Redt Energy Share Discussion Threads

[ts0mev] 27/9/2019 11:45

1501
ZtH, completely agree with you. Yes, there was a change in direction to "smaller" C&I projects around 6 months ago. In theory, smaller means faster turnaround. I have to wonder whether such sales are managed direct or through partnerships. It certainly isn't growing the business fast enough.

That said, what are the timescales on the Oxford Superhub? Planning permission was only granted 2 months ago. Prior to that (in April 2019) it was announced as "The Energy Superhub Oxford project plans to locate the energy storage near Cowley substation, with the location subject to planning permission being gained, and is due for delivery across 2019 and 2020." Potentially some sales in 2019, but I would say 2020.

Very disappointing, but as this reflects a transitional period, post Scott, I am not surprised.

The RTO should transform the company in the C&I market.

[guppygould] 27/9/2019 11:44

All I'll say is that we've been here before with the March RNS. Basically the RNS is saying almost nothing is out of the question. I'm still invested and hoping that RED can attract the necessary funding. Something is a bit funny if you listen to Boris' rhetoric about the UK leaving the EU at the end of October and about how the UK's battery technology is particularly noteworthy and both have been fiascos so far.

[mikemine1] 27/9/2019 11:19

It is an awful RNS and I'm glad the share price is suspended. Lets hope the news of the RTO, promised in the near future, can give us some hope here as the RNS totally failed in that department IMHO.

[ts0mev] 27/9/2019 10:26

I won't feel so bad now if the RTO goes through at 1.65p.

[zero the hero] 27/9/2019 10:08

One element I do like is the guidance:

"Remote 0-10%
Possible 10-40%
Reasonably likely 40-60%
Probable 60-90%

This pipeline excludes the recent 72 unit Energy Superhub Oxford project win, as this is considered an order."

This is a sober attempt to re-set expectations although it makes a total mockery of the 2018 projections.

[zero the hero] 27/9/2019 09:55

As investors we adjudged Vanadium and its abilities very correct, what we did not understand was Scott's inability to run the company correctly. Looking back (oh isn't hindsight so wonderful) the lies and misleading sales projections are laid bare and no-one (including dlg3 and his multiple avatars) understood the company change of direction from direct sales to large orders only; a massive mistake. The dishonesty lies within the projected sales information and the high % indications of success. I fell for this element badly.

The hope that remains is that the merger goes ahead and that Neil is not the type of man to willingly let PI's get totally ripped off by allowing this to cease trading. I do not believe that is his game plan so I still feel a merger will happen, but the clock is ticking.

At least we will have a better 2020.

[chestnuts] 27/9/2019 09:30

Zero

I couldnt agree more ,Maybe as investors we have got this totally wrong and Vanadium is not the way to go, because they sure are not selling anything!!!

[zero the hero] 27/9/2019 08:29

Good job this is suspended as that was as grim an RNS as I have ever read. Sales = zero, pathetic to be honest. What the hell have this company been doing?

[luminoso] 27/9/2019 08:18

Yes the timescale for either eventuality is clear now.

[gspanner] 27/9/2019 07:32

So; soon.
money runs out in Dec.

[greenmachine2] 26/9/2019 10:26

It looks like RED are required to post half year results 3 months after June 30th , so they only have a few days left. Perhaps they will be issued as part of the finalised merger plans. We can hope.

[greenmachine2] 26/9/2019 10:12

#1490 Further to Jamonit's query re suspension, it looks like turnover is a consideration in assessing various factors under the class tests rules. These include reverse takeovers. I am right in thinking that the merger with Avalon is subject to the cash injection? If so might it need some tradeable instrument associated with the new or existing shares to satisfy the fundraising element of the merger?

[greenmachine2] 26/9/2019 09:41

#1490 Jamonit. RE rules for suspension. Sadly it looks like there are no rules over the length of suspension in Red's situation where AIM considers the merger to be a reverse takeover.

I hope this link works

[guppygould] 24/9/2019 19:58

The potential crash in sterling might cause people to throw money into the market. If RED had enough things in order to enter the market they could raise plenty of money in combination with all the climate and environmental focus there is at present.

[zero the hero] 24/9/2019 17:40

1484: Way back in 2017 whilst Gen 3 was being conceived the idea behind it was to be using less Vanadium per unit with more storage. At that point it was alleged 4 units Gen 1 = 1.5 units of Gen 2 against 1 unit of Gen 3. If they achieved their goals it would be cheaper to manufacture and more margin rather than lower purchase costs for the buyer. Gen 3 was planned to make money out of direct sales.

The Rental units were said to be better for Red as they could make more on leasing from the customer than outright purchase.

On both units the money to be made was in the after care of the units by selling servicing. Scott was very enthusiastic about the rental of Vanadium and servicing as being key to Red long term viability. This was before the vanadium price spike.

There was another element that was presented as a viable money maker and that was in STOR, which I believe has proved itself unworkable. This was proven to me after someone challenged the output models (released by Red via and RNS - I think)in 2018 which included no STOR and I contacted Joe who admitted it was hard but promised to release an example. The fact this was never disclosed indicates STOR to be unviable.

EDIT: don't forget when that article was released the Vanadium price was just off its peak and has been falling ever since and I believe rental is no longer so attractive

[ts0mev] 24/9/2019 16:35

1484, for customers it is a question of affordability. Smaller customers may want to go down the electrolyte rental to limit the CAPEX, i.e. when raising funds to get a project off the ground. Ultimately either business model must be profitable or RED wouldn't offer them.

[mikemine1] 24/9/2019 14:59

I have very little idea on the commercialisation of Gen3 and I doubt that anyone else outside of company could answer that question. If you ring Joe on the information site he will tell you more perhaps. He's very approachable but what he can tell you will be limited.

[greenmachine2] 24/9/2019 13:47

This link is a Feb 2019 article re VRFB with reference to Avalon and RED and rental of Vanadium electrolyte.

My interest is in the RED bit I quote here.

"Over in Europe, redT has employed a vanadium rental model for multi-megawatt-hour grid storage projects in the United Kingdom and Germany, as well as for commercial customers, the company said. RedT uses a 20-year, interest-only model, after which the electrolyte returns to redT ownership. It kicked off the rental model with a 300 kilowatt-hour industrial system in Dorset in 2017."

My question to those still reading this RED chat forum is this: Is the interest only model for electrolyte rental vs outright sale, a profitable one for RED and the customers? I know that interest rate and electrolyte purchase price are factors in this issue, but I am interested in people's ideas.

[guppygould] 20/9/2019 10:41

RE 1482: unfortunately that is the question everybody wants to know the answer to. :(