Thu, Jul 10, 2014, 1:41 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 7 hrs 49 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Omnicell, Inc. Message Board

ralph_sutex 6 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 30, 2014 11:52 PM Member since: Jan 15, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • ralph_sutex by ralph_sutex Jun 30, 2014 11:52 PM Flag

    Bloom Energy servers are not as energy efficient as claimed, a Middletown man alleges in a lawsuit against Delmarva Power and its parent company, Pepco Holdings Inc.

    Delmarva is levying a surcharge upon its Delaware customers to pay for a 30-megawatt fuel-cell project at two substations in New Castle County. The surcharges have ranged in recent months from $3.67 to $5.98, and the electrical project counts against Delmarva's state-mandated renewable-energy purchase requirements.

    The lawsuit, cast as a class-action suit on behalf of all of Delmarva's customers, was filed by William Whipple III on June 23 in Delaware Superior Court. The suit alleges that the electrical project is using more natural gas and is thus creating more pollution than allowed under its permits with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.

    Whipple's attorneys note in the suit that the project's permits with DNREC allow a "heat rate" – the amount of natural gas used to power the fuel-cell server – of 6.6 MMBTU per megawatt hour. The attorneys write that, in practice, the heat rate has been consistently higher than that, and as high as 7.16 in May. The Bloom servers, they argue, "do not operate as efficiently as claimed."

    Delmarva, they write, "knowingly and recklessly concealed or suppressed its knowledge that the Bloom servers consumed more natural gas and, therefore, emitted more carbon dioxide than allowed under the permits with the intent to deceive its electricity customers" into believing that using the Bloom servers created cleaner electricity in exchange for a higher electrical charge.

    Whipple described himself as politically conservative and said he lent his name to the suit but was not paying for it. He said he was unsure who was doing so. "There are a lot of people involved," he said.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    New R&D win from DOE.

    by ralph_sutex Jun 20, 2014 6:46 PM
    ralph_sutex ralph_sutex Jun 20, 2014 11:08 PM Flag

    Thanks Yankees, he discovered that FCEL posted a better explanation on their site today under the news section..

  • ralph_sutex by ralph_sutex Jun 20, 2014 6:46 PM Flag

    google US DOE awards $33m in funding for 13 new projects.

    FCEL was one of the 13 projects and was awarded $3.5 million to develop an intermediate-temp. fuel cell that can convert methane gas to methanol. Not major news but I was surprised that nobody else saw this today.

    Ralph

    Sentiment: Buy

  • ralph_sutex ralph_sutex Jun 20, 2014 6:14 PM Flag

    cedar,
    This latest 1.4MW sale adds to the list of projects creating 30MW of domestic sales that Chip had claimed to be signed this fiscal year. We are now up to 8.4MW announced since April 30th. 5.6 MW to United Illuminating, 1.4MW to Univ of Bridgeport and 1.4MW today to UCal Medical Center.
    There are at least 21.6MW left to be announced in the next few months and possibly more.
    I agree with Dag that maybe the selloff was because the market heard rumors of another domestic sale but was expecting something larger.
    I'm being patient. The traders will keep selling on each bounce to scalp a few cents / share
    but I expect to see continually higher FCEL prices as we move into the summer.
    Ralph

    Sentiment: Buy

  • Reply to

    FCEL JUST BROKE THROUGH SUPPORT............

    by jayson_bay_44 May 8, 2014 3:25 PM
    ralph_sutex ralph_sutex May 8, 2014 4:49 PM Flag

    Actually on a 1 yr chart the weighted 200 day MA is $1.92
    Ralph

  • Reply to

    former UTC Fuel Cell division closing

    by kidmadeira Apr 24, 2014 6:52 PM
    ralph_sutex ralph_sutex Apr 24, 2014 9:12 PM Flag

    kid,
    One thing that I do know is that both UTC and Clear Edge were bidding on bad contracts just to get the business and most of those wins were projects that FCEL told me they wouldn't touch anymore for two reasons. Either they would not be profitable or were under a megawatt One particular bad deal was the Freedom Tower that UTC won. I spoke to FCEL about this at the time and was told that this was both under a MW and would be such a difficult installation that FCEL would need to include a special upcharge just to get close to breakeven so they let the bid go to UTC without competing.

    UTC thought this would put them on the map and went ahead with it. A year later they sold that division to Clear Edge who's management continued on the same path of uneconomic deals.

    Meanwhile, FCEL in the last two years has totally changed their focus to only bid on profitable domestic installations. They won't ever bid on anything domestically again under 1MW unless it can be shown to other prospective buyers as a demo for a "brand new application" that had never been done before and that has a very large potential market.

    So sorry, but I wouldn't look at Clear Edge as any indication for what to expect from FCEL. They have two very different management styles.
    Ralph

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

OMCL
28.24-0.08(-0.28%)Jul 9 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.