| An SI Board Since June 1999 |
| Posts |
SubjectMarks |
Bans |
| 79 |
11 |
0
|
| Emcee:
GLE
|
Type:
Unmoderated
|
|
I thought it was time we opened a discussion forum that could be the meeting place for Global Thermoelectric and Ballard posters to debate the great fuel cell race. Unless new technology surfaces within the next couple of years.. one of these two companies will be left standing and reaping the rewards of their technological breakthrough through major development in the automotive industry.
The following excerpt is taken from a "Special Situations and Research Commentary" Published by Sarah Hughes, Associate, of Sprott Securities Limited on June 18, 1999. It reads;
The Great Debate: Solid Oxide Versus Proton Exchange Membrane
... The two most common differences between PEMs and SOFCs deal with the large differential in operating temperatures and required use of pure hydrogen by PEMs. PEMs operate at much lower operating temperatures (80 degrees C) compared to most other fuel cell systems. These low temperatures allow for quick start-up times and the use of inexpensive materials, which make PEMs suitable for mass market applications, where space is a constraint and the cost must be extremely low. However, the temperature also contributes to the system's biggest obstacle, the requirement of pure hydrogen. Before these cells can successfully enter the mass market, either a hydrogen fuel infrastructure will take a significant amount of time an money. Although many of the large petroleum producers are currently attempting to develop a feasible fuel infrastructure, there is no guarantee that they will be successful. The problem with hydrogen is that it is an explosive gas with a very low boiling point, and therefore is difficult to store. In terms of the reformer, it not only increases the cost of the system but also its size, both of which will play an important role in the ultimate use of PEMs as a replacement for the internal combustion engine.
In contrast, SOFCs operate at a much higher temperature, and therefore the conversion of natural gas to hydrogen can occur internally. These systems can incorporate an internal fuel reformer in the design, which uses heat from the fuel cell to convert natural gas directly into a hydrogen rich fuel. In addition the SOFC system is significantly less sensitive to impurities in the fuel (such as sulphur) throughout the reforming process, increasing the efficiency and dependency of the sytems. In terms of the stationary markets, the efficiency of the SOFC systems can be dramatically increased (up to 80% to 90%) when the excess heat is used for other purposes. Although the operating temperatures give SOFCs a number of advantages over the PEMs, it also leads to a number of obstacles, including the need for thermal management, high material costs and the dradual degradation of the system.
In terms of the mass market applications, PEMs have received significantly more attention than SOFCs; however, industry experts believe that the required us of hydrogen will delay the successful entry of PEMs into the mass auto market. In the meantime, automobile manufacturers cannot wait for the infrastructure to be built, as they are up against the strict timelines of current emmission legislation. In order to meet the strict deadlines of emission legislation, automotive manufacturers have begun to look for an alternative to PEMs while the hydrogen problem is solved.
Good Posting.. Let the Great Fuel Cell Debate begin
|
|
|
