Comments on: Fuel Cells for Cars - Thoughts from a Reader

By: Philip Block

Philip Block — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:26:27 +0000

Yes John, and as the old saying goes “where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” I don’t know what I had been drinking when I wrote the blurb above (probably old age) but that is a perfect example of how the best of us (ego talking) can goof up. As an EE, I have been ardently following the development of FCs for over 40 years, ever since I first came across an article by the then Company, Allis Chalmers, about running a tractor powered by FCs. When I saw the article, the first thing I thought was “the power plant of the future.” Most people today are evidently not cognizant of the fact that when the first practical auto was developed in 1885, they were very expensive and the average Joe was not able to have one until 1908, a period of over 20 years, until Ford brought out a massed produced affordable auto. Also, the first gas stations opened up at about the same time. Until then, people had to buy gasoline at the local drug store, general store, and whattever supplier that might be available. The same old question, “why have gas stations when there was not enough cars to support them?” The chicken and egg problem. The same with electricity. Tom Edision opened his plant in 1882 on Pearl St. in a heavily populated Manhattan district. Many areas of the Country did not have electricity for years because it was not economically feasable to sring long lines into the thinly populated rual areas. Hence the establishment of TVA and EMCs some 40 years later. I have no doubt that ,again, mass production will solve the cost problem as it did with computers and many other products. Anyone that thinks differently is not a student of history.

By: John Trocciola

John Trocciola — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:58:49 +0000

Thanks Phil for the correction.My point wasthat there is platinum in the ground waiting for a need and its limit is not the issue for fc autos.I agree 100% with your position on non science people pontificating on science issues.Unfortunately folks listen and they impact public policy.

By: Philip Block

Philip Block — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:58:39 +0000

I stand corrected and offer my apologies to Mr. Trocciola for misinterpting the author of the article. It appears the the author, Mr. Lifton, is another one of the type of writers that look for shock articles (after all, that is how they make their living) and take a few facts and twist them to suit their predetermined outcome. He got the attention that he sought (so did Mr. Gore–a man with absolutely no science background) and would be better ignored.

By: Philip Block

Philip Block — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:39:40 +0000

This, comming from a person that spent 43 years in the development of fuel cells is really surprising. I remember after WWII it was said that the proposals for nuclear power plants would be restricted by the limits on nuclear fuel (uranium). The consensus was that there was not eneough of it around to fuel the power plants as it was so scarce. If I remember correctly, Westinghouuse locked itself into some uranium contracts that eventually almost bankrupted the company. Why? Like the 1849 gold rush. People went uranium hunting all over the world. Soon there was more uranium than needed, the price dropped dramatically and Westinghouse was left holding contracts at the higher prices. With the present availability of platinum, the ability to recycle the metal, dig a few more holes, and the research going on to find other materials to replace the platinum, I get the feeling that Mr.Trocciola is pulling our leg. Is he really trying to to get a 21st century platinum rush going?