or wind by installing inefficient solar panels or wind turbines.
> 
> What does matter is (1) cost and (2) practicality as a source of electricity generation.
> 
> ...




Thanks for that info Smirf. You wrote mainly about the use of Bluegen units in Australia. 
What about the potential in Europe and Japan where solar power is not quite as viable and why did CFU set up a plant in Germany?


----------



## Knobby22 (2 September 2010)

I agree with Brty that the unit cost has to come down however I disagree with the basis of the calculation. The power cost to the consumer is far higher than the cost of manufacture by the power utility.

This has a big implication on the payback time of the unit.

Victoria for instance is changing their electricity metering to smart metering where electicity on peak days will be extremely expensive. This will only encourage the use of alternate power such as the fuel cell especially if you have one of those modern Macmansions with ducted cooling systems throughout.


----------



## noco (2 September 2010)

If Labor wins this election with the help of the independants, there is sure to be an ETS and/or a CPRS which will  send the price of power sky rocketing.

How do you fellows see this playing out with CFL'S BLUE GEN UNITS. Do you believe this will make BLUE GEN more viable?


----------



## roland (3 September 2010)

Seems like the arguments against CFU are, maybe, a little too Australia centric. The enclosed graph sourced from the UK Electricity Association shows where we are placed in terms of domestic electricty prices.

Take Japan for example, the cost of electricity to the end user is nearly double of what we pay. The costs are in UK Pence.

Since I haven't found a decent data set for world domestic gas prices, maybe someone can offset this argument with relative costs of running the BlueGen in the markets of high electricity costs.

P.S. I just noticed that the graph is a little old!


----------



## roland (3 September 2010)

Here is another price comparison for electricity prices. The one was source from Wikipedia. The UK domestic cost is nearly 3 times the Aussie cost, Denmark doesn't do very well either.


----------



## brty (3 September 2010)

Roland, 

The cost of producing the electricity from BlueGen is the problem.
The way the company currently has the price at $45,000 for a 2 year lease, with the cost of gas added, in Australia ~$3080 for 2 years, means total cost is ~$48,000 over 2 years while producing ~35,040 kwh of electricity in that time.

The cost of electricity production is ~$1.37 per kwh. That is far in excess of any electricity price anywhere that is on grid. A lot of that production is during off peak times, which makes the relative numbers even worse.

If you can find me a retailer that will only charge me US 7.11 cents/kwh for peak power I would be very, very happy. My current retail price is ~ 23 cents for peak and 10 cents for off peak less some small customer loyalty percentage discount.

brty


----------



## roland (3 September 2010)

brty said:


> Roland,
> 
> The cost of producing the electricity from BlueGen is the problem.
> The way the company currently has the price at $45,000 for a 2 year lease, with the cost of gas added, in Australia ~$3080 for 2 years, means total cost is ~$48,000 over 2 years while producing ~35,040 kwh of electricity in that time.
> ...




Hi brty,

I have no doubt that the investment for the BlueGen in Australia is not economically attractive at this point in time, is it attractive in other markets?

Evaluating the viability in other target markets was the point of the post.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 September 2010)

roland said:


> Hi brty,
> 
> I have no doubt that the investment for the BlueGen in Australia is not economically attractive at this point in time, is it attractive in other markets?
> 
> Evaluating the viability in other target markets was the point of the post.




Good point. Also would like to add the following:

The price they sold the units to VicUrban is not the price they will be selling, in the thousands, to the utilities. I expect a standard price that is much lower.

Also, some countries are offering incentives so they do not have to spend money on infrastructure. 

Finally, in cold countries they get to use the heat also which helps the sums.

This technology will succeed, the question is will it get the required volumes to really make the large profits hoped for.


----------



## noco (3 September 2010)

roland said:


> Here is another price comparison for electricity prices. The one was source from Wikipedia. The UK domestic cost is nearly 3 times the Aussie cost, Denmark doesn't do very well either.




Thanks for that info roland. It would then appear the BlueGEN units could be viable in Japan and some European countries, particularly if CFL receive volume orders.


----------



## brty (3 September 2010)

Roland, Noco,

The pricing of electricity in other countries is fairly easy these days, go to a site like...

http://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/compare/electricity/A5292S8S/12963-Age UK Higher User/details

..where they want British people to sign up for the latest deals.

The prices I found out for a largish user of electricity as myself are 23p for the first 900kwh/yr then 9.09p for the rest. It is a totally different way of calculating compared to what I now have. I have a difference from peak to off peak power. Using current exchange rates the first 900kwh works out to ~40 cents in $Aus per kwh, the rest however works out at ~16 cents/kwh, cheap compared to our peak rates (well mine at least). Overall for a years electricity consumption there is not a lot of difference, certainly not 3 times the price as indicated by the Wiki article.

As for Japan, here is a snippet I found....



> With gas fuel for Japan's fuel cells more costly per kW than electricity in Japan, some analysts see Japan's nascent fuel-cell industry reaping benefits abroad.




from here...

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2010-03/BBC-Claims-Japan-Looking-to-Impo

One needs to be careful with the information spread by some. Own research is what counts with investment.

A quick question for all. With the Bluegen units available for sale for ~16 months now, including at retailers like HVN, which director of the company has purchased one themselves for their own home??

brty


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2010)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree with Brty that the unit cost has to come down however I disagree with the basis of the calculation. The power cost to the consumer is far higher than the cost of manufacture by the power utility.
> 
> This has a big implication on the payback time of the unit.
> 
> Victoria for instance is changing their electricity metering to smart metering where electicity on peak days will be extremely expensive. This will only encourage the use of alternate power such as the fuel cell especially if you have one of those modern Macmansions with ducted cooling systems throughout.



The gap between wholesale electricity and retail prices for households largely relates to non-volume related costs. If volumes decline, due to households generating their own electricity, then those costs will still need to be charged to consumers in some way.

How to implement those charges is a big question. Tasmania tried separating them out in the mid-1990's so as to eliminate cross-subsidies between consumers given the huge variation in per-household consumption in the state depending on the means of heating (ie a house with electric heating will use double the power of one with wood heating). But the resultant public uproar is such that it will almost certainly never be tried again. Certainly wasn't popular that is for sure - to the point of becoming the focus of a state election campaign. 

A lot of politics and compromise solutions ensued and the end result is separate metering for heating at a rate that reflects the cost of supply, with fixed non-volume related costs being recovered only from non-heating loads and remaining (reduced) fixed supply charges. That gives us a heating rate about 40% below the general rate. And there's still an annual charge of $321.80, an amount below actual costs but deemed politically acceptable, which goes toward the fixed costs.

That example is for one Australian state only, but the situation is much the same globally. The cost of supply is partly related to volume, but much of it is fixed. If volume declines or goes to a net zero, then somehow those huge fixed costs still have to be recovered. The experience in Tas at least was that consumers weren't happy getting a bill for these fixed costs, especially if their consumption was very low.

As a rough guide, the true value of the baseload electricity generated by the Bluegen is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh being comprised of the actual energy produced and avoided distribution / transmission costs. 

To the extent that consumers gain more than this, it is a subsidy that is paid by other consumers and which wouldn't be sustainable if these devices became widespread (just as the various solar subsidies are time and volume limited to those who get in early).

Time of use pricing is a partial way around the situation, an option that wasn't available when Tas went down this track a decade and a half ago. But the Bluegen is a baseload generation device that can not readily follow price or load, thus nullifying any apparent benefit of TOU pricing. Yes it will be generating when prices are high, just as it will also be generating when prices are very low. Meanwhile conventional gas turbines can easily follow load and price with output ramped up and down as needed. Likewise hydro can change output even more easily than gas. Even black coal is more flexible in operation than the Bluegen.

For a 1kW system, a realistic actual value on the production is around $950 a year for electricity, plus another $500 at most for the hot water. Consumers will save a bit more than that, effectively a subsidy, but that is the real value of the output in the Australian context (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA interconnected system).


----------



## frankblack (3 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> The gap between wholesale electricity and retail prices for households largely relates to non-volume related costs. If volumes decline, due to households generating their own electricity, then those costs will still need to be charged to consumers in some way.
> 
> How to implement those charges is a big question. Tasmania tried separating them out in the mid-1990's so as to eliminate cross-subsidies between consumers given the huge variation in per-household consumption in the state depending on the means of heating (ie a house with electric heating will use double the power of one with wood heating). But the resultant public uproar is such that it will almost certainly never be tried again. Certainly wasn't popular that is for sure - to the point of becoming the focus of a state election campaign.
> 
> ...




Making the Bluegen look impossible rather than the reality it really is, are the arguments you put forward.
The same thoughts the power generators and utilities currently have and always had, because it is in their interests to do so.
Its plain backward thinking, there is absolutely no way integrating enough Bluegens into a flexible smartgrid, would harm or cost any more.
Just some restructuring and closing down some brown coal generation, maybe some of those gas generators that start up quickly, when the solar and wind lets us down.
It can all be done, greed is bad, for CFU.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 September 2010)

frankblack said:


> Making the Bluegen look impossible rather than the reality it really is, are the arguments you put forward.
> The same thoughts the power generators and utilities currently have and always had, because it is in their interests to do so.
> Its plain backward thinking, there is absolutely no way integrating enough Bluegens into a flexible smartgrid, would harm or cost any more.
> Just some restructuring and closing down some brown coal generation, maybe some of those gas generators that start up quickly, when the solar and wind lets us down.
> It can all be done, greed is bad, for CFU.



None of which changes the fact that the money saved by installing Bluegen's is essentially the cost of baseload generation plus _part only_ of the distribution cost. That is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh typically.

The industry simply can't afford to pass on any greater saving, because a greater saving doesn't exist.

It is like saying that you have a car that's costing $100 a week all up to own. And 90% of your driving is to and from work.

But if you stop driving to work then you won't now be able to run the car for $10 a week. Some costs will reduce, but you'll still have the same insurance, rego and so on to pay. Some servicing and parts will still be required at the same intervals and so on. Your 90% drop in usage will likely only save 50% on the cost of having the car.

Same with electricity. If consumers start generating 90% of their own electricity, then costs to the utilities won't drop by anywhere near that amount since much of the cost is not volume related.

It will vary a bit with location, but if you generate power at home equal to what you consume, then the cost to the electricity utility of your power supply has really only been reduced by 40 - 50%. You're still connected to the grid, and you are still drawing peak power from the grid. They're going to have to recover that cost somehow...

If everyone in, say, Victoria installed one of these and generated all their own electricity then their electricity bills would drop by 40 - 50%, not 100%. Then you would have to add in the cost of gas and cost of the Bluegen itself. That is certainly how the utilities and government will see it, because that's what the costs actually are. Even if I only drive 1 km a year, the car still costs a lot to keep running... 

As for closing down brown coal generation, the ongoing operating cost of most existing plants is well under 1 cent per kWh. Not a lot of money to be saved there...


----------



## frankblack (5 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> None of which changes the fact that the money saved by installing Bluegen's is essentially the cost of baseload generation plus _part only_ of the distribution cost. That is somewhere around 10 - 12 cents per kWh typically.
> 
> The industry simply can't afford to pass on any greater saving, because a greater saving doesn't exist.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your reply Smurf, I appreciate all you have to say and its very informative and helpful.
I hope you can continue this discussion. Somehow you see Bluegen differently to me, over time my opinion/view is changing as well.
I no longer think its so good in the hands of the public, in private hands, for many of the reasons you have stated.
On the other hand I see no reason why the industry needs to subsidize the Bluegen.
In the hands of a clever utility the bluegen wouldnt be any burden, and saves infrastructure cost.
The Bluegen is more flexible than you realize,
The BlueGen™ unit can operate as a stand-alone 
generator or be remotely controlled.  The output power 
level can be adjusted to suit a number of different 
electricity production requirements; from ‘constant 
base-load power’ generation to pre-set ‘peak shaving’ 
generation profles.  The BlueGen™ unit has a number 
of different operating modes:
Heat-up
•	 Fully automatic using mains power  
(grid independent start-up not possible)
Self sustain
•	 Unit is producing electricity, but with zero power 
export (e.g. in event of extended grid fault)
Power production
•	 Unit is exporting electricity; power output can be 
modulated from 0% to 100%

What this means, with enough units you dont need to draw on any peak power from the grid.
And you dont need to export excess to the grid.
A utility could sell all the power produced to the retail customers at the retail prices.
This is from CFU as well,
Æ’ Upside from other deployment models
–  Stronger financial returns if the units are owned and deployed in volume by a utility, Energy Services 
Company or ‘home services’ company
- Units ‘leased’ to homeowners under a services contract, no up-front cost for homeowner 
- Remotely control all units to modulate output as a ‘virtual power plant’
-  Aggregate and monetise network benefits and carbon credits
- Maximise ‘spark spread’ – buy gas at wholesale, sell electricity at retail.

If you please consider this kind of model and tell me if it could work.
I dont even know the wholesale gas price, but it seems to me, and this is very conservative, cost of 1kwh less than 12 cents, retail price 24 cents, before future price increases.
About 100% difference, is this not enough to make it work?
Please dont go on about the price of the units, since the utility might be buying 10 000 units.
THANKS.


----------



## brty (5 September 2010)

Frank,



> Remotely control all units to modulate output as a ‘virtual power plant’




How does a household have reliable hot water, if an external entity controls the unit? Would this mean the household will have to have back up hot water via gas or electricity for when their unit has been powered down.



> Unit is exporting electricity; power output can be
> modulated from 0% to 100%




If you assume the unit only operates for 'peak shaving' and the rest of the household's use, then the output over a year will be much less than the 17,520 kwh. Even at maximum output if the unit only cost $3000/yr (cost of unit only + maintenance) the electricity costs ~17c/kwh before we add the cost of gas. If you run it at say 12,000 kwh a year the cost goes up to ~25c/kwh before we add the cost of gas. As these would be costs to the utility, it is ridiculously high compared to their existing costs.

Now the $3,000 'cost' is definitely a number that I plucked out of the air, it is a far cheaper number than the current lease price of $45,000 for 2 years and then $8,000 per year after, that is advertised by the companies agents.

The real question becomes 'can the company produce the units and constant maintenance costs to under or near the current cost of modern gas turbine generators?' If the answer is "not close", then why would a utility be interested??

brty

brty


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 September 2010)

If they are able to be centrally dispatched (switched on and off etc) by the utility, then a few points:

1. Centralised dispatch would be in groups of numerous units, such that the utility "sees" a single generating unit of substantial capacity rather than trying to deal with 500,000 individual units. This is no big deal as long as communications infrastructure is in place and is a similar principle to the remote switching of groups of off-peak water heaters in Qld, NSW and New Zealand (other Australian states use simple timers to do the job).

2. There will be a capital saving on distribution network, transmission and generation capacity provided that the Bluegen's constitute a _reliable_ power source able to be switched on whenever the utility wants to. Depending on the circumstances, that saving is potentially several thousand dollars per unit installed. 

3. Assuming 60% efficiency of converting gas into electricity, the wholesale gas cost is in the order of 1.5 to 3.5 cents per kWh in Australia with huge variation internationally. Unlike many other commodities, gas prices tend to be regional rather than global. For example, all Australian states except NT and WA are effectively isolated from the global trade in gas, hence pricing is a function of local contracts rather than an actively traded global market.

4. In a technical sense, I could certainly see a use for the Bluegen as an intermediate (also known as shoulder) form of generation, generally operaing in step mode. In layman's terms, that means that the units would handle the extent of variation in overall demand from lowest (middle of the night) to that which occurs throughout the day in a predictable manner.

For example, you might have a system with 1000 MW minimum load overnight, 1500 MW load consistent during the day when the weather is mild with a daily peak of 1800 MW, rising to 4000 MW under severe (hot) weather conditions. This is for a hot climate during summer, fairly cool during Winter with about 1.5 million people. 

That gives a market requirement for 1000 MW baseload, 800 MW intermediate, 2200 MW peaking. Those figures are for actual output, installed capacity being necessarily higher to allow for maintenance etc. 

What actually gets built tends also to be a function of available resources - eg if all you have is hydro, then that is what you will build for baseload even though hydro is most commonly used only for peaking. Likewise if you have lots of gas and nothing else, then gas is what you will use. Same with coal - eg NSW and Qld use what could be baseload plants to also meet their intermediate load because it was the locally cheapest thing to do.

So using that example above, it would be practical to install up to 800 MW of Bluegen's, with 500MW being the most practical level since that will enable reasonably consistent operation from morning to late evening. That translates to 5 out of 6 homes having a 1kW unit, or half the number of 2kW units etc. In other words, yes there is a market for the power produced in that manner.

Whether or not the utility would actually run them as baseload or intermediate would be a function of economics. They're not going to use gas-fired generation if they've got cheap coal, nuclear or hydro power otherwise unused simply due to cost. But if they're running gas for baseload anyway, then the Bluegen's in that situation might as well run 24/7.

So overall, yes it could work provided that they can be counted as a legitimate (reliable) source of generation. That way there are benefits from not having to invest in transmission, generation etc capacity. 

Whether or not that is a financially viable model depends on what the selling price of the Bluegen's is, and that is really the biggest question.


----------



## frankblack (5 September 2010)

brty said:


> Frank,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I hear what you are saying,
the hot water problem can be solved in one of 2 ways,
1. the chosen household site, gets 2 Bluegens not 1, saving on installation costs.
2. you could have 100s in one central location for peak supply times.
The real issue here is how much will the Gen cost???
If the retail household customer is to cover the cost, I estimate $500 per year, as 1 Gen does 2 houses, thats $15000 over 15 years.
However *IF* I am correct a utility is getting a profit margin of at least 100%, generating cost including gas 12 cents, retail electricity cost 24 cents.?
Maybe some of that fat profit could pay for Bluegens?
Once again a utility buying 10 000 units is not going to have to pay as much as the current price advertised.
How does this compare to central gas generator,? I dont know.
This is a Quote from Smurf
" 2. There will be a capital saving on distribution network, transmission and generation capacity provided that the Bluegen's constitute a reliable  power source able to be switched on whenever the utility wants to. Depending on the circumstances, that saving is potentially several thousand dollars per unit installed. "
I put this out there for consideration, looks good to me, dont know if it will ever happen, just speculation.


----------



## Miner (6 September 2010)

Did any one see the presentation of CFU at Channel 7 this mornnig's sunrise program.

I think Channel 7 was paid for the show.  Just like they pay others to tell their sordid story.

The MD was very defensive saying the price is too high. If I am selling my product I will sell telling advantages of the product and why you should buy the product for its value proposition. The same value proposition you (who can afford) pay for Ferrari over Corolla. There is always a buyer for your stuff if it is good.

Why he was so nervous - Tell tale story ?

I am holding it still but feeling nervous


----------



## jbocker (6 September 2010)

Miner said:


> Did any one see the presentation of CFU at Channel 7 this mornnig's sunrise program.
> 
> I think Channel 7 was paid for the show.  Just like they pay others to tell their sordid story.
> 
> ...




Thanks Miner for the news about the article. I have placed a link for others...
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/factsheets/article/-/article/7888466/fuel-cells-for-your-home/

Not sure what you meant by sordid story?? I thought the article was good, very factual and honest w.r.t. costs and not yet being able to sell excess to the grid. Australia is not really the target market, but would be great to be able to supply as an efficient 'greener' option locally, but it is going to take some time. 
I hold too, not nervous, just patient.
Waiting .. waiting...


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 September 2010)

frankblack said:


> However *IF* I am correct a utility is getting a profit margin of at least 100%, generating cost including gas 12 cents, retail electricity cost 24 cents.?
> Maybe some of that fat profit could pay for Bluegens



It is not profit as such. Whilst the retail price exceeds the marginal cost of supply (ie the cost avoided if consumption is reduced or households generate some of their own power), the extra cost is largely needed to cover the fixed (non-volume related) cost of maintaining the network.

That is, half the cost of supply (roughly) would still exist regardless of consumption levels and that is my point. This cost must be recovered somehow, and if net consumption is going to seriously fall then that precludes recovering the fixed costs in the conventional manner on a cents / kWh basis.

It's like how the car costs a lot of money just to have sitting there even if not used. Those costs have to be paid, by whatever means, whether the car travels 100,000 km or just 1 km per year. Trouble with electricity is that if you recover the costs on a cents / unit of consumption basis as is normally done, it all falls apart economically if consumption falls in a big way. Either that or charges have to be massively hiked which hurts the poor, renters etc unable to lower consumption levels.


----------



## frankblack (7 September 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> It is not profit as such. Whilst the retail price exceeds the marginal cost of supply (ie the cost avoided if consumption is reduced or households generate some of their own power), the extra cost is largely needed to cover the fixed (non-volume related) cost of maintaining the network.
> 
> That is, half the cost of supply (roughly) would still exist regardless of consumption levels and that is my point. This cost must be recovered somehow, and if net consumption is going to seriously fall then that precludes recovering the fixed costs in the conventional manner on a cents / kWh basis.
> 
> It's like how the car costs a lot of money just to have sitting there even if not used. Those costs have to be paid, by whatever means, whether the car travels 100,000 km or just 1 km per year. Trouble with electricity is that if you recover the costs on a cents / unit of consumption basis as is normally done, it all falls apart economically if consumption falls in a big way. Either that or charges have to be massively hiked which hurts the poor, renters etc unable to lower consumption levels.



I see, 
whats the breakdown of all this ongoing maintenance, ie wheres the money going.?
I have lived in the same street for over 10 years, theres never been any maintenance work.
Is it the power plants or high transmission lines being maintained?
Can these costs be cut/avoided by using a lot of Bluegens?
So do you think by doubling the price of electricity this problem could be overcome?
Thanks.


----------



## yma (15 September 2010)

is it any news out today? price gone up to 0.2 with about 9m volume. It looks like a interesting move today.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 September 2010)

brty said:


> A hint of which direction it will go is after the books close on the new issue, before the announcement of how it has gone. If a large holder has not taken up their entitlement, then they are likely to sell their other stock, because they know the announcement of them not taking up the entitlement is a negative for the market.
> 
> brty




It looks like that the opposite has happened. Big buyers jumping in early, not even waiting for the rights to close.  Very nice. I have taken up my rights and almost do have my house on it. (Well not really, but a big chunk of my spare capital, now my 3rd largest holding)


----------



## brty (15 September 2010)

Knobby,



> It looks like that the opposite has happened. Big buyers jumping in early, not even waiting for the rights to close




Share price rising in the last couple of days before the books close, what a surprise  Can we wait to see what happens after the books close as I mentioned earlier??

brty


----------



## noco (27 September 2010)

Have noted today advice that four directors have increased their share holdings by a total of 1,796,666. 

Does anyone know what is happening?

Are we being kept in the dark?

Is there an announcement pending?


----------



## Knobby22 (28 September 2010)

Ine director took more than their share of rights, one less the others equal.
Generally neutral result on that front.

Price has held up which was against brty's prediction but not all Australian rights taken up. Also generally neutral result in my opinion.

I would say there is not going to be an announcement in the very near future.


----------



## noco (18 October 2010)

Picked up on this reccomendation to buy from The Bull. Looks interestimg indeed.

http://www.thebull.com.au/articles/a/14890-18-share-tips---18-october-2010.html


----------



## So_Cynical (18 October 2010)

One would have to say that the rights issue was a bit of a failure with only 44% of Australian holders taking up the offer, and now the double whammy of shares trading at a reasonable discount to the issue price...probably a trading opportunity coming up for the punters, but not really a great outcome for the long term holders.


----------



## mr. jeff (18 October 2010)

IT could be argued now that there is going to have to be some positive news flow now, whether it is big news or not. 
If they have tapped the market once again, got a 44% take up and need to raise again, there is not much upside ahead. 
It really looks like a worrying situation and hopefully they aren't forced into shortcuts in quality to bring forward the roll out / unfavourable sale contracts etc.
but there are a few positive broker recommendations, so any good news may be all that it needs to go for a bit of a run. Just got to keep an eye on the cash consumption now.


----------



## MACCA350 (25 October 2010)

Not much happening here, SP has been pretty stagnant for a while.

I heard there's an article in the Financial Review with an interview with Brendan Dow. In it Dow mentions there are hundreds of orders in the wings which should be finalized by the end of this year along with a 25 unit order from Energy Australia that should be signed within the next two weeks.

Might explain the small lift in SP this morning.

cheers


----------



## McCoy Pauley (25 October 2010)

MACCA350 said:


> Not much happening here, SP has been pretty stagnant for a while.
> 
> I heard there's an article in the Financial Review with an interview with Brendan Dow. In it Dow mentions there are hundreds of orders in the wings which should be finalized by the end of this year along with a 25 unit order from Energy Australia that should be signed within the next two weeks.
> 
> ...




If I recall correctly, orders coming in from Germany, US and the NSW Govt.  CFU is shifting its operations to Germany.


----------



## Dono (11 November 2010)

CFU completes 2 years testing with EWE:

http://translate.google.com.hk/tran...&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=547&tbs=qdr:d&prmd=n

even translated it for you


----------



## roland (3 December 2010)

Dono said:


> CFU completes 2 years testing with EWE:
> 
> http://translate.google.com.hk/tran...&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1280&bih=547&tbs=qdr:d&prmd=n
> 
> even translated it for you




and now the announcement of 200 units on a conditional order to EWE, now we're starting to look better.


----------



## MACCA350 (3 December 2010)

Given EWE is CFU's "longest-standing customer and partner" it shouldn't be too long before the other energy companies finalize in-house testing of their trial units and decides to(or not to) place bulk orders.

I think this is a good indicator that CFU is succeeding with bringing their product to market, one of the biggest hurdles they have had to overcome in the eyes of investors.

Nice to see a decent sized order. When it goes unconditional and others start placing bulk orders we should be in for some good upswings in SP

cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (20 December 2010)

Nice post today re: electric car charging station using fuel cell technology. A classic use for this technology.

Combined with definite interest by various electricity retailers, it is only a matter of time.

Note, they announced this upon installation, not the order. Have we got a nice surprise for the half yearly coming??

I have bought a few more, lucky my wife trusts me as I have put my neck out on this.


----------



## kingkev (13 January 2011)

A bit of a SP slide today

Any ideas ?????????????

Is there a pending announcement that we do not want to hear?


----------



## nomore4s (13 January 2011)

kingkev said:


> A bit of a SP slide today
> 
> Any ideas ?????????????
> 
> Is there a pending announcement that we do not want to hear?




Bit of a slide today??? More like a bit of a slide for 18 months.

On a positive though it has rebounded quite quickly so  far today, be interesting to see where it closes.


----------



## jbocker (13 February 2011)

Been off air and catching up. There seems to have been plenty for CFCL to report, lots of promising signs, but the big orders have yet to arrive. They are spending $ and back of envelope calculation gave me about 16 months (5 quarters) cash left*. Is that a reasonable amount of reserves?
 I think my average holding is 21c, so their price (13.5) is attractive.

*Please do you own calcs I am no expert.


----------



## kambo (14 February 2011)

Something up?


----------



## Knobby22 (14 February 2011)

jbocker said:


> Been off air and catching up. There seems to have been plenty for CFCL to report, lots of promising signs, but the big orders have yet to arrive. They are spending $ and back of envelope calculation gave me about 16 months (5 quarters) cash left*. Is that a reasonable amount of reserves?
> I think my average holding is 21c, so their price (13.5) is attractive.
> 
> *Please do you own calcs I am no expert.




Frankly the cash reserves should be plenty. If they don't get the big orders this year, then something is wrong. Maybe I am foolishly optimistic but I am really expecting a massive amount of orders soon when they finalise the production.


----------



## Noddy (14 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Frankly the cash reserves should be plenty. If they don't get the big orders this year, then something is wrong. Maybe I am foolishly optimistic but I am really expecting a massive amount of orders soon when they finalise the production.




Have been in and out of CFU twice, once for a small profit, once stopped out.

By my calculations, they have enough cash to operate for another year or so.
Will find it hard to raise more capital after that unless the can gain some concrete orders. Have ploughed through loads of cash already for no real result.

Think the company is technically very good, but is a financial dud. Their units just don't sell, as they are too expensive to own and operate.

Technically they have recently broken down from a descending triangle (during a rising market) to the dark side and are going backwards IMO.


----------



## kingkev (30 March 2011)

Yes the down-trend in the sp is rather evident.  Not too sure how they are going to go with selling their units in Japan after the crisis in Japan as they will need all the money they can get to help themselves.

Too much fluctuation in their sp for me


----------



## noco (19 April 2011)

Does anyone have any updated news on CFU? They seem to be slipping down hill.


----------



## noco (21 April 2011)

Contacted CFU today. A report is due next week some time. Hope it is all good. Not very optimistic at this stage.


----------



## brty (26 April 2011)

noco,

On the company website there is an announcement about placing *ONE* unit in some type of sustainable house in Amsterdam. This announcement is not on the ASX web site yet.

I would think the quarterly cashflow statement is due.

Since I was last commenting on this stock, the share price has declined to 10 cents.

The unit is overpriced and not selling.

The directors are not committed, as in not purchasiing/holding substantial numbers of shares, nor purchasing the units for their own homes.

Technically the support is at another 50% decline in the share price, 5 cents.

Unfortunately with fantastic technology, this current management has managed to get it all wrong so far. 

brty


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2011)

brty said:


> The unit is overpriced and not selling.
> 
> ...
> 
> Unfortunately with fantastic technology, this current management has managed to get it all wrong so far.



Indeed. For the vast majority of consumers, one question will be asked prior to purchasing or otherwise obtaining such a device - "what is the payback period?". 

If it's not profitable then it won't sell. That's why solar water heaters reached a 5% national market share in Australia then went absolutely nowhere for the next 20 years. A small number of people will buy such things for various reasons including concern about the natural environment, being interested in engineering and technology, wanting to support businesses and ideas they see as being "part of the future" and so on. But for the vast majority, either it's financially viable right now or they won't buy it.


----------



## brty (27 April 2011)

I have recently signed up for a 5Kw solar PV system for $15,000, fully installed. At that price it pays for itself. At my current pricing rates for electricity, I'm getting a 13.5% pa return on my expenditure. It makes economic sense. I also qualify for the generous FIT which makes the system wildly profitable. (so much so that the government must be close to closing this rort)

The prices of these systems have come down a lot in the last year, and over the last 5 years. I cannot fathom how the Bluegen unit can make sales when compared to current PV systems, here or anywhere else that gets some sun.

My PV system will produce almost as much peak electricity as the Bluegen unit running flat out and more peak electricity than the proposed unit operation of 1.5kw,  not cost one cent to operate, yet the Bluegen unit will cost ~$1650 (at 2kw) a year to operate from the gas bill alone. As electricity generation will cost ~9.45 c/kwh in gas costs, which is close to what we pay for off peak electricity, the off peak electricity generation has no benefit for the customer and I'm pretty sure the utilities would not want to pay that price for the off peak generation.

On these sort of numbers, it almost makes no sense at all to buy a Bluegen unit at a price above about $4500, with the assumption that gas and electricity prices stay where they are. If gas prices rise then the Bluegen unit would need to be cheaper.

The current pricing for the Bluegen unit, I've taken from the Neco website.....

http://www.neco.com.au/index.php/fuel-cell/bluegenfaqs/



> The current price for a BlueGen unit including installation and 2-years maintenance is $45,000. After 2 years, users would be able to extend their maintenance contract for a further 3 years at a cost of around $24,000 (includes replacement fuel stack).






> At its typical operation, generating 1.5kW of electricity, BlueGen uses about 9.5 MJ of gas per hour.






> assuming a natural gas tariff of $0.015 per MJ, a BlueGen unit running at 1.5kW would cost $3.42 per day in gas.




The current sales price is just absurd, even the proposed $10,000 when sales volumes increase (plus ongoing maintenance costs) is too high given the fall in price of the competition. IMHO this is now dead in the water, when it had a chance 2 years ago if priced decently.

brty


----------



## noco (27 April 2011)

Hopefully from the Comsec report, CFU appears to be a little brighter.

I believe their sales will come more from UK, Europe and Japan where sunlight is rare and extreme cold temperatures prevail. 


http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20110427/pdf/01174163.pdf


----------



## kingkev (27 April 2011)

Well the report is out

talking up a few sales but i am with brty on this and think that the units are a bit overpriced

It will be interesting to see if the sp spikes or not


----------



## Knobby22 (27 April 2011)

Price up today, manufacturing is slowly getting more serious, plenty of cash left.

Comparing these units with solar cells is a furphy.

(a) you don't need the roof structure.
(b) you get the energy night and day.
(c) you also get the warming (ideal for cold countries).
(d) the price will drop as volumes increase. The price the Vic government paid is the top price you will see. The German and Pommy utilities will be getting volume deals.

I am very bullish long term on this company.


----------



## noco (27 April 2011)

Good to see CFU up 14% today on a flat market. Could be the beginning of better things to come.


----------



## Dono (28 April 2011)

I will be the first to admit the news has been a bit slow lately but I wouldn't say CFU is tracking too badly, Good to see EWE showing good faith and starting work without getting the formal grant from the government.

A couple of things to watch out for and what i think will be the spark that gets this stock going again:

1. MCS accreditation - this will be a big milestone in the short term. Probably what E.on is looking for as well before committing to a solid purchase. (Remember EWE sent out their announcement for the purchase of 200 units almost to the day that it reached two years testing with the fuel cell.)

2. The large furnaces, they haven't resolved the issue (probably the biggest sticking point for me) however they seem to have a plan and look to execute it in the near term.

Looking forward to news on these points soon. 

Totally agree on the points made by Kobby22, I don't think this is a debate of solar vs fuel cell, people need different systems for different environments. 

And yes Neco is still selling the Bluegen at an expensive price but does it really matter?

The issue for me is not selling the Bluegen it's making them! From memory Brendan even said on BRR that if he had 1000 units he could sell them very easily. They just sent over 3 furnaces to Germany to cope with the demand. From what i read in the announcements they have sold around 70 units but they are yet to deliver half of these! (hence my concern about the large volume furnaces). 

I know they are building the units in house to ensure quality control, however i am wondering if they have made a mistake buy not outsourcing the manufacturing of the Bluegen unit to an expert manufacturer?


----------



## Knobby22 (28 April 2011)

I agree that they are having problems upscaling the technology with the furnaces. I expect it is a teething problem and will be solved.

Dono's point that it could have gone to a manufacturer is slightly true but they did go to the technical manufacturing country in the world, Germany, with the best engineers. I am sure that adequate technical help is there.  

Luckily they didn't build in Australia, with the dollar sitting where it is. 

I think you will find 10c a share is the new base that won't be broken.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (28 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I think you will find 10c a share is the new base that won't be broken.



Just like 22c, 15c then 12c all were? Ahh... Knobby22 you're obviously a very optimistic person. :

I held. Doubled-up. Doubled-up again. Cut my losses last financial year and continued to watch the share price drift down. I can see it returning to the 6c levels of 2009, unless they can start producing a profit. Last financial year, they spent $6m on development and made an $8m loss. The horse is beginning to smell.


----------



## zzaaxxss3401 (28 April 2011)

zzaaxxss3401 said:


> Last financial year, they spent $6m on development and made an $8m loss.



I correct myself. That was in just the 6 months to the 31st December!


----------



## brty (28 April 2011)

Cash burn for the quarter was $6.2m.

Cash remaining $21.8m.

Only 36 units up and running.

The 200 units for EWE (paid for by govt funding) will bring in a total of ~$6.6m at current exchange rates. This works out at ~$33,000 for each integrated unit.(Is this a lease or a buy and does it include maintenance??)

Counting the total amount of the sales to EWE with current cash, gives 1 year at current cash burn rate. Costs/cashburn are likely to increase with the ramp up in production.

Any pop in the share price here looks like a good selling opportunity.

brty


----------



## Knobby22 (28 April 2011)

Watch what happens once mass production starts.


----------



## noco (2 May 2011)

Ceramic Fuel Cells' fuel cell techology a "CLEAN TECHNOLOGY OPTION FOR THE FUTURE"- RMIT University Study.

The RMIT report is available at  www.cfcl.com.au


----------



## jbocker (31 May 2011)

I am not suggesting that CFCL supplies of fuel cells is the answer, but governments making these decisions should help their cause, add to this CFCL manufacturing of fuel cells exisits in Germany.

Germany pulls plug on nuclear power
By Georg Ismar, Berlin
May 31, 2011

GERMANY has announced plans to become the first major industrialised power to shut down all its nuclear plants, with the last to be closed by 2022.

...

The decision means Germany will have to find the 22 per cent of its electricity needs covered by nuclear reactors from another source.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/world/germa...#ixzz1NqkKQE1U

I have also posted this on 'Japans Turn' in general chat thread, apologies for doubling up the article.


----------



## boff (31 May 2011)

jbocker said:


> I am not suggesting that CFCL supplies of fuel cells is the answer, but governments making these decisions should help their cause, add to this CFCL manufacturing of fuel cells exisits in Germany.
> 
> Germany pulls plug on nuclear power
> By Georg Ismar, Berlin
> ...




Very prescient given today's announcement. Seeing that a sale of just 25 units to Ausgrid has resulted in a near 20% SP hike I would love to see what some sales to Japan would do.


----------



## sharezum (31 May 2011)

The local sales are great and about time some units were bought for power generation rather than testing but re Germany someone on the radio today said that Germany might just top up their power needs from across their borders.  Nuclear from France and coal from Czech Republic.  However based on what Germany has already done they will have a fair dinkum go at renewables and less polluting gas.


----------



## Dono (3 June 2011)

Bit off topic.

But I just thought I would post this antique video, Probably the best insight to the fuel cell market I have seen so far even if it is old. Doesn't mention CFU at all but talks about costs to make a fuel cells (like the Bluegen) well worth a watch if you have an hour spare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD3C4pZIP0U&NR=1


----------



## boff (11 July 2011)

Unless I'm much mistaken I think today's 19% jump and massive volume is directly related to the carbon tax. Slightly odd, as without a feed in tariff for fuel cells these things are unlikely to sell in Australia.
Still happy to hold.


----------



## boff (25 July 2011)

Noddy said:


> Think the company is technically very good, but is a financial dud. Their units just don't sell, as they are too expensive to own and operate.
> 
> Technically they have recently broken down from a descending triangle (during a rising market) to the dark side and are going backwards IMO.




The comment above was typical of the sentiment being expressed around the end of last year, start of this one. And, at the time, a well founded one. For me it was Fukushima that changed everything. Now that Germany has scrapped its nuclear program CFU is reaping the benefits.

Popping nicely now. Another 100 orders for a German distributor just came in and a very healthy looking quarterly report as well. It is hard to say when the company will be cash flow positive but there is definitely light at the end of the tunnel.  Up more than 25% on big volume.
Starting to look like this dog is going to have its day


----------



## jbocker (25 July 2011)

boff said:


> ...
> Starting to look like this dog is going to have its day




Hope you are right Boff. Very encouraging news, these are not great times to be running up business, so todays news is very good. Looks like the retailer has to commit to ongoing volume to keep their marketing rights.


----------



## brty (7 November 2011)

Another lazy 200 million shares to dilute existing shareholders even more. The money going to pay for the building of the orders.

Where are the usual rampers of this stock?

I still cannot see the slightest of reasons why this stock should be bought.

brty


----------



## boff (7 November 2011)

Yes, sorry for not posting . In the interests of keeping the discourse open I should point out that I sold my holding on Sept 12.
Why? In anyone's book this should be a speccy and for me the worsening situation in Europe (a major CFU market) made me feel uncomfortable holding. Happy to have sold for a small profit.
If they still exist in a year and if they still have an orderbook and if GFC Mk2 has blown over then I'll be back. Lot of ifs.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 November 2011)

The cost per unit is still too high and that is where the extra capital is going, to reduce manufacture costs.

Orders are flowing even still but I was hoping this startup would run more smoothly. I note they get money pretty easily. I will be taking up the capital raising so I don't get diluted too much.


----------



## darylmaisey (29 March 2012)

Hey all, 

Any thoughts on the latest lows  Kinda getting annoying receiving emails about presentations they are making instead of selling unit announcements.


----------



## noco (14 June 2012)

CFU up 19% on yesterday without any major announcement.

Does anyone suspect some insider trading?


----------



## McCoy Pauley (15 June 2012)

noco said:


> CFU up 19% on yesterday without any major announcement.
> 
> Does anyone suspect some insider trading?




Robert Gottliebsen wrote glowingly about CFU in the Eureka Report on Wednesday, but that article wouldn't have come out until after the close of the market.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 June 2012)

noco said:


> CFU up 19% on yesterday without any major announcement.
> 
> Does anyone suspect some insider trading?




Probably. They must have that bloody oven working. ...Not lasting long though.


----------



## brty (12 July 2012)

Todays announcement was greated poorly by the market by posting new yearly lows. 

To me the over-riding fact from the report was that yearly revenue was expected to be $6.5m. Considering receipts from customers were $5.388m in the year to 31/3, then revenue in the fourth quarter could only be ~$1.112m. If operating costs were similar to the previous quarter then a cash outflow can be expected of ~$7m+. This would leave the cash position at less than $10m which is only another 4-5 months of operation at this rate.

All in all it spells ANOTHER capital raising in the near future, more dilution for existing su../ investors.

 The price implosion of PV solar, that has zero emissions, zero ongoing costs, high feed in tariffs, and produces at peak times (for cost of electricity), is killing CFCL offerings. In todays report E1040 for gas cost in Germany plus E950 maintenance (13,000kwh) were shown for yearly operation. 

I did not see in the report anything about any directors or senior management purchasing a Bluegen for their own homes, a telling endorsement on the product.

I continue to see no reason to invest in this company, todays new yearly low price is a bit of a tell.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 July 2012)

The problem brty is that the oven still is not working, now it's supposedly August.
They can't mass produce until they get it going.
It does mention a capital raising - also a downer.

I still reckon the company is a goer, the technology is good however the teething problems need to be solved.
There will be a time to buy into this company big. I sold down a few months back  but when we know more about the capital raising and the oven problem being solved, there will be an opportunity to get in at a good price.

The technology is good. There are markets for it. But it has to be supplied in volume at volume production prices.
The present unit prices are very high as they are all hand made.


----------



## brty (13 July 2012)

This shareholder update has information that I believe is misleading in it.

For example, on Pg 33 it has a customer value model that shows a 'first year net benefit' of 2315 GBP for UK and 2834 EUR for Germany. Yet despite allowing for a maintenance cost, it does not allow for the cost of gas in the net benefit.

 All the calculations are based on maximum efficiency, yet real world use in the case studies clearly show that 60% electrical efficiency only lasts a short time diminishing to 50% after 18 months (P 84).

Also any modulation of power output seems to lower efficiency, down to 44% (p25) at low power levels.

Overall they use a figure (efficiency) they know not to be true, plus they do not add the cost of input gas, nor do they add in capital cost, which is obviously too high as they don't mention it.

On p3 we can glean the following information, revenue for FY12 ~$6.5m, yet revenue for year to 31/3 = $5.388m leaving ~$1.112m for June quarter. P4 states "During the June quarter we booed to revenue sales of 76 units". This gives an average of $14,631/unit. Using this average, all 639 units on order (probably includes all 213 units delivered, it is not clear here) would be worth ~$9.34m to revenue, or about 4 months expenses at current cash burn rate (adding March quarter cash decrease and revenue).

There are currently 1.3b shares on issue. Any capital raising you would expect at around the 5c mark. To raise ~$25m to keep things going for another year the company would need something like a 2 for 5 issue adding 500m new shares. Personally I think they will struggle in existing market conditions. 
If a capital raising is much smaller, then they are likely to have to go back to the market within another 6 months for more.


----------



## brty (26 July 2012)

The credit raising of 1 for 4 @ 6c is already in trouble. With the stock trading below the offer price already, there had better be some good news near application close time or the company is in serious trouble.

A shareholder is better off buying on the open market than taking up the offer. As I write this the stock is trading at 5.8c. As the offer is not underwritten, not much of the offer is likely to be accepted. Of particular note is that shareholders who post on other forums are talking of NOT taking up the offer, many also getting out.

The simple fact is that overly remunerated management has stuffed up. The Bluegen unit is way overpriced for what it is. It is rapidly looking like another great Australian invention that will be picked up for a song by some foreign company that has the financial stability to be able to produce it economically.

When the company runs out of money appears to be only a matter of time, and not much at that, pity.

Some numbers...

Revenue Dec 1/2 year $3,312,684 full year ~$6.7m or ~$3,387,316 for second half. This means growth in revenue of ~2% over first half. Company wants you to forget that and concentrate on growth over previous year.

Cash. At end of Dec $22,528,081. End of June $8,846,000, a cash burn of $13,682,081 in 6 months.

According to last years annual report the company employed 120 full time equivalent staff (p7). The top 16; directors and key personnel, took ~$3.3m as cash between them (including super etc) in 2011. This will be an interesting number in 2012. This company is way too top heavy for ~$6.7m revenue.

Also note that it is in the interests of the large shareholders and directors to hold the shareprice above the offer price until acceptances are closed, just like last time there was an offer.

Where are the usual rampers?


----------



## Knobby22 (26 July 2012)

brty said:


> The credit raising of 1 for 4 @ 6c is already in trouble. With the stock trading below the offer price already, there had better be some good news near application close time or the company is in serious trouble.
> 
> Of particular note is that shareholders who post on other forums are talking of NOT taking up the offer, many also getting out.
> 
> ...




Good points, I agree. I did sell down my stake previously and will not be takinhg up the offer with what's left.

Execution risk and average management. There is a lot of scope for this company even considering patents alone.
It looks like going the way of metalstorm though. I expect a massive dilution when this raising fails. One strange thing, when you read the offer, which is not underwritten, it is like they expect to fail. I wonder if someone is waiting in the wings?


----------



## brty (26 July 2012)

"There is a lot of scope for this company even considering patents alone."

My opinion is that there is a lot of scope for the technology, and the shareholders may/probably will lose it. If the current offer fails, it is easy to see the only way to keep the company going is to sell assets. Once on that road, the end is very near, yet the management will make it look like a positive future with whats left.

I became very negative about this company when it became known that the price of the Bluegen was $45,000 for a 2 year lease, after management had indicated it could cost $8,000 a couple of years before then. Decreasing solar PV prices have also hurt.

The simple fact is that if the product cannot be produced profitably in the open market against competition (electricity generation) at a price similar to the alternatives, then efficiency is irrelevant. If it was the same price as competition, but more efficient, then it would conquer huge market share.

The competition for market share in micro-generation is PV solar, that has crashed in price to ~$2/w installed. It comes with 25 year guarantees from manufacturers. It has no ongoing costs to operate.
For $40,000 anyone can get a 20Kw system installed that even in 3hrs/day average sun will produce 21,900Kwh/year. This is 50% more than BlueGen (at peak efficiency operation) yet the BlueGen has ongoing gas and maintenance costs. The PV systems also produce ALL there electricity during peak periods, when it is needed most.

The problem is the direction of the company, not the technology. Creating products that industry needed in situations of limited power availability, a niche market, was obviously the place to start. That type of market is willing to pay a high price. Likewise remote power for outback stations and mining operations. Especially as the BlueGen is being handmade, a totally different set of products of higher power output should have been designed years ago. It takes 120 staff to make 5 BlueGens a week, one would hope they could have been put to work more productively.

Calling management  "average" is an insult to average managers across the country.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 July 2012)

brty said:


> The Bluegen unit is way overpriced for what it is. It is rapidly looking like another great Australian invention that will be picked up for a song by some foreign company that has the financial stability to be able to produce it economically.



There's the problem. Fundamentally, it's a device to produce products (electricity and heat) which are already easily available for purchase from other suppliers. The Bluegen thus needs to be cheaper than these other suppliers if it is to gain significant market share.

Gas itself is much the same. To a very large extent households use it because it's cheaper than electricity. Go to some place where gas is, or generally has been, more expensive than electricity and you'll find that most homes don't use gas.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 September 2012)

They have managed to find a Chinese company to tip in $6 mil to take approx 8% of the company.
Could be good if they want to sell in China.

This will let them survive a bit longer.
Still no news on getting their upscaled manufacturing working. Better be soon.


----------



## brty (14 September 2012)

This managed to get it's head above the SPP today, closing at 6.2 cents. Will it be enough to have a lot of last minute acceptances of the offer?? That is afterall the plan. I stated this a while ago...



> there had better be some good news near application close time or the company is in serious trouble.




So yes, good news was engineered near the end of the second extension period, but the news is not that good. A whole lot of orders would have been good news, along with the furnaces being fixed, but alas no.

Where is the company now at? As the company has been burning ~$15m per half year (according to final report), and as there have been no announcements of further sales this half year, something they always crow about, then we can assume sales have not been occurring so far this quarter.

With a cash balance of $8.8m at 30th June, the $6m from CCTC will be desperately needed by 28th Sept when the approvals are meant to be received by. Hopefully the actual money turns up shortly after. If there is a 50% take up of the new share offer, that translates to ~$8m (unlikely IMHO). This gives the company a total of ~$23m, enough to last until March without sales.
Even with sales growth of 80% like the last 2 years, revenue would only go to $12m, bringing total cash for the year to ~$35m. If the cash spend per annum stays at ~$30m (and that has been rising at 25% pa) this leaves only ~$5m, so another capital raising will be needed then. The company states such.

I also find the companies maths interesting. There are 1,366,298,863 shares on issue currently. The offer is 1-4 which you would think was 341,574,715 shares, yet the maximum number according to the prospectus is only 278,517,500. Nowhere in the prospectus does it state what would happen if there was too many subscriptions at the 1-4 rate, only what would happen if people applied for excess shares. I think this sums up the management, they can't count. The actual total number of shares on offer is closer to 1-5.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 September 2012)

Yes Drty, death spiral dilution.

They promised the ovens would be working August, that was moved from June.
I suspect something intractable.

Maybe they will live through it and come out the other side but it won't be pretty.


----------



## tskoo (18 September 2012)

Why the big jump yesterday and today?


----------



## brty (27 September 2012)

What a debacle this stock is turning into. We have had a classic pump and dump, just like the previous cap raisings, yet there were many shareholders that fell for it. IMHO it is about time for the regulators to have a good look into this. 

The directors managed to take for themselves an increase in total remuneration of just over 25% from the 2011 financial year to the 2012 financial year (p31-32 annual report), yet managed to pony up a whopping $33,182 between the lot of them for the capital raising . None of the directors applied for more shares than entitled, yet encouraged shareholders to do so. 

Finding out what has happened in terms of orders and deliveries of Bluegen units since the start of this financial year is like extracting teeth. On July 6th 30 Bluegen units had been delivered to Sanevo out of the order of 100. By August 30, 8 weeks later, 39 units had been delivered. Then there were also the 9 delivered to Gastera in August, makes 18 in total since July 6 update. Nowhere is there a clear indication of what has happened recently.  If those 18 units are all there is, then the September cashflow report is going to look very sick and the share price is likely to act accordingly.

At over 1.5 billion shares on issue, a share consolidation has to be on the cards before any further thoughts of capital raisings, assuming the company lasts that long.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 October 2012)

So they have onsold capacity of the powder plant.
Good short term news but why have they got the option to sell the total plant?? Have they given up and am now going to sell off the business bit by bit? I want to hear a good explanation at the AGM, though I am not eligable as I have sold my holdings. Still no news, and we are now in October, with solving the furnace problem. I suspect disastrous implications.


----------



## noco (15 October 2012)

Could this news be the turning point with company exploiting potential increased sales in Europe?

I hope so. 


http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/do...nZXNpZ25hbC9lcnJvcnBhZ2VzL3BkZmRlbGF5ZWQuanNw


----------



## deprecate (20 October 2012)

Brendan Dow was appointed on Jan 11 2007 as CEO when the share price was 95c.
By Jan 2009 it was 5c. 
In October that year it was announced that the manufacturing plant in Heinsberg was fully commissioned and up and running and the share price rose to 30c. 
Three years later its still hovering under the 10c mark.
The AGM is on the 29th of this month.
What justification does Brendan Dow give for the hefty payrises and bonuses he awards himself and management?


----------



## MACCA350 (20 October 2012)

Yeah, maybe they should take a ~90% pay cut!


----------



## trendz (24 October 2012)

brty said:


> What a debacle this stock is turning into. We have had a classic pump and dump, just like the previous cap raisings, yet there were many shareholders that fell for it. IMHO it is about time for the regulators to have a good look into this.
> 
> The directors managed to take for themselves an increase in total remuneration of just over 25% from the 2011 financial year to the 2012 financial year (p31-32 annual report), yet managed to pony up a whopping $33,182 between the lot of them for the capital raising . None of the directors applied for more shares than entitled, yet encouraged shareholders to do so.
> 
> ...




Brty, You've made some very good observations however have understated the amount management have skimmed from this company. I am referring to what I call the Frank Boyd factor. 
Sherman set the wayback machine for May 2009. Brendan Dow brings in his buddy and sets him up as his No 2. Then pays him an outrageous salary for what he provides the company. In return Frank sets up a company in Malaysia and begins the administration of company funds. You can't tell me it's a strategic move for taxation purposes because the company doesn't pay any, and it's market focus is in Europe. It's impossible to identify from the annual statement how much has been siphoned off but we can assume it won't be insignificant. The management of this company couldn't lie straight in bed.


----------



## Joe Blow (24 October 2012)

Folks, we have good reason to believe that the accounts "deprecate" and "trendz" are being operated by the same individual. Both of these ASF accounts have now been permanently suspended.


----------



## noco (13 March 2013)

So good to see some movement in this stock at last.

Gone from .045 8/03/13 to .084 today. 

It is something to with subsidies given to a German Shire with prospects of a 600 unit sale.


----------



## trainspotter (11 March 2014)

Looks as if this is back on the boil again. Sudden interest in this stock over the last few days? Any reason?

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20140311/pdf/42n9hygpc39nzr.pdf

NO is the answer??


----------



## SuperGlue (12 March 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Looks as if this is back on the boil again. Sudden interest in this stock over the last few days? Any reason?




This is the reason.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy...big-leap-forward-or-a-trap-for-short-sellers/

Then the big plunge today.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy...as-analyst-says-fair-share-value-is-50-cents/


----------



## pattypoo (13 March 2014)

dagrizzbear said:


> I've bought in and am thinking this has got to be a pretty good climber in the long run.  It's still below the initial offer price and hasn't begun the climb.
> 
> I mean Oil is in the 70's, market will spotlight alternative energy related shares like this one sooner or later.  Has got impressive patented technology on the globally hot topic of fuel cells and some commercial steps already progressing with sales talk to NZ and Germany.  So the market frenzy of when the transition from a CSIRO venture to a commercially operating business takes place is just around the corner.  Long term supporters like Energex are at the shareholder list.  Even BHP Billiton and Mitsui & Co. are  holders.
> 
> Any comments?




Replying to your 2005 post, it has halved in value, in hindsight, probably not a good pick.
We know our current fuel sources (petrochemicals) are running out in the next few decades and extremely expensive. Why isn't there enough emphasise on alternative energies at the moment?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2014)

pattypoo said:


> We know our current fuel sources (petrochemicals) are running out in the next few decades and extremely expensive. Why isn't there enough emphasise on alternative energies at the moment?



Fuel cells in a stationary (non-transport) application produce electricity as the primary output, with heat (useful as hot water or for heating buildings etc) as a by-product which may or may not actually be put to use depending on circumstance (eg a household would likely use the heat for hot water whereas at a large centralised power station the heat would go to waste typically).

That is very similar to any other fuel burning power station. You have electricity as the primary product, and heat as a significant by-product. Typically the heat is simply dumped as waste, that's what those large cooling towers commonly seen at power stations are for - they're just turning the waste heat into water vapour and dumping it into the atmosphere. In other situations, eg open cycle gas turbines, the heat is simply released as hot air. At others it's dumped into a river or ocean as hot water. In a few situations that heat is put to use, eg in industry or for heating buildings etc (New York City is notable as having a large centralised city heating system as are various places in the EU and Russia) but they are in the minority.

Fuel cells? Well a fuel cell is really just another means of turning natural gas into electricity. It has the same input (gas) and the same outputs (electricity and heat) as a steam turbine, gas turbine or even an internal combustion engine. The only real advantages of a fuel cell are higher efficiency - the output is skewed more in favour of electricity with less heat. But that's it.

Fuel cells are thus nothing more than a more efficient means of turning gas into electricity, that's it. They are not an "alternative" energy source as such, they still need gas.

For reference, typical efficiency of a gas-fired steam turbine is around 35% from gas to electricity with the rest being heat. Australian examples of such plants include Torrens Island (Adelaide) and Newport (Melbourne). 

Typical efficiency of an open cycle gas turbine (which is a jet engine sitting on the ground at a power station) varies hugely with the age and size of the unit. Typically it's around 25% for an old one up to the high 30's for a new one but the range for plants in Australia is from about 16% to just over 40%. There are numerous such plants in operation in Australia, examples including Braemar (Qld), Jeeralang (Vic) and Hallett (SA).

The most efficient "conventional" technology is to combine a gas turbine with a steam turbine. Gas is burnt in the gas turbine, and waste heat from that is used to produce steam to run a steam turbine. We have a few of these in Australia, examples including Pelican Point (SA), part of the Channel Island plant (NT), Swanbank E (Qld), Tallawarra (NSW). Efficiency varies with age as considerable efficiency gains have been made in recent years, but for a new one it's typically in the mid 50's and some do approach 60% efficiency.

As for fuel cells, well we're looking at roughly 60% efficiency from gas to electricity so it's only a marginal improvement on a conventional combined cycle gas turbine power station. It's better if the heat is put to use, in that case we're looking at around 80%, but then that idea has to compete with heat pumps and solar energy too.

But the crux of it is this. It is an awful lot cheaper to maintain one 350,000kW combined cycle gas turbine at Swanbank E (Qld) than to maintain 175,000 x 2kW fuel cells scattered all over the place producing the same output. A LOT cheaper. It is also a lot easier to control the output of a few large machines rather than a whole lot of little ones. A big power station with direct control over its' output versus a miniature one in everyone's house reliant on some means of communication to control the output from a device (fuel cell) that is very inflexible in operation anyway. Fuel cells just don't have the ramp up / down ability that gas or steam turbines do at the present time.

For these reasons the market for stationary fuel cells is pretty much limited to demonstration projects not intended to return a financial profit. It's still much cheaper to generate bulk electricity with big turbines than it is with small fuel cells.

There is also a point about primary resources. Fuel cells rely on gas. But around 80% of conventional electricity production is from sources other than gas, with over 70% being from coal, hydro or nuclear and minor renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, biomass) - all of which are more plentiful than gas is. And much of the power that is produced from gas, is produced intermittently to meet peaks in demand - in this country that's primarily Summer afternoons when the heat by-product isn't much use.

Overall, fuel cells may have a role to play in power generation going forward but they are by no means a "silver bullet". Hence there isn't a rush to install huge numbers of them.

Using them to power cars etc does however offer much greater potential. The efficiency of a fuel cell leaves any diesel, petrol or gas engine for dead in something like a car. Even in a ship where large size increases efficiency there would still be some advantage with a fuel cell. And oil is, of course, the scarcest and most expensive of the conventional energy sources. That plus pollution from vehicle exhaust in cities is, in most countries, a far bigger problem than emissions from large, modern power stations. There are exceptions, but in most cases vehicles are the bigger issue.


----------



## Melthar (14 March 2014)

One market for fuel cells (and one I believe CFU is aiming at) is as a replacement/supplement to the backup diesel generator.

Useful for datacentres, and other places that require constant power.  If they have natural gas lines, they can have fuel cells ready to provide standby power, without requiring large tanks/constant diesel deliveries over extended outages.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 March 2014)

There's certainly a potential market for backup power in various applications, but they still have to compete on cost in most (not all) applications.

For a mobile phone base station in a suburban area, a fuel cell is a clear winner due to lack of noise etc. But for a shopping centre or hospital etc an engine is a practical option so cost becomes a key factor.

For backup power, the "conventional" options are diesel engines, gas engines (either natural gas or LPG) or batteries. Petrol is occasionally used, but not normally since there's a lot of practical hassles that come with storing it - limited lifespan, extremely hazardous and so on.


----------



## greggles (6 March 2018)

After a long, slow death CFU was finally delisted yesterday. RIP.


----------

