|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2020 14:17:07 GMT
I wonder if today is a good day to combine our discussions on making money and making a better climate. Recent trends in the Hydrogen market has moved ITM-Power to having a significantly larger market value with the share price up 600% in the year. Its principal partners and business share holders are Linde, SNAM (from Italy), Shell and JCB (a seperate company from the core family business).
The EU is talking about immense investments in the green energy field, the Brits are putting our money where our life is (and government is ceasing fossil fuel investments abroad) and we now have regular periods where our electricity no longer comes from fossil fuels, the US has a new Green-friendly President coming to power and yesterday the 70+ countries who are doing the most about climate change had a conference on what to do to accelerate their activities.
So, while many people are focusing on batteries, windturbines and solar cells I would like to think about Hydrogen, possibly the perfect energy vector. Making hydrogen via turbines and solar in northern Africa, shipping it to Italy and Spain and then pumping it around Europe in the Methane pipeline would remove Russian influence from northern Europe, give work to Northern Africa and reduce our CO2 output. Many other ideas exist and obviously DYOR.
If you had the mythical £100k where would you invest
1) ITM, up 600% in a year and with a new factory being launched in the next few days?
2) Linde, a company that has demonstrated 18% share price growth year on year with a volatility of 7% ignoring the covid drop?
3) SNAM, the infrastructure company that has demonstrated 4% share price growth year on year over the past 19 years with volatility of 11%? or
4) Shell, the fossil fuel company that roughly has shown no share price growth in the past 5 years but is showing a recent improvement?
Not a poll, more an opportunity to discuss
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 8,962
Likes: 4,795
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 13, 2020 16:10:46 GMT
Did you hear about this the other week? www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/30/scottish-green-hydrogen-fifeI'm not sure why you'd need to produce the hydrogen in North Africa then ship it - wouldn't it just be easier and more efficient for Saharan solar electricity to be transmitted straight to Europe, then the hydrogen "produced" (electrolysed from air or water) locally to demand? Large-scale renewable electricity generation in the Sahara would have other advantages, too - slowing and reversing the rapid expansion of the desert. www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45435593As for investing in ITM - thanks, but not without a time machine to buy at last year's price.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2020 16:16:04 GMT
Luckily I did invest at the bottom and have watched and invested in the green market for 10 years now.
I do not know if power or gas transportation across to Italy/Spain will be the best route given the violence and corruption that will get in the way. Once within Europe the gas mains is the best way to move power about than the european grid but if that advances then that may change.
I have invested in Iberdrola but I see them more as an NEE in the US (also in my green portfolio) but more as infrastructure developers/managers rather than the guys who build the infrastucture (possibly a mindless difference but it feels different to me).
The Scottish 100 house to 100% H2 usage development is part of a wider programme and includes Leeds moving to 20% H2 and somewhere in the North East which is off retail use looking at 100% H2 to test out the larger plumbing changes. All very exciting and consuming lots of "research" cash.
Either way it doesn't really matter just looking for the best next step for the money. I just can't believe the answer is going to be Shell.
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Dec 13, 2020 20:05:49 GMT
I'm not sure why you'd need to produce the hydrogen in North Africa then ship it - wouldn't it just be easier and more efficient for Saharan solar electricity to be transmitted straight to Europe, then the hydrogen "produced" (electrolysed from air or water) locally to demand? Like a lot of things it probably comes down to efficiency (electrical losses) and cost. I started trying to do some math but the numbers are either too big or too small for a Sunday evening. With one set of numbers I tried (based on the National Grid and some guesses) it looked like all the power generated would be lost in the cables before it got anywhere close to the UK. There are things you can do to improve that efficiency (higher voltages and more/larger cables) so there are options to make it possible to transport electrical power over that distance, however I suspect transporting the gas might be as efficient and work out cheaper (at least in the short term).
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Dec 13, 2020 21:16:17 GMT
i read up on this some time ago , forgive if my memory has got this a little wrong.The plan was to use solar generated electricity to break sea water down to liquid clorine on the west african coast , its the most energy intesive bit, and then transport the clorine to europe in bulk carrier ships similar to oil tankers . The web site said you could transport more hydrogen per unit volume in this form and then break the clorine down to extract the hydrogen in europe where less energy would be required for this final step. will try and find the web page and post.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2020 10:24:37 GMT
I'm not sure why you'd need to produce the hydrogen in North Africa then ship it - wouldn't it just be easier and more efficient for Saharan solar electricity to be transmitted straight to Europe, then the hydrogen "produced" (electrolysed from air or water) locally to demand? Like a lot of things it probably comes down to efficiency (electrical losses) and cost. I started trying to do some math but the numbers are either too big or too small for a Sunday evening. With one set of numbers I tried (based on the National Grid and some guesses) it looked like all the power generated would be lost in the cables before it got anywhere close to the UK. There are things you can do to improve that efficiency (higher voltages and more/larger cables) so there are options to make it possible to transport electrical power over that distance, however I suspect transporting the gas might be as efficient and work out cheaper (at least in the short term). Certainly long distance electrical cables systems require us to use DC to minimise wastage and the UK Danish new cable has just started building.
The distance to say Tunisia to Sicily is about 100km. Spain to Morocco is about 15 km. Compare that with Denmark at 700km. I doubt we need to get the power to the UK, just out of Africa into Europe. Then unneeded power in Italy/Spain would be used further north. Morocco is developing some extensive solar farms and has a long term massive industrial centre being developed with France (who really do like colonialism in a strange way) to use the energy. edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-solar-farm-formula-e-spt-intl/index.html
The critical issue, as wallstree mentioned, is getting green hydrogen down to $2 per kg which is roughly what grey h2 costs, green h2 is roughly somewhere between $3 and $4 at the moment. Like all new processes as we build more units the costs will reduce and I'm guessing we will achieve equivelent somewhat faster say 2025. Certainly the ITM factory has been built to hit reduce costs.
Chlorine production is important but does not resolve fossil fuel production as it is relatively insignificant. Stopping fossil fuel requires something like batteries or H2 to make that happen.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,191
Likes: 5,996
|
Post by registerme on Dec 14, 2020 10:58:02 GMT
i read up on this some time ago , forgive if my memory has got this a little wrong.The plan was to use solar generated electricity to break sea water down to liquid clorine on the west african coast , its the most energy intesive bit, and then transport the clorine to europe in bulk carrier ships similar to oil tankers . The web site said you could transport more hydrogen per unit volume in this form and then break the clorine down to extract the hydrogen in europe where less energy would be required for this final step. will try and find the web page and post. That's plausible, apart from any mention of chlorine .
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on Dec 14, 2020 20:22:47 GMT
sorry my school produced engineers , so biology, languages and chemistry did not make the curriculum , chemistry is just cooking ingredients anyway.We just did maths physics , metalwork .So dead right no chlorine its ammonia ,https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/ammonia-renewable-fuel-made-sun-air-and-water-could-power-globe-without-carbona is this web site not the one i found originally but good enough.
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Dec 15, 2020 10:10:21 GMT
The distance to say Tunisia to Sicily is about 100km. Spain to Morocco is about 15 km. Compare that with Denmark at 700km. I doubt we need to get the power to the UK, just out of Africa into Europe. Then unneeded power in Italy/Spain would be used further north. Morocco is developing some extensive solar farms and has a long term massive industrial centre being developed with France (who really do like colonialism in a strange way) to use the energy. edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-solar-farm-formula-e-spt-intl/index.html
True, I was basing my numbers on something like Algeria to London (via Spain and France). If you produced the hydrogen in Europe nearer the Mediterranean coast you could then pipe the gas around which might be more efficient than long distance electrical cables. There are efficiency losses in the conversion of electricity to hydrogen through electrolysis but if you can produce enough electricity cheaply then that might not matter as much (as long as you can handle any waste materials / heat sensibly).
|
|
|
Post by mfaxford on Dec 15, 2020 10:36:47 GMT
i read up on this some time ago , forgive if my memory has got this a little wrong.The plan was to use solar generated electricity to break sea water down to liquid clorine on the west african coast , its the most energy intesive bit, and then transport the clorine to europe in bulk carrier ships similar to oil tankers . The web site said you could transport more hydrogen per unit volume in this form and then break the clorine down to extract the hydrogen in europe where less energy would be required for this final step. will try and find the web page and post. From my memory of school science and experimentation as a youngster. Electrolysis (with a DC current) of pure water (H 2O) will provide Hydrogen and Oxygen (one on each terminal of the supply) and the only waste product is heat (maybe a benefit of performing the conversion further north where that heat could be used for heating homes). You can add other chemicals into the mix (eg NaCl to make something like sea water) you might alter the gases produced (Hydrogen and Chlorine in the case of NaCl) and might lead to other waste products. From quickly scanning the link you provided last night that shows producing Ammonia through electrolysis of pure water and nitrogen looks like an interesting concept. I'll have to read the rest of that article later.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2020 15:47:43 GMT
The distance to say Tunisia to Sicily is about 100km. Spain to Morocco is about 15 km. Compare that with Denmark at 700km. I doubt we need to get the power to the UK, just out of Africa into Europe. Then unneeded power in Italy/Spain would be used further north. Morocco is developing some extensive solar farms and has a long term massive industrial centre being developed with France (who really do like colonialism in a strange way) to use the energy. edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-solar-farm-formula-e-spt-intl/index.html
True, I was basing my numbers on something like Algeria to London (via Spain and France). If you produced the hydrogen in Europe nearer the Mediterranean coast you could then pipe the gas around which might be more efficient than long distance electrical cables. There are efficiency losses in the conversion of electricity to hydrogen through electrolysis but if you can produce enough electricity cheaply then that might not matter as much (as long as you can handle any waste materials / heat sensibly).
Electrolysis works out roughly 65% efficient or about double what you can get out of a petrol driven car so while there is a $ value that counts, efficiency is not a limiting factor.Waste from an electrolyser is O2 or in use H20. I don't believe that either H20 or O2 is a pollution gas in fact I like drinking it or breathing it ;-) All the processes take place at room temperature. Unlike say fuelcells for Methane which either need 500C or under one patented process only needs 270C, both of which can be a pain and of course you still get CO2 but the efficiency is good.
there is another type of electrolysis that needs a nuclear reactor and 2500C to make it work. I'm avoiding that as a business model I like
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Dec 15, 2020 16:52:47 GMT
If somebody wants to go green but not put all into one company, there are ETFs (INRG is tracking benchmarks quite well, but there are others)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2020 13:17:14 GMT
"Freedom gas" according to Pres Bush 2
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2020 15:05:44 GMT
The last week has shown even more growth in ITM and also the supercapacitor AIM called CAP-xx.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 12:14:08 GMT
Just to reinvigorate this discussion, I see that ITM managed to get to 680p this week up some 1700% over 2 years, always nice and a good indicator of the interest in this sector.
Green news this week.
Now the search is on for the next investment choice in this field, any ideas?
|
|