And here I thought he was a Ballard Bull, but lo and behold, he is an ERC promoter!!,
Message 4429410
To: Randy Ellingson (2580 )
From: Sid Turtlman
Tuesday, May 12 1998 5:40PM ET
Reply # of 3864
Randy: There are several different kind of fuel cells out there.
Ballard makes PEM cells, which run very cool and can be made
very compact. That is a big plus for cars, but the coolness is
actually a big disadvantage for stationary power. ERC makes a
different kind of fuel cell called molten carbonate, which runs very
hot (about 1300 F). This allows it to use natural gas directly
without requiring a reformer to extract the hydrogen from the fuel
first. Reformers consume a lot of energy, heating the natural gas up
to somewhere around 1800 F and then cooling the hydrogen down
again so it doesn't melt the PEM membrane, burning off carbon
monoxide along the way so that it doesn't poison the membrane.
Molten carbonate fuel cells don't have any membranes.
ERC's fuel cells are much more efficient than Ballard's, even
without counting cogeneration, which ERC can use and Ballard
can't. That means that ERC's will create much more electricity
from a given amount of fuel, and give off fewer emissions per
amount of electricity produced. In terms of the efficiency of the
first commercial units, ERC should lead at at least 48% to 35%,
and ultimately maybe 58% to 40%. With cogen ERC's figures can
go a lot higher.
These numbers are a function of chemistry and physics. The
molecules and atoms don't know or care who Ballard's partners
are.
Most Ballard fans would like to believe that ERC doesn't exist,
and ERC has no intention of ever putting a molten carbonate fuel
cell in a car. But for stationary power, ERC is the one to beat. For
more info, see the news release that I cited in my earlier note to
Hawkeye. |
