Jim: I think people view one of Ballard's main strengths as being its proprietary membrane capabilities. This glass membrane, in theory, may be better and available to other companies doing work on PEM, of which there are several, to Ballard's disadvantage.
Although not known for my pro-Ballard stance (the stock that is; one has to admire the company), I think this is much ado about nothing. Some scientists have come up with something that theoretically might have some impact if someone can figure out how to manufacture it cost effectively in quantity, with no loss of quality, and integrate it with the rest of a complex system. Big deal. This happens every day, and 99% of the time these "advances" never make it into the real world, or do so only after 10 years of expensive engineering which, if the thing has any practical potential, Ballard is as capable of financing and taking advantage of as anyone.
If, in several years, Ballard stock is down 90% from current levels, an event which I believe has a very plausible probability of occurring, it will NOT be because of glass membranes.
The fundamental risk with Ballard, IMO, has to do with producing and delivering ultra-pure hydrogen to the fuel cell. If smw3 is correct in his optimism that advances in photovoltaics bring the price of hydrogen down from 15-20 times that of conventional fuels, or if advances in commercial generation, delivery and storage of hydrogen can bring it down from 4 times as much as commercial fuels, then we can think about solving the infrastructure problem and start to develop a hydrogen based economy. Alternatively, if someone can develop some astounding advance in the how reformers work, then that could make PEM fuel cells competitive.
If none of the above happens, then no matter what advances Ballard may make in the PEM fuel cell itself, the product will be uneconomic and have to be jammed down peoples' throats. Take a look at the numbers: Ballard's stationary power plant reports 31% efficiency, with a goal of someday reaching 40%. ERC's molten carbonate cells do near 50%, with a target of 58%. Westinghouse's solid oxide fuel cells ought to be in the same ballpark as ERC's. Why? Because both designs of fuel cell run so hot they don't need a reformer, and that heat means that, in addition, both can tack on gains from cogeneration. Even IFC's phosphoric acid fuel cells have an edge over Ballard's in efficiency, because they don't need the hydrogen stream to be quite so pure or cool as does a PEM cell, so they can get away with a cheaper and less complex reformer.
It is the reformer that adds to the PEM system's costs and sucks away energy from the fuel cell. If someone can figure out how to solve this, then Ballard may have a competitive product. So far there has been no evidence of any revolutionary improvement in reforming natural gas, but perhaps that will come.
Reforming methanol for vehicles is a lot easier, although methanol is inherently a high cost fuel, not counting the taxes that gasoline has and methanol doesn't. Many people think of a fuel cell car as being zero emissions, but that is only when run on hydrogen, and even that begs the question of what gets emitted when the hydrogen is manufactured. As with stationary power, although to a lesser extent, the reformer hurts the efficiency, cost, and environmental benefits of the fuel cell.
The risk to Ballard in vehicles is most likely to come from other technologies, not needing a reformer, that are cheaper. A hybrid system, such as the Toyota Prius, is already very competitive with what Daimler/Ford/Ballard hopes to have in 2004, as is commercially available today; presumably it will be much better in 6 years. People are looking into other hybrid systems in which there may be a fuel cell or a diesel engine, but the battery does a bigger part of the job. The internal combustion engine people are spending billions every year on improvements; they don't relish being knocked out of business.
Even after (if?) fuel cell cars are introduced, they will still have to represent the best value for the money to the new car buyer, and it is far from clear that that will be the case.
So if, unlike most Ballard shareholders, you are willing to imagine the possibility that the company might not succeed, I would worry about those issues, not glass membranes. |
