CFU - Ceramic Fuel Cells

[brty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.