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: Cascade Berry who wrote (2724)	6/8/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: see clearly now	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5827

I like it when you introduce the larger equation into the discussion..and especially when you take it even further into an integrated energy model centred on the home as a central place for living including learning and work!...that I believe is the migration path ..and evidence indicates it is happening fast ..facilitated by the www.

To: Cascade Berry who wrote (2724)	6/8/1998 6:33:00 PM
From: Dr. Ezzat G. Bakhoum	Respond to of 5827

The questions that you raised are certainly excellent questions. Unfortunately, I don't have simple answers for them. I guess these questions could be answered on a level that is much broader than my own level as a scientist; I mean it would take some research and cooperation on a level than includes scientists, economists and energy experts as well. I don't know if this will ever happen. But since huge investments have already been put into the existing infrastructure (gasoline stations, natural gas supply to homes and businesses), I would strongly expect that this infrastructure will continue to be used for a long time to come. regards..

To: Cascade Berry who wrote (2724)	6/8/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Sid Turtlman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 5827

Cascade: I think I know what you are getting at, but I am not entirely sure. In other words, you are saying that the price of natural gas at the point of use (the stationary fuel cell) may not be taking into account all of the energy used to get it there. Do I have that right? If not, please correct me and ignore the following paragraphs. I think the price of natural gas at the point of use does in fact reflect all of the costs to get it there; if not, whoever absorbed those costs (presumably the pipeline company) would be losing money or making an unexpectedly low return on investment. Is somebody else, like the taxpayers, subsidizing these supposedly hidden costs? With natural gas, I don't think so. A good argument can be made that taxpayers are subsidizing oil based products, to the extent that heavy defense expenditures are needed to secure the flow of oil from the Middle East, but natural gas, at least in North America, is all sourced locally. When the day comes that either photovoltaics or a revolutionary new way of reforming natural gas results in hydrogen almost as cheap as natural gas, then a hydrogen economy using PEM fuel cells may be possible. Until then, the only fuel cells that stand any chance against conventional stationary power generation methods are ones that are efficient with natural gas, like molten carbonate or solid oxide types, not PEM. PEMs are only efficient with hydrogen, but that is useless as long as that fuel costs four times as much as natural gas. It is like saying you have a car that gets great mileage, but it only runs on gallons of Chateau Margaux '82; unless it got 1000 mpg you would save money using a gas guzzling Ford Explorer. People have all these fantasies about Ballard's products, really, I think, wishes that they are projecting and believing to be true because they really want them to be true. But that doesn't make them true; reality doesn't know or care.