CFU - Ceramic Fuel Cells

[brty]

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]

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]

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]

Frank,

I woke up.

From the article,

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Frank,



...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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.