Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Thermoelectric - SOFC Fuel cells (GLE:TSE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DTC who wrote (4711)	2/13/2000 4:41:00 PM
From: Bradpalm1	Respond to of 6016

Any implications for GLE here? The product of this gasification process is the synthesis gas (syngas) they're talking about. Syngas is composed of hydrogen, CO and some assorted contaminants depending on the hydrocarbon source. Talk about a potential load leveler for these refineries! I can envision huge stationary syngas-fed SOFCs used for power generation when the syngas stream isn't diverted for other energy uses. Could a Ballard PEMFC handle this syngas stream without first scrubbing out the CO and contaminants? I don't think so. Is this a possible glimpse of GLE's future? 2/11 16:06 Texaco to Boost Spending on Power Generation, Synthetic Gas Production By David Wells White Plains, New York, Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- Texaco Inc., the third-largest U.S. oil company, said it will almost double its investment in power generation and synthetic-gas production to $1.07 billion by 2004. Texaco said it plans to invest $584 million this year in the businesses, up 24 percent from last year. Texaco had 1999 sales of about $36 billion. The White Plains, New York-based company is involved in electricity projects that can generate more than 8,000 megawatts, enough to light 8 million U.S. homes. Texaco has invested in power plants worldwide, including in the U.S., Spain, Italy, the Philippines and Thailand. Texaco makes synthetic gas by adding oxygen to low-quality oil, refining residues and coal. The fuel produced by the gasification process can be burned in power plants that use natural gas. Texaco said it's involved in 55 percent of the gasification plants operating or under construction. Power generators are using more gas, the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, because of stricter anti-pollution laws. Texaco said forecasts call for power demand to grow 2.5 percent a year for the next five to 10 years. Texaco expects a 13.4 percent average return on its investment in power generation and gasification from 2000 through 2004. The businesses returned 13.9 percent last year, much higher than its 8.3 percent overall return. The company has 69 gasification facilities licensed, under construction or in operation, and it's in talks with more than 50 potential licensees. One of the byproducts of gasification is hydrogen, which can be used in fuel cells to generate electricity. Texaco said yesterday it wants to form a joint venture with a fuel cell company this year. Interest in fuel cells has grown because they pollute far less and are more efficient than current automotive engines or power plants. The shares of White Plains, New York-based Texaco fell 2 5/16 to 48 5/16 on the New York Stock Exchange.

To: DTC who wrote (4711)	2/13/2000 8:33:00 PM
From: blue_chip	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6016

Dennis, Your correct, the start up time (and temperature) are the two main factors which separates the two technologies. One point to consider however regarding a PEMFC is that the start-up time is governed by the start-up time of the reformer when it is using any fuel other than tanked hydrogen. In those cases the actual start up time is closer to the time required to start a SOFC and therefore the PEM looses one of its main advantages in transportation applications. The other differences between the two is that the PEMFC is significantly less tolerant to fuel impurities as well as CO. Chip

To: DTC who wrote (4711)	2/15/2002 9:16:03 AM
From: CH4	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6016

EV World Feb. 9 2002 (excerpt) .... The solid oxide fuel cell will likely be the third fuel cell to reach the market. It is being developed by a small company in Calgary, Canada called Global Thermoelectric. GLE.TO now manufactures thermoelectric generators which are of small output but extremely reliable and are used by telephone systems in remote areas, by natural gas pipelines for cathodic protection, and by companies in oil and gas exloration projects, all of which uses are remote from existing grids and can be relied on for reliable operation unmanned for months or years. In addition to this market, the GLE.TO fuel cell in larger, 10 kw to 175 kw sizes can be used for supplying electric and thermal energy for residential and small commercial and industrial loads. Its design objective is a 60% efficiency but it has not yet released data on its current operating efficiency. Delphi, the car parts manufacturer recently spun off General Motors, is working on a 42 volt auto electric system to replace the current 14 volt system. It contemplates using the GLE.TO fuel cell as the generator for the system because it can run on either hydrogen or gasoline. BMW and Renault are not as optimistic about the feasibility of a PEM fuel cell for vehicle propulsion until hydrogen is as available everywhere as gasoline is now. They contemplate using an internal combustion engine with dual fuels -- hydrogen, where it is available and gasoline when it is not. The SOFC, which can supply auto electric power on either fuel, will complement its dual fuel design for propulsion and will have several advantages including being able to run your radio and air conditioner with your internal combustion engine not running, locating car auxilliaries where you could not locate them when belts and pulleys are required to supply mechanical energy, and using electrically actuated valves to carry out timing that would not be possible with belted power. It could shut off half the cylinders while cruising at highways speeds. GLE.TO has not released cost data on its fuel cell but it needs no noble metals for catalysts as does the PEM fuel cell. Nor does it need extensive auxilliary devices or balance of plant (BOP) as does the PEM and the MCFC fuel cell. Westinghouse, now owned by Siemens, is developing a tubular fuel cell which operates at 1000 degrees. However GLE.TO is developing an RTESP SOFC which is one operating at reduced temperatures of 650 to 700 degrees Centigrade which will permit it to use common stainless steel. Its electrolyte is ceramic and its electrodes are ceramic. These all seem to be low cost materials. While GLE.TO has not released its estimated costs, its costs are likely to be lower than those of the other two. Instead of a large expensive external reformer such as that of the PEM fuel cell, its reformer is the size of a "knockwurst" and located within the stack assembly. Instead of roughly two-thirds of the cost in BOP, GLE.TO's BOP is largely the cost of an inverter to change the power to alternating current from direct current if that is needed. The Fuel Cell as the Environmentalist's Dream Last, but certainly not the least of the fuel cell's benefits is the benefit of clean air. The amount of Nox, Sox2 and particulate matter is an order of magnitude below even the proactive Federal Vision 21 standard. If power is generated from reformed natural gas, however, the greenhouse gases problem will still exist but will be far less. Carbon dioxide emissions are a direct function of the weight of the hydrocarbon fuel used. But fuel cells, with their greater efficiency will use less fuel per mile and per kilowatt hour generated. So with fuel cells, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere will be only one half or one third of the carbon dioxide currently emitted by Carnot cycle devices such as the coal fired steam turbine, the gas turbine, the microturbine, the gasoline reciprocating engine and the diesel engine. How about the Capstone 30 kw or Parallon 75 kw microturbines? They are not strong contenders in my opinion. They have a fuel efficiency of only 25% or so,They are noisy, and they pollute. When fuel cells become available, which are able to compete with other alternatives on cost and reliability, the politicians are likely to act to set pollution standards so high as effectively to prohibit new Carnot cycle installations. In five years we will likely see this for loads of 10,000 kw and below. The Department of Energy has contracted with FCEL to develop a combined cycle or hybrid fuel cell/gas turbine in the range of 10,000 to 40,000 kw with a blinding 80% electrical efficiency. When it is commercially available, perhaps in 2015, the combined cycle gas turbine will also become no longer necessary for even the largest loads and will take their place in books on the history of technology.. Look for some stationary fuel cells at your distributor commencing maybe as early as 2002 and some fuel cells in you car dealer's show room perhaps by 2004 or 2005. Look for large scale marketing of stationary fuel cells by 2005 and fuel cell powered cars by 2010. END STORY evworld.com ... Fuel Cell Power Generation Primer - Part 3 EV World Feb. 9 2002 Here's an example of what they are saying about Solid Oxide Fuel Cells , in Paris France lately ... reseaupaco.org ... Global Thermoelectric is referenced on page 6