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: Scoobah who wrote (814)	3/17/1999 9:49:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 2513

And here I thought he was a Ballard Bull, but lo and behold, he is an ERC promoter!!, Message 4429410 To: Randy Ellingson (2580 ) From: Sid Turtlman Tuesday, May 12 1998 5:40PM ET Reply # of 3864 Randy: There are several different kind of fuel cells out there. Ballard makes PEM cells, which run very cool and can be made very compact. That is a big plus for cars, but the coolness is actually a big disadvantage for stationary power. ERC makes a different kind of fuel cell called molten carbonate, which runs very hot (about 1300 F). This allows it to use natural gas directly without requiring a reformer to extract the hydrogen from the fuel first. Reformers consume a lot of energy, heating the natural gas up to somewhere around 1800 F and then cooling the hydrogen down again so it doesn't melt the PEM membrane, burning off carbon monoxide along the way so that it doesn't poison the membrane. Molten carbonate fuel cells don't have any membranes. ERC's fuel cells are much more efficient than Ballard's, even without counting cogeneration, which ERC can use and Ballard can't. That means that ERC's will create much more electricity from a given amount of fuel, and give off fewer emissions per amount of electricity produced. In terms of the efficiency of the first commercial units, ERC should lead at at least 48% to 35%, and ultimately maybe 58% to 40%. With cogen ERC's figures can go a lot higher. These numbers are a function of chemistry and physics. The molecules and atoms don't know or care who Ballard's partners are. Most Ballard fans would like to believe that ERC doesn't exist, and ERC has no intention of ever putting a molten carbonate fuel cell in a car. But for stationary power, ERC is the one to beat. For more info, see the news release that I cited in my earlier note to Hawkeye.

To: Scoobah who wrote (814)	3/17/1999 9:51:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 2513

I think it is pretty obvious by now that Sid is an ERC promoter and has failed to disclose his bias. Were you being paid by ERC Sid, or are you an employee of theirs? Message 4434292 To: Hawkeye (2583 ) From: Sid Turtlman Wednesday, May 13 1998 12:26AM ET Reply # of 3865 Hawkeye: Once again, I have to disagree with you on most points. "the markets BLD is going after including premium power, remote power and back-up power, all of it off-grid, quite different from ERC..." Not entirely true. ERC will be going after what you call premium power and remote power, with a product that is cleaner and more efficient than Ballard. ERC isn't going after back-up power partially because it takes a while to warm up a molten carbonate fuel cell, as you suggest, but mainly because that market won't be viable economically for years, if ever. Think about it--how many users will pay $3000 per kW or more for power capacity that they will rarely use? It is hard to imagine anyone doing that. It isn't even clear how large the market is for primary power at that price level, and Ballard is unlikely to be able to sell a product much cheaper than that, given that its reformer alone probably will cost $1000 per kW. As to your technical point, PEM cells may start up quickly if they are being fed hydrogen at room temperature, but if they are using a reformer, as Ballard plans to use for its stationary power plants, it takes quite some time for the reformer to heat up to 1800 F and start the process of providing hydrogen for the PEM cell. So a PEM cell isn't a whole lot more useful for backup power than a molten carbonate, even if some wealthy lunatics could be found to buy them for that purpose. So you can't claim that Ballard will be successful selling a relatively inefficient fuel cell because it will be aiming at markets that ERC can't address, because such a market doesn't exist, at least as far as stationary power goes. "Seems to me that ERC just demo'd a 250kw fuel cell for the first time this week. As I remember, BLD had their's working back in Sept." Actually, ERC demo'd its first 250 kW stack many years ago. Two years ago it demo'd a 2 MW plant consisting of eight 250 kW stacks. ERC is far ahead of Ballard in operating experience in stationary power, as is UTX's International Fuel Cells. As the numbers in today's news release show, ERC's product's performance blows away Ballard's and, given the inherent and fundamental disadvantages of PEM for stationary power, I don't see how Ballard can catch up. This bears on the issue of whether Ballard has any chance to have operational black ink before 2007 or so. As to Iceland, it may well be that geothermal could produce hydrogen cheaply enough that a hydrogen powered fuel cell might make economic sense there. As soon as you talk about exporting the stuff, there goes the economics. To be transported in volume, hydrogen must be cooled down close to absolute zero and kept there. That process consumes a lot of energy, which is the main reason why hydrogen is so expensive everywhere except right at the hydrogen plant. But the Iceland news is a small positive for Ballard--who knows, someday it may sell a few units there. I do get The Economist but have been remiss in my reading. If I see something in that article that will explain why people will prefer to buy Ballard's relatively inefficient fuel cells rather than ERC's efficient ones, I'll be sure to let you know.