Steve: Thanks for presenting some of my arguments for me. I view them as arguments, not biases. If someone comes up with a new way to make hydrogen much cheaper than it is presently made, and transport and store it much cheaper than the current cost, that would change the equation considerably, and would change my opinion about the prospects of technologies that require hydrogen.
So what is wrong with my logic on this? I am perfectly willing to stand corrected. Is hydrogen extremely cheap to make, transport, and store, only I don't know it? Is there something new out there that will radically change the economics?
These arguments, among others, are the reasons for some of my skepticism about the prospects for Ballard and the others working with PEM. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the questions I raised about DCHT, which had to do initially with your Dr. Harvey/Sir Alexx scam, and subsequently with the evidence that, without substantial new financing, the company has little chance to achieve its professed goals. And the company's unwillingness to reveal even the address of a supposed big customer raises obvious questions.
The implication of your and Rickmas's posts are that my criticism of the promotion behind a tiny penny stock is all part of some larger scheme to benefit some other companies. That makes no sense to me. If DCHT went to $0, or it went to $100, how exactly do some other companies gain or lose? |
