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

FuelCell Energy Inc. Message Board

  • kidmadeira kidmadeira Jul 16, 2011 9:03 AM Flag

    UTC- Pratt,0,5437346.story

    It would take 100 FCEL DFC-250 fuel cells to match one FT-8. FT-8 can deliver power within minutes of startup, run on natgas, diesel or jet fuel.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • fuelcellperspectiv Jul 22, 2011 1:33 PM Flag

      One of the main cost issues with MC is stack life; they claim 5 years but I don't think that has been demonstrated in a real unit in the field.
      From what I have read the UTC PAFC stacks have demonstrated 8 years in the field and their new units have a 10 stack year life

    • A jet engine to make electricity ?

      That's okay, but a Silver Oxide fuel cell can make electricity with the fuel cell and then use excess heat for a steam turbine to also make electricity.

      Just connect it to natural gas lines and water lines.

    • fuelcellperspectiv Jul 18, 2011 2:23 PM Flag

      When I add my power cost up it comes to 19cents; I have no idea what FCE's costs are.
      In my previous email,I forgot to mention the unknown cost of disposing of the spent nuclear fuel; whatever that cost maybe when we actually have a solution that people will accept.

    • fcp..,

      >Add it all up, still excluding the avoided nuclear insurance charge, and it is more like 19 cents<

      I pay in total 15.7¢/kWh. This is not an estimate, but, an actual rate. Any idea on what FCEL's total costs are?


    • fuelcellperspectiv Jul 18, 2011 1:15 PM Flag

      You may buy "low cost" but it is heavily subsidized:
      Eminent domain reduced the cost of stringing the wires to your house
      Your cost does not include transmitting
      or distributing power to you by NU or UI (The wires charge") or NU's "Customer Charge"
      Does not included "stranded cost" recovery charges from NU's old nukes
      Does not include the insurance subsidy charges for Nukes ie the Gov caps their losses in case of a nuke accident.Ask the folks in Japan about that one

      Add it all up, still excluding the avoided nuclear insurance charge, and it is more like 19 cents

    • link,

      Like many others, you are seduced by "high efficiency" claims by FCEL. The reality is that final cost to customers is what counts, they couldn't care less about efficiency. I buy electricity from ConnEdison, 8.34¢/kWh, it's the lowest rate available to me, I don't care about ConnEd's efficiency. Additionally, the FCEL efficiency claims are based on ideal conditions. In operation, FCEL efficiency degrades with time and will require a re-stack at great expense, the financials just don't work.


    • willie,

      >Kid talking to himself, to stay on top of the board list! Pathetic!<

      Some folks talk to themselves, I am not one of them.


    • Kid talking to himself, to stay on top of the board list! Pathetic!

    • Kid,

      Thanks for pointing out that 60% is achievable at ~480MW running in a combined cycle mode. (lot of optimization has gone into this).

      That is the disadvantage of conventional technology versus FCEL's DFC.

      FCEL's 1.4 and 2.8 MW (likely soon to be 3.0 MW) will deliver 49% in a simple cycle mode and very likely deliver > 3.0 MW in a combined cycle mode. (they did demonstrate 56-58% in a DFC300 plant with off the shelf capstone turbine).

      FCEL likely has not put in even a very small fraction of development $$ that is typically spent on high efficiency gas turbines.

      So potentially with an advanced system (tri-generation) where heat and energy are well integrated and efficiently managed, DFC combined cycle system may achieve ~70% efficiency, without significant additional cost compared to its simple cycle system.

      Like most new systems and concepts, conventional system will look superior early in the development cycle, however as the technology matures with new ideas and concepts, new technology will gradually demonstrate superiority and potential.

      Incandescent bulbs survived a long time as an obvious economic choice, but now are likely phased out for ever.

      Same future awaits the gas turbines.

    • I agree about Kid, he seems to specialize in a psych tactic of "confuse and defuse", which was developed by the CIA around 1960. It entails diverting discussion away from the primary object to disgust and tire the participants so that they become worn out and just quit talking. It's a negotiation tactic, that's why I put him on ignore!

      The stealing of ideas follows a pattern I have noticed,

      I worked on a coal to oil to gas pilot plant for a contractor for the US gov. We would often just install one fitting a day! Their excuse for consuming over a billion US tax dollars was that the tech had to be "developed" as they went. Strange thing was that Germany was doing this very thing to provide fuel for their troops during WWII and the US took those designs from their labs. IMHO all they were doing was following those old blueprints and milking the American taxpayers and the "delay" was to allow patent lawyers to do their searchs so they could file patents on the "inventions" as they figured out what the Germans had been doing.

      I saw a film of Nichlas Tesla in 1941 transmitting electricity 41 miles THROUGH THE AIR at his research facility at Colorado Springs. Power grids ARE NOT NEEDED. They are just so we can be efficiently milked by utilities. When asked about building those transmission facilities for home consumers, JP Morgan said, "I can't figure out where to put the meter."

    • View More Messages
5.10-0.20(-3.77%)Oct 21 4:00 PMEDT