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: michael a. rowe who wrote (2718)	6/7/1998 10:53:00 AM
From: Terry Lyon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

ERC posted a news release on 3 June, I think this has been posted on SI on the ERC thread. They claimed 47% efficiency to electricity for their latest design demonstrator stack of 250 kW fed with pipeline natural gas!! They claim this should translate to over 50% in commercial operation!! My concern is getting the fuel cells direct current converted to alternating current to feed the power mains. This is not just a simple switching problem, as the AC needs to be a pure sine wave. This might be possible with really hugh coils of large diameter wire and very large storage capacitors. Also the electronics has to sense the phase of voltage on the power grid soas to push current into the grid otherwise there will be lots of sparks and flame!! This is much less of a problem than DC to AC. The most serious problem would be posed when power is interupted in the grid then the fuel cells DC to AC inverter wouldl be feeding a dead short.

To: michael a. rowe who wrote (2718)	6/7/1998 2:16:00 PM
From: Dr. Ezzat G. Bakhoum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

Exactly, I think this figure of efficiency is too low. For natural gas, I think it is actually in the range of 40%-45%, not the stated 31%. Anyway, fuel cells are inherently much more efficient than conventional combustion systems, which is one of the factors that make them attractive.

To: michael a. rowe who wrote (2718)	6/8/1998 6:43:00 AM
From: Sid Turtlman	Respond to of 5827

Michael: As Terry pointed out, ERC's efficiency numbers are a matter of public record. Ballard's numbers are nowhere to be found in its written material, not surprising given how unimpressive they are. The only reason anyone knows them is that they were mentioned by a Ballard person at a fuel cell conference within the last year. The stationary power unit averaged (I believe it was average, not peak) 31% efficiency, and Ballard believed that, with improvements over time, the figure could get to 40%. Dr. Bakhoum felt, in his post, that the figure was over 40%, but he may have confused the efficiency a PEM cell gets when fed pure hydrogen with what it gets when it starts off with natural gas, which must be "reformed" to create the hydrogen that the PEM cell requires. This process consumes a lot of energy and adds a lot of capital cost. Actually, PEM cells are at a disadvantage to phosphoric acid cells such as IFC's which, although they also need a reformer, can live with a much higher amount of carbon monoxide in the hydrogen stream than a PEM cell can handle, and thus can get away with a cheaper and less energy consuming reformer. It is cheaper to run a fuel cell with a 31% efficiency using natural gas than one getting 40-45% using hydrogen, because hydrogen presently costs four times as much as natural gas in terms of cost per BTU. A fuel cell would have to be 124% efficient (4 times 31%), i.e., a perpetual motion machine, for it to make sense to use hydrogen. Obviously, a fuel cell that gets 50% efficiency using natural gas is a lot better, in terms of cost and carbon dioxide emissions, than one that gets 31%. If Ballard or one of its partners could come up with a revolutionary new way to reform natural gas, then that would take away a good chunk of the disadvantage that PEM fuel cells have versus other types for stationary power. I am sure they are working on it. But as I said before, molecules and atoms don't know and don't care how prestigious Ballard's partners may be. Despite huge expenses over the years by the part of the chemical industry that produces hydrogen from natural gas, the reforming process is fundamentally little different than it was 50 years ago. It may be that the nature of the chemistry is such that no fundamental improvement is possible. While we are talking about numbers that Ballard has had ample opportunity to release amongst its reams of self praise, but hasn't chosen to, is how long its stationary power unit (singular - I don't think it has produced more than one, has it?) has actually run. I can't remember when it officially came on line, but it was certainly many thousands of hours ago. Given that longevity is an open question about fuel cells of all kinds, one would think that Ballard has been running it non-stop and have some big numbers to brag about. If that has been mentioned anywhere, I must have missed it.