To: Sid Turtlman who wrote (822 ) 3/20/1999 10:59:00 PM From: Scoobah Respond to of 2513
Sid. I just came across this message for the first time during a review of the thread. I didn't mean for it to slip by. I believe your arguments on those issues have merit and I welcome the discussion. Keeping in mind of course that it is the overall growth of hydrogen as an industry that DCH stands to capitalize the most from, and that hydrogen usage in the US alone increased 25% a year for the period 1992-1997, and continues to increase; and with events like the announcement from Norsk Hydro in Iceland, and Congressman Peterson's trial ballon on the House floor a few weeks ago, Hydrogen usage may grow even faster in the next 5 years.. There will be a US Congressman speaking on Hydrogen at the 10th Annual National Hydrogen Association convention with representatives from all over the world that are using Hydrogen or will be using it more. So someone is using a lot more of it; DCH just wants them to do it safely, and has the products to do it. <<<<Steve: Thanks for presenting some of my arguments for me. I view them as arguments, not biases. If someone comes up with a new way to make hydrogen much cheaper than it is presently made, and transport and store it much cheaper than the current cost, that would change the equation considerably, and would change my opinion about the prospects of technologies that require hydrogen. So what is wrong with my logic on this? I am perfectly willing to stand corrected. Is hydrogen extremely cheap to make, transport, and store, only I don't know it? Is there something new out there that will radically change the economics? These arguments, among others, are the reasons for some of my skepticism about the prospects for Ballard and the others working with PEM.>>>> As GM of a paid consultant to DCH my disclaimer can be found at the bottom of this dated report, Message 8338665