Sat, Dec 20, 2014, 12:27 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Ballard Power Systems Inc. Message Board

  • pink789 pink789 Aug 2, 2004 2:17 PM Flag

    Fool wisdom regarding PLUG

    'How did Plug Power do? Hint: The company's "financial results" section leads off with the line "Net cash used in operating activities." Not a good omen.'

    'Rule of thumb for investing: Companies that sell products are good; those that sell stock, not so much.'

    LOL. Althought the story was for PLUG the advise might apply pretty well to BLDP, don't you think? Or is the BLDP long wisdom something like "...60+ consecutive quarterly losses is a great thing since it clear demonstrates the company has the staying power required to live through the expected future 40+ to 80+ more quarterly losses..." :)

    Sorry, was that a long posting a less than 40 quarters of consecutive loses for BLDP before profits? What was that number, sorry, I missed that number... The number please :)

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • <<The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.>>

      That's you, Right!! LOL.

    • The Ballard board seams to be overrun with short pumpers, not FC pumpers, check the posts, bubba!!
      And you seen to have your own huge delusionary syndrome, sounds kind of like it takes one to know one, to the onlookers, as jwogdn would say!! I guess I could be wrong, but not this time, you just keep on huffing and puffing, it suits you!! LOL.

    • Just click your shoes together Dorothy and it will all come true

    • Yes.

      And with a tank of water in the pod, it could make its own hydrogen for use when getting off the interstate.

      Intead of highpower lines overhead the roads themselves could bring electricity to where it's needed.

    • side note: there is a company (not ready for prime time/not publicly traded) working on carbon monoxide fuel cells.

      I just found it interesting... they idea of people creating carbon monoxide intentionally for fuel use??

      ahh well

    • <But might I add that unless we develope renewable resources and nuclear (fission and fussion) there is no clear path to energy independance.>

      Renewable resources? Chrissakes, bill, you ARE trying to give me the grabber of all heart attacks.......

      Now that you've crossed that river, if we can just get you to leave your nuclear baggage behind, we'll make a good peace loving long haired hippie devil out of you yet........ :^)

    • "I will still maintain that electric powered roads are the way to go."


      william_tarasen:
      I like this idea. The possibility of our major interstate highways powering our vehicles is intriguing. Consider a super highway where your personal transport pod is energized and whisked along at lighting speeds with only a fraction of an inch between pods and driver control released to the highway control system. Only when we exit into the local road grid system will we take back manual control and power requirements for our pods. If most of your commuting is the interstates a tank of H2 could last weeks.

      Farnorth

    • I sort of agree with your post. But might I add that unless we develope renewable resources and nuclear (fission and fussion) there is no clear path to energy independance. We can piss and moan about energy transport, and FC's are one option, but unless we have cheap, clean and reliable sources, we have gained nothing.

      I have nothing against liquids or gases from fossil carbon sources such as oil shale, oil sands, coal, etc. but we must all realize that is a short term solution. A necessary one, but not the ultimate one. I.e., hybrids are no more temporary than FC's if hydrocarbons are the source of the energy. And worse if one considers the problems of storage, transport, etc.

      I will still maintain that electric powered roads are the way to go. Maybe an induction series in the roadways makes sense. I am not an EE, but direct electrical power uses 1/5th the total energy of any other method.

      Regards

      Bill

    • Membrane technology has been the Holy Grail for all of the industrial gas producers; and not just for Hydrogen. Maybe someday it will succeed, but it doesn't work commercially now (at least not at ultra large scale) - PSA is the state of the art. Once purified the H2 still needs to be compressed and transported. In some dense areas pipelines will be built/already exist but the cost of compression is significant.

      My point is that if it is a truely remote resource then liquification is the only way to go for transport. If it is a domestic resource such as coal or tar then it is cheaper, easier and more reliable to put electricity on the grid.

      I think H2 will get there eventually, but at first it is going to be pollution/politically driven and will not be cheap. It is going to have a hard time competing with GTL and Hybrid technologies. I don't think it will ever be the most economic energy form so until fusion or other energy sources come on line that make the efficiency hit insignificant to do electrolysis I just can't see it becoming predominant.

      P.S., I appreciate your rational discussion and thoughtful posts.

    • Hi nmcotwpv,
      You say:
      <<<<<
      I do agree with you that gasification is the most cost effective way of producing hydrogen and that the production cost for hydrogen is probably less than FT fuels or electricity but not significantly so. However the highest efficiency, lowest cost, and probably greatest value is derived by producing a mix of products (hydrogen, electricity, FT fuels, and chemicals).
      >>>>>
      We really do agree on that. There are some others on this discussion board - star_hominid, and maguro for instance that are keeping up with this important technology.
      You also say:
      <<<<<<<
      Yes, but from what I have seen the cost of this process is not insignificant. It may cost less to separate the hydrogen and carbon monoxide in the syngas and use the carbon monoxide to generate electricity.
      >>>>>>>

      That sounds like an interesting idea. That way you would not lose the sensible heat of the hot carbon monoxide coming from the gasifier.

      The entire DOE R&D program to obtain hydrogen (and electric power and liquid fuels and chemicals) from coal is pretty well spelled out in: (replace ** with tt)

      h**p://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/2_miller_philadelphia_04.pdf

      One of the other particular efforts (beside the semipermeable membrane for separating hydrogen) is separating oxygen from air with a semi-permeable membrane. It is spelled out in: (replace ** with tt)

      h**p://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/review04/hpd_2_chen.pdf

      This task is being done by Air Products. The idea is that a semipermeable membrane for producing oxygen for the gasifier is much cheaper and less energy intensive than either a liquefication and distillation plant or a pressure swing adsorption plant. In addition semipermeable membranes can be used to push the equilibrium in the desired direction without having to use "brute force" from temperature or pressure.

      The DOE is planning to spend 1.3 Billion dollars on this R&D and they appear to be getting quite a bit for their money.

      gomor

    • View More Messages