I believe we are getting to the root of this problem,
From Sid,
"Garth: This is just a question, not an attack or anything. I was
hoping to get more comment from the thread on this issue that I
mentioned a week or two ago:
Hydrogen costs 4 times as much as conventional fuels relative to
the energy that it contains. A PEM fuel cell, such as Ballard's, is
not 4 times as efficient as any stationary power plant, even the
worst. It is also not 4 times as efficient as an internal combustion
engine.
Methanol costs twice as much as conventional fuels. A PEM fuel
cell is not twice as efficient as any stationary power plant, nor,
after taking out the power needed to run a reformer, an internal
combustion engine, or, if so, only very marginally.
There is no reason to think that increasing the demand relative to
the supply is going to make the price of hydrogen or methanol go
down. Hydrogen and methanol are made in big chemical factories,
and no one wants one in their backyard, so expansion of capacity
would probably not match growth in demand if PEM fuel cells
actually did start selling.
Therefore, unless I am mistaken, the owner of a PEM fuel cell will
not only pay a lot more to buy one, but will pay more to operate it,
since the extra efficiency won't cover the fact that it runs on very
expensive fuel.
I know there are big environmental advantages to fuel cells, and
that will be an important factor to many people. But for those who
want to buy something that does the job and meets environmental
standards but not necessarily goes beyond them, why will they buy
PEM fuel cell products? What is the sales pitch, besides an appeal
to their conscience? What is the economic attraction? Hey, buy our
car--it will cost you a lot to buy, and then a lot more to run?
Won't the success of this technology be very dependent on politics;
i.e., the inclination of the public to elect politicians who will force
them to buy things that they wouldn't do on their own?
Message 4244974 |
