No fundamentals long term. True. Can't handle The Truth. Thank you.
Good point -- here are just a couple or recent articles about CCS and how the current tech is a failure. FCEL is the clear favorite in this race. True. The difference is that FCEL is actually producing three awesome marketable products while letting coal do it's thing - only much much cleaner. Money talks.
theguardian dot com /environment/2016/jun/19/carbon-capture-and-storage-uk-government-shell-drax
cbc dot ca /news/canada/saskatchewan/carbon-capture-power-prices-1.3641066
Agree, it was great to hear Exxon dude talk about the future plans and fine-tuning. Very encouraging. It seems to me, given so many Exxon sites, that they may want different 'by-product' mixes depending on the physical sites. Some remote sites may want to only produce super-clean electricity for the grid. Others closer to cities may want to focus on hydrogen distribution. Others may want to tie in directly to the CO2 utilization processes that will really be a new industry. Makes sense that there is a lot to fine tune and test before implementing.
* To develop cost-efficient technologies for carbon dioxide capture and storage along with carbon dioxide capture and utilization sometime after 2025.
* To develop hydrogen power generation technology by around 2030.
Very interesting article IMO. Shows what Japan has planned. They think long term. FCEL is years ahead! Very interesting times.
dailymail dot co dot uk /wires/reuters/article-3645831/Japan-counts-technology-clean-push-coal-power.html
Agreed Seif! Let's not forget how important Exxon-Mobil connection is. This is not just 'some' company. This is basically the old Rockefeller Standard Oil Company which ruled the oil world before being split up long ago. This is huge that they are on board, IMO.
That is awesome. Check out their web site. The numbers are amazing. They are shooting for the 'ambitious goal' of 10% carbon capture while FCEL is able to shoot for 90%.
One percent of $1 Trillion market is $10 billion annual market for CO2 alone. Amazing numbers. Peace.
Here is one example of a recent article I found discussing this topic:
news dot sys-con dot com /node/3818965
I have been mulling over the possible financial viability of the Exxon CCU project. I do not call it CCS because that implies that the carbon will be sequestered, which is ridiculous, given the potential for CO2 as a building block for the state-of-the-art future materials. The correct term is Carbon Capture and Utilization.
Well, my latest thought is a very simple financial analysis. It is not completely 'real world' because FCEL lacks the size to independently do the required work involved.
Assuming that FCEL had the financial and physical requirements, then it seems to me that the financials could be simply analyzed as follows:
1) Exxon does not alter their NatGas power plants in any way. They continue to operate exactly the same - but FCEL magically makes their plants cleaner - both in terms of 'real' pollutants and also in terms of CO2. This allows Exxon to have super clean NatGas (and same for coal assuming they have NatGas on site) while continue their existing profitable operations.
2) FCEL would own/operate all new aspects of the enhanced operations. Specifically, they would pay Exxon for the NatGas required for the carbonate fuel cell. If I understand correctly, this would essentially be the same set-up that FCEL uses for their stand-alone stationary fuel cells. Of course, this would have the added advantage that FCEL would not need to go through pain-staking applications to find a client, rather they would have an eager client with virtually unlimited sites. So, FCEL would pay Exxon for the NatGas and of course would not pay for the flue gas, which would substitute for the usual ambient air. Now, given this financial arrangement, FCEL would be back their standard financial set up which we know is profitable. Namely, they would pay for the production/installation of the fuel cell and then they would own the electricity, hydrogen, and also the marketable CO2 'by products'.
This, to my mind, shows there is profit to be made.
It was interesting to see the interaction of Exxon/FCEL and the media. Even though these media people specialized in carbon capture, they seemed to be completely unaware of the awesome FCEL solution. They asked questions like 'how does this fuel cell differ from others?' and other questions that indicated they had not even heard of this yet.
Also, they did ask about cost of producing electricity - but they did not follow up with the all-important second question. Specifically, what is the revenue from the 'by-products' of H2 (or syngas) and useable CO2? The real question is, does this result in net revenue for Exxon and/or other companies.
Really awesome to hear talk about how the mult-year plan involves big-big-picture issues of actually financing and manufacturing on a humongous scale.
One thing that must be remembered. If I understand correctly, Exxon dropped $7 billion on carbon capture technology that did not work. That is a staggering number. I can only imagine how much they are willing to spend on a solution that does indeed work.
So awesome to hear Exxon going out on a limb, reporting to the press/gov that the FCEL solution is very clever and very unique. How awesome is that? It is very awesome. I have got to believe that they have plans to monetize the H2 (as you Seif first reported on the Seeking Alpha piece) - and also I suspect they are actively pursuing the use of CO2 as a building block for carbon nano-fibers as professor Licht has pioneered. These are awesome things to know about -- long before the media has learned about these things.
Exxon/FCEL partnership very strong. Check out the vid.
you tube dot com /watch?v=RtFPwLxR0-w
Washington, 13 June (Argus) — ExxonMobil researchers are talking up the viability of a new fuel cell technology they say could economically capture CO2 emissions from coal and gas power plants without requiring subsidies or carbon taxes.
The developers of these "carbonate fuel cells" say they could represent a breakthrough in making carbon capture and storage (CCS) commercially viable. The power company FuelCell Energy is developing the fuel cells, which so far have only been demonstrated in laboratory tests. ExxonMobil last month announced an agreement with FuelCell to further develop the technology.
Industrial facilities have been able to capture CO2 emissions since the 1970s. But existing CCS technology can consume up to 25pc of the electrical output of a power plant and is difficult to implement on a large scale. Southern Co.'s efforts to build a coal-fired power plant with CCS in Kemper, Mississippi, is now expected to cost $7bn, three times higher than initial estimates.
The carbonate fuel cells, in contrast, would use the exhaust stream of a power plant and natural gas to fuel a process that would generate additional electricity and produce a chemical feedstock called syngas. FuelCell is trying to use the technology to eventually build a 2-3MW demonstration plant that would be paired with a coal-fired power plant.
"This is very clever, this is very unique," ExxonMobil Research and Engineering vice president Vijay Swarup said today in Washington, DC. "You put this on the back end of a power plant, you concentrate the CO2 while creating some byproducts that could be valuable in other processes."
ExxonMobil researchers are focusing on the economics of the technology and how it could be optimized, particularly for use on gas-fired power plants. Swarup said the company is optimistic about carbonate fuel cells but conceded researchers "have to be ready for it not to work." Deploying the fuel cells on a commercial scale is still likely years away, he said.
Except BEV like 'Tesla' (I hate that Musk co-opted that wonderful man's name) will not start when it is Norway-cold in the winter. That leaves superior fuel cells. Except for the few faithful who will be stuck in the Norway snow, muttering about 'fool cells' as everyone speeds by and Ignores them. Ahh yeah.
(even though I am too lazy/inept to write it myself)...
Would love to see the financial details of the FCEL CCS project and exactly if/how Exxon would actually profit from the arrangement. In other words, compared to the existing Exxon Natgas/coal plants, would they actually come out cash-positive? Would their cost of the FCEL carbonate fuel cell be more than offset by the increase in electricity and the 'by-products' of marketable H2, and also the marketable (?) CO2 (especially with the potential of Professor Licht's awesome 'diamonds from the sky' invention).
It would be great to know the financials involved in the Exxon decisions. Probably impossible to get these actual numbers though. I wonder if FCEL would ever discuss any of these things on a CC. Good luck to all (besides those on Ignore)..... TGC
Poor ignored Garpola. The Rosie Odonnel of the message boards. S/he can't stand to be ignored. S/he should spend less time posting ignored posts and more time trying to figure out which bathroom to use. Sad!
So FCEL has solved both the climate change CO2 issue and the H2 infrastructure problem. Partnered with biggest oil/gas company and also the DOE. Technology has been explained in NYTs and other similar publications. It is somewhat amusing to behold the lack of understanding/interest from the media. Kind of reminds me of the very early days of the internet. Corporate establishment/media ignored the Net until they could find a way to get in on the action. True.
Good article. The guy points out that FCEL's awesome carbon capture produces the 'by-product' of lots of Hydrogen. He puts 2 and 2 togther, in that the substantial amounts of Hydrogen will be available to Exxon. This is hardly a leap to imagine that Exxon is interested in H2 to solve the H2 infrastructure issue. Good reading.
That has been pretty clear since Cramer was pumping AMZN in 2001. All Wall Street inside games. Probably giving money to Crooked H. A lot of brib... I mean donations.