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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DCH Technologies (DCH) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rickmas who wrote (812)	3/17/1999 9:23:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2513

Rick, how right you are!, a simple checkof a few posts from April 1998 reveals that Sid's real problem is that he is anti-Hydrogen! his own words folks, "I am not against fuel cells at all. I believe that they have a great future--but not ones that run on hydrogen" Message 4169606 Well what do you know. That was long before Dr. Harvey ever appeared on the Ballard thread to discuss DCHT. Seems like Sid hasn't been completely honest with us about his motives after all. What's that you say, "falsus in unus, falsus in omnibus?"

To: Rickmas who wrote (812)	3/17/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2513

I believe we are getting to the root of this problem, From Sid, "Garth: This is just a question, not an attack or anything. I was hoping to get more comment from the thread on this issue that I mentioned a week or two ago: Hydrogen costs 4 times as much as conventional fuels relative to the energy that it contains. A PEM fuel cell, such as Ballard's, is not 4 times as efficient as any stationary power plant, even the worst. It is also not 4 times as efficient as an internal combustion engine. Methanol costs twice as much as conventional fuels. A PEM fuel cell is not twice as efficient as any stationary power plant, nor, after taking out the power needed to run a reformer, an internal combustion engine, or, if so, only very marginally. There is no reason to think that increasing the demand relative to the supply is going to make the price of hydrogen or methanol go down. Hydrogen and methanol are made in big chemical factories, and no one wants one in their backyard, so expansion of capacity would probably not match growth in demand if PEM fuel cells actually did start selling. Therefore, unless I am mistaken, the owner of a PEM fuel cell will not only pay a lot more to buy one, but will pay more to operate it, since the extra efficiency won't cover the fact that it runs on very expensive fuel. I know there are big environmental advantages to fuel cells, and that will be an important factor to many people. But for those who want to buy something that does the job and meets environmental standards but not necessarily goes beyond them, why will they buy PEM fuel cell products? What is the sales pitch, besides an appeal to their conscience? What is the economic attraction? Hey, buy our car--it will cost you a lot to buy, and then a lot more to run? Won't the success of this technology be very dependent on politics; i.e., the inclination of the public to elect politicians who will force them to buy things that they wouldn't do on their own? Message 4244974

To: Rickmas who wrote (812)	3/17/1999 9:34:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

here is more of his logic, Message 4248814 After all, everyone's bias should be revealed. Says Sid, "smw3: If I understand you correctly, the reason for your confidence in the future of fuel cells that require hydrogen as their fuel (as opposed to the higher temperature ones that can use natural gas as is) is based on your confidence that the cost of creating the hydrogen from PVs will plummet from its current level. Hydrogen from PVs now costs about ten times as much as hydrogen produced in chemical plants from natural gas, right? (I'm guessing here, but based on HarveyO's excitement about a new development in the lab that might, if it works in real life, bring the cost down to three to four times as much, ten times seems about right.) Given how expensive hydrogen is even made the dirty way, that means that PV created hydrogen now costs about 40 times as much per amount of energy it contains compared to conventional fuels. To put it common sense terms, it is a fuel that provides the same energy as gasoline, but costs more like $50 per gallon, rather than $1.25 or so. Am I mistaken, but isn't it far from given that PV created hydrogen will necessarily be cheaper than conventional fuels any time soon? I'm not saying that it can't happen, but aren't the odds against that a trifle high? You mentioned 20 years as a time frame, and 20 years sounds like a long time if you are young, but it doesn't seem like enough time if you are older. For example, I remember when there was a hot group of public solar energy companies in 1979-80. They were putting solar heaters on people's roofs and developing new methods for producing PVs. At the time, it was considered a foregone conclusion that there was so much R&D money going into PVs that in 20 years they would surely make up a substantial, and possibly the leading, method for creating energy. Well, here it is almost 20 years later, and once again we are hearing the same story with the same 20 year time frame. One other thing you said that was interesting: "It can be shown that the low prices we pay for fuel are largely the result of governmental policies that hide the true costs. Many other societies have been less successful at masking these costs, and it is reflected in the prices their consumers actually pay for energy. It is altogether likely that as we move into the next millenium, drastic changes in the way fossil fuels are recovered and distributed will result in a drastic increase in the costs, hidden or not." I take it you are referring to the argument that the price of energy from fossil fuel does not take into account the external cost of the huge defense outlays that countries spend to assure a reliable supply. That is an excellent argument. However, you could also argue that the price of energy is artificially high due to politics, rather than artificially low. Suppose there were no national governments anymore, and the world were one big free enterprise zone with everything deregulated. (I think that scenario is probably more likely for 20 years from now than yours on PV produced hydrogen.) In that event, what would the price of oil be? About $3 per barrel in current terms. Why? Because the actual cost of finding more oil in the lowest cost locations is about $2 per barrel. In a world without governments all the oil would come from the lowest cost locations, just as all commodities do, and the costs are very low in places with huge reserves. The only reason that oil is $16 a barrel now is that the OPEC cartel artificially restricts supply. I obviously strayed way off topic, but I just wanted to point out that the price of energy is not necessarily underpriced in economic terms, and that it is not inevitable that it must necessarily go up. So if PVs at $50 per gallon equivalent are going to someday be cheaper than gasoline at $1.25 it may have to do it on its own--it can't necessarily count on gasoline going to $51 per gallon.

To: Rickmas who wrote (812)	3/17/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: Francois Goelo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

Rickmas, you don't have to be clever to make DCHT look bad... When it issues stock to pay its rent, loses $4.2 Millions in 1998, has a net asset value of some $194,000 and employs tricksters like Dr Harvey, Sir Alexx and H2Oshinsky, all bundled up in the same person to HYPE the value of its stock it looks pretty bad to me. In fact, with all the negative aspects of this Company, as revealed over a period of time on this Board, I am surprised that there are still people blind enough to hold shares in the company and tout it relentlessly. Ballard is a far better Company, if only for the simple reason that the last time I looked, it had $440,000,000 in cash in its kitty. If economically viable fuel cells can be developed, I would rather bet on them than on a cash strapped, money losing Company with the worst possible PR/IR I have ever seen. For your information, I do not hold any share related to the use of hydrogen, as I truly think the only people to make any money out of it for a very long time are going to be the university researchers like you and the shameless promoters like H2Oshinsky. At least, I am pleased to see that you have toned down your previous unfettered hype without disclosure while being directly or indirectly compensated by DCHT. Further information on the Company and people involved in it: #reply-8174874 #reply-8196418 #reply-8238077 #reply-8266295 #reply-8300915#reply-8315669 F. Goelo + + +