COMMENTS POLICY: People are expected to behave in a manner that enriches the conversation. Criticisms are strongly encouraged as long as they are presented in a civil manner. Any rude obnoxious attack-the-messenger rubbish will be given one warning. After that, comments will be removed and the individual who made them will be blocked.
Have you looked at Renewable Energy to Electrification (REE) credits in place of Carbon Credits? "Licensed consumer appliances" that deliver both AC and DC current to vehicles and households do not require building permits and can be easily adapted by individual consumers. So, theoretically, one could say by securing X% of the served available market (let's call that 200,000 units/appliances), one could offset the CO2 emissions from large and essential single-source emitters such as ammonia plants and petroleum refineries. Each appliance would have the ability to capture, control or discharge renewable energy in support of zero-carbon electrification. I'm trying to keep it brief and simple as I write this notion of an infinitely more attractive alternative to carbon credits. It is quite easy to envision a portfolio of companies that could deliver different capture, control and distribution roles aligned with a major process disrupter such as Tesla.
@@sao9995 Just to be frank here, we don't care about the "capture carbon for $1, sell it for 50 cents" business models out there, nor do we care for anything that's being subsidized to achieve profitability. We're here to make money. NEE is a great example of a firm that's made us a lot of money by doing good (depending on who you ask, of course). We put stake in Lazard's LCOE chart. Based on that, renewables make economic sense. That's why we invest in them. To make money. The problem is that the climate change thing has become extremely political which is why we focus on sustainable tech, that is, tech that sustains itself by being profitable without subsidies. If we can do good while doing good, all the better.
I think it's important to differ between electrolyzers and fuel cells. There will be high demand for green hydrogen by industries where electricity is not an alternative to hydrogen (e.g. fertilizer, steel industry). This demand has to be met by the companies producing electrolyzers. That's why I see high potential there. Fuell cells will only become relevant when (if) we have an excessive supply of green hydrogen. Therefore I'd rather invest into electrolyzer instead of fuelcell companies. Very interested what others think about that point of view.
Very nice spot. Yep, that's correct. We won't be able to fix that in the video but we'll note that for future reference. Thank you for taking the time to point that out!
The "Hydrogen stocks" are hopeless losers because none of the electrolyzer companies can deliver industrial-scale capacity. They only offer small-scale electrolysis capacity, so they can't provide anything but small-scale revenue. Small-scale revenue will never eclipse their operating budget, so they cannot show a profit (earnings). Small-scale electrolyzers cannot make enough H2 from water to reduce CO2 output at an industrial scale, so they are irrelevant. Renewable energy is coming on line quickly, but to reduce global warming, one must decarbonize all of the greenhouse gas emitting sectors -- transportation, agriculture, residential & commercial building and industrial sources (primarily concrete, glass, steel and industrial chemicals). That means we must create decarbonized fuels such as green ammonia, whereby we take cheap and abundant renewable energy and split water into cheap hydrogen and oxygen. Then, humanity can remove nitrogen from the air (air is 78% Nitrogen) and, using the Haber Bosch method, combine the green H2 and N to make green ammonia (NH3). Ammonia, as a "liquid carrier of hydrogen fuel," can carry more hydrogen/BTUs by volume at a reasonable temperature and pressure than gaseous or liquid hydrogen. Large-scale electrolyzers (no existing electrolyzer manufacturer can provide) would allow green ammonia to fuel and power all greenhouse gas emitting sectors.
You've put a lot of thought into this, thank you for sharing. We take a very simple approach to investing in disruptive tech, and hydrogen never seems to have the legs these companies think it does. Plug seems to have the best change at making something grand happen so we'll see soon enough.
@@mikafiltenborg7572 We usually don't let people advertise videos on here but we'll leave your comment and check this out because you seem to have genuine intent. Cheers!
We have been covering fusion startups over the years. Our last piece is as follows: www.nanalyze.com/2021/06/when-nuclear-fusion-energy/ It's always five years away.
Ballard Power has fallen behind in battery technology German companies like Erling klinger or BMW have developed a Carbon Nanotubes battery it has many advantages it cheaper to manufacture because it has no precious metals, second it is able to store more power. Toyota have created Solid State batteries or graphene.
Hey Frank. Thank you for the comment. We were never sold on Plug, though can't imagine them not selling a much grander vision to investors. Super popular company over the years so we'll be sure to revisit!
I agree with pretty much everything, but I do have a question. Does technical readiness level factor at all into your nanalysis, or is it purely market numbers and reporting? Thanks, Dan
Hey Dan. Good question! Perhaps it's worth taking a step back and looking at the hydrogen thesis as a whole. We did that here (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xmW4q8CJku4.html) and concluded that it's not as appealing as we're being led to believe.
@Nanalyze Thank you for that link. Again I agree with your conclusions, but as a primarily technical person, it's for completely different, let's say, Framework reasons.
