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 : Ballard Power -world leader zero-emission PEM fuel cells -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HarveyO who wrote (2371)	4/16/1998 10:14:00 PM
From: see clearly now	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

Can you be kind enough to provide a link to MSNBC ? or Science magazine where a more detailed explanation of this might be found?

To: HarveyO who wrote (2371)	4/17/1998 1:52:00 AM
From: Sleeperz	Respond to of 5827

That would be great to be able to run your car from a water out of the tap even if it needs to be filtered. It wouldn't take much work to convert todays natural gas vehicles to run on hydrogen which is a much more cleaner fuel source. cl >>>Cost breakthrough for hydrogen cars. Device brings commercial development a step closer<<<

To: HarveyO who wrote (2371)	4/17/1998 9:18:00 AM
From: yard_man	Respond to of 5827

Thanks for the post HarveyO. Though I am bearish on the stock I like to stay tuned to waht is happening. Any chance the text of the Science mag article is available online?

To: HarveyO who wrote (2371)	4/17/1998 10:24:00 AM
From: The Devil Dog	Respond to of 5827

Hello Harvey Just wanted to thank you for that nice little tid bit of Info! Best Regards WB

To: HarveyO who wrote (2371)	4/17/1998 1:54:00 PM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5827

HarveyO: That was nice of you to reveal hydrogen's dirty little secret-we don't get it from water, we don't get it from outer space, we actually get it from processing natural gas. In other words, hydrogen is effectively a fossil fuel, just like gasoline. Let's not romanticize it so much. The fact that some scientists think they have figured out how to get hydrogen out of water at a cost of only "three or four times" that of getting it out of natural gas is certainly a step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go. Hydrogen, whatever its merits on the pollution front, is still a good four times more expensive than conventional fossil fuels, in terms of cost per unit of energy it contains. That would make hydrogen from water, using this "cost breakthrough" as you call it, cost a mere 12 to 16 times more per unit of energy than conventional fuels. In other words, given that conventional gas turbines run at about a 35% efficiency on cheap natural gas, a stationary power fuel cell using hydrogen derived the low cost way, from natural gas, would have to be a perpetual motion machine, with an efficiency of well over 100%, to make any economic sense. Reforming natural gas is cheaper than using hydrogen, but it adds cost and consumes energy, lowering the net efficiency. The result is a product that will cost a lot more to buy than a gas turbine per kW, but be less efficient. (This isn't an issue for molten carbonate fuel cells, which can run on natural gas without the need for a reformer, and are around 50% efficient even without using any cogeneration.) Methanol is, I believe, only twice as expensive as gasoline per Btu, and internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, so a fuel cell car need only do 40% for the user to breakeven on fuel expense. Actual results, I believe, are not expected to be that good. The point is that most discussions here assume that if fuel cell powered cars are actually introduced on schedule in 2004, the public will want to buy them. But why will they want to buy them? They will cost more to buy than conventional cars, they will cost more to fuel than conventional cars, and there may be some question about widespread methanol availability. And by 2004 conventional cars will be a lot better than today, and there will be clean gas/electric hybrids with great mileage, running on gasoline. What about the low pollution? Well, that is nice, and will be good for business from the save-the-whales crowd, but by and large the public doesn't care about that unless it carries no cost. If they cared, they wouldn't be buying so many SUV's. So the real business model here, although I don't think anyone wants to admit it, is to create the fuel cell car, and then influence politicians to jam them down the throats of the public, by taxing or banning other kinds of cars "for the good of the environment". That might work in some countries, or it might not. It depends on the political climate at the time, and how willing people will be to sacrifice for the cause. Is that so easy to predict?