WCPKR - The following is the PM you just sent me. I feel this should be resolved publically as that is how it started:
The only belief that I would like to dislodge you from is your read on me. I am not a "Greenie". I do favor pragmatic pollution reduction even if it means moderate increases in costs to society. I believe in the fuel cell concept and am an active investor in companies so involved.
Since we are getting to know all about each other in this media I would like to know where you got yur PHD.. You act like one. Knowlegeable about one tiny subject, so you think you can assume expert status in all areas. Wrong, my friend, but conveniently arrogant.
This is how we got to the point that you feel you needed to PM me such a statement:
You posted the following comments:
Wednesday, Jun 23 1999 12:19AM ET
Reply # of 2340
In the summertime heat is a pure loss of energy. I also is a great deteriorator of components--electronics, rubber, plastics, etc.
Wednesday, Jun 23 1999 9:27AM ET
Reply # of 2340
Right you are Stephen O. BUT-does heat represent energy loss? And won't the presence of 650deg temp cause high ambients under the hood? The main problem I have with it though is the energy loss-in the summertime and warmer climates.
Wednesday, Jun 23 1999 10:37AM ET
Reply # of 2340
So why do we have to provide radiators and fans and coolant for our engines? Heat represents LOST energy.
Wednesday, Jun 23 1999 10:38AM ET
Reply # of 2340
Hi Steve. Yes, some heat is desirable. But, most is just lost, I do believe.
To which I responded (you should know that this is a general response to all discussion relative to heat prior to your post, it is not adressed specifically to you)
What about the heat required to reform Metahnol into hydrogen in an external reformer for a PEM?, what about the loss of "potential" energy when reforming methanol? No one cell, product, or solution is going to be 100% efficient. I think it is rather useless to sit here and discuss all these hypotheticals. All this talk about heat makes me think some people want to buy this stock. An ICE engine is hot plain and simple, to say GLE's cell is not a good solution for a auto to me is senseless. If it were a big problem, Delphi would not be working with them, and you could bet the folk at Delphi and whoever else that might be working with GLE wouldn't be considering a SOFC. The same would go for the Auto manufacturers who have announced they are working on a SOFC. I don't know how hot an ICE (internal combustion engine)runs but I have heard people say its hotter inside than a GLE cell, whether this is true or not I do not know. Perhaps someone with a neutral position may want to take a stab at commenting. However to see the topic of heat come up again and then to mention wont the rubber or plastic melt around it is ludicrous. A fuel cell in a car would be encased in a jacket or enclosure im sure and would have insulation / cooling to keep the the outside of it cool, just like a car, just like a Ballard cell. Hey, if NASA can keep the space shuttle from melting when it comes back into orbit I think there must be enough technical know how out there on how to encase/ the cell so that its heat does not effect the balance of the components of a vehicle.
my next response was
Wednesday, Jun 23 1999 3:38PM ET
Reply # of 2340
Perhaps you can explain and address this temperature problem in regards to PEM's and reformers. Wont the reformer melt the rubber and the plastic wpckr? note that this line was the bulk of my personal comments - the quote below is a direct quote from GLE's website
"The main application to date has been for primary power in automotive use. It has the advantage of quick start-up when hydrogen is applied, as well as operating at a very low temperature which allows for easier handling. The disadvantage for the PEM is that it requires very pure hydrogen. When hydrogen is obtained from fuels such as gasoline or natural gas, the reformate gases must be scrubbed to eliminate all CO, sulphur and other contaminants. Although fuel dependent, the reforming process takes place at 700 deg C. Thus, the PEM must wait for the reformer to reach these temperatures before beginning operation. When the PEM is used in stationary applications for a combined heat and power (CHP) application, the overall system efficiency will be lower than high temperature fuel cells as the PEM has only low grade heat available for use. "
and finally I responded
wpckr
"It is important to put the high operating temperature of the SOFC in perspective. These are very common temperatures in many applications. As an example, the flame temperature in the combustion chamber in an automobile is in the range of 2300 degrees C. The gas temperatures entering the exhaust manifolds in an automobile range from 700 degrees C at idle to 1100 degrees C at full speed. Temperatures inside catalytic converters are also very high. Generally, the internal combustion engine has a water jacket that cools these high temperature parts and regulates engine temperature. With the SOFC, an insulating shell is used to maintain the high temperature and air, rather than water is used for cooling. The outside temperature of the SOFC is typically 40 to 50 degrees C."
Following this you you posted this
You know. You sound like you think I am anti fuel cell. Not hardly. As an emphysema patient, I am as anxious as anyone and more anxious than most to see the fuel cell succeed, and quickly. I don't understand why you persist in trying to pick a fight with me over the mention of some problems that most every one recognizes are inherent in their use. So, in the interest of avoiding further discussion, I will retract my comments about rubber and plastic. However, I refuse to back off an inch from the statement that much of heat in the IC engine is lost energy. The same will be true of the fuel cell, in my opinion. Argue with that if you wish.
and so on.......
You accused me of trying to start and argument with you, sorry, but I didn't. The bulk of my posts were quotations taken directly from the GLE site and were not my words. The large post from me was in relation to all the talk about heat and was to all on the board - it was based on my feeling that perhaps we need to wait to see how GLE makes it work and deals with the heat. Conveniently GLE had just updated their website and had addressed some of your questions relative to heat. Your assumption I was trying to start an argument with you personally was untrue. You posted some concerns, I simply followed up with some possible answers. Expert status? me? Im flattered, but no. I prefer to find the facts in print (as I did today) rather than make them up (Im not implying you made anything up).
Just in case you dont know all the text inside of "" marks is not mine, it is all quotes from others, todays were from the GLE site.
Perhaps you'd like to take a minute to respond with your position on GLE, which fuel cell company you like to help us understand your position?
Before I made any response to you I checked your profile and your posting history. The closest I could see is that you are into DCHT and possibly BLDP. I read through those posts. I made the effort to put your comments in perspective prior. You came out of left field to the board and started to talk about heat. I will gladly listen to your position.
Knowledgable on one tiny subject? I don't assume expert status on anything. I use my ability to find the answers. For me it is better to know how to find the information that answers the questions rather than to personally hold all such knowledge, for me its more efficient.
Arrogant?...no, sorry.
I never attacked you or tried to start an argument like you accused. You come on the board, post negative things about the heat, you do not state your position, you do not substantiate your claims or give any supporting comments. I posted some info that addresses your concerns, if that makes me arrogant or argumentative then so be it. Do you hold stock in GLE? If not, what by chance would be your motives for posting on this board? I myself would appreciate if you can explain a little about this, after all, as said, I took the time to read into your post history first and did not direct anything at you in a argumentative form until you say I wanted to start a argument, sorry, but that caught me off guard.
Until I know your position or motives I will decline any further comment as Ive commented more already than this discussion warrant. Additionally please do not mix the comments by others to you with mine.
Chip
p.s. I apologize for the length of this post to all.
|
