CFU - Ceramic Fuel Cells

[Boyou]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

45k for the first two years is very expensive, it is not for home user yet. We need some kind of government grant.

 

[MACCA350]

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]

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??

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

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]

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]

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]

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.....




The company expects governments to waste money (ie my taxes) on this ....



Nothing different here to a solar setup...



This is encouraging.......


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

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]

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]

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]

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.



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

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]

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]

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.



No it doesn't. Solar clearly wins here.

brty

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]

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