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.

Technology Stocks : Fuel Cell Investments -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Devil Dog who wrote (50)	9/16/2000 6:12:35 PM
From: surfbaron	Respond to of 280

From Rentechinc.com (RTK): In a report issued from the third International Fuel Cell Conference at Nagoya, Japan in 1999 entitled "Gas-To-Liquids Synthetic Fuels For Use In Fuel Cell: Reformability, Energy Density, And Infrastructure Compatibility," the authors conclusions were that GTL fuels could accelerate the commercialization of fuel cells more so than other fuels being considered because of their clean qualities, high hydrogen content and ease of distribution. The environmental characteristics of fuels made from gas-to-liquids (GTL) processes have been known for many years. Because GTL fuels contain no sulfur, aromatic compounds or metals, and having a high cetane number in comparison to standard diesel fuels, it is a very clean burning fuel which substantially reduces emissions when compared to other fuels. In recent testing, the qualities which have shown GTL fuels to be a clear alternative to address new emission standards for cleaner air are also proving to be the very same characteristics that will make an excellent feedstock for fuel cell technology. GTL fuels contain high amounts of hydrogen, twice that of methanol. Hydrogen is the fuel necessary to generate power for a fuel cell. GTL fuels being devoid of sulfur, aromatics and metals allow for little or no residue build up in the fuel cell process unlike other fuels being studied. Additionally , the fact that GTL fuels can be delivered through the existing infrastructure makes the use of GTL fuels for fuel cells practical and more economical than other fuels. Whether made either from iron-based catalyst, such as that used in the Rentech GTL process, or cobalt, GTL fuels have the same basic characteristics that make them excellent candidates for use in fuel cells. Additionally, Rentech’s GTL process produces excess hydrogen when making GTL products from natural gas which is an excellent source of low cost hydrogen for stationary fuel cells which could be utilized to generate power at a Rentech GTL facility. On January 11, 2000, Rentech, Inc. of Denver, Colorado and Republic Financial Corporation of Aurora, Colorado, announced the acquisition of the assets of the "Sand Creek" methanol facility located on 17 acres in Commerce City, Colorado. Rentech Development Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Rentech, Inc., and RFC-Sand Creek development, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Financial Corporation, each own 50% of Sand Creek Energy LLC, the new owner of the facility. Sand Creek Energy is developing a plan to convert the methanol plant into what could be the first Gas-to-Liquids plant in the United States which would supply commercial quantities of high value fuels including cleaner burning sulfur and aromatic free diesel fuel, fuel which could be used for fuel cells and other high value products made from natural gas.. The plant will be designed to produce approximately 800-1000 barrels per day of GTL products. As of February 1, 2000 no other GTL competitor has announced a domestic commercial scale GTL plant that will be in operation in this time frame.

To: The Devil Dog who wrote (50)	9/17/2000 8:45:00 AM
From: Bradpalm1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 280

Wayne....here's a discussion about fuel cells and GTL fuels that I recently posted on the Raging Bull RTK thread. "As far as directly using GTL fuels for fuel cell applications, here's what I know. ALL types of fuel cells basically run on hydrogen, although solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) can also use CO for fuel as well. SOFCs (like those made by Global Thermoelectric) and molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) made by companies like FCEL (!) are very tolerant of contaminants like CO, sulfur, aromatic hydrocarbons and trace metals due to their high operating temperatures and the lack of exotic catalysts which may be contaminated by them. These types of fuel cells can essentially run on the hydrogen stream of any reformed hydrocarbon source (coal gas, syngas, methane, methanol, propane, diesel, petrol, gasoline, etc.), although the less contaminated the fuel, the better for the fuel cell’s stack efficiency and longevity. MCFCs actually reform the fuel from within the fuel cell and others (like our ITN) are working with SOFCs and ceramics to be able to DIRECTLY use methane and liquid hydrocarbons (like diesel fuel) without prior reforming. Essentially, both these types of fuel cells would be very happy using GTL fuels because of its lack of contaminants, but currently these fuels need to be reformed first (the hydrocarbon chain broken down into hydrogen and CO). On the other hand, PEM fuel cells, made by the likes of Ballard, need a completely pure hydrogen stream to function and can be quickly contaminated with a fast reduction in efficiency if exposed to sulfur, CO or other contaminants. The quality of the fuel going into the reformer is very important for PEM fuel cells, especially since PEM fuel cells are considered to be the top candidates for fuel cell vehicles in the future. Here, clean fuels like methanol, low or no sulfur gas and GTL fuels would ideally work since the reformer can be built smaller and more efficiently if it doesn't have to scrub out sulfur and high amounts of CO prior to generating the clean hydrogen stream. Of note, there's such a thing as a DIRECT methanol PEM fuel cell that can directly use methanol without prior reforming. The issue of what will be the ultimate fuel for future cell vehicles of the future is currently very hot in alternative energy circles. The real question, though, is whether GTL would make good fuel for fuel cell applications like PEM fuel cell vehicles (via Ballard) and stationary fuel cell applications (like power plants envisioned by FCEL). Here are some of the potential the advantages for using GTL fuels for these applications: -- being able to use the existing petroleum storage and distribution infrastructure for GTL diesel fuel would be a HUGE cost savings. Building a hydrogen infrastructure would be a multi-billion dollar proposition, but probably is evitable. -- GTL fuels are "technology neutral" meaning that they could be used essentially without modification in today's diesel engines, new hybrid engines (diesel and electric) and tomorrow's fuel cell vehicles. They can also be used by the military for their ships, submarines and other vehicles without modification. -- GTL fuels store very well and don't decompose in storage tanks (for example, on islands which use diesel-driven electric generators) unlike conventional diesel fuels -- Unlike gasoline, DTE or methanol, GTL fuels are biodegradable and non-toxic according to the EPA -- GTL fuels are VERY easy to reform due to their straight hydrocarbon (paraffinic) chains and complete lack of contaminants. Reformers can be built smaller and more efficiently. -- GTL fuels contain TWICE the hydrogen carrying capacity as methanol meaning that a fuel cell vehicle can go TWICE as far before refueling -- GTL fuels can derived (as we know) from gasified coal stranded or flared natural gas, refinery bottoms, gasified biomass and other industrial hydrocarbon waste products and gases.....thus giving us a tremendous fuel from NEGATIVE VALUE FEEDSTOCKS! -- The use of GTL fuels in the future also has other potential advantages such as greatly reducing our dependency on OPEC and allowing the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) to keep operating when they run out of petroleum up there."