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 (818)	3/17/1999 10:12:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 2513

Who does Sid really work for? Message 4764962 Is it ERC Sid? Are we getting warmer? To: michael a. rowe (2718 ) From: Sid Turtlman Monday, Jun 8 1998 6:43AM ET Reply # of 3868 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.

To: Scoobah who wrote (818)	3/17/1999 10:16:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 2513

This trip down memory lane for Sid, is actually a very educational experience for people looking for info on hydrogen and PEM Fuel cells. As far as I can tell, this is one of the positives that is coming out of all this nonsense with Sid, other than the obvious exposure of him as either a paid agent of another technology firm, or at least a renegade employee. Message 4794436 But some of the responses to him are quite valuable for this thread as DCHT emerges as the leader in the PEM game. To: Sid Turtlman (2728 ) From: Dr. Ezzat G. Bakhoum Tuesday, Jun 9 1998 10:16PM ET Reply # of 3868 PEM versus electrolyte-based fuel cells: Sid, with all my respect, I think you're the one who is a little confused when you compare PEM fuel cells to other technologies. It's actually the PEM fuel cell that is much more tolerant to impurities in the hydrogen flow than electrolyte-based fuel cells. That's because impurity gases in the hydrogen stream REACT with the electrolyte (especially at high temperatures), and accelerate the decomposition of the electrolyte; and frequent maintenance becomes a major issue. Why do you think the automakers didn't choose the molten carbonate or the phosphoric acid types and chose instead the PEM cell? (Of course, the same holds true for the stationary power plants). Ezzat

To: Scoobah who wrote (818)	3/17/1999 10:18:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Respond to of 2513

here is Sid getting caught putting out propaganda on ERC. Message 4804192 Sid Turtlman (2722 ) From: billkirn Wednesday, Jun 10 1998 1:42PM ET Reply # of 3868 Sid: You statement "ERC's Santa Clara demo was pumping over a MW of fuel cell power into the town's grid for many weeks with no problems whatsoever" Is not accurate. They had serious problems with the cell itself and they had to reduce the power output to 1/3 of design goals, I'm guessing about 330kw. Bill

To: Scoobah who wrote (818)	3/17/1999 10:19:00 AM
From: Scoobah	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2513

It couldn't get any more compelling that Sid works for ERC, To: billkirn (2737 ) From: Sid Turtlman Wednesday, Jun 10 1998 4:57PM ET Reply # of 3868 Bill: At Santa Clara ERC's fuel cell was damaged by a short circuit caused by some bad glue used to hold on the insulation, which carbonized and started conducting electricity where it shouldn't have. That occurred after, as I said, many weeks of pumping over a MW into the town's grid with no problems whatsoever. The fuel cell was damaged first, then it stopped working right. If the glue hadn't been bad, the fuel cell wouldn't have been damaged. Bad glue on exterior insulation doesn't imply anything wrong with the fuel cell itself. If the NECAR 2 had a tire that blew, knocking the vehicle into a ditch, would you say that Ballard's fuel cell was no good because the car stopped running? This is the whole point of demonstrations of complex technology, to find out what may go wrong. Perhaps Ballard has the world's smartest engineers who know how to design something perfectly on the first go round, but I will guess that there will be unexpected problems with its stationary power units that it will have to adjust or redesign. ERC has accumulated tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of hours of operating experience with its units. It is not clear that Ballard has even a few thousand hours with its units (or should I say unit? Has it built more than one yet?)