Seeking Alpha

Plug Power, Ballard, FuelCell all tumble as analyst calls fuel cell cars "failure"

  • Shares of fuel cell plays such as Plug Power (PLUG -13.6%), Ballard Power (BLDP -1.9%) and FuelCell Energy (FCEL -4.2%) are lower, possibly related to negative commentary from Global Equities Research's Tesla analyst, Trip Chowdhry, who says fuel cell cars are a "complete failure" and a "non-event... not a viable source of fuel for automobiles."
  • Fuel cell infrastructure is "non-existent," and in for battery-in-motion scenarios in cars, the hydrogen gas needs to be compressed to 5,000 lbs. of pressure so as to fit in the cylinder, the analyst says.
Comments (137)
  • phxcrane
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    But electric cars are? What a joke. Governments have been pushing electric cars for over 50 years. This is just another OBAMAnation in the works.
    28 Apr, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Electric engines are more efficient than internal combustion engines. The question is what will power either engine.

     

    In a world of diminishing fossil fuel resources, what are the economics for investing in and developing energy assets for now and the future.
    28 Apr, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • FF373737
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    Who ever said that PLUG technology was ever going to be used in cars? This is really sad. They were going to sell Genkeys to another car manufacturer for their FORKLIFTS!!!!!!
    28 Apr, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • fidgeroo
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    phxcrane -- An EXPERT in hydrogen fuel cells AND automotive technology!
    29 Apr, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • FF373737
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    Wonder what Trip thinks of the news regarding FCEL "winning a bid to build and operate two 2.8 MW power plants in Connecticut". I guess, "Fuel Cell Infrastructure", is not so non-existent.
    30 Apr, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Well if he's in the Tesla fold, he's probably referring to hydrogen fueling stations for vehicles, but get your point.
    30 Apr, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Ironically, Middle Eastern countries and kingdoms like Dubai might lead the way with solar, desalinization, and hydrogen. Da man sez "Do It" and it's done. Less red tape and they know exactly how much oil reserves they have left.
    30 Apr, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • vpg999
    , contributor
    Comments (121) | Send Message
     
    not sure if that makes sense, analyst doesn't know new technologies coming out that can burn water to create heat, fuel cells will work in the future, maybe not as currently designed, with that said, short TSLA might be a best option here.
    28 Apr, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • chriff
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Anyone I've seen rooting in favor of hydrogen fuel cells seems to have forgotten middle school science class, mainly that energy cannot be created or destroyed and that a perpetual motion machine is outside of the laws of physics. And most of the time you transfer energy from one form to another, you lose a lot of it, for example in the form of heat.

     

    Plainly put: hydrogen fuel cells are just batteries. And pretty terrible at that, since first we have to make the hydrogen, then we have to ship it to the end user...with electricity, that entire infrastructure is in place. Regular batteries are pretty terrible still as well, but they can get better. And to switch to an electric car, you don't need to establish the entire infrastructure of production and distribution (for convenience, make distribution more car-friendly).

     

    To recap: hydrogen fuel cells are not "alternative energy." They are just bad batteries.
    28 Apr, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • peteryzhang
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    There's nothing wrong about Fuel Cell, it is just how and where we should use it to. It is better for that tech keep in backdoor and do some hard work, like nuclear, instead of into the consumer market. It can be quite good for energy storage, in large scale.

     

    Maybe that analyst is right on something, I mean, the industry should leave out the auto sector and move to other areas, like power storage, etc.
    28 Apr, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • WulfherSS
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    Exactly, batteries that require 4 Watts in and yield 1 Watt out.
    28 Apr, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Actually fuel cells are not batteries. Batteries store electrons (rechargeable). Fuel cells burn fuel to release electrons. Fuel cells are basically comparable to a natural gas fired turbine-generator, with fewer major moving parts, they both burn fuel to make electrical power. PEM membrane fuel cells produce electrical power directly, with the need for a turbine to rotate the generator, so they can potentially be more efficient users of fuel. All rechargeable batteries do is store and release electrons. I do agree with the rest of the points you are making. The real problem with fuel cells and batteries is the source of power, if fossil fuels are used, they are just a smoke screen, not true alt energy products.
    29 Apr, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Ecomike for the thought-provoking analysis. Really concur with your smoke-screen analogy. Would it be significant to also analyze the differential environmental impact of the various fossil fuels and the financial resources required to keep each of them cleaner?
    For instance, my understanding is the current reformation of nat gas to hydrogen usually does not include capturing the carbon dioxide. It could be captured instead of floating into the greenhouse atmosphere. Actually could be, or is, a valuable commodity on its own. Just ask indoor pot growers!
    Majority of electricity comes from coal-fired plants. It seems alot of people influenced by the greener side of the marketing of electric cars miss that point.
    29 Apr, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3928) | Send Message
     
    They don't miss the point that most electricity comes from coal they just ignore it, in hopes that 'renewables' will eventually replace it. Doesn't stop them from saying how green their ev is.

     

    Although it is important to concede it's easier to clean emissions at a power plant vs the billion or so vehicles out there.

     

    The point is we need a clear, comprehensive approach, unemotionally charged view, to our energy needs. Every possibility should be explored.
    29 Apr, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. Unemotional charged views won't go away though, esp since investments are pegged to these industries. We'll (meaning the whole planet) need ALL alternative energy sources as oil supply dries up.
    29 Apr, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3928) | Send Message
     
    alternative energy will have it's day (solar lol) but I don't know if it'll ever be 100% of our consumption.
    29 Apr, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • GameKing13
    , contributor
    Comments (290) | Send Message
     
    Tremendous buying opportunity now for BLDP and PLUG
    28 Apr, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • jobehro
    , contributor
    Comments (167) | Send Message
     
    Sell and move to EV's, they are the future. They are "green", quite, easy to service, and most economical.
    28 Apr, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • wigit5
    , contributor
    Comments (3928) | Send Message
     
    Yeah I mean all EV's need is a little electricity and that is terribly green these days.
    28 Apr, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Let's hope they get that battery replacement timeline under control ala Tesla. That currently makes the idea uneconomical for the owner/driver unless money is no object.
    29 Apr, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • Stephen User 19923011
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    A Tesla analyst? Gee guys, lets think this one through. Why would a guy who is in EV cars say Hyrdo power is a failure.....

     

    I don't know, I am stumped, can anyone who is smarter than me figure this one out? I think is pretty tough.....
    28 Apr, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Skeptic84
    , contributor
    Comments (280) | Send Message
     
    Yes. Likely this analyst's "research" is coming straight from the Tesla PR department.
    28 Apr, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Catsrevenge
    , contributor
    Comments (152) | Send Message
     
    How does an ANALyst use such absolute words like "complete failure" or "non existent" ???Just sounds like another Indian short seller to me.
    28 Apr, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • pensaman
    , contributor
    Comments (210) | Send Message
     
    In India, we call people like this "Bara Baje" ... meaning 12 O'clock Suns heat is melting his brain inside the turban. americans may not get the joke.. will take a while. We can call him, Brain dead AnalYeast for simplicity..
    28 Apr, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • WulfherSS
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    If hydrogen fuel cell cars made sense then Elon would be the first to support them, but they don't so he doesn't. If you have basic science you can easily verify for yourself why this is the case. Contrarian arguments don't hold water when mother nature is not on your side. Tip: investigate the energy required to convert water or hydro carbons to hydrogen, the energy to compress and store it, transport it, pump it, and convert it to electricity.
    28 Apr, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • Weighing Machine
    , contributor
    Comments (600) | Send Message
     
    Cat's revenge...what happened to the short squeeze you so confidently predicted last week?
    29 Apr, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • Stephen User 19923011
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Oh I totally agree with that. However, my first thing to say is that BLDP is diverse. It is not just in cars and that is another reason why the article is bs because fuel cell cars are not what ballard is all about.

     

    There are ways to produce hydrogen to run the whole US economy without even using nat gas or methane. I will see if I can find this article a MIT guy wrote. It lists a whole list of ways to produce Hydrogen, both expensive and inexpensive. (which it turns out is on my favorites so here it is. http://bit.ly/1mVfUcp)
    It is a very long article, but well worth the read.
    29 Apr, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • uksausage
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    Well PLUG has no current activity in fuel cell powered cars nor has FCEL I think. BLDP has a small section of their business in research with someone but I wouldn't expect that to be productive.

     

    A number of tech debts are falling into place in next year or so - hydrogen from water and sun gives easy way to put infrastructure in place if needed, cells getting lighter more powerful, new catalysysts etc.
    I agree what else would TSLA analysts say?
    28 Apr, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • pensaman
    , contributor
    Comments (210) | Send Message
     
    space age technology will survive. Fools like Anal yeast, like Trip Chowdhry... until they drives the donkey cart to pull Tesla when the battery runs out . Ballard will win in the final run. Before the Auto, they said the same thing... No gas stations and No roads.. How far have we come?
    28 Apr, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Funny... Agree!
    28 Apr, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • User 509088
    , contributor
    Comments (933) | Send Message
     
    he's a tesla analyst, so i guess it's just a function of the edit of the quotes or something.

     

    fuel cells still use batteries. that's a false differentiation. the fuel cells charge the batteries which use the same kinds of technology that gives battery vehicles their snap.

     

    and i believe ballard does methanol stacks as well.

     

    it would be neat if gas stations had stacks creating electricity in the hinterland so that teslas could not be trapped like flight couldn't make it across the ocean.
    28 Apr, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "the fuel cells charge the batteries which use the same kinds of technology that gives battery vehicles their snap."
    No, Tesla's car uses a big battery, which provides lots of power (energy per unit time). Lots of power means lots of snap. FC vehicles use a smaller battery charged by the fuel cell. The smaller battery provides less power and snap.

     

    "it would be neat if gas stations had stacks creating electricity in the hinterland"
    Where will hydrogen come from in the hinterland? It is far more efficient to send energy to the hinterland as electricity in wires than as hydrogen which must be generated (overwhelmingly from fossil fuels), compressed, trucked (hydrogen destroys pipelines), stored (hydrogen leaks through container walls), and converted back to electricity by a fuel cell.
    28 Apr, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • peteryzhang
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Even all those dumb fuel cell companies go down to dust and bankrupt, that doesn't mean fuel cell doesn't have a role to play in our society. Those who fails are betting on the wrong direction, in my opinion.

     

    It is time they stop and think more about their direction before they do anything else.

     

    Fuel cell can make large power plants, just like nuclear. Sun, Electricity, H2, transport, ( Fuel Cell), Electricity again.
    28 Apr, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    "fuel cells still use batteries. that's a false differentiation. the fuel cells charge the batteries which use the same kinds of technology that gives battery vehicles their snap."

     

    That is correct!!!!
    29 Apr, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Battery size is irrelevant to peak acceleration power. It is relevant to driving distance between recharging. A regenerative braking system, like a hybrid, that replaces the bulk of the batteries (or ICE engine) with a fuel cell for topping off the battery and for cruise distance power, and an ultracapacitor-rapid cycle battery system, could be just as fast as a Tesla.

     

    "FC vehicles use a smaller battery charged by the fuel cell. The smaller battery provides less power and snap."
    29 Apr, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    "Battery size is irrelevant to peak acceleration power."

     

    False. There are two components to power output, pack size and C rate. A 1kWh pack with a 5C rating can have the same power output as a 5kWh pack with a 1C rating. However the smaller pack would not be able to store as much energy from regen, nor would it be able to supply it's peak output for as long. An FC vehicle would need a fairly large pack and a high C rate to match a Tesla. Currently high C rate cells are expensive and have worse energy density compared to the cells Tesla uses. Ultra caps are too expensive and don't have enough energy density to come close at this point.
    29 Apr, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    @JRP3,

     

    "False. There are two components to power output, pack size and C rate." -- if you really understood battery technology you would understand that the internal cell resistance is the limiting factor for power delivery.
    30 Apr, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    Chip,
    If you really understood battery technology you'd know that different lithium chemistries have different C rates, and that C rate is is a reflection of power output, and the way cell power output is rated. So basically you said nothing.
    30 Apr, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    @JRP3,

     

    A weak argument (though expected) trying to support your original incorrect position. I really need you to get a good understanding of the cell basics so we can have a meaningful debate.

     

    The different lithium chemistries is just one component of the internal resistance.
    2 May, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    Chip,
    Again, you said nothing. You obviously don't know the basics, as you've proven repeatedly, so you certainly won't be providing any understanding.
    My statement regarding C rates was 100% accurate, yet you had to try and chime in and pretend you knew something about it. How about you try and directly disprove my statement, with facts and references, that my initial statement was false:

     

    "There are two components to power output, pack size and C rate."
    4 May, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    @JRP3,

     

    "There are two components to power output, pack size and C rate." -- There are many more components than this, and it is clear that your hobbyist nature does not understand this.

     

    I would like to debate this with you, though it is the equivalent of arguing about differential equations to someone that it just starting to understand algebra.

     

    I do not pretend to know. I have no problem stating what I do and do not know.
    5 May, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    So you are clearly stating that you cannot in fact refute my statement. Good, because what I said is 100% accurate, and trying to disagree would make you look foolish, which I think you figured out.
    6 May, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    @JRP3,

     

    Ok, I will treat you as a 3rd grader. Yes, your statement of the obvious "There are two components to power output, pack size and C rate." is correct on that bigger packs and higher C rate packs can produce higher power output. This statement is akin to saying that the 18650 cell is cylindrical, 65 mm in length and 18 mm diameter.

     

    Your two items -- pack size and C rate, are not the only items that limit power delivery (at least I am glad you are not saying your miracle NCA cells can produce more power in a smaller pack size). You need to consider the other factors (i.e. cell impedance) to determine what really limits power output.

     

    There are many factors in cell design. Your oversimplification is disrespectful for the many that spend years in researching this problem.

     

    Your refusal to accept these facts means that you need to repeat 3rd grade.
    6 May, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    chip, I'm still waiting for you to provide more than name-calling and vague generalizations without evidence.
    6 May, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    Chip,

     

    "Your two items -- pack size and C rate, are not the only items that limit power delivery (at least I am glad you are not saying your miracle NCA cells can produce more power in a smaller pack size). You need to consider the other factors (i.e. cell impedance) to determine what really limits power output."

     

    You still don't understand that C rate includes impedance and all other parameters that dictate cell power output. C rate IS the measurement of the cells' ability to deliver power. Another basic battery fact that you seem to have no knowledge of. Cell providers rate their cell power output in C rate, I guess you are pretending they don't know what they are talking about either. Once again, my statement: "There are two components to power output, pack size and C rate." is 100% true and will always remain so. I realize you'll never admit your error no matter how many times you're proven wrong, it's just your "style" I guess.
    7 May, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Biased! TSLA doesn't currently use fuel cell technology, so it bashes other companies that will. I think that it would make sense to have a hybrid fuel cell - graphene lithium battery powered car. Battery for rapid acceleration. Fuel cell - technology for cruising and to recharge the battery. The hydrogen infrastructure will come with developments in "inexpensive" graphene PEM electrolyzers (as compared to platinum catalysts).
    28 Apr, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    I agree except for the hydrogen. One new company is making the need for hydrogen fuel obsolete. They have developed a patent issued fuel cell that does not use precious metal catalysts, does not use a PEM membranes (both cost more than a Detroit ICE engine for one vehicle fuel cell), and it uses a non flammable formic acid/formate fuel that they can manufacture using renewable electric power and waste CO2 from industry (the other patented tech they have). DD links are all here.

     

    http://bit.ly/1dd7Dr6

     

    They are building an MVTG MRFC fuel cell powered vehicle right now that will be operating on formic acid and the MVTG fuel cell later this year.
    29 Apr, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Formic acid fuel cell technology could be very useful in stationary fuel cells.

     

    But, I wonder if there will be concerns in vehicular accidents. Formic acid is corrosive to the skin and could be fatal if inhaled or ingested.

     

    Hydrogen powered vehicles appear to be safer since the tank's safety release valve quickly releases H2 gas and the H2 quickly reacts with oxygen to convert to water vapor.

     

    Thanks for the stimulating conversation Ecomike!
    8 May, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "Hydrogen powered vehicles appear to be safer since the tank's safety release valve quickly releases H2 gas and the H2 quickly reacts with oxygen to convert to water vapor."

     

    When H2 quickly reacts with oxygen, it's called an explosion. Not so safe.
    8 May, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    I agree that $TSLA vehicles are a perfect match for H2/FC technology, even if just as an option to have a $PLUG range extender installed. It makes perfect sense and helps $TSLA over one of their biggest problems, limited range and amount of time needed recharging.
    8 May, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Google high-speed crash test videos with H2 vehicles. What you'll see is a 1.5 second long stream of gas/fire, and then it's over.

     

    Safer than gasoline fire, or possibly a formic acid spill.
    8 May, 04:54 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Totally agree. But, I don't think $TSLA will fully abandon batteries because of the acceleration with batteries. A hybrid could be a good compromise.
    8 May, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    Tesla will never use fuel cells, no good reason to do so. Plus Musk rightly refers to them as "fool cells", so....
    8 May, 11:24 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    That's the one thing that makes me wonder about Musk, he dismisses a nascent technology that has huge potential and he probably doesn't understand completely just because he has major investments (emotional and financial) in batteries, a technology that is rapidly looking old fashioned when compared to "fool cells" as a way to deliver electric energy. If you must have zero to 60 in .2 seconds, you will need a way to store a lot of power but a capacitor (as Hyndai has engineered in their FCEV) may work better in that role than a conventional battery to deliver a large burst of power for rapid acceleration. I think $TSLA may rapidly look like yesterday's news when Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, Hyundai et al release their equally sexy fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs).
    9 May, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "Musk dismisses a nascent technology that has huge potential and he probably doesn't understand completely"

     

    He probably understands the technology better than you. He said hydrogen is good for rockets, not cars, and he is a rocket scientist.
    http://bit.ly/1s9XXor

     

    He also understands ultra-capacitors.
    << The original reason Musk came out to California years ago was to do research on advanced, high energy density capacitors at Stanford >>
    http://bit.ly/1s9Xcvt
    He said the Gen3 will use ultracaps that "the public doesn't know about."
    http://bit.ly/1s9XemV
    9 May, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    @DSC214,

     

    Hydrogen is less safe than gasoline, as least according to the Industrial Safety ratings. Hydrogen is a Group B, gasoline is Group. The lower the group letter (A, acetylene) the higher the pressure increase/ unit time.

     

    It is this explosive pressure and mostly invisible flame that makes hydrogen dangerous.
    9 May, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    "fool cells" -- NCA lithium batteries? Many are "fooled" into thinking these are the best thing since sliced bread....
    9 May, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    I agree that ultra-capacitors could add a lot to any electric vehicle but until Musk puts fool cells in his BEVs, they are never going to have the range and quick "charge" time that FCEVs do (five minutes to go 350 miles).
    9 May, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "until Musk puts fool cells in his BEVs, they are never going to have the range and quick "charge" time that FCEVs do"

     

    Then you don't understand the function of ultra-capacitors.
    9 May, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    If an ultra-capacitor can recharge in five minutes and take the car 350 miles, then why is he rushing to build the giga-farce factory to make costly, bulky, heavy, environmentally unfriendly batteries that take hours to fully charge and have to be disposed of after five years or so?
    9 May, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "If an ultra-capacitor can recharge in five minutes and take the car 350 miles"
    Ultracaps can recharge in seconds but their capacity is currently limited, so they will likely be used in combination with batteries that they recharge like a fuel cell does.

     

    "why is he rushing to build the giga-farce factory to make costly, bulky, heavy, environmentally unfriendly batteries"
    You don't know exactly what the factory will make, because the Gen3 powertrain will use ultracaps that "the public doesn't know about," as I quoted above. Also, Tesla's current batteries are the cheapest and most energy-dense available, and environmentally friendly because they can be recycled and don't dump CO2 in the atmosphere like the dominant source of industrial hydrogen (steam reforming of natural gas).

     

    "that take hours to fully charge and have to be disposed of after five years or so?"
    Superchargers give half a charge in 20 minutes, and Model S batteries will likely last at least a decade in the car, and more decades when repurposed as home/grid storage, until they are recycled.
    9 May, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    In truth the "fast fill up" is less important than most people think, especially since most charging is done at home over night, at a very low cost. The growing Supercharging network is plenty fast enough for the occasional long trip. The complete lack of filling stations for fuel cell vehicles proves the lie about "fast" refueling for fuel cell vehicles.
    9 May, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    I am not an engineer but many I have spoken with think that fuel cells are a much better way to provide power to an electric vehicle (EV) than conventional batteries, especially for longer distances and heavier loads (if we are thinking about trucks carrying cargo across country, etc. And, until we are not firing power plants with any fossil fuels, there is just as much if not more CO2 released when charging a BEV battery.
    Though most hydrogen is made from methane (from natural gas) today, it can be made by splitting water (H2O) which will be our ultimate sole source of hydrogen. Using nuclear power, geothermal, hydro power and other non-carbon sources of electricity, we will one day produce all the hydrogen needed for transportation.
    10 May, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "until we are not firing power plants with any fossil fuels, there is just as much if not more CO2 released when charging a BEV battery"
    If you think about this statement for a moment, even an non-engineer should see it is nonsense. Image one last fossil fuel plant left in the world. You say "just as much if not more CO2 released." Now close the plant. Do BEVs suddenly become better only then?

     

    "Though most hydrogen is made from methane (from natural gas) today, it can be made by splitting water (H2O)"
    Not economically. The inherent inefficiencies of hydrogen generation, compression, storage, and reconversion into energy are too large. If you store solar energy as hydrogen (generated by splitting water), you lose 75% of the energy in the journey from solar cells to motion of your car. If you store solar energy in a battery, you lose roughly 10%.

     

    "Using nuclear power, geothermal, hydro power and other non-carbon sources of electricity, we will one day produce all the hydrogen needed for transportation."
    Not if batteries remain a cheaper way to store energy from those sources, which is highly likely.
    10 May, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    Time will tell...
    11 May, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • jobehro
    , contributor
    Comments (167) | Send Message
     
    Looking into the future of EV's as some do with hydrogen I see spare batteries to extend range and replacement and no unnecessary infrastructure. Perhaps the hydrogen could be better used producing electricity?
    28 Apr, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • aanooch44
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    he right on for fcel bldp and plug
    BUT
    capstone has already proven itself in autos,trucks and boats
    i wonder if he knows the capstone story?
    capstone is head and shoulders above fuel cell companies when it comes to drive train technology
    28 Apr, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Sven_M
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    wow, now let's think here for a minute, what exctly does a hydrogen "engine" do. generate electricity, yes, that thing that drives an electro-motor and can be stored in batteries. So, how is an FCEL car NOT an EV? Its an EV with either a range extender or a different energy storage and distribution option. A TSLA could with some tinkering have a Gendrive installed to power the batteries for additional range. The tech is not mutually exclusive. Now on the topic of green, one poster in SA (a fairly convincing young man) posted a very nice carbon offset calucation between the manufacture of an "average" ICE vehicle and an EV. Turns out that the carbon break even point (or shall we just say general pollution break even) is at about 150.000 Km driving.

     

    I really do like the tech and think it has massive potential but one does not rule out the other.
    28 Apr, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Lobo_Corazon
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    You would need to make an awful lot of bad/biased assumptions to arrive at the conclusion that an EV's battery is as polluting as 150,000 km of ICE exhaust. (Battery will go straight to a landfill after a few years, generate electricity with dirty coal plants, etc.)

     

    Given how much less metal needs to be smelted, refined, shipped and fabricated to go in to a simple EV motor compared to ICE, it's probably unexpectedly close to even at the get-go. Charge your batteries with solar panels (zero emissions after the panel is fabricated/installed), and...
    28 Apr, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Noticed how the MarketWatch news feed omitted the "Tesla" analyst description. That's a telling omission. Did some digging and Trip Chowdhry is the co-founder of his firm, so I'm assuming based on that he writes about all sorts of companies. Accuracy comes down to who is sending the news feed? Wow...an epiphany.

     

    Quite a drop today...all based on some analyst guy pronouncing death. Geez, we really are a bunch of lemmings.
    28 Apr, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • tgar13
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Battle of relative overvaluation between industries
    Whoever is more overvalued gets more money in equity offers
    28 Apr, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • cactus jack 65
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    I haven't heard much about electric cars.. But what I have heard has been all bad..
    28 Apr, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • acylation
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    FCEL don't even makes fuel cell for automobiles. Their projects are all base power generation.
    28 Apr, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • Manxbuilder
    , contributor
    Comments (184) | Send Message
     
    Trip Chowdhry is a fool. TSLA is a joke. He'll say anything to defend TSLA and they need defending. The stock is about 100 times what it should be. The cars are plastic crap. When the public is ready to buy electric cars they will be buying them made by the best car companies in the world...German car makers not TSLA. TSLA is doomed to be just a fad. Electric cars maybe the future but not made by TSLA.
    28 Apr, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "The cars are plastic crap."

     

    I guess you missed the near-univeral acclaim for the Model S by every car publication on Earth, by Consumer Reports, owner surveys, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I guess you missed the fact that the Model S outsold all other large luxury sedans in the US last year by 30-200%, including competitors from German giants Mercedes, BMW, and Audi. I guess you missed that fact that electric cars from Mercedes have a drivetrain from Tesla. TSLA bears like you are doomed to be a fad.
    28 Apr, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • gbpete357
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    I guess that's why historically unsuccessful companies such as TOYOTA, HONDA, HYUNDAI, BMW, etc. etc. are heavily involved in the fuel cell business. ( They know it's not a viable business model doomed to failure but need a tax write-off...) Guess what, Tesla will be badmouthing fuel cells right up until the point that they start using them. Duh?
    28 Apr, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • twilso2
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Using hydrogen as a fuel source is nonsense. It needs to be produced (at a cost, using some form of energy), transported and stored the same as gasoline and CNG...at considerable cost.
    However, ongoing developments in the capture and storage (batteries) of solar energy will make the electric car the only surviving technology
    28 Apr, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Well, let's concentrate on the present and not some utopian future. Ultimately we'll need all sources of energy. Espousing one over all the others is sort of short-sighted...but then investments tend to make people think that way.
    28 Apr, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • peteryzhang
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Saudi Arabia can be the perfect place to make H2 in large scale, by means of solar power, and then export it in large scale, that can be an industry they can count on in the future, after oil and gas, so thus guarantee that their grandsons would not ride camel again.
    28 Apr, 08:51 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Take a look at the Hydrogenics model.

     

    Hydrogen could be methanized C02 + 2H2 -> Ch4 + 02 so that no additional gas pipeline infrastructure would be needed.

     

    CH4 methane/natural gas could be transported and sold in existing infrastructure.

     

    Steam reforming (CH4 + 2H2O -> CO2 + 4H2) could convert methane back to hydrogen.

     

    Reliable, alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, water could drive the conversion process of electrolysis and steam reforming.

     

    Fossil fuels are still needed. But if we continue to use fossil fuels at the current rate, we will run out of "easily recoverable" supplies and cause far-reaching environmental damage.
    2 May, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Nice balanced advice! There is even a place for niche petroleum companies in energy production... But it is a small niche because the future for fossil fuels is depletion.
    7 May, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (601) | Send Message
     
    PLUG..... 4.40-4.60.....Technical update ..Last advise given was to short the stock at the 8.90 level. Drop buy stop from 6.10 to 5.50. Last advised also to take profit on half of your position at 5.35 level... Stay short balance of position... this trade can take a bit more patience than most...
    more later.....
    28 Apr, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • cactus jack 65
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    Analyst Trip Chowdhry at Global Equities Research dismissed fuel cells as a viable fuel source for automobiles. "Fuel cell cars are complete failure and a non-event," he said. "Fuel cell powered car lacks in power density, hence a typical fuel cell powered car will go 0 -- 60 miles per hour in 11 seconds, which is much slower than Tesla Model S. Who is buying alternative energy car for fast acceleration? Really. And at the end of day electric cars Burn fossil fuels.
    28 Apr, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • swede4
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Love my VOLT
    28 Apr, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • ave3r23
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Trip Chowdhry’s report about fuel cell cars also likely affected Plug Power Inc (NASDAQ:PLUG) today. He called fuel cell cars a “complete failure and non-event.” He said a typical car powered by fuel cells will take 11 seconds to get from zero to 60 miles per hour, which is far slower than Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ:TSLA)’s Model S. Tesla’s car hits 60 in just 5.4 seconds. In writing his report, the analyst drove one of Honda Motor Co Ltd (ADR) (NYSE:HMC) (TYO:7267)’s fuel cell cars.

     

    He lives his life one quarter-mile at a time. Apparently diesel cars are also a complete failure.
    28 Apr, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "Apparently diesel cars are also a complete failure."

     

    Diesel cars are cheaper, safer, and more easily fueled than hydrogen cars. But yes, sales of diesel cars as well as fuel-cell cars will be crushed by Tesla's coming mass-market EV.
    28 Apr, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Trident Inceni - Diesel Sports Car - 0 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds, 2000 mile range mineral and/or biodiesel vehicle.... for its base model... they also have a race model.

     

    http://aol.it/1iMbBbH

     

    Nevertheless. I agree EV and FCEV will be the future.
    2 May, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    @PeterJA,

     

    I suspect many in Europe may disagree with you...I for one would not want to be climbing the Alps at 200+ kmph in a EV.

     

    "But yes, sales of diesel cars as well as fuel-cell cars will be crushed by Tesla's coming mass-market EV."
    6 May, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    chip, you're right, Tesla EVs don't have much power.
    6 May, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    Peter JA,

     

    I would be happy to challenge you to a Frankfurt to Milan race (via the Swiss Alps), you in your Model S and me in a Diesel; to see who would win the useful "power over time" argument.

     

    You claimed that the Diesel will be displaced in this, let's see how you feel when you are stuck on top of the Alps in the cold without any battery power to keep you warm.
    9 May, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    chip, again you're right. Diesel pumps are far more numerous than electrical outlets.
    9 May, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    Actually, you don't have to imagine races through the Alps. You can see how the Model S functions in mountains and the cold here:
    http://bit.ly/1d9T5Nl
    9 May, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    PeterJA,

     

    Nice Tesla sponsored You Tube ad. I really like the point where the CEO needs to stop skiing to see if his Tesla is consuming power to keep it warm.

     

    Diesels do not need to waste energy to keep their batteries warm...
    12 May, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2082) | Send Message
     
    "Diesels do not need to waste energy to keep their batteries warm"

     

    << Because diesel engines require much higher temperatures to fire the fuel, they’ve always been harder to start in cold weather than gasoline-powered vehicles....
    BLOCK HEATERS: Many diesels come equipped with built-in electric-powered block heaters to keep the engine block warm overnight....
    BATTERY WARMERS: The “hot plate” warmer, which simply slides under the battery like a cookie sheet and warms its little toesies. The “electric blanket” warmer, which wraps around the battery and uses more current than the hot plate version to deal with really frigid situations....
    OIL WARMERS: You can buy a heated dipstick to heat the oil in the engine crankcase....
    If your heater isn’t able to combat the cold effectively, if you have an electric hair dryer and a long enough extension cord to get it to the vehicle, try turning the dryer on and putting the nozzle into the car’s air inlet duct. The warm air should help your engine warm up faster. >>
    http://bit.ly/STKLtz
    12 May, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • bdlp
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    “They only have 60 days left to either come up with [an iWatch] or they will disappear,” said Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global Equities Research. Why would I care what that guy has to say?

     

    28 Apr, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • flyerguy1300
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    Thanks to everyone freaking out over the stock offering and the news today of fuel cell criticism the stock has obviously tanked. But once plug comes out with earnings and shows all the shorts and haters of this stock that yes plug can make a profit they will realize to put money in this stock and this stock will rocket higher and we won't see single digit numbers again.
    28 Apr, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Continental Kid
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    you need a reality check the stock is off over 40 percent in 6 days of trading ....from Mondays high of 8.37....on a memorandum of agreement note......something I have never heard of ......to 4.66..

     

    The CEO is a used car salesman...if you not figured that out by now you never will....

     

    no position at all in plug.......

     

    best of luck to all
    28 Apr, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • flyerguy1300
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    It's not the first time its been off 40%. It's up down up down like a yo-yo just like many stocks across the market. Fuel cell market is very volatile but with plug getting more contracts and more business the volatility of the fuel cell market will calm down and be more of a buy. So no sir you need the reality check...
    28 Apr, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • Weighing Machine
    , contributor
    Comments (600) | Send Message
     
    no...you will just see decimals Flyer...0.10 per share.. don't quit your day job
    29 Apr, 12:38 AM Reply Like
  • lildimsum7
    , contributor
    Comments (521) | Send Message
     
    Why would any rational person pay 50x sales for a crap business that will continue to dilute shareholders? Use your brain.
    29 Apr, 01:07 AM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Wow Weigh...you just be a rip snortin' everyone after midnight tonight! Nothing really important to say. Evidently just got come from the bar and feelin' perky?
    29 Apr, 03:16 AM Reply Like
  • flyerguy1300
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    This will never go back to pennies weighing machine. Maybe you should look for a better job with how wrong you will be...
    29 Apr, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • Weighing Machine
    , contributor
    Comments (600) | Send Message
     
    Another great opportunity for you to buy more FG. There will be even greater opportunities for you in the weeks, months, years to come... that said, I still recommend that you index using the dollar cost averaging method. Best of luck in the market and in life
    29 Apr, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Oh wow!...you being nice and all this morning after sleepin' it off. LOL Good Luck to you too! And I mean that!
    29 Apr, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Weighing Machine
    , contributor
    Comments (600) | Send Message
     
    The thirsty/hungover ones are those who bought the stock billy bob. Best of luck to you - you would also benefit GREATLY from indexing
    29 Apr, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    I DO index. Got shit everywhere financially speaking. You?
    29 Apr, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Hal44
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    I use to own all the Big Four fuel cell companies, but sold a while back when they all parabolically spiked up and forced me to sell. (Fortunately, I had good entry points of about a year earlier.)
    I also sold in part because I was concerned that because most of the fuel cells require the Pem membrane expense of platinum or palladium that without gov't subsidies, might not be economically viable.
    Fortunately, I discovered one fuel cell technology company that I bought that appears to be about 2/3 rds cheaper and lighter to manufacture and may make these other fuel cells obsolete?and doesn't require an expensive Pem membrane from Mantra ventures (OTCQB:MVTG). MVTG also has an inexpensive and efficient carbon recapture fuel cell. see http://bit.ly/1nGERsT or go to http://bit.ly/1dd7Dr6 for more info.
    28 Apr, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Hal44
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    I meant to add to the above that MVTG is working on a fuel cell vehicle that should be lighter and much cheaper to produce and is currently scheduled for release later this year.
    28 Apr, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • mathari
    , contributor
    Comments (170) | Send Message
     
    I smell a carbon hit job. There is no question that fuel cell technology works. If it didn't, WMT would not power its forklifts with it. Car manufacturers are slowly coming around on their own and the only impediment to an electric car that charges at night and runs off of hydrogen as a backup is the lack of structure for a delivery system to get hydrogen to the consumer's car on a consistent basis. One tank of hydrogen, however, can operate a vehicle for about a thousand miles, so the need for frequent fill ups is reduced but there still must be a delivery system within 20 miles.

     

    Oil and utilities have a lot of power in this country. So much so, in fact, that many "red" states are taxing home solar power owners! Sound like crony capitalism at its height?

     

    They do have something to fear though. Take TSLA for example: If its battery can run your house for 2 days, as it claims, and you have three of these batteries in your basement and solar panels, why would you need utility companies at all - chances of having six days of rain is minimal. As a backup, you could have a low cost propane powered generator from CPST, and you have now eliminated all utilities. Your electric car with a range of 250 miles on a night's charge ends your dependence on gasoline, and a back up hydrogen system makes a visit to the gas station totally unnecessary.

     

    This is no longer a science fiction vision of the future. The technology is already there. All that is lacking is funding.
    29 Apr, 05:12 AM Reply Like
  • FF373737
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    Honestly, has PLUG really tanked? It was a 16 1/2 cent stock not to long ago that had no business being an $11 stock when it was. Some say its worthless and junk. I along with others think it has/had a great future with growing sales and possibly tripling revenue that in 1 to 5 years could be a true $10 to $20 stock. Question is will it drop below $4 its low end if it had grown slowly w/o some of the misconstrued hype, or will it get back to over $6 which seems to be the high end value of the stock. If guys like TRIP CHOWDHRY have any say in the matter wrongly associating PLUG with attempting to be a working part in autos instead of its proper usage of powering of FORKLIFTS the stock will be in trouble. He also forgot to mention the fact that they are involved in two other future endeavors that have nothing to do with his points of argument. Me thinks TRIP was well you know... on one?
    29 Apr, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • p14756
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    and FCEL builds power plants to power large industrial complexes or small isolated towns. How did they get lumped in with making car batteries?
    29 Apr, 02:34 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    Why people listen to "analysts" like this is baffling to me. I guess Mr. Chowdhry and others, like Mr. Left, must have built their reputations by playing by the rules and making good calls for a number of years as their careers got a foothold and then, once established with a solid grip on the ears of the market, they can be either hired to make off-the-wall pronouncements or decide to act in their own interest to push prices up or down depending on their current position or that of their clients. I guess we just have to live with this type of activity but why investors listen to blanket statements like "complete failure" when there is obviously a viable product being bought by the likes of WalMart is beyond me.

     

    The day will soon come when writing an article like this would make an analyst the laughing stock of the week but for now, people are still unsure enough about the fuel cell sector to be spooked into selling. The release of this article may have been timed to hit $PLUG when it was down after the surprise additional share offering which presented an opportunity to push the price lower.

     

    In addition, Mr. Chowdhry, who represents the conventional battery interests in general and Tesla in particular, is firing a shot across the bow of the fuel cell industry which is rightly being perceived as a threat by the battery interests. Give a fuel cell a supply of hydrogen and it will produce electricity more cleanly, efficiently, conveniently, and more reliably than a conventional battery. Both supply electricity but fuel cell batteries are better than conventional batteries, plain and simple. That fact will become more and more obvious as $PLUG develops more products for more applications. I think the battle lines are being drawn and the sleeves are being rolled up. So be prepared for a lot more negative opinions from the likes of Mr. Chowdhry as they bash fuel cells and pump batteries while looking for and pouncing on opportunities to short $PLUG.
    29 Apr, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • cactus jack 65
    , contributor
    Comments (258) | Send Message
     
    Does Trip know something we don't know? Did he put PLUG and automobile in same sentence? Who said that? Lol IMHO I think PLUG could help auto manufactures with some RD when it comes to fuel extenders in automobiles like in Fedex trucks.
    29 Apr, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Hal44
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    I use to own PLUG, FCEL, BLDP but the cost/complexity of manufacturing fuel cells based upon the PEM technology seems to make it an expensive form of energy unless helped in part by state and Federal subsidies.

     

    I sold all my fuel cell stocks when they seemed to parabolically spike to the sky and bought the spec, MVTG, because MVTG does not require any expensive PEM membrane and a new patent just awarded in Australia, (also has patents in China, India and UK (Patent applied for in US). and just opened up a European office in Germany and has received grant(s) from Canadian gov't.

     

    MVTG is also developing a lighter, inexpensive and ecologically efficient vehicular fuel cell scheduled for release later this year.

     

    It appears the cost of manufacturing MVTG's fuel cell is up to 65 % cheaper and also may help remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Seems like possibility of a real winner, for more info on an article published May 1, 2014: For those really interested in fuel cells I suggest you read:
    http://bit.ly/1iLiWbr
    3 May, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    " MVTG has eliminated the need for H2 gas feed in their MRFC fuel cells, and instead uses non-flamable liquid formates and formic acid as fuel."

     

    And what resources and energy inputs are required to create this "fuel"?
    4 May, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    JRP3, glad you asked, great question.

     

    MVTG has a three tier technology package. The first one uses excess, typically wasted, renewable energy, wind, solar, thermal-solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, to run a highly efficient, catalytic electro-chemical reactor that reduces carbon, turns H2CO3, carbonic acid, into H2CO2 formic acid, at near room temperature. It is thermodynamically far more favorable that the current high temperature fossil fuel processes used to make formic acid (a 1 billion dollar annual market), and the MVTG patent issued catalyst and design have boosted purity and yields to commercial levels. They are reporting an expected 20% ROI, a profit.

     

    Imagine solving the CO2 emissions problem, using renewable power, to make a low cost, non flammable, liquid fuel for a new generation of ultra simple, ultra low cost fuel cells.

     

    MVTG summary and history. Today the MVTG OS is 60 MM, AS is 100 MM. MVTG has only used $8 MM in 7 years to get where they are today. MVTG is 100% fully SEC reporting, OTC QB, and always has been since the IPO, never a R/S, never a R/M, and now has about 1.7 Million in cash.

     

    MVTG has 3 core technologies 5 or more patents applied for world wide, and 3 issued, and at least 3 more applied for that have been confirmed so far.

     

    Technology:

     

    1) Revolutionary new MVTG Fuel cell, MRFC, Mixed Reactant Fuel Cell (patent issued in the UK, and pending world wide), does not need platinum, or PEM membranes (they cost more than a Detroit gas engine, huge barrier to the car market), or bi-polar plate electrodes, or hydrogen that are all huge cost and infrastructure barriers to the vehicle markets. Estimated costs are 50% below all the best current fuel cells. They run on ambient air and formates, formic acid or borohydride fuels, all safe, room temperature, ambient pressure storable, non flammable fuels.

     

    2) Revolutionary ERC electrochemical reactor, 2 patents issued, more pending worldwide, that converts the GHG CO2, carbon dioxide, into formic acid/formate fuels and can do so at a profit based on current market prices. It uses renewable electric power, like solar and wind, geothermal, to move one hydrogen atom from water onto the CO2 (as H2CO3) molecule to form formic acid in the reactor

     

    3) Revolutionary, first of its kind, rechargeable flow through fuel cell, that runs on non-flammable, bio-degradeable, fuels including Formic acid, formates and borohydride fuels, that can be stored in standard non pressurized tanks, and room temperature. It is a combination of 1 & 2 above, both patented. It can replace lead acid batteries for storing renewable wind and solar energy, and it can be used in power back up systems world wide.

     

    The inventor:

     

    Professor Colin Oloman, UBC Univeristy, home to one of the Ballard Fuel Inventor-professors

     

    http://bit.ly/1rxzlHE

     

    Oloman is a graduate of the Universities of Sydney and British Columbia and has been engaged in the field of chemical engineering for 40 years, both in academia and industry. A professor emeritus, professional engineer, member of the Chemical Institute of Canada and the Electrochemical Society, Oloman has authored or co-authored three books (Ol's Notes on Material and Energy Balances, Electrochemical Processing for the Pulp and Paper Industry, Handbook of Fuel Cell Modeling) plus numerous proprietary reports and publications in technical journals (http://www.chml.ubc.ca). He is also an inventor or co-inventor of some twenty U.S. and international patents

     

    http://www.oloman.ca

     

    The MVTG technology inventor, Professor Colin Oloman patents:

     

    Here is the actual issued UK fuel cell patent and India (and China) ERC issued patent!!! The patents are pending world wide!!! The first two have just recently been issued!!! The new ones just announced are not yet published.

     

    Here is the issued Fuel cell patent, an entire new generation of ultra low cost fuel cell!

     

    http://bit.ly/WW1Gum

     

    Here is the first issued international patent on the ERC that converts CO2, The Green House gas that causes global warming/climate change, carbon dioxide, into a liquid fuel, formic acid!

     

    http://bit.ly/UaYyEM

     

    Those are links to the entire patent file, about 100 pages in all!

     

    MVTG Partner-Customers-comm... Funding collaborators-Team members:

     

    LaFarge

     

    http://on.fb.me/1rxzlHI

     

    http://www.lafarge.com

     

    Alstom

     

    http://on.fb.me/1rxzlHM

     

    http://bit.ly/1rxzkDz

     

    Kemira (second largest supplier of Formic acid in the world)

     

    http://bit.ly/1rxzkDD

     

    NORAM (did the latest final design and drawings and specs for the Lafarge MVTG ERC)

     

    http://bit.ly/1rxzkDI

     

    SEC filings of note:

     

    8-K material agreement with Alstom

     

    http://bit.ly/1eXovFa

     

    Item 1.01 Entry into Material Definitive Agreement

     

    Framework Agreement with Alstom (Switzerland) Ltd.

     

    On June 24, 2013, through our wholly owned subsidiary Mantra Energy Alternatives Inc., Mantra Venture Group Ltd., (“we”, “us”, “our”) entered into an Agreement with Alstom (Switzerland) Ltd. concerning the joint research and development projects relating to (1) a pilot plant for the conversion of carbon dioxide to formate at a Lafarge cement plant (the “Lafarge pilot project”) and (2) the development of processes for the conversion of carbon dioxide to other valuable chemicals.

     

    Structure

     

    Pursuant to the Agreement Mantra and Alstom will co-operate in one or more research and development projects related to Mantra’s Electro-Reduction of Carbon Dioxide (ERC) technology. Prospective projects will be associated with the development of technologies and processes for the conversion of CO 2 to chemical products and the investigation of the feasibility of scale-up and commercialization of these processes. Prior to undertaking any research and development project under the agreement, Mantra and Alstom will mutually agree to special terms and conditions governing the purpose, aims and objectives of any such project, including technical descriptions, the designation of work phases and project managers, and the allocation of responsibilities and costs between the parties.

     

    Intellectual Property Management

     

    Mantra and Alstom also will establish an intellectual property committee................

     

    10-Q, announced massive $148,000 first ever gross profit and revenue.

     

    http://bit.ly/1rxzkU0
    4 May, 11:36 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    "The first one uses excess, typically wasted, renewable energy, wind, solar, thermal-solar, geothermal, hydro-electric,"

     

    Red flag, there is little to no "wasted" energy of any type available, so that's not legitimate. I also see no conversion efficiency numbers for the process. Until I know the EROEI of the system I'm not interested in the rest.
    5 May, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Here is the actual issued MVTG fuel cell patent and MVTG ERC issued patents!!! The patents are also pending world wide!!!

     

    Here is the Fuel cell patent issued, an entire new generation of low cost fuel cell!

     

    http://bit.ly/WW1Gum

     

    Here is the first issued (of 3 now) international patents on the ERC that converts CO2, The Green House gas that causes global warming, carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel, formic acid!

     

    http://bit.ly/UaYyEM

     

    These are links to the entire patent file, about 100 pages in all with all the early test data. If you want to discuss thermodynamics and energy efficiency just call Professor Colin Oloman at UBC university, he taught the courses in chemical engineering there (now retired), or call and talk to his multiple graduated students that work full time at MVTG.

     

    "Red flag, there is little to no "wasted" energy of any type available, so that's not legitimate."

     

    The US DOE and others disagree.

     

    Here is one good example:

     

    http://bit.ly/1g3JDbv
    5 May, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    While EROEI is important so is $$s returned for $$s invested. MVTG claims a 20% ROI, running an ERC to make formic acid out waste CO2, because of the high value of formic acid.
    5 May, 11:47 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    "Red flag, there is little to no "wasted" energy of any type available, so that's not legitimate."

     

    Wasted renewable power does exist:

     

    http://bit.ly/RmXHH2

     

    "Jilin Province has one of the highest curtailment rates. There, there is relatively low electricity demand at night, but high wind speeds — and hence, high wind power generation.

     

    Curtailed wind power is wind power that was not put to use, that essentially goes to waste. The amount of wasted wind power has been increasing substantially in China. The amount of curtailed wind power in 2012 was 20,000 GWh, approximately twice what it was in 2011.

     

    This resulted in wind farms being allowed to generate electricity for only 1,420 hours in 2012, “much lower than the industry-adopted economic minimum of 1,900 hours,” Wanqing Zhou of the China Program at Worldwatch Institute notes.

     

    That is enough to power 6.66 million homes for one hour, 277,000 homes for a day, or 761 homes for an entire year!"

     

    http://bit.ly/RmXHXA
    6 May, 12:01 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    Exactly as I said, little to no wasted power. Power for 761 homes for a year is basically nothing in relation to total grid output. The red flag is still flying. Besides, the answer to intermittent power sources is increased transmission lines and storage capacity.
    6 May, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • DSC214
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for sharing Ecomike!

     

    Intriguing technology

     

    CO2 + H2O => H2C03 (carbonic acid)

     

    2 H2CO3 => 2 H2CO2 (formic acid) + O2

     

    I see how this can reduce carbon emissions. And I see how people may possibly be willing to pay for liquid formic acid fuel over hydrogen gas. People can see liquid and know what they buying as opposed to buying hydrogen gas. However, some research states nanocrystalline (3nm) intermetallics on mesoporous carbon are needed for direct formic acid fuel cell anodes; uniform size control (3nm) is very challenging to achieve. http://bit.ly/1qepCsr

     

    Nevertheless, there is an interesting research paper on Direct Formic Acid Fuel Cell (DFAFC). http://bit.ly/Rrx6IY

     

    Abstract below.

     

    Polymer electrolyte membrane-based direct formic acid fuel cells (DFAFC) have been investigated for about a decade, and are now becoming an important area of portable power system research. DFAFCs have the advantages of high electromotive force (theoretical open circuit potential 1.48 V), limited fuel crossover, and reasonable power densities at low temperatures.
    7 May, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    There is a lot of parallel research in the field now, but MVTG is years ahead of everyone else, and has eliminated the need for precious metals catalysts, PEM membranes, and Bipolar plates in the MVTG MRFC, Mixed Reactant Fuel cell (primary patent issued, and others now applied for).

     

    Check this recent article out:

     

    http://bit.ly/1jioekb

     

    http://bit.ly/1rxzkUf

     

    A Swiss-Roll-Liquid-Gas Mixed-Reactant Fuel Cell (2012):
    http://bit.ly/1j3Tn5E

     

    Platinum- and Membrane-Free Swiss-Roll Mixed-Reactant Alkaline Fuel Cell (2013):
    http://bit.ly/1j3TpdI

     

    7 May, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Based on what MVTG has developed, the PEM membrane based formic acid fuel is already obsolete.

     

    http://bit.ly/Rrx6IY

     

    Google "Neil Huff Tekion Motorola" for the story.

     

    Then Google "Neil Huff Mantra Energy MVTG" for the final chapter.
    7 May, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    You are starting to catch on, "the answer to intermittent power sources is increased .... storage capacity." Bingo!!!!

     

    Then I will agree to disagree with you. "Exactly as I said, little to no wasted power."

     

    There are way too many documents, and proof of massive wasted wind power potential during low grid demand, that can be harnessed..... for those that care to look.

     

    Take a close look at the MVTG ERC-MRFC combination, the worlds first rechargeable flow through fuel cell (compare to ZBB) "ENERGY STORAGE", and then look at the late 2013, 8-K, 5 year commercialization plan, Alstom signed with MVTG that brought nearly $1,000,000 in Alstom funding to MVTG (non dilutive), and ask your self why one of the largest competitors of GE, would bother with MVTG if they had nothing of value? Why would one of the largest cement firms in the world Lafarge, attach their coat tails to MVTG to solve their CO2 emissions problems?
    6 May, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7599) | Send Message
     
    Companies invest in inefficient money losing ventures all the time, so that means nothing in the short term.
    7 May, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (524) | Send Message
     
    JRP3,

     

    The giggle-factory will be a fine example of your statement below:

     

    "Companies invest in inefficient money losing ventures all the time"
    9 May, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • FF373737
    , contributor
    Comments (163) | Send Message
     
    The only thing that scares me about MVTG is they have no institutional investment according to Schwab.
    8 May, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    The time to buy MVTG, and make large gains, is before the institutions arrive.
    8 May, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • flyerguy1300
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    This stock won't do much till earnings come out next week. Wednesday will tell us how things are going and what the projections ahead look like. Now we all sit and wait...
    8 May, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • Hal44
    , contributor
    Comments (423) | Send Message
     
    These are big if's, but if as according to the patents, MVTG has a fuel cell which can convert CO2 into a reusable fuel cell fuel (safe and non-flammable formic acid) and can additionally help solve (reduce) CO2 emission problems from light and heavy industry then even just this one aspect (patent) of MVTG would seem to be worth a fortune to someone, especially countries with real pollution problems, China, large global cities. See sources above from EcoMike's earlier cites for more detailed explanations.

     

    Combine this with the fact (according to MVTG'sr additional patents) of being able to remove the expensive PEM membrane from traditional fuel cells at a production cost of up to two-thirds less cost then it would seem as if there is some real merit to MVTG.

     

    Although this is a spec, my understanding is that MVTG has little or no debt, about 1.5 million in cash (at least enough for approx 1+ year op expense) and some very large companies (ALstom and Lafarge) are helping to in part fund MVTG's ongoing research.

     

    Both the world's first CO2 prototype plant to remove CO2 from a large cement plant in British Columbia (Lafarge) and a fuel cell vehicle running on MVTG's fuel cell is scheduled for release by late 2014.

     

    The obvious question as an investor is: do I take the risk and invest now when a good correction has already occurred in the spec: MVTG's price or wait until the science is fully proved and the Big Boys most likely have jumped in?

     

    If you are ready to retire soon, as reasonable caution you probably should wait, but if you do your due diligence and research and like MVTG's science and patents then you might decide otherwise. Note: I am currently long MVTG in my IRA, but is no more than apprx. 20% as we all know the good and bad that can come with over concentration of any one asset class.
    9 May, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • RayeBob
    , contributor
    Comments (148) | Send Message
     
    Unsure if this has been posted. Platinum nanotech. Would be a game changer on fuel cell cost. http://bit.ly/STGKFx
    12 May, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Today is a great buying opportunity for MVTG . MVTG is still way undervalued and MVTG will be in Japan with the entire staff, directors, officers, and and top PhDs for the world conference on renewable energy and renewable energy storage, fuel cells (per a recent PR update), etc, which begs the question Why they are taking the entire staff and not just sales people. They will be arriving 3 days early, July 27th. With recent speculation about MVTG and Daihatsu and overlapping interest in using Hydrazine for a vehicle fuel for fuel cells, it seems to me that there is more than a trade show exhibit behind the MVTG trip to Tokyo for an entire week for the entire MVTG staff?
    14 Jul, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Interesting comments on Plug http://seekingalpha.co...
    18 May, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    MVTG has just done a massive PR update with more news in than carter has pills. The clock is ticking and the the next new highs can not be far off based on the all the news from MVTG.

     

    http://bit.ly/1qfAjdK

     

    Mantra's CEO Provides Corporate Update to Shareholders

     

    VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwired - Jun 25, 2014) - Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (OTCQB:MVTG), a clean technology incubator that takes innovative emerging technologies and moves them towards commercialization, and its subsidiary, Mantra Energy Alternatives Ltd., have provided the following update letter to shareholders from CEO, Larry Kristof.

     

    Dear Shareholders,

     

    After completing a capital raise of approximately $1.7 million in April of this year, Mantra's management embarked on an extended tour to expand the business opportunities in foreign markets and identify project opportunities as well as potential business partners. Areas strategically targeted included Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Dubai, Australia, and the United States. This has led to the establishment of an office in Berlin and the identification of a large-scale project in the German state of Bavaria. Mantra is currently working with the Bavarian Office for Economic Development, which is providing a great deal of support in the development of this project.

     

    The tour has additionally led to Mantra's application for an R&D laboratory in the world-class facilities of the Hong Kong Science & Technology Park (HKSTP). Mantra is seeking to operate out of the Phase 3 development of the 22-hectare waterfront park, which is targeting clean technologies and will house the sector's most innovative companies. The Park is an ideal entry point into East Asian markets.

     

    China is taking massive steps in the field of clean technologies. The country's initiatives to deal with carbon emissions make it very receptive to technologies like Mantra's ERC, which is patent protected there. In addition, the vast number of electric vehicles and equipment make it an ideal market for Mantra's fuel cell.

     

    The Company's activities in the US included attending and presenting at the Marcum Microcap Conference (NYC) and the LD Micro Conference (Los Angeles), that featured many unknown and below-the-radar companies that most institutions, retail broker dealers and accredited investors were hearing about for the first time. We believe our presentations and corresponding one-on-one meetings were well received as the Company continues to have ongoing communications with several institutions, accredited investors, and broker dealers. The Company is currently evaluating which conferences it will attend in the second half of the year. In addition, the Company will be scheduling a series of roadshows in the US and Europe to continue to broaden the financial and industrial communities that may be interested in Mantra's progress on its current initiatives to advance its disruptive technologies to commercialization; as well as any new projects and business opportunities that the Company is able to announce in 2014.

     

    Industry Specialist Randy Gue visited Australia in May, which is the home of the Global Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Institute. As a result of meetings with the Institute and a subsequent application, Mantra has been approved for membership. Established in 2009, the Institute's 370 members from 40 countries form a collaborative community to promote and develop large-scale solutions for carbon emissions. As a member, Mantra will have access to this large network that includes governments, multi-national corporations, smaller companies, and research institutions, and through which projects and solutions can be built.

     

    In Vancouver, Mantra's two demonstration projects are progressing on schedule. The final engineering and construction of the company's ERC pilot plant for carbon dioxide utilization is proceeding as planned with construction to be completed by year-end 2014 and the commissioning of the plant in the first quarter of 2015. On the fuel cell front, the development of a personal vehicle powered by Mantra's MRFC has received a boost through an award from Canada's federal funding body, NSERC. The award, given based on a collaborative project with Professor Elod Gyenge at the University of British Columbia, will directly address specific aspects of the MRFC chemistry and scale-up.

     

    Looking forward, VP Patrick Dodd will be attending a networking conference at Aston University in Birmingham, UK, on July 8, 2014, on converting CO2 to chemicals. Organized by the well-respected CO2Chem Network, the event aims to bring together companies, universities and government to develop projects in the carbon utilization space. Mr. Dodd will be meeting with current and prospective partners to advance existing initiatives to capitalize on specific European funding opportunities. Mantra has become aware of this event and others through its beneficial relationship with UK Trade and Invest, which was established on a previous visit to London.

     

    On July 27 through August 1, members of Mantra's management and scientific team will be part of a Canadian mission to Tokyo for the Renewable Energy World Fair 2014. Through invitation by the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service and the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo, Mantra will exhibit in the Canadian pavilion for the event that covers all renewable energy technologies including fuel cells, electric vehicles, and energy storage.

     

    Japan has a demonstrated commitment to the adoption of fuel cell technologies, and we believe Mantra's MRFC, which has never been marketed there before, will draw both collaborative partners and future customers.

     

    Mantra has additionally expanded its corporate team and established a new corporate office in Surrey, BC. These additions and further expansions of the company's R&D team will be announced in the coming weeks, the latter being accommodated by Mantra's new laboratory facility. This facility will host an open house in August, and interested parties are encouraged to contact info@mantraenergy.com for details.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Kristof
    Chief Executive Officer
    26 Jun, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • NanoTech Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (516) | Send Message
     
    Interesting list of MVTG researcher's pedigrees, published R&D works list here. Looks awesome to me, a sign of why MVTG patents are so cutting edge.

     

    http://bit.ly/1zBZSZi MVTG researchers pedigree list here. Looks awesome to me, a sign of why MVTG patents are so cutting edge.

     

    http://bit.ly/1sETkmq
    14 Jul, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • CleanEnergyNow
    , contributor
    Comments (314) | Send Message
     
    Back to the question posed by Trip Chowdry on whether fuel cell power is a viable option for powering electric cars and trucks instead of batteries, here is an interesting article recently published by Business Insider comparing the two power delivery technologies:
    http://read.bi/1qDbepX
    15 Jul, 09:03 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|