1. February 2, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
   snbess says...
   

   I’m not sure I am quite understanding what you are asking.  Is your point that utility companies should have backup power at their substations for major events when power cannot be provided to individual homes and businesses?  Because in many of those cases, the reason they cannot provide power is that the power lines are down…have been blown, iced, fallen onto the ground.  Backup power isn’t going to help if there are no lines to transmit that power.  Or are you saying that utilities have an obligation to provide each homeowner with a source of backup power?  That would be a huge and exceptionally costly endeavor.  Granted, there needs to be a huge amount of work on our grid structure…it sounds like some of that will be started under the new administration.  The fuel cell industry, each company and the US Fuel Cell Council, is talking with policy makers to influence the direction this takes.
    
   The examples you cite are businesses that have chosen to provide themselves with a backup power source, in these cases, fuel cells.  They are taking the responsibility to provide themselves with power in the event that grid power goes down, so that they can serve their customers.  There are a number of companies providing fuel cells as backup power.  Many of the customers are communication providers – wireless, wireline, security/emergency communications.  The fuel cells they purchase provide power when the grid cannot, so that they can continue to provide service to their customers.  There are more than 1,000 customer sites using fuel cells now, but this is a drop in the bucket.  I’m sure the industry would like to see not only Every communication site, but every homeowner with a fuel cell in their back yard. 
    
   It does have to make business and financial sense, though.  There are some areas that get hit hard each year and it certainly makes sense to spend the money to harden those sites.  There are areas within regions and cities that serve highly critical customers – police, fire, hospital, etc.  However, each business and individual needs to determine what their pain threshold is.  When can they afford to take a risk…and at what point is the risk too great?  Each person who relies on those businesses has a responsibility to let their service provider know that continual power is important to them.  The FCC tried to mandate 8 hours of backup power at communication sites a couple years ago and finally got shot down.  It may regroup and try again, but we are a country of individualists and we each think we know what is best for our businesses…and our homes.  Until there is a ground swell demanding more seamless power, a national program will not be put into place.  

2. February 2, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
   John Trocciola says...
   

   The utility has an obligation to provide power and I hope that means all the time. In return they get a monopoly and an assured rate of return.You are right when the lines are down the homes served by those lines have no power. But frequently some streets have no lines down but their power has been switched off because a neighboring section has downed lines. So distributed fuel cells might help providing power where the lines are “up”.
   Please tell me how some shut down nuclear plants, for which I am still paying, make economic sense? What is the ROI for police, fire fighters etc. They serve a critical need so we pay for them.
   Have you ever been through an extended power outage?

3. February 2, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
   Philip Block says...
   

   The central power plant and its associated transmission lines, substations and periphery feeder systems, developed during the 20th century, are obselete and not adequate for the 21st century, technically or financially. WOW! What a rash statement to make. Well, let’s go back to 1882 when T. Edison opened the first major power station on Pearl St. in Manhattan, N.Y. Its power output was D.C. (Direct Current) because that was the technology of the time and had a range of just a few miles. T.E’s idea was to have a large number of power stations scattered around so that many people could have the benefits of electricity. The power plants, wiring of houses, and the associated transmission lines were a huge expense. In the beginning, business and the wealthy were the main customers (cities also, with street lighting). Today, we call that system distributed power. In the early 20th century, A.C. (Alternating Current) technology had developed to the point of being practical and economical. Now, large central power plants and hydroelectric plants could be situated many miles from their customers and supply them with electric power at reasonable rates. Remember (if you are old enough) that most cities were small and that we were  basically still a rural country. Site location and the associated thousands of acres required for the xmission lines/substations were readily available with little Federal or local regulations. Still, stringing power lines, etc., was no little cost and many rural areas did not receive power until the advent of TVA and EMCs in the 1930s. In the second half of the 20th century, the growth of cities and rural areas taxed the power companies for power plant locations (NIMBY-not in my back yard) and land for xmission lines/substations, etc. Now, to rub salt into the wound, along comes Mr. Technology with demands on the power companies that are very difficult, if not almost impossible to meet. Sure, some of the technology has been applied to the present power system. It has helped . But let’s face it, we are still dealing with an antiquated system. Nuclear Power? Nuclear power does not produce electricity as some people seem to think. It is just a heat source that replaces coal, gas, etc. Still the same old system. Cost? We are still receiving surcharges on our electric bills in many areas to pay for plants built 30 or so years ago. No one wants to discuss the cost of the disposal of the worn out plants when they are shut down. Some estimate that the shut-down costs will exceed the construction costs. Nuclear waste disposal? Where? Yucca Mountain? So far it has cost the taxpayer 90 -YES-Ninety Billion Dollars to dig a hole (yet to be completed) in Yucca Mt. for the nuclear waste. When? Find nobody, maybe he can tell you. Now that we have given you a history lesson in technology and economics, let us not get all hung up with, HORRORS, it is going to cost us some money for a new system. A system  that can revert back to the philosphy of distributed power. A system that  is reliable. A system that does not pollute. A system that has construction time in months, not years, is easilly serviced, recycled, and eventually self-sustaining economically. Fuel Cells for homes? Why not? Japan is going ahead with the concept. Backup power? In some cases, yes. Over the long haul, Fuel Cells will be the main source of power. When air conditioning first came out in office buildings and movie theaters, the general opinion was that it would never be economical for homes. Need I say more? Top leaders of the computer industry laughed at the PC. Need I say more? Top scientists laughed at the concept of  heavier than air flight. Need I say more? The medical profession laughed at the concept of germs. Need I say more? They laughed at Edison etc., etc. Need I say more? The Fuel Cell is the greatest advancement in power generation since Thomas Edison first turned on his power plant in 1882. Its adaption will move the 21st century forward so fast that the 20th century will look like a technological  snail.

4. February 3, 2009 @ 6:41 am
   John Trocciola says...
   

   well said Mr Brock; finally an positive email response to my position rather than a defense of the “status quo”.I am getting tired of ROI arguments which run contrary to the reality of the world’s highways, railroads, sewer treatment plants all of which were built on the basis of “public good” rather that profit.I also don’t agree with the argument “it will cost the utilities money”. The utilities don’t just spend money but rather invest money in infrastructure upon which they make a rate of return. Unfortunately at the moment it is just in “wires”

5. February 3, 2009 @ 11:18 am
   snbess says...
   

   John, if you actually read my response, you will note that I said that it will take a groundswell against the status quo for anything to change.  As long as we accept the status quo, that’s what we will get.  Sitting here and whining about it doesn’t change anything.  We all will need to get off our comfortable chairs and push for change.  If you are “the grid” and nobody really wants a change, why would you put in the investment to change.  If, on the other hand, all of your customers are yelling for change…it starts to make business sense to change. 

6. February 3, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
   John Trocciola says...
   

   Did people ask for cat. convertors on their cars? How about seat belts?How about the interstate highway system?Pollution controls on utility plants?It takes enlightened elected officials who know the public good to get things done for the public good.I have trying to get one in office for 40 years; we may finally have one now.Again ,there are things that get done that are done for reasons other than “business sense”. I think “business sense” may have been partially to blame for our present economic mess; ever hear of Collaterized Mortage Obligations or Laddered Debts etc??And I have been reading your “ROI” arguments to everything I post for quite a while now.

7. February 3, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
   snbess says...
   

   I guess we will agree to disagree.  You seem to want to argue and I truly don’t think we’re that far off each other’s opinions. 

8. February 3, 2009 @ 12:46 pm
   Paul Wickett says...
   

   Most knowledgeable people agree that H2 & fuels cells is the best technical solution for the next generation vehicles,  Just like most knowledgeable people agreed that Beta was better than VHS.  Unfortunately,  Beta lost in the end because VHS was more readily available and cost effective overall.  I believe we are such cross-roads with PHEV and H2 fuel cells. PHEV time to market and implementation obstacles are low enough to overcome the technical short-comings.  So unless, our we change our approach to H2 fuels cells  changes, PHEV will steal the market.  Below are some provocative thoughts on how the H2 feul cell implementation strategy could be improved;1.  Adopt Honda’s Clarity and GM Volt (PHEV) approach to focus on home refueling.  I think many customers, myself included, would prefer to refuel/recharge at home.  Besides the convience factor, the rates of refuelling can be slower.  Build on this strategy and offer refuelling stations at employee’s place of employment.2.  Reduce range targets.  GM did a study for the Volta and found that  ~80% of US drives go 40 miles or less per day.  Do we need 5,000-10,000 psi if we are only storing enough H2 for 100-150 mile3.  Adopt replacement cannister strategy like BBQ propane tanks, instead of multi-vehicle “gas-station” like refuelling stations.  Jadoo Power (http://www.jadoopower.com/Applications/Products/NGen.aspx) has rechargeable cannisters that could be exchanged at Home Depot, Lowes  or other locations that are now exchanging propane tanks.  This stragety would increase the effective range from home or work while keeping on-board storage capacity (and pressure) to a minimum.  Tanks can be refilled offline at a sensible location (ie  nuclear plant in northern Canada)4.  Focus on after-market (ie retrofitting existing vehicles) instead of new OEM vehicles.  Cost to develop new vehicles is extremely expensive.  Typical OEM budget for a new vehicle is $1B.  The companies in the after-market business domain are very efficient at retrotting vehicles that have already meet the end users requirements for saftey, convience and performance.5.  Focus on reducing weight of vehicle.  Critical if strategy 4 not employed.  Less weight means less power mean less H2.6.  Stop relying on big business (oil companies, Car OEMs), and government to take care of implementation obstacles (ie refueling stations) .  Focus on offering something new and exciting.  Tesla jump startted PHEV with its performance oriented vehicle.  How about retrofitting  mini-vans with H2 fuel celled?  Our family’s mini van only goes 20-50 miles a day and we would appreciate being able to refuel at home and our kids would love to have a “green vehicle” .  Plus cost of retrofit would be much less than new vehicle.     In conclusion, H2 and fuel cell advocates need to recognize that PHEV will crush them in the market place unless the approach to implement the technology is drastically improved.

9. February 3, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
   Philip Block says...
   

   Hey good fellows–time-time. I would like to continue on with some history which I hope will bring us all together and show that we are really agreeing but from different points of view. After WWII, the country began a boom era–population growth, technology growth, urban growth, suburban growth, business growth, highway growth, and not least, what this blog is really all about,  power supply growth. The utilities were a great place to invest, and the utilities were willing to invest in new plants and equipment. Long simmering unrest blew up in the 60s that caused change, good and bad, that permeated our culture and left scars that will probably never disappear. New laws that had, in the beginning, basically good intentions, forced people and business to do things that looked good but were not economically and socially practical. The opposition to change, a normal human trait, did not help the situation. The good was corrupted by those opportunists who were only vying for recognition, power and wealth. Those companies that attempted to be good citizens and add new safety features to their products found that the general population would not pay for them. So, the activists pressured the politicians to pass laws to force all  companies in a particular industry into a level playing field. As one exec. of an auto company said, “we can fix anything on a car except the nut that holds the wheel.” Politicians pressured the lending institutions to give mortages to people that really did not qualify or have the Federal money window closed in their faces. Statements like “owning a home is a right” etc. the politicians found bought votes–the money markets be damned. The nuclear industry grew without any real analysis of the cost and technology (those few that tried to bring the facts out were squashed). The military needed the spent fuel for weapons, one of the problems the world faces today, encourged power plant construction. By the 1980s, just about everyone in the electric utilities involved in nuclear plant construction admitted (the honest ones with guts) that if they had known how it was going to turn out, they would not have done it and would not do it again. Here, in Georgia, Georgia Power almost went bankrupt and now wants to install two more nuclear reactors at a cost of 14 Billion dollars (counting new transmission lines and associated land?). The income tax system, first installed in 1913, strictly a hate tax, became during the past 50 years a tool of the politicians not to collect taxes, but as a tool for power and control. All this, with a gradual degrading of business ethics and practices, the weeding out of honest politicians at the Federal, State, County, and City levels, has led to the final collapse. It did not happen overnight; it has been going on since the end of WWII. What has this to do with Fuel Cells, you are going to ask. Well, Fuel Cell technology represents the greatest change in society since the steam engine in 1775, the greatest change since the first oil well in 1859, the greatest change since T.E. turned on his power plant in 1882; and the politicians, businesses, and people of this country are not mentally prepared for such a change. Except for a handfull of  businesses, most major businesses and money institutions are stagnant. Most of the boards of directors are either indifferent, incompetent, know nothing about the company, care less (looks good on their resume) or all of the above. If it were not for small businesses, the United States WOULD be out of business. Talk about yelling for change: I wrote my two senators and congressman about Fuel Cells, and all I got back were form letters touting nuclear power. I wrote Boortz, Limbaugh, Hennity, Herman Caine, about Fuel Cells. All I got back was nothing. Some two years ago I visited the small school from which  I received my EE degree quite a few years ago and was taken on a nice tour of the EE dept. I asked the Phd. that had graciouslly conducted the tour, “what about Fuel Cells?” He shot back at me “what about hydrogen?” and rudely walked off from me. This from a Phd. who had obtained his three degrees from the University of South Carolina, a leading school in Fuel Cells (a whole dept. devoted to Fuel Cells and hydrogen) in the fair city of Columbia, SC, dedicated to becoming a hydrogen center. My school’s EE dept. has a three-hour course on nuclear power, but the school has absolutely nothing on Fuel Cells. I sent a whole package on Fuel Cells to them. What do I get back?–nothing. Not even a thank you. So, this is MY story. Mr. snbess, I don’t think John is really arguing with you. I think he is frustated as we are, and doesn’t quite know what to do about it. I think that is what this website is about, getting input from people that care and trying to find some answers. So, let us all keep our cool and not forget that we all have the same goal, albeit over different paths.

10. February 3, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Brock, Well said

11. February 3, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Well, here I go again. This is a comment on Mr. Wickett’s comment. I pass on the Fuel Cell part as that is wide open for many ideas and some of his may work out. My comment here is on rechargeable battery/electric autos. For a hundred years companies and indivudals, from Thomas Edison to the present, have tried various forms of the battery operated auto. Up to the end of WWII, the old Edison (and other) electrict cars could be seen on various city streets occassionally. Prior to the end of WWII, a well known bread and bakery company in New York City used battery/electric trucks for home delivery. In New York  it was feasable, due to the high population density. But the end of WWII, the end of gas rationing, the low cost of gasoline, the short range of the battery/electric, the maintenance and charging of the batteries, doomed the battery/electric, as it did Edison’s battery/electric in the early 1900s. Today, nothing has changed. The battery is still the Achilles heel of the battery/electric auto. The range of any practical unit is still somewhere between 30 to 60 miles–on a flat surface with no head wind–not much better than anyone had accomplished the past 100 years. Forget about any appliances. When I lived in the San Francisco area in the 1970s, there were battery/electric clubs and individuals involved in just about every concievable idea and concoction on battery/electrics. All sorts of geniuses and engineering types from sillycone valley tried their hand at building one. No one, not one single one, turned into a viable car that could be manufactured. Why, again, the short coming of the rechargeable battery. Yes. Batteries have been improved over the last 100 years. Better shelf life, more charges, more watts/per pound, but nowhere eneough for a battery/electric auto. Another shortcoming of the rechargeable is the recharging cycle. Every time it is recharged, the battery chemistry detoriates and the battery hold less of a charge. As though every time you fill up your gas tank, it holds a gallon less than the last time. Sorry to say, the science of electro-chemistry just does not exist to produce a rechargeable for a practical electric auto. I hope someone will prove me wrong, but I don’t think so. Maybe when they learn how to repeal the law of gravity. Yes. Maybe there are enough people out there that will buy the battery/electric autos for a short time. But considering the psyche of the American people, I think  the battery/electrics being developed/produced today will turn out to be another fad in the long history of battery/electrics. The only solution anywhere in sight for a practical electric auto is the Fuel Cell. Why? Because it operates just like an ICE. Just fuel it up and go. The auto of today has become just another appliance and the less the upkeep, the better. Todays autos are almost  maintenance free and can be serviced completely once a year with the oil change. People are not going to want to go back to spending their Saturdays working on the car. Even the paint jobs are so good that not many people even bother to wax their car, just wash it (or run it through a car wash). Short range fueling? Again, the less time spent at the gas station, the better. I hope I have not burst anyone’s bubble, but as I have said before, the Fuel Cell is going to bring about a change in the world that has not been seen since T.E turned on his power plant in 1882, and the world better get ready for it.

12. February 4, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
    Paul Wickett says...
    

    Lithium-Ion battery technology has changed significantly even in the last 2-3 years.  Hence why Bosch is doing a joint venture with Samsung, and several companies are ramping up production plants in Michigan.  Plug-In Hybrid (PHEV) is a real threat to fuel cell for vehicle because I see alot of development money being diverted from fuel cell vehicle development to PHEV vehicle development.  GM’s Volt will be mass produced at production volumes in 2010 at estimated volumes upto 60,000 units per year.  Don’t get me know I agree with everything you are saying above except that people more understand PHEV and hence feel the overall risks/compromises are acceptable, which brings me back to the point about VHS vs Beta video format.  The most popular solution usually wins … not the most technically superior.  Fuel cell advocated need to be less righteous and sensitive the non-technical issues such as ”time to market”, precieved risk and its pragmatic implementation. 

13. February 4, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Yes. Li tech. has advanced the past several years. I considered this when I made my overall statement that battery tech. has advanced over the past 100 years. Still, Li tech. does not give the watts per pound  required for a PRACTICAL electric car. Probably never will, as the development curve has basically flattened out as it has for most advanced batteries. Sure, small advances can always be made, but talking with my business hat on, are the R&D costs worth it? So, with these limitations, more power means more cells (batteries) =s engineering problems. Packing the cells together creates heat problems ( one PHEV company  I know of is having quite a time solving their heat problem). Placing the cells is a problem due to the heavy cabling required, center of gravity, etc. These are the problems that those people I mentioned in the San Fransciso area ran into and never adequately solved (or, for that matter, solved in the past 100 years). Battery chargers: Having designed some, they are a highly sophisticated piece of tech. and have to match the batteries, especially Li’s. Each battery mfg. will have its own specs. So, finding a charger away from home will be a task. Carry the charger with you? Ok, another piece of dead weight. They are not small or light. Now, let’s discuss the FC. The FC has made great strides in the last 10 years or so. Its size and weight is roughly 10 to 20%  of what it was 10 years or so ago, and its watts per pound have gone up the same, or so. The development curve is still almost straight up-compared to a relatively flat battery curve. The only really decent battery at present is the Li. Expensive, difficult to mfg, without much improvement, even with mass production. The FC: Expenses are coming down, mfg.-continuous  improvement, etc. with no end in sight. And, to top it off, there is no end in sight for the types of FCs that can be developed. Where, for all PRACTICAL purposes, the end  for rechargeables is at present. The Li battery is the last hope and desperation of the rechargeable auto advocates. Now, let’s talk business. Yes. Technology does not always win. But, to cite an instance, if you go back far enough, there was a battle between CBS and RCA on the best color system. CBS , a mechanical system, was somewhat better, at the time, cheaper, and easier to implement. RCA’s system, 100% electronic, won out. It took the FCC years to decide on which system to implement, as there was no room for two entirely different systems. RCA won. Why? Because the FCC looked ahead. It saw the RCA system was more conducive to improvement, future advances in tech., and eventually less costly systems. So, be careful in comparisons, the past is riddled with the good, the bad, and the ugly, in practical and impractical inventions. T.E once said “I will never make an invention that people do not want.” You may be correct. People may go for the rechargeable. I hope so in a way. Why? Because people will get the experience of an electric auto and all of its advantages. Then  they will be mentally conditioned  for the FC auto salesman to move in for the kill and sell them a real electric auto–not a battery operated toy.

14. February 5, 2009 @ 7:02 am
    Hard says...
    

    To all BE vehicles advocates:I live in apartment in the city (not in america) and have to park my car out on the street.There is no way for me to recharge car batteries. Only option for me (and other in same situation) is hydrogen fuel cell cars and public fueling station like we have now with gasoline stations. There are many people in america in same situation.Sorry for my bad english.

15. February 5, 2009 @ 10:58 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    For the moment may I get back to elecricity reliability and the role of DG?.I don’t know if this is the case with every utility but in at least some, the local ditribution network, ie the wires in the streets, are regulated by the State while the large overhead transmission lines are regulated by FERC.Frequently FERC allows a higher rate of return on new wires than does the states; therefore utilities may tend to invest in transmission wires at the expense of distribution wires. This does not mean they invest nothing in distribution wires but I am citing a potential issue leading to local power failures.Most of the failures I  see are distribution wires failing to either ice or trees; the latter can be cured in part by more  frequent pruningIn fact one utility Manager agreed with my assesment and said “Expect a lot of power failures this summer” (sometimes the high loads occur in the summer causing distribution wire issues).So what is a solution? Why not let FERC regulate DG, like they do Transmission wires, and allow a higher rate of return and put a requirement for power availability to encourage DG?I am sure I will get some emails now with the “They are not economical” argument.

16. February 5, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Yes Mr. Hard, another nail in the coffin of the BE auto. This same problem exists in the U.S.  N.Y. City is a prime example. Many car owners that live in Manhattan have to park on the street due to the lack of available parking facilities. Some have suggested battery chargers built into parking meters. Not technically or financially feasible. One BE auto mfg. is considering an ICE/generator built into the car to overcome this type of problem. Extra cost with added weight that must be compensated for by more batteries, a never ending go-around. Over the past 100 years just about every idea and trick has been tried to bring a PRACTICAL BE auto to market to no avail. I am not a psychic, but considering the history of the BE auto (he that does not know his history is doomed to repeat it) and the available technology of the present, the BE autos being foisted on the uneducated public today is doomed to failure. I think I have made my case on the BE auto and do not see any reason to hash it out anymore. Only old man time will supply the answer.

17. February 5, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    In an answer to your comment, Mr. Trocciola, I respectfully request that you read my comment on Feb 2, 2009 @ 9:32 pm before reading on. Ok. Now that you have digested that, first, I would like to say that we do not need more Federal control. States are more cognizant of the particular needs than a Fed beaucrat in Washington. No one person has the ability to see and understand the various requirements a country as diverse and large as the U.S. In the North, power plants and their associated transmission lines, substations and associated peripheral equipment come under many different conditions that are not exactly the same as the rest of the country, including Hawaii and Alaska. In the S.E., swamps, hot weather, metal corrosion-especially along the coast from salt water, bugs, animals, birds, and not the least, high speed driving on the open roads that take their toll on wood power poles. In the West, all of the same as North and South, with the added dust storms, tornados, and some other things I can’t remember right now. Hawaii and Alaska have their own problems with all of the above added in. The technology survived the 20th century and served us well. For the 21st century, the system is obselete. It has reached is limits and further heavy investment is a waste of money. Fortunately, the Fuel Cell has come along just in time. It is the only answer in sight to solve the power supply problem. Unfortunately, the people running most of the the power companies don’t want to change for a large number of reasons which could be incorporated into a book. So, no amount of improvement (?) is going to accomplish anything on the present systems, except higher rates and taxes to pay for all the government grants (Fed and State). Remember nuclear power? It was supposed to be a panacea, no polution, cheap electricity, etc.,etc. Well, figures don’t lie, we are still paying for those NP plants built 30 or so years ago, but the liars sure did figure.

18. February 6, 2009 @ 10:41 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Mr Brock,I understand and agree with your points and appreciate you support.However we still have the issue ofa higher allowable rate of return for transmission assets vs distribution assets due to the approaches of two different regulatory agencies. Therefore local wires, DG etc , in my belief, will “suffer” and I believe that is one of the reasons you don’t see regulated  electric utilities investing in FC’s DG etc.So what do we do??

19. February 6, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Well Mr. Trocciola, appearing to over simplify the situation–simple, what I have been saying in my comments–Fuel Cells., Fuel Cells, Fuel Cells. Fuel Cells have been developed to the point that they can be put on site ( which is being done). They can be put into shopping centers, hospitals, office bldgs., appartment and condominium complexes, etc., etc., and finally homes–starting to be done in Japan and UK. This reduces and eleminates the lines, substations, power poles, etc. and then maybe the Fed can get off the backs of the utilities and let them run the business. The utilities did fine and were a great investment until the Fed stuck their power crazed nose into the business and effectively destroyed any incentive to upgrade or improve the business. Maybe I am more cognizant of the situation as I am married to a person that spent her career in the executive offices of a major power company. I hope this answers your question, and if not, ask away.

20. February 6, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Mr Brock,Everything you have said I agree with ;however here are some of the issues as I see them:Except  for the  FC advocates the general public , politicians etc do not recgonize the value of fuel cells for protecting homes, businesses etc from power failuresUnfortunately fuel cells are still costly due to small volumes at the momentThe regulated utilities have no incentive to install fuel cells in their distibution networks due to cost and the fact that incentives are higher for Transmission investmentsSo in my opinion we need direct intervention at the Government level for the purchase of a large volume of fuel cells to be installed at the distribution level

21. February 6, 2009 @ 11:27 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Well, here we go again. This is where you and I part company. The government, the government. I have watched since WWII the government, Fed, State, County, City, bring this country to what is happening today. Where has the Fed. gov’t. ever done anything right? Post Office? Social Security? Wellfare? Medical services?  I could go on and on. And, finally, the Fed. intervention into the utility business, that at one time was a great investment and  only fools invest in today? Why? Why? Why do you think that a bunch of Ivy League lawyers have more ability to run a utility than the people trained (engineering degrees, business degrees, etc.) for that purpose. Dodd? Pelosi? Kerry? Franks? Kennedy? Reid? The Clintons? etc.?Power crazed socialists? The Fed. gov’t was supposed to be an umpire, not a player. Now the Fed. is both. Sure, the people that run businesses are not perfect, but they have to operate under 535 people that are mostly lawyers, and don’t have the least idea or care of what a business is. Who supervises Congress?  The people you say? You can’ t get rid of any of those congessmen until they drop dead. The tax system has become a monster. Would you put forth your best effort if you had 35 cents of every dollar you earned taken away from  and had to spend millions of dollars and thousands of hours to comply with a tax system the IRS itself dosen’t understand? Do you like your dividends and interest taxed twice? All you need is a few months in your own business and you would never, never ever say again what “we need is direct government intervention at the government level.” Cost? Mr. Trocciola, the word cost is a terribly misused word. It has to be used in the contex of what is it being compared to. When you need a good doctor, do you shop around for the least expensive, or the best? When your life or liberty is on the line, do you shop around for the least expensive lawyer or the best? Etc., etc. Now, let’s return to the main discussion. Let us look at the cost of a power plant and the associated parts. A brand new power plant requires thousands of acres of land that will have to be confiscated, cleared, and maintained for the transmission lines, substations, etc. The power lines, transformers, etc.,  must go underground in most large cities, at an additional cost. A conventional oil or coal- fired plant will probably run around 500 million, depending on size, etc. A NP (nuclear powered) plant seven to ten billion dollars, again, depending on a number of factors. Here, in the State of Georgia, Georgia Power proposes two new nuclear reactors to be added to the existing nuclear complex at an admitted cost of 14 billion dollars, and about 7 to 10 years of planning and construction plus the interest on the loan. GP wants to start charging their customers NOW for the cost. Don’t forget the interest on the construction loans. Also, do not forget the cost of closing down the plant when it is worn out. Some estimate it will cost more than the construction. Now, let us talk about the cost of disposing of the spent fuel over the years of the life of the plant. A hole in the ground in Yucca Mt. in Nevada is and has been under construction for years now, and they really don’t know when it will be completed. So far it has cost 90, yes, NINETY BILLION to construct. Now, let us look at the Fuel Cell. Months, not years from conception to on-line operation.  You, who I understand worked in the Fuel Cell industry, are going to tell me that Fuel Cells are more costly than a conventional power plant, where the cost and reliability of the FCs are dropping and the cost of conventional power plants are going up. I suggenst that you get on the website http://WWW.fuelcelltoday.com and read what is going on in  the FC industry. The rest of the world is going full blast with Fuel Cells. If United Tech did not think FCs were a profit item, would they have made a completely new division (company) out of it and installed a new president? All I have to say is there ain’t no contest between conventional power plants and FCs. FCs will win hands down. The Federal government is not the answer to every problem, it usually IS the problem. The founding fathers knew this. That is why we have the system we have, and the know it-alls are trying to destroy and replace it with a system that has failed every time it has been tried. No other system in the world has been as successful, so why do you want to bring in people to run an enterprise that only care about prestige, power, and money? Sure, no smart business man is going to invest in a product that will not show a decent return, especially when a gov’t exists that is supervising and playing the game at the same time.Would you condone the umpires playing in a game of baseball? Put the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.com) program into effect and get the government off businesse’s and  people’s back. No, Mr. Trocciola, the Government is NOT the answer, the Government IS the problem.

22. February 9, 2009 @ 7:27 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    The power outage continues and the fuel cell “world” continues to talk about “The world’s samllest fuel cell” or Carbon nanotubes.If we continue, it will result in another 45 years of just R&D.http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-08-power08_N.htm?csp=34

23. February 9, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Mr. Trocciola, the USA article you referred to just confirms my comments concerning Fuel Cells. I would like to note here that in the biginning of our comments, I made the remark that I thought you were “pulling my leg.” Well, I am now convinced you have been. It has been interesting going tit for tat with you and it has given me the opportunity to hone my thoughts concerning Fuel Cells and my writing skills. I hope others reading our comments have learned something about Fuel Cells and general overall power generation.

24. February 10, 2009 @ 7:11 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Brock,I am not pulling your leg; I strongly believe in fuel cells and  I am tired of articles about small R& D  successes and nothing about how fuel cells can solve today real critical and life dependent needs of everyday people.The nuclear folks and the “clean” coal folks focus on their message and agenda while FC folks seem to be unfocused on getting their messages out to promote their agendas

25. February 10, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Mr. Trocciola, when James Bond was asked his name he would say, Bond–James Bond. When people ask me my name, I say BLOCK–PHILIP BLOCK. Now that you have let go of my leg, let us continue on with the tit for tat. For once we completely agree, except about the small R&D. This statement from you surprised me, as I am under the assumption that you spent some 40 odd years managing, developing, and deploying FCs. My experience in R&D led at times to unexpected pleasant results from research that looked like a waste. The publicity from these “flea” companies surely won’t hurt in getting the attention of people about Fuel Cells. It’s not a bad marketing ploy, as it can attract money. Something a small company needs badly. I know, I have been there. The “whale” you worked for has deep pockets and money is not usually a BIG problem. Even so, I noticed over the years that UT never really went for broke with their FC division until last year. Also, anytime I tried to find out over the years (I have been following and been an advocate of FCs for almost 50 years) information about their Fuel Cell development, it was near impossible. Understandable. I could understand their reluctance in giving any more information than necessary on such a valuable concept.  Yes, definitely, the Fuel Cell industry has been very poor in getting the word out. Maybe because companies such as Ballard have such limited funds they cannot afford the PR people or the money to back them up. The small school from which I received my degree does not have the funds to install a Fuel Cell program, and the State the school is in keeps cutting school budgets. It is a fine school and I have been working with them to attempt to rectify the situation. Since you are a consultant, any suggestions?

26. February 10, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Mr Block,The issue with small copany PR is that it is focused on so called “breakthroughs” etc.  When  the Public reads it they get the impression that the “world’s smallest fuel cell “or carbon nano tubes have solved all the problems and the Government needs to do little. One never sees anything on NBC news which says there is a power outage in Ky and if we just had a bunch of fuel cells we would have no problem in that regard. Did the national news pick up anything about the Central Park Police Station which had power during the great NE power outage? NoThe FC companies’ good news tends to be on FC web sites or in Trade journals and not in the true public media where it can get attention and possibly some major involment by the Politicians. The major fuel cell PR was when it was an automobile phenomena but little in the public eye about stationary fuel cells and power assurance.The Public all knows now about “smart grids”, solar, wind, clean coal and their benefits, but notice no costs on them, and  little about stationary fuel cells and their impact on power assurance and reeduced CO2.When they are talked about in the media “high cost” always seems to be included.There was a  great piece on NBC nightly news last night on soalr roofs, their benefits, job creation, endorsement by the Gov of Michigan etc. No mention  of cost; but please know I 100% endorse the concept and the Company which makes themHow we get in the public eye is not my expertise but algae, clean coal, solar roofs , clean nuclear,smart grids, wind etc sure now how to do it.By the way your initial assumptions on my FC background are 100% accurate, but let’s not focus on “us” but rather let’s focus on the answr to many present day problems.

27. February 11, 2009 @ 9:28 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Some of today’s “good”  newsOklahoma Gas and Electric reported about 8,900 customers without power, nearly 3,500 in Lone Grove, according to its Web site. Less than 1,000 Oklahoma City area customers were still in the dark.

28. February 12, 2009 @ 11:24 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Maybe we should send them some nano tubes??http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/wild_wind_1

29. February 13, 2009 @ 8:23 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Here we go again; sounds like a “need” that stationary fuel cells can help solve:                        Utilities such as Jersey Central Power & Light in New Jersey reported downed power lines from wind-snapped trees. About 250,000 customers remained without power Thursday in Pennsylvania, and 140,000 more in Ohio. There were also about 109,000 outages in West Virginia, more than 35,000 in New Jersey and 14,900 in Michigan.

30. February 13, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
    Paul Wickett says...
    

    This conversation reminds me of the war between Tesla/Westinghouse and  Thomas Edison.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents  Edison was convinced that DC was the correct technical solution and had alot of good reasons why DC was better that AC.  However, his approach was to discredit Tesla/Westinghouse with rediculus arguments (electrocution).  In the end Tesla had the more pragmatic solution for some applications (ie long distance transmisison) with DC being better suited to other applications.I think everyone involved in the next generation of vehicle propulsion needs to keep focused on the prize and work together.  The prize is to reduce our carbon foot print, reduce our dependance of foreign energy, and reinvigorate our economy.   BE, PHEV, and fuel cell all have limitations and are  all niche solutions ,but are not mutally exclusive.  In fact I would contend that each solutions success will add to the success to the others.  For example, reducing customers expectations for range, performance, size and weight will benefits all applications.  We have to get out of the mindset that we can just change our vehicles powerplant/energy source to solve our problems.  Bottom line we first need to consume less energy then optimize how we spend the available energy.  PS Why not a PHEV with a fuel cell instead of a ICE?

31. February 17, 2009 @ 10:22 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Boone Pickens was on CNBC today talking about the Stimulas Bill and its money to build the grid for renewableshttp://www.cnbc.com/id/29233249Gee no mention, unlike some fuel cell folks, about case studies for economics, ROI, payback etc.The FC industry should take a lesson from this bastion of free enterprise , CNBC/Boone Pickens.

32. February 19, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Georgia Power Co. reported more than 4,000 customers lost electricity at the height of the storms Wednesday night, with all but about 60 restored by midmorning Thursday.
    Meanwhile, Georgia’s Electric Membership Corporations restored power to nearly 9,400 customers who lost it Wednesday night. Crews worked Thursday morning to reconnect a couple of hundred customers in Jasper and Spalding counties after about 30 utility poles were broken in the storm                      

33. February 19, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Yeah John–and Georgia Power is the Company that is going to start building two new Nuclear Reactors at a price of 14–YES– FOURTEEN BILLION DOLLARS. The report states that they MAY complete the project around 2016 or so. I don’t know if that includes the xmission lines, peripheral equipt., and the associated land. Next year or so the GP Company will start adding 12 dollars per year to the their customers bills. At that rate it will take over 100 years to pay for the plants. When they wear out in about 30 years or so, it will take about 14 billion to decommission them and another 100 years or so to pay for it. Real 21st century thinking. Think of all the Fuel Cells that could be installed while they are building those plants as the power is needed and the money and land saved by not having to build the power lines. GA Pwr almost went bankrupt building the ones they have now and we are still paying for them. Better sell your GA Pwr. and Southern Co. stock now while you have the chance.

34. February 20, 2009 @ 8:37 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    But yet when we watch that “Newsman”, Brian Williams, the talk is always about nukes and no CO2 and how well France is doing.And some how he implies that Nukes will reduce our dependence on imported oil ,despite the fact that little oil goes into power generation.

35. February 20, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Yes John, remember that the news people, as well as the politicians, that tout Nuclear power haven’t the slightest clue about electrical engineering or electrical power generation. The newspeople are in the business of MAKING news and making themselves appear as experts (an expert–ex-a has been–spirt–a drip under pressure). The politicians don’t care as long as they look politically GREEN. Senator Chambliss (GA) goes to France and has a tour of one of their Nuclear plants. Then he returns to the US touting what an expert he is on Nuclear power and how wonderful it is. France is a Socialistic dictatorship. The people had little or no say (neverless-any understanding) of what the Government was doing. France touts the cheap electricity where the monthly electric bills are subsidized through taxation. They are  floundering around trying to find a way to dispose of the Nuclear waste and cover up the problem with a lot of hype. The same thing is happening in Georgia. The politicans in the State Leg. recently passed a bill permitting GA pwr. to tack on a dollar a month to their culsomers electric bills to help pay for two new Nuclear reactors. Then they brag what a wonderful thing they have done. ”How green is my valley.” They never once let the public in on the facts. They never mentioned the hidden taxes and Fed. and State grants, etc. that will go to pay for the construction, etc. And, even Ga Pwr. at one time admitted that electric rates will increase. Those in the “know” know that a Nuclear power plant cannot produce electricity to compete with conventional power plant (under the same financial restraints). The anti-oil people have no concept of the use of oil, except in their cars. They do not understand that oil is used to lubricate every single piece of moving machinery, make medicines, make plastics, make the electronics equipment that we use every day, and all the wonderful medical equipment in a hospital. Not a single hospital could be built without oil. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is against drilling for oil as she says that ” I want to save the planet.” Not a single power plant, conventional or Nuclear, could be built or operate without oil. Synthetics you say. Go read up and learn what they are made from! Why doesn’t she object to other countries drilling for oil?  Why doesn’t  she object to the oil wells currently operating in her home State of California? Without oil, the world will revert back to the dark ages. Fuel Cells can aid in reducing the need for oil. But the Fuel Cell companies need to get out and do some sales work. How much would it cost to advertise the advantages of Fuel Cells on bill boards around the country? Everyone driving to work, etc. would see them and start asking questions. Of course, asking questions is dangerous. It takes guts, something this country has become short of. Anything against the establishment is either “hate speach” and/or ”racist.” So, as the US plods merrily along with its 20th century mentally, the rest of the world is racing past us installing Fuel Cells and helping solve some of the present day problems. 

36. February 21, 2009 @ 10:02 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Here’s a Problem Statement:Ask your neighbor how are we going to reduce the amount of oil we use. The answer will be , almost 100%, “Wind, solar and nuclear” or “H2 cars”.Why is that the answer??:    The big companies who have an interest in wind, nuclear, solar, fuel cell cars ie GE, GM, the big utilities are much more effective in getting their views/messages out than many or most of the fuel cell companies which tend to be small in sizeThe wind/solar.nuclear industries deliver a very simple message namely “XXXX (wind or nuclear or solar) are good for you and the country”.The FC industry delivers many messages: A FC as small as a cube of sugarCarbon nano tubes can store H2We can use ethanolWe are having a H2 road tourWe just signed the agreement , we just built the FC, we delivered the FC, we installed the FC, we started the FC (6 releases)We need to keep our messages brief and focused on solving a problem that real people care aboutKISS  (Keep it Simple Smarty)

37. February 22, 2009 @ 8:24 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    another example of the FC industry issuing releases which mislead the public and cause them to focus on “side applications” rather than the real fuel cell need applications. The link talks about the first H2 powered FC tractor.    In fact Allis Chalmers operated a FC tractor in early 60s or late 50s ( I don’t recall the exact date).                                                 http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/02/21/worlds-first-hydrogen-fuel-cell-tractor-debuts-in-italy/                            

38. February 25, 2009 @ 7:25 am
    John Trocciola says...
    

    I watched the President give his speech last night; he mentioned:SolarWindPlug in carsClean coalUpgrading the gridMy wife said ” Why did he not mention fuel cells?”I said     ”We’re working on it”She said  “It’s too late”I guess we FC folks do have a problem ; don’t we?

39. February 25, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
    Philip Block says...
    

    Right John. As Gary Cooper would say “Yup.” It was right around 1960. I still have the picture from a magazine of that tractor that AC had developed. That was what got me interested in Fuel Cells. Also, you have to remember, Fuel Cell technology is beyond the mentality of most Americans. The school system has dumbed down the population to the point that most people can’t name their own congressman/woman. Try finding someone that can play chess. So don’t expect the President, who holds a law degree, to understand anything about science. He only reads off what his aids write for him. They are only going to write what sounds good. Remember, he is appealing only to the masses. That is where the votes are. We Fuel Cell advocates have a tough row to hoe!

40. February 25, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
    John Trocciola says...
    

    Yeah but,          Some Companies    (GE, utilities, coal etc) told him or his staff that wind ,solar, clean coal  are the “only ways to go”   and we really need a taxpayer financed grid.          Where we FC folks saying if you use fuel cells  you don’t need to increase the grid as much   plus you reduce CO2 and help “keep the power on”  ?????

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL