Become a Member

Crisis and Opportunity’s “Breakthrough technology turns air, sunlight, coal, even water into precious gas”

Deciphering DeHaemer's "How to Make 10 Times Your Money on the Energy Mega-Shift"

[ed note: We got a lot of questions about this pitch after we solved a different DeHaemer teaser yesterday, so we’ve brought it up for all to see again. The stock spiked up in the Spring, a few months after this article first ran back in January, but has come back down to a bit below the price it was when DeHaemer was first teasing the stock. We have not looked at the stock since or researched what caused the move up and back down, but the ad does not seem to have changed at all. What follows has not been edited or updated since it first appeared on January 28.]

—from 1/28/14—

It sounds, of course, very exciting — the spiel is an ad for DeHaemer’s Crisis and Opportunity newsletter, which is a fairly pricy $500 number that tends to focus on smaller companies and on stocks in war-torn or otherwise scary parts of the world. This one, however, is quite a bit more mundane — it’s a technology company that he says can turn sunlight and water and air into natural gas, solving the world’s energy storage problems.

Who wouldn’t want that?

Or, as he puts it:

“A technology that can convert air, sunlight, coal and even water into gas is the equivalent of a cure for cancer!

“What’s that worth?

“A lot. Maybe the biggest windfall ever.

“…. the company was able to convert air into gas.

“That’s right… the same air you and I breathe.

“This company was able to turn it into gas and transport it through a natural gas pipeline.

“This gas can be used to turn on your lights and heat your home, among countless other things.”

That’s hyperbole, of course, but there’s a bit of truth in there … and plenty of cash out there for the companies who can solve energy problems. What’s the problem DeHaemer is talking about?

Well, I won’t make you sit through the whole presentation, but the basic idea is that this company can solve the problem of energy storage for renewable energy.

Renewable energy is sometimes cost-effective these days, depending on where and how it’s produced, and it’s obviously important to lots of people and is in high demand. Many consumers will pay more for energy they feel better about, and technology improvements should continue to make solar, wind and other renewable energies more efficient in the decades to come.

But storage is an unsolved problem — the wind doesn’t blow all the time, the sun doesn’t shine at night, batteries are expensive and short-lived and many other storage solutions, like pumped hydro (you pump water up hill, then run it back downhill through a turbine when you need to generate electricity), are inefficient and take up a lot of space or just haven’t been economically feasible (like Beacon Power’s flywheels, which are in use in two plants to help regulate the electric grid but weren’t profitable enough to keep Beacon out of bankruptcy — Dehaemer actually teased those folks too, though that was back in 2007 when they were riding a bit higher, and when he was penning a different letter for a different publisher).

So really, what this company is doing is converting wind (“air”) or sunlight into electricity, which happens all the time, but then instead of that electricity just feeding into the electric grid this company uses their technology and that electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen (the process is called electrolysis). That hydrogen is used either as a fuel itself, as in fuel cells, or can be pumped into the natural gas network (and/or turned into synthetic natural gas through methanation).

Here’s a bit more of the hype, in case that basic stuff got a little too boring:

“You see, this company has been working on this breakthrough for many years.

“It has patented (145 patents and patent applications in all) and perfected the technology.

“And when all is said and done, it can supply all of the energy America could possibly want for just $0.02 a kilowatt hour. That’s the equivalent of filling up your car for just $0.57 a gallon.

“It works by converting air, sunlight, coal, and even water into gas.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


“It’s clean, cheap, and abundant.

“You can even transport this gas right through existing natural gas pipelines — so there’s no extra infrastructure costs to move it, because the pipelines already exist.

“And get this: Since air, sunlight, coal, and water are essentially limitless in supply, this energy will never run out… ever.”

Then, thankfully, we get a few clues about the actual company that DeHaemer is teasing — I’ll extract a few of those clues for the Thinkolator here:

“Their annual revenue has jumped to $40 million from $19 million in 2009.

“And they have a backlog (sales for this company’s technology that’s already been booked) of over $53 million.

“The most recent customer to adopt their technology was the nation of Germany. Germany is the sixth largest energy consumer in the world. They licensed this company’s technology to build a two-megawatt power plant facility in Falkenhagen. Two megawatts can power more than 2,000 homes.

“The power plant went live this past August. For Germany, this is just the beginning of a major rollout of this company’s power generation technology….

“Enbridge — a $33 billion company that owns and operates the longest oil and gas pipeline systems in the world — invested millions into this company last year. In return for millions invested, they now own 13% of what I think is about to become an energy giant….

“Another ‘big name’ investor in this company is General Motors (GM).

“GM — the second largest automobile manufacturer in the world with annual sales of $152 billion — owns a 5% stake. Like Enbridge, GM knows that the millions of dollars it has invested in this company could return hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in the years to come….

“That’s why the company’s stock is up about 100% in a year.

“However, it still trades for less than $19 a share… and has a total market valuation of less than $250 million!”

So what’s our secret stock? As you can imagine, with that nice pile of steaming clues it didn’t take the Thinkolator long to identify our target — this is Hydrogenics Corp. (HYGS).

Hydrogenics has long been a hydrogen company with a good story, creating hydrogen systems and pushing for fuel cell adoption, but their story turned sour a few years back (coincidentally, that’s about when the last promise of hydrogen fuel cell cars fell out of favor with the first reliable hybrid and electric cars), but they have indeed had a bit of a recovery lately on the strength of both renewed interest in hydrogen fuel cells for transportation and telecommunications, and, more recently, on the pilot projects of their “power to gas” systems like the operational project in Germany that DeHaemer is teasing today.

The stock is slightly above $19 now, right around $21, but the market cap is under $200 million still and they have enough cash to keep going for a while. They are not profitable, but they do envision themselves becoming profitable fairly soon — they don’t think they need a capital infusion ore increase in production capacity to reach profitability. And they have some strong partners in E.on in Germany and Enbridge in North America (and Hyundai and GM).

The “power to gas” division is not their biggest one, but it’s a very appealing story (which is no doubt why DeHaemer’s publisher is using it, probably successfully, to catch the attention of new customers). The company describes the advantages of their system pretty nicely here:

“One of the unique characteristics of the Power-to-Gas solution is that it leverages the inherent advantages of the natural gas system. It provides the means to both store and transport energy. By storing hydrogen or substitute natural gas in the existing natural gas pipeline network and its associated underground storage facilities, the stored energy is not restricted to the site of generation. In effect the natural gas system serves as a ‘Power by Pipes’ alternative to the transmission grid to alleviate network congestion and transport energy. Separating the storage and discharge of energy results in a higher overall integrated energy system efficiency”

I haven’t seen any information about the efficiency of the system — about how this “gas storage” system for electricity compares to grid storage or batteries or simply to the current system — but it does seem like it could make for a nice and tidy way to turn solar power or wind power into baseload “always on” power if that electricity is turned into natural gas that can be stockpiled and burned in a nat gas turbine. How much it costs versus actually producing the natural gas and burning it, I don’t know. They do have the large project in Germany, which is for 2MW but is apparently scalable and started operations over the Summer, and a second plant in Hamburg is apparently underway … and they also are selling self-contained systems to essentially provide local baseload power from renewable energy in the form of “micro-grid storage,” as with this order they announced just recently.

This is one of those companies where the one-year chart looks like an awesome breakout company, the five-year chart shows us a recovery from a several-year lull, and the ten-year chart shows a completely collapse of a market darling. Consolidation-adjusted, the stock was around $200 not much more than a decade ago, three or four bucks in 2010-2011, and is now back above $20 (there was a 25:1 share consolidation or “reverse split” back in 2010 so they could stay on the Nasdaq — the stock was down in penny range for a while before that). The same is true for most of the hydrogen fuel cell companies that have survived, stocks like Ballard Power (BLDP), FuelCell (FCEL) and Plug Power (PLUG) — I can’t say that I remember a specific catalyst to all of those companies collapsing in the early-to-mid 2000s, but they were all darlings for at least a little while at the same time that the internet bubble was preparing to burst … and they’re all down 80, 90 or whatever percent from their long-ago highs.

But Hydrogen is certainly capturing our fancy again — hydrogen cars are being pushed again by a couple carmakers, with baby steps taken on building up hydrogen fueling stations again, and that has helped the fuel cell companies this year (there’s a good Washington Post piece on hydrogen fuel cars at the DC auto show here), and Hydrogenics has shown some life in building up their backlog of orders a little bit … heck, there’s even one analyst who thinks they’ll be profitable next year (perhaps he’s dating the CEO’s daughter or is just more optimistic than others, I don’t know).

And HYGS is making some progress, it appears — they think that they can keep gross margins stable and become profitable once annual revenue hits $50 million, which might not be more than a year or two away if all goes well, and they have enough cash to at least get through another year like last one without having to sell shares. That’s on the strength of backlog for telecom backup power systems from their partner Commscope, as well as a big order still working its way through for propulsion power cells (for a secret customer) and some hydrogen generation orders (for systems that use electrolysis to produce hydrogen where it’s needed — like in industry, or at hydrogen fueling stations). Here’s how the CEO put it on their last quarterly call:

“… let me just reiterate that Hydrogenics remains on track to attain the goals led out since 2012, the company is now at inflection point with our energy storage and power systems operations coming to represent a much larger share of Hydrogenics’ overall business, we remain on track to become profitable at the 50 million revenue run rate, and at a 30% gross margin and we’re well on way this milestone achievement. We have what it takes to support rapid growth, scale up our operations and diversify our business space but we still anticipate full year revenue to be up over 30% this year versus 2012.”

And … that’s about all I can tell you about HYGS from my few minutes scanning their information. They’re still small, the story is really cool, particularly the energy storage capabilities, and they still think they’ll reach profitability fairly soon … if the hydrogen “story” really takes off again they could certainly be a beneficiary, as they have been with their parade of positive news over the last six months, but keep half an eye on those 2004-2006 charts for the hydrogen companies before you fall too much in love with stories like these, until some kind of sustainable profitability is reached they’re very much at the whims of shifting tides of sentiment.

What do you think? Ready for the next wave of hydrogen companies? Think HYGS is good fuel for your portfolio? Let us know with a comment below.

Irregulars Quick Take

Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)
guest

12345

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

129 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Everett
Guest
Everett
January 29, 2014 9:50 am

Sounds almost as good as corn based ethanol. Windmills are very high maintenance so free is not free.

Add a Topic
179
hanns
hanns
January 29, 2014 11:02 am

The E.on Falkenhagen plant in Germany produces hydrogen from water with the Hydrogenics electrolyzers, nothing really new. Generated hydrogen must be compressed (costly) and fed into the existing natural gas grid, but to a maximum content of only 2% for the mixture. The next step, costly, would be methanization of hydrogen with CO2-addition. The resulting “synthetic” methane can then be used without the limitations for hydrogen.
This situation does not justify the hype around the German plant, nor the teaser for Hydrogenics. Wait and see, the HYGS quote shall come down to earth again very soon.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
338
👍 9
LKH
Member
LKH
January 29, 2014 4:22 pm

I find many of the comments on energy from hydrogen as an example of why the US is stuck in fossil fuels. Part of it is because of the dominance of fossil fuels on all information and power in the country, but a big part of it is Americans unwillingness to be open to new ideas and to replace outdated or incorrect information with recent info.

For example, people speak out against how expensive traditional hydrolysis is, without considering that production of hydrogen energy using the PEM (proton/electron membrane) is NOT the same thing. There are other ways of directly generating energy from water, including capturing the energy in wave motion. Occasionally one sees something about this using ocean-going vessels, but it can also be used to directly create energy from wave motion in major rivers. One doesn’t need dams. One doesn’t even need fuel cells. This is not even new technology—it was discovered around a hundred years ago, but the gasoline engine and the fossil fuel industry pushed it aside, and does to this day.
Generation of hydrogen gas from sewage and other wastes is being done now, and direct
generation of electricity from water using a similar system is happening in, of all places,
a town on Long Island. It doesn’t take off because the powers that be don’t want it to take off, not because it is not viable economically or scientifically….

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
arch1
January 29, 2014 6:51 pm
Reply to  LKH

Could you perhaps explain just how hydrogen is generated from sewage & how you have direct generation of electricity from water. I know that static electricity can be generated by water dropping thru a metal ring with suitable air gap but that is useless as
any commercial application.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
👍 7797
eatarewicz
Member
eatarewicz
July 15, 2014 6:39 am
Reply to  LKH

Nano-techs have come up with their answer:
Researchers have developed a technology that could overcome a major cost barrier to make clean-burning hydrogen fuel — a fuel that could replace expensive and environmentally harmful fossil fuels. The new technology is a novel catalyst that performs almost as well as cost-prohibitive platinum for so-called electrolysis reactions, which use electric currents to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The Rutgers technology is also far more efficient than less-expensive catalysts investigated to-date.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714104100.htm>./www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714104100.htm

Add a Topic
1292
Add a Topic
540
ted
Member
ted
July 16, 2014 1:37 am
Reply to  LKH

I remember reading about the mulberrys built off the coast of Normandy during WWll. The first storm (it was a duzy) destroyed one completely and temporarily wrecked the other one. Good luck on building something that will stay together. Around NYC they tried some underwater turbines, maybe that would work.

arch1
January 29, 2014 4:23 pm

Is it time perhaps for a little windpower 101? Not to oversimplify but wind is not a
smooth constant flow. Even prevailing winds are quite variable with eddies,gusts,lulls
& direction changes. Therefor mills must be designed to operate over a limited range.
Windspeed too slow =stop, too fast =destruction. That and maintenance are most likely
reason for idling,not grid too full. To instantly supply power when that happens boilers
in conventional plants must be kept hot with only sufficient fuel input to allow
ramp-up on demand. If you start with a false premise your result will be flawed.
Consensus does not equate to correctness. Carbon dioxide is an essential constituent of
the environment/ecology, without it we all starve. Fortunately volcanoes are the
main recycler,not man.

👍 7797
ted
Member
ted
July 16, 2014 1:41 am
Reply to  arch1

Volcanoes were the main re-cycler until the industrial revolution, now we are.

meassassin
January 29, 2014 7:34 pm

I appreciate your responses, and agree with you. Perhaps a little Windpower 101 is necessary. However, not so much the technical aspect of swept areas, and watts per m/s, or even the generator themselves, Perhaps what is really necessary is a bit of Power Transmission and Storage 101. It is an absolute that the majority of idle large wind generators, worldwide, is simply due to a grid that can not accept the power and there is no way to store it for later. International and USA papers news are rife with stories of idle ‘farms, government subsidies for idling, and political/business arguments over transmission. Dependent on location it may be a matter of insufficient transmission lines to get it where it could be used, to simple local over capacity. The politics of navigating all the ‘owners’ of the lines should also be included. So please, school us, or at least me, just please leave the politics of volcanoes vs. humans out of the early lesson plan.

👍 22
arch1
January 29, 2014 8:10 pm
Reply to  meassassin

Kevin I have no dis-agreement with you & thank you transmission info. I wish there
was some way to store electricity efficiently but it is going to take someone a lot smarter than I to figure it out. Sorry the carbon comment did not please you but the fact is that the earth is essentially a closed system & the amount of carbon remains the same only
perhaps in different compound ratios. It grinds me that something so necessary for life as
we know it to exist requires carbon dioxide so how can we so willingly call it a pollutant. We don’t even know what the optimum amount in the atmosphere might be.

👍 7797
meassassin
January 31, 2014 8:57 pm
Reply to  arch1

Frank,

No worries. I suppose I did bait you a little there, though I really don’t mean it that way. It just always bothers me when ‘efficiency’ is used as the argument for everything. In my almost 35 years as an electrical engineer, with the last 25 spent exclusively in field work, and the last 10 working for myself, I’ve traveled extensively worldwide and have seen the inefficient efficiencies firsthand. So, its entirely a variable. Power storage and transmission is the real problem. As to the carbon dioxide, you are preaching to the choir. Though of perhaps a slightly different denomination. While I do not believe humans are wholly responsible, they have done their part. More particularly on local levels, where areas are heavily polluted, greenhoused, and human illness and suffering is the result. There is something especially pleasing about being able to use sunlight/wind, to break water into Hydrogen/Oxygen, then burn that Hydrogen, with the only pollutant being to turn it back into water. Sure we are not there, but what good is humanity with no hope.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
👍 22
arch1
January 31, 2014 10:07 pm
Reply to  meassassin

I most certainly agree but near where I live there are many windmills in former scenic vistas(remind me of rows of gravestones in war memorial) also problems of large kill of migratory water fowl & eagles which follow.
I have heard that in desert tortoises are impacted by solar panels & sometimes birds
fooled by array into thinking lake below & dive to death. I think engineering our desires is not so easy as it seems.

Add a Topic
540
👍 7797
meassassin
January 31, 2014 10:35 pm
Reply to  arch1

Indeed, nothings perfect. Nothing is ‘free’.

👍 22
JayBee
Guest
JayBee
January 29, 2014 7:44 pm

What about Hydrogen Engine Center, Inc. (HYEG)? There’s some nutty professor type of guy living in the cornfields of Iowa, and periodically he says how his company has come up with yet another world-changing patent. I read his updates when he puts them out (the last one was over 6 months ago), and he is always dangling this or that revolutionary breakthrough — and then you never hear another word. Do any of these guys ever do what they say? Maybe Frank Archambeau (sorry, Frank, but you are just too deep — or loony — for me) can communicate with Professor HYEG in Iowa.

arch1
January 29, 2014 8:24 pm
Reply to  JayBee

JayBee the problem with using hydrogen as motor fuel.is not the engine but in the
great difficulty in storing hydrogen. Have you ever seen a welding cylinder that holds hydrogen under above 2000psi pressure. One that would hold about 10 gallons of gasoline would only take half as far as gasoline because of the different energy density. Also hydrogen is an extremely small molecule & will readily escape thru the smallest of pores. Even welding tanks lose contents during long term storage. Until storage and transport issues are solved its too soon to worry about Prof.Hyeg. I’m sorry because the only pollutant that would be emitted is the extremely potent greenhouse gas hydrogen di-oxide (water vapor)

Add a Topic
5916
Add a Topic
540
👍 7797
Richard
Member
Richard
January 30, 2014 5:59 pm
Reply to  arch1

Hello again Frank, just noticed this…
I believe that fullerenes allow for a very high density of storage of gaseous hydrogen.
However, battery technology is improving all the time and the magic 500, the range in kms, on one charge of a sensible size/weight battery pack, is almost here.
That will be the game changer.. Even though a range of about 50 – 100 would be perfectly adequate for most day to day journeys.

Add a Topic
1614
Add a Topic
1614
Richard
Member
Richard
January 30, 2014 6:02 pm
Reply to  arch1

PS.. Not sure whether you are being facetious about water vapour, but Yes, it is in fact a significant factor in global warming.

Add a Topic
540
meassassin
January 31, 2014 9:05 pm
Reply to  Richard

Battery Packs are wonderful and all, but the environmental impact is not inconsequential. The chemicals are horrendous. The additional problem is still one of grid power storage and transmission. he grid is already over-capacity, we are already idling generators by the thousands. What would happen to the grid, say in Los Angeles, which is very weak already, if only 5-10% of the cars were electric? Across the country? No way. Unless the engineering is done to make a right and proper ‘smart grid’ using the cars themselves as storage and balancing nodes, I just don’t see it.

Add a Topic
1614
👍 22
ted
Member
ted
July 16, 2014 1:47 am
Reply to  meassassin

What battery chemicals are you using, that are horrid?
You can use off peak grid capacity to charge electric cars.
The grid is only “weak” a small part of the time, over the peak.

Add a Topic
1614
Richard
Member
Richard
January 29, 2014 11:02 pm

Just commenting on the Baseload power/storage discussion.
Look up Beyond Zero Emissions for zero carbon electricity generation and CST.

arch1
January 30, 2014 10:15 am
Reply to  Richard

Richard I spent a fair amount of time following your suggestion & found nothing
new or of investment value. What am I missing? If there is some new technology
perhaps you could point it out to me please? So far I see no compelling reason for investing in HYGS however be warned that my investment success is somewhere
between dismal & depressing.

👍 7797
Richard
Member
Richard
January 30, 2014 5:50 pm
Reply to  arch1

Hello Frank, I did not post this as an investment tip but to highlight the fact that contrary to what many might think, there is a perfectly viable technology, tested and available, to allow for baseload power production.

arch1
January 30, 2014 6:05 pm
Reply to  Richard

Thanks Richard but I still don,t see where the base load technology
is. So far alternatives to steam generation seem doomed to no more
than supplemental load production especially since hydro was
overbuilt and is already being removed for environmental reasons.
I fear we will soon face the same problems with wind & solar note
the inactive installations held up in court disputes. If you have a
solution I have missed somehow please share.

👍 7797
ted
Member
ted
July 16, 2014 1:50 am
Reply to  arch1

Hydro was never “over built” just politically incorrect. People would rather take them out than fight.. Your loss. (of less expensive electricity).

bj
Member
January 30, 2014 2:20 am

As I understand it the energy density and therefore the range of gasoline and diesel fuel powered vehicles is not matched by any other fuel.
The hundreds of millions of internal combustion engine powered vehicles in use cannot be replaced INSTANTLY even if electric vehicles become practical tomorrow. Even if the vehicles sold in the future are ALL electric it would take many years to get an all electric fleet.

zangtang
Guest
zangtang
January 30, 2014 4:53 am

I think Archambeau is a lovely name………………….

arch1
January 30, 2014 8:54 am
Reply to  zangtang

Thank you…

👍 7797
arch1
January 30, 2014 8:52 am

bj I am sure you are correct; however i think it likely we will see natural gas used alone
or as a dual fuel in short range usage i.e. in town commutes buses local truck delivery
etc. since any gas or diesel engine can be easily modified to also run NG. I doubt if electric
will ever be practical for long distance trips unless there is a major breakthrough in
storing electricity. IMHO

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
899
👍 7797
archives2001
archives2001
June 7, 2014 3:35 am
Reply to  arch1

Frank,
You might want to check out the latest research and cloudfunding project underway on
solar roads, highways, infrastructure. Also there’s no reason why electric wire couldn’t be
integrated into highway pavement in one lane for cars needing to be charged.

👍 94
arch1
January 31, 2014 5:29 am

dear friends it seems that I have offended and for that I apologize. I merely try to show potholes in road to technology investing that cost me, I do not question your beliefs or try to change them but to some extent reveal my thinking. I am sure we all want healthy
environment but may differ on how to achieve it. I don’t think this is proper forum for that discussion, I am often wrong & appreciate you showing me where. I think investing is more art than science & eagerly welcome your help as I am no artist. The best financial advice
advice I can give is think what you do. Knowledge and understanding I think are better wealth than money which can rapidly lose all value. I think that some “green” tech
is too much hype & hoopla. I think there is no virtue in being hoopled. I await your advice on investments.

👍 7797
arch1
January 31, 2014 6:52 am

I in a way have been asked about water vapour as greenhouse gas perhaps I should not answer but I think it to be primary. I ask you to do do the science ,see how long it takes to raise the temperature of a bathroom with a tub of hot water compared with the time it takes to raise the temperature of a tub of tap water with a hairdryer to body temp. You
will find that water is the main reservoir of solar radiation/heat. The oceans have been cooling for the past 20 years.(check nasa data) I think that greenhouse gas has less effect
than ocean water. Please show me where I am wrong.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
540
👍 7797
arch1
January 31, 2014 7:01 am

Sorry for last comment,was meant to be Email exchange frank

👍 7797
archives2001
archives2001
January 31, 2014 9:19 pm
Reply to  arch1

It’s a good question Frank.
Looking forward to some fact checks on ocean temp, etc.

👍 94
ROBIN STEEL
January 31, 2014 9:14 pm

The latest thing that I am aware of for useful Hydrogen generation will be the bacterial breakdown of biomass directly into hydrogen. This is a “short path Krebs cycle” that is much more efficient than any other process …it takes about 10lbs of gas pressure to run an engine, and I have seen 80lbs pressure in the lab within a few hours of inoculation…at Anerobe Systems in San Jose CA.
Dr. Percival Zhang, at Virginia Tech is doing similar work.
The problem with Hydrogen has always been storage and transport…it takes 4″ thick stainless steel pipe to keep it in, so the only practical way to use it is to produce it at the site or in the vehicle….the day is close when we may be able to dump our food waste and garden clippings into the Mercedes and drive away, so I’m working on that.
It will require a massive increase of biomass to offset man made CO2, and if we let the Oil Oligarchs frack and dig tar sands, it will be “game over” for the atmosphere…not to mention more airplanes spewing in the stratosphere, and acidification of the seas…We need the Hydrogen Economy now, so lets get the subsidies off oil, corn and cotton, and put that money into research.
As for electric battery vehicles, they will only be a small factor, as long as we are using Lion batteries. As another comment says, there isn’t sufficient energy density, even if new microstructure designs increase efficiency and charge rate…and it seems that only works for small applications…as the Boeing Dreamliner fires demonstrate…

Add a Topic
899
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
Tom
Guest
January 31, 2014 9:54 pm

RE: “I can’t say that I remember a specific catalyst to all of those [fuel cell and hydrogen] companies collapsing in the early-to-mid 2000s.”

I’ve kept on eye on the rise (or NOT) of the “Fuel cell and Hydrogen Economy” since about 1998 and the way I’ve always seen it was as:

1. Early 2000’s – Bush (and Cheney), of course the ultimate Oil Men, played lip-service to fuel cell and hydrogen research by funding, as I recall, a meager $50 million over 5 years. Private industry, as they had since the mid-1990’s, continued to bear basically all research, development, and production costs. The U.S. government’s inaction further weakened them.

2. Mid-2000’s – The rise and availability of Asian hybrid/fuel-efficient/’green’ vehicles got the U.S. public and government clamoring for U.S. counterparts (Hey, we don’t want to fall behind Asia again like we did with the rise and availability of Asian small cars) which effectively short-circuited all fuel cell and hydrogen research as the U.S. government and auto industry switched to and focused on hybrid/fuel-efficient/’green’ vehicles. (Also think ‘ethanol’)

3. 2010+ – DOE Secretary Steven Chu dismisses fuel cells and hydrogen as ‘too far in the future.’

4. Recent – Steven Chu and others do a “180” (Hey, we don’t want to fall behind Asia AND Europe with the rise and availability of fuel cells and hydrogen like we did with the rise and availability of Asian hybrid/fuel-efficient/’green’ vehicles).

5. Now – To paraphrase Sherlock, “The game is [again] afoot!”

Frank, thanks for the nice summary/overview/commentary of “Breakthrough technology turns air, sunlight, coal, even water into precious gas.”

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
49
Add a Topic
179
ted
Member
ted
July 16, 2014 1:53 am
Reply to  Tom

BOOM!

Tom
Guest
January 31, 2014 10:04 pm

Ooops! Make that “Travis, thanks!”

arch1
January 31, 2014 10:32 pm

David just be sure to look at science data not political conclusions released to
media I think sometimes is good to try little bit & see if good results before
going all in.

👍 7797
arch1
February 1, 2014 2:18 am

Just heard new riddle from rocket scientist. How does “consensus of scientists” differ
from “Gaggle of Geese”?

👍 7797
archivesDave
archivesDave
July 10, 2014 6:48 pm
Reply to  arch1

‘Gaggle of geese’ is more scientific:
“Consensus of scientists” parallels
with “consensus of economists” !

themonk
Member
themonk
February 3, 2014 3:59 pm

The earth has a natural mechanism for sequestering CO2, if it didn’t the atmosphere would be a lot more saturated with it. Few people are aware that the biggest factor in contributing to CO2 emissions is not burning fossil fuel, it’s the direct byproduct of ecologically destructive ranching/farming/forestry practices, mainly by big corporate operations. Reverting to organic farming and simple changes in herd grazing and forestry practices are cost effective reparative measures that could actually reverse the climate change phenomenon even without doing anything to lower fossil fuel use (except not making any more destructive agricultural chemicals). This was the finding of a recent UN study.

Apart from that, to think we can just drill and nuke our way out of the surging demand for energy is short sighted. Should we assume that there won’t be anyone to inherit this earth whenever the non-renewables run out? The time to develop means to balance the energy consumption to something sustainable is now, while we can.

As for the economics of making Hydrogen / Synthetic Nat Gas and putting it into gas pipes, don’t think that the dirt cheap gas in America is the only gas people use. Europe has rather expensive natural gas by comparison, and Europe has to buy a lot of it from not-so-amenable-to-negotiations Russia, which is why the Hydrogenics pilot plant is in Germany. Efforts at fracking in Europe are often either relatively fruitless (Poland) or met with necessary environmental roadblocks. Europe doesn’t have wide open spaces like America where nobody cares about the damage because it doesn’t impact them.

Add a Topic
899
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
424
👍 1
arch1
February 4, 2014 6:30 pm
Reply to  themonk

I ask if you know much NG is being harvested from beneath American cities?
IMHO available data does not support climate change caused by increase in man
released co2. Primary “climate regulatory” gas is water vapor. Primary basic
reason for climate change is variable solar radiation & retention. Oceans much larger heat-sink than atmosphere & land combined. Do simple science experiment:
In cool bathroom fill tub with hot water, check climate change. 2nd in same room fill tub with cool water see how long to heat tub contents with hair-dryer. Then uncap flask
of soda-water, measure resulting climate change.

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
282
Add a Topic
282
👍 7797
fp
Guest
fp
March 8, 2014 12:50 am

I have done some experimentation with electrolysis HHO generators mounted on cars and it seems that feeding HHO into an engine’s fuel injector or carburetor even at very low levels increases the speed of ignition and burn sufficiently to produce enough extra octane from the HHO/petrol mix to more than make up for the electrical energy required to create HHO from water. Fuel burn is so complete there is almost no odor from unburned gas discharged from the exhaust, and the vehicle gains greater acceleration and power, which translates into greater fuel savings if you don’t keep pumping the gas pedal to feel the power and acceleration. If anyone is interested in exploring this further please let me know.

Add a Topic
540

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
34
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x