Porvair Share Discussion Threads

[motzu] 24/6/2004 19:38

Advanced Energy Systems

Stacking up

Efficiency on a small scale and a means of curbing emissions make fuel
cells an investment for the future.

by Michael R. von Spakovsky

A fuel cell has made it into Yale. This summer, the university will
fire up a new 250-kilowatt fuel cell system, which will meet about a quarter of the electricity needs of the school's Environmental Sciences Building.

The installation is interesting on a number of levels. It's an
experiment in distributed power generation at one of the world's
leading scholarly institutions. The system will feed a headquarters
for the study of our world's environment, and it's in Connecticut, the
state that has begun to bill itself as "the fuel cell capital of the
world."

The Connecticut Clean Energy Fund put up the $1.25 million to purchase
the fuel cell power plant from a local company, FuelCell Energy Inc.,
in Danbury. Subhash Chandra, the chief technology officer and managing
director of the fund, pointed out that Connecticut is also home to
United Technologies Corp.'s fuel cell unit in South Windsor and to
Proton Energy Systems Inc. in Wallingford, as well as to a number of
smaller companies that are involved directly or indirectly in the field.

According to Chandra, the fund he heads has spent almost $29 million
on fuel cell projects over the past couple of years. It has put money
into the Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center at the University of
Connecticut and directly into fuel cell companies as equity
investments, he said.


LOOKING TO THE FUTURE


The motive for funding fuel cells goes beyond boosterism for local
industry, though. As pressures mount on available resources and the
environment, fuel cell systems can play a major role in the future of
stationary and mobile power generation.

They make highly efficient power plants. Especially on a small scale,
they reach much higher average efficiencies than other technologies
do. Higher efficiency not only means more electricity per pound of
fuel, but also fewer emissions of all kinds per kilowatt-hour. In
other words, the only product of a fuel cell's electrochemical
reactions is water, while the chemical reactions for fuel reforming,
if present in the system, occur at temperatures low enough to make
emissions of nitrogen oxides almost nonexistent. The elimination or
significant reduction of other emissions (e.g., sulfur dioxides and
carbon dioxide) is also a feature of these systems. In addition, the
heat generated in high-temperature fuel cells can be captured and used
to generate steam in a combined cycle.

Yale's fuel cell system, the DFA 300, is listed by the manufacturer as
having a low heating value peak electrical efficiency of 47 percent,
which is very high indeed for a 250-kilowatt generating plant.
FuelCell Energy claims that NOx emissions are less than 0.3 part per
million by volume. Both carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds
are less than 10 parts per million.

Yale's installation will use the heat energy to power environmental
control systems in a part of the building that houses delicate
specimens and artifacts.

Fuel cell systems are expensive now, but as with any technology,
prices are expected to fall as sales increase and manufacturing
improves. A spokesman for FuelCell Energy said that the company's
eventual goal is to price an installed fuel cell system at between
$1,000 and $1,500 per kilowatt. That may not compete with the cost of
a natural gas plant on a large scale, but it can provide an economical
and environmentally friendly source of local power generation.

So, the question arises: How do fuel cell systems stack up (no pun
intended) against competing technologies? The simple answer: quite
well. One reason is that during the last three decades, there has been
a significant surge in both research and development.

By no means a new energy conversion process, interest in fuel cells
ceased in the late 19th century and did not re-emerge until the work
of Francis Bacon and his co-workers in 1932, gaining much impetus
during the 1960s from the American space program. What is remarkable
is the comparatively high efficiencies and relatively low emissions
that these devices already exhibit in an early stage of development,
both for transportation and for portable and stationary power
production. Advantages exhibited by these types of systems are: high
energy conversion efficiencies at full and partial load (the latter
provides a significant advantage for fuel cells over other more
conventional systems); performance roughly independent of system size
and load factor; lower emissions (but not zero emissions); no moving
parts in the stacks, resulting in lower maintenance costs; high power
density (i.e., units are compact); modularity (a feature conducive to
meeting different power needs); low operating temperatures; and
relatively low pressures.


FIVE WAYS TO GO


There are five basic types of fuel cells that have seen, or are
seeing, significant development. A sixth, the alkaline fuel cell, is
no longer considered a viable candidate for most applications of interest.

One of the most promising types of fuel cells is the proton exchange
membrane, or PEM, fuel cell. It is often considered as a potential
replacement for the internal combustion engine in transportation
applications. The efficiency of a PEM fuel cell stack operating on
hydrogen and pressurized air at typical current conditions would be
approximately 50 percent. The PEM fuel cell also provides very high
power density. Automotive fuel cell systems based on PEM technology
have demonstrated a power density as high as 1.35 kilowatts per liter,
which is comparable to that of an internal combustion engine.

This power is produced while the cell operates at a relatively low temperature of 60° to 80°C. The low operating temperature lets the fuel cell warm up quickly


TUMBLING COSTS


Unfortunately, the low operating temperature leads to very slow
chemical kinetics. Precious metal catalysts, typically platinum, must
be used at the electrodes to facilitate the reactions. As recently as
10 years ago, the cost of the catalyst alone was as high as $184 per
kilowatt of electricity, making the PEM fuel cell too expensive for
most applications. In recent years, advances in the design of the
electrodes and the application of the catalyst have led to catalyst
costs approaching a design goal of $3.50 per kilowatt of electricity.

Nonetheless, further advances in technology and manufacturing are
needed to reduce the cost of other cell components, particularly the
collector plates, which are typically machined from graphite. Assuming
the application of the mass manufacturing techniques that would be
associated with a large-scale deployment of PEM fuel cell technology,
such as in automobiles, the U.S. Department of Energy has established
a goal of $35 per kilowatt for the fuel cell stack. Even at 10 times
this price, PEM technology would be attractive in a wide range of
stationary and portable power applications.


The direct methanol, or DM, fuel cell typically uses a polymer
membrane as the electrolyte. The fuel is methanol, dissolved in liquid
water and supplied to the anode. Since it is a liquid, methanol is
easy to transport, and since it is used directly in the stack, there
is no need for a fuel processor to separate hydrogen, a requirement of
most other systems. However, because the reaction rate for methanol on
currently available catalysts is slow, direct methanol fuel cells have
relatively low efficiencies and power densities. Furthermore, since
methanol is soluble in the polymer membrane, it can cross over to the
cathode where it reacts without producing electrical power, thus
further reducing efficiency.

Direct methanol fuel cells can be competitive with batteries in terms
of storage density. At present, the most promising applications for DM
fuel cells appear to be as replacements for batteries in small
portable power applications, where the simplicity of the system and
the portability of the liquid methanol fuel outweigh the relatively
low efficiency.


PHOSPHORIC ACID SYSTEMS


The phosphoric acid, or PA, fuel cell was the first fuel cell to be
commercially available. PA systems operate with efficiencies that are
comparable to proton exchange membrane fuel cells, but power densities
are lower. The operating temperature of the PA fuel cell is
approximately 200°C. This temperature is high enough to facilitate the
recovery of heat produced within the stack for water and space heating
in buildings. However, the operating temperature is not high enough to
overcome the need for precious metal catalysts.

Furthermore, despite a number of years of intensive development, the
costs of these systems have not come down sufficiently. Phosphoric
acid fuel cell systems, each of which includes a natural gas fuel
processor, are commercially available at an installed cost of
approximately $5,000 to $5,600 per kilowatt.

Nonetheless, phosphoric acid systems have been practically
demonstrated through a number of projects. One of the largest
demonstration projects is the U.S. Department of Defense Fuel Cell
Demonstration Program that has placed 30 systems in a variety of
applications. They include boiler plants, hospitals, dormitories, and
office buildings at military installations, including the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point, Edwards Air Force Base in California,
and the New London, Conn., submarine base. The DOD program is detailed
on a Web site,

While this program and others have demonstrated the technical
feasibility of applying PA fuel cell systems, the widespread economic
feasibility of these systems will depend on reducing costs by at least
a factor of two.

The type of system that is being installed at Yale, the molten
carbonate fuel cell, is typically designed for mid-size to large
stationary power applications or for shipboard use. The molten
carbonate, or MC, fuel cell operates at a very high temperature,
approximately 650°C. At this temperature, precious metal catalysts are
not required for the fuel cell reaction. In addition, the heat
available from the stack can be used to produce steam and hot water.

Furthermore, at this temperature, fuel gases other than hydrogen can
be used by reforming the fuel within the cell stack in a process
called "internal reforming." This greatly simplifies the "balance of
plant" equipment required to operate the fuel cell. Heavier
hydrocarbons may still require external processing.

Development efforts for molten carbonate fuel cells are focused on
reducing costs and increasing the life of cell components in the
harsh, high-temperature environment within the stack. Systems based on
this technology are expected to be available within five years at
costs ranging from $2,000 to $3,000 per kilowatt of electricity.

Target markets for the technology include small distributed generation systems for utilities as well as building cogeneration systems at sizes of 0.1 to 2.0 MW of electricity.

The solid oxide, or SO, fuel cell operates at the highest temperatures
of all fuel cell systems, 800° to 1,000°C. These high temperatures
simplify system configuration by permitting internal reforming. They
also facilitate the development of cogeneration systems as well as
hybrid power systems that use fuel cells as topping cycles for gas,
steam, or combined turbine cycles.


REFINEMENTS NEEDED


Developers of solid oxide fuel cells are seeking ways to reduce
manufacturing cost, improve system integration, and lower the
operating temperature to a range of 550° to 750°C. The lower operating
temperature would still provide the advantages of internal reforming
without the material problems associated with very high-temperature
operation.

Systems based on SO fuel cells are being considered for a variety of
purposes, ranging from small applications such as residential power
systems and vehicle auxiliary power units, where the simplified fuel
processing requirements are attractive, to large utility-scale
applications.

Many adherents believe that fuel cell systems promise to provide
benefits in a variety of applications. Systems based on PEM and direct
methanol technology promise to make power more portable and
convenient, and PEM technology also promises to provide a more
efficient, cleaner technology for the automotive industry. PEM,
phosphoric acid, molten carbonate, and solid oxide fuel cells are
likely to be applied in cogeneration applications that use the exhaust
heat.

With combined-cycle and cogeneration thermodynamic (exergy)
efficiencies potentially above 70 and even 80 percent, these
applications promise to reduce energy use and environmental impact.
Many research and development organizations, manufacturers, and
regulatory agencies are working to ensure that fuel cell systems
fulfill their promise in each of these areas.


Michael R. von Spakovsky, an ASME Fellow, is a professor of mechanical
engineering and director of the Energy Management Institute at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg.

[motzu] 24/6/2004 19:19

The Evolution of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Policy:
Looking Back and Looking Forward

Judith Bayer - UTC Fuel Cells

[garth] 24/6/2004 11:21

Motzu,

thanks for that. My question was whether, based on the figures I had, UTC were being a bit optimistic in their forecasts?

I accept that those figures may well be out of date, they just appeared to offer an independent source as I was looking WRT my research on Dyson (who continue to play a quietly-quietly tune on FCT)

Are you able to point me to more up-to-date figures?

I'm holding MNE in my ISA for some international coverage and keep my eye on UCM, JMAT, Porvair and Cropper.

Spill the beans - who is your main FCT play?

G.

[motzu] 24/6/2004 11:15

Fuel Cell Library:




Porvair Fuel Cells:

[motzu] 24/6/2004 11:09

I think that it is time to have a new thread on Porvair and follow it's development on the supra-conductive bi-polar plates and other materials.

[motzu] 24/6/2004 11:03

Garth,

You raised many points and I am not quite sure about your question.

Your market size numbers are correct but out of date. And the very big impact is going to be new US gov initiatives, funding and legislation. The Energy Bill stalled, but eventually an Energy Bill of some sort will pass the congress. In the mean time the law makers passed a new corporate tax law for enterprises adopting alternative energies, and the US DoE has launched a new set of funded initiatives to accelerate the development of distributed generation (DG). In short with DG you don't need a grid and all the backup infrastructure. The generation and distribution is much more flexible and efficient.

I personaly expect the market size to accelerate dramatically in 2006.

Regarding the technologies, the most efficient one is SOFC followed by MCFC. It seems to me that MCFC will achieve a much bigger market size in the mid term until maybe being taken over by SOFC.

MCFC, is very versatile and can be used in very flexible ways and does not need hydrogene as input. There are already 29 MCFC power plants worldwide. 16 are full commercial version and others are gov funded demo pilot projects. They can function on coal gasification, where the US has the largest world reserves.

Regarding UTC, they are determined to be a major fuel cell player. But to my assesment they do not have the leading technology. But they have deep pockets, gov support and have so far supplied the largest stationary FC park of 230 units.

You can find some interesting info on:


Don't miss the presentation made by Michael Gnann
"Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells in Practical Test: Field Test with MTU's Hot Module Generator"

They are due to start mass market production in 2006.

I think that PRV is a very interesting niche player but it is not my main play in the FC market.

[garth] 21/6/2004 14:14

Motzu,
(any chance of putting a break in the URL above to sort the scroll problem?)

I have to confess to knowing little of UTC Fuel Cells although I've had a quick look here:


Unless the market for Phosphoric-acid fuel cells (PAFCs)is dramatically larger than that for PEM cells and SOFCs then I wonder whether UTC's expectation of having a US$400M fuel cell business by 2005 looks a little optimistic?

This link contains a report providing useful background material including a comment on the likely market size/timing for both Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells (of the sort for which DYS are supplying Johnson Matthey to produce components) and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) (of the type DYS are suplying Seimens Westinghouse components for producing their stacks)



This research gives figures for 2007/8 - a couple of years beyond the higher figure given bu UTC:

"According to a soon-to-be-released market research by Business Communications Company Inc. (BCC Inc. report GB282: solid oxide fuel cells), global market value of SOFC is forecasted to reach $347 millions by 2008 with an average annual growth rate (AAGR) of 22% per year with the North American market representing about 57% of the global market then (about $198 millions)."

and,

"PEMFC (Proton exchange membrane fuel cells) are already available on the market and market analysts (BCC Inc. report E-122: fuel cells for large scale applications) predicts that PEMFC (about 60% of all US fuel cell funding initiatives) will represent a North American market value of about $340 millions by 2007. This represents about 1.7 times the estimated value of the SOFC market for 2008. "

G.

[motzu] 21/6/2004 13:48

Francis R. Preli Jr. is vice president, engineering for UTC Fuel Cells, a unit of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX). UTC Fuel Cells (UTCFC) is the world leader in fuel cell production and development for commercial, transportation, residential and space applications. Preli directs more than 300 engineers and scientists engaged in research and product development for UTCFC. Preli earned his B.S., M.S. and PhD. degrees in chemistry from the University of Connecticut. He also earned an MBA at the university.

Abstract

A UTC Perspective on Fuel Cell Product Development

UTC Fuel Cells has several programs underway to develop PEM fuel cells for commercial and transportation markets. Our objective is to commercialize fuel cell power plants as early as possible. Fuel cell technology and product development progress will be reviewed in this presentation.

UTC Fuel Cells produced its first fuel cell in 1961 for space applications and has since supplied alkaline fuel cells (AFC) for the Apollo and Space Shuttle manned space missions. In addition, UTC Fuel Cells has developed and sold 255 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) stationary 200-kilowatt size units, which have accumulated over six million operating hours and have a stack life >40,000 hours. PAFC and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane (PEM) fuel cell systems have also been developed for the transportation market, including systems that operate on gasoline, methanol and hydrogen. These systems have been demonstrated in buses and automobiles.

Great progress has been made in PEM fuel cell technology. For example, in the past five years, the life of the fuel cell stack has been extended from ~100 hours to >1,000 hours and lab tests demonstrate >15,000 hours life. Power density has improved, achieving 50 percent reductions in size and weight since 1997. Fuel cell systems efficiencies >50% have been demonstrated, which compare favorably to combustion systems.

For commercial systems a great deal of work remains to improve PEM system reliability and to reduce cost. The PAFC power plants demonstrate high reliability and durability, but cost targets have not been met. Progress has been made improving the cost of several key PEM components, but reducing the cost of other components remains a challenge.

For transportation, several technical hurdles remain. Technology must be developed to enable operation at low and high ambient temperatures. Currently, fuel cells have difficulty starting below zero and operating at high temperatures and altitudes, but progress has been significant over the last few years. Finally, the low cost requirements for transportation applications will require new approaches to cell materials and design.

[motzu] 21/6/2004 13:42

Porvair is not in the fuel cell business per se. They are a component supplier to UTC Fuel Cells, which expects to have a US$400M fuel cell business by 2005.

To date United Technologies has supplied the largest park of operating fuel cells. However, this point is irrelevant as the technology has evolved a lot and more efficient technologies such as MCFC and SOFC are being tested. UTC expertise is in PAFC.

PRV is suppling the supra-conductive bi-polar plates for fuel cell stacks, and they are the leaders by a long margin. I beleive that this component could have some other applications.

In the mean time their filtration business is highly profitable and funding the R&D effort for the development of the bi-polar plates.

After the restructuring, I expect PRV to come up with a good set of results and some indication on where there business with UTC is heading.

The chart is also improving.

[dolphinspirit] 17/6/2004 15:05

Don't we all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't wait to see how much the group will make once they fully develope
the fuel cells.

D

[zapa] 17/6/2004 12:24

Beg pardon,didnt realise.
That would be a worry,I hope they know what their doing.

[dolphinspirit] 17/6/2004 12:09

That depends on were you are in the company,
if you are in the filtration side (like I am)
then the fuel cell side is were all our profit
is going.

D.

[zapa] 17/6/2004 10:11

Agreed DS,but dont forget the company its self is very excited about fuel cells.

[dolphinspirit] 17/6/2004 10:07

I read these comments with interest, and wonder why every one
talks purely about the fuel cell technology considering it is NOT
Porvair's biggest market. 50% of Porvair deals in filtration where
They have a very good reputation.

D.

[garth] 16/6/2004 10:27

Yup - DYS look a better bet, IMO, with deals with JMAT for PEM cells and Seimens-Westinghouse for SOFCs. They haven't done the shouting about it that Porvair have done, are on a far more realistic rating and with Ecoflex Catalytic Converter shields and Carolite Hard Disk substrate (to which even IBM have now signed up in a stunning turn-around from their glass technology) coming to the boil they are far more than a one-line company.

I'm prejudiced though 'cause I hold Dyson and simply watch Porvair - at least for the time being.

G.

[bobdouthwaite] 16/6/2004 09:53

This share remains unloved, with apparent selling (?institutional) as soon as there is some buying. The last results were very encouraging but the p/e ratio remains relatively high. Does anyone have any comments in the run-up to results?

[res1606] 15/6/2004 08:19

Numbers 29th June and no pre-results warning statement as some might have feared.

[leeblerz] 22/5/2004 15:43

Keeping an edge in the stock market means you have to keep your eyes wide open. What a difference a quarter makes! This means you need to get the fastest, best and right information before someone else does. This free newsletter does just that. You will get an email only when something is on the move or about to move. You will not receive any junk mail. They have a great history and are definitely worth a few minutes of your time. Remember, 20/20 foresight is better than 20/20 hindsight. These shares are traded in the US markets.

[motzu] 22/5/2004 13:29

I am very surprised by the share just drifting and drifting lower and lower. The chart looks horible too.

I don't think that the company will come with stellar results anytime soon. However, I beleive that the worst is over and numbers should be improving.

Regarding the bi-polar plates the company has still to invest for the second generation and also for large scale production.

There might also be requirements for a third generation product and also there might be some problems regarding the customisation of production.

I haven't heard of any major problems so far, but the company is small, shares illiquid and not many analysts are following it and there are not many analyst who understand the technology and economics behind fuel cells. Many people still believe that fuel cells is still a far away dream. In fact we are a the very begining of a large scale commercialisation process.

On UTX side, there isn't much information about thier fuel cell program.

This is old news, but interesting news, because it gives an
interesting overview of UTX fuel cell business:


ryInformationExternal/Reports/DisplayReport/0%2C1742%2C484%2C00.html

I anticipate that financial results will come through in 2H 2005 with most probably a brilliant 2006. However, the market should anticipate the turnaround in some stage.

I expect 2006 to be a fuel cell hysteria, similar to the Dotcom.

In 2 years time maybe today's price might seem a giveaway bargain !

However, the biggest risk here is for Porvair to lose the UTX contract. It seems unlikely because they have gone too far together in the customisation process.

[pippin] 20/5/2004 17:05

Good question, hybrasil.

The move in oil prices certainly favours Porvair. Furthermore the last figures were pretty encouraging.

It looks to me as though there is no buying to speak of and small amounts of nervy selling as the chart looks weak and as stop losses are breached. There also seems to be a single seller in some size. This had led to a stock overhang - the M trade this morning didn't help. I think that the trade at 108p was probably a buy, but that apparently hasn't cleared out the seller.

I don't think there's anything more suspicious going on, but who can be sure?

[hybrasil] 20/5/2004 09:21

Why is this share price falling

[motzu] 14/5/2004 12:37

30% FC Tax Credit On the WAY







PEM Fuel Cell stands for Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC). UTX used to be involved in Phosforic Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) with close to 200 units shipped. However, in terms of efficiency the market leader is using Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC) and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC). On paper they should reach an efficiency of 92% in a co-generation environment. Today, most efficient systems have an overall efficiency of 47%.

Look at the up-side !

[bobdouthwaite] 13/5/2004 15:45

From the Final Results of 27 January 2004:

Porvair Fuel Cell Technology ("PFCT") had an exciting year. Strong customer demand in the middle of the year led to a rapid manufacturing scale-up for ' first generation' bi-polar plates, in partnership with United Technologies Corporation Fuel Cells and the US Government Department of Energy. Bi-polar plates are key components in PEM fuel cells, and Porvair plates are beginning to show compelling technical attributes when compared to industry standards:


Porvair 1st generation Industry Standard
Conductivity 600S/cm 100S/cm
Weight 1.2g/cc 1.8g/cc
Plate thickness to 1.2mm to 1.8mm
Flex strength *(psi) 7000 4500



AT TYPICAL DENSITY
These attributes - highly conductive, thin, strong and light plates - when combined with the low cost manufacturing potential of the material, and our ability to control its microporosity, have led to substantial customer demand. We are already specified in both stationary and automotive programmes, and as confidence in our plate performance grows we are increasingly involved in new test protocols with new customers.

The next phase of this programme will be to refine our 'second generation' plates such that they become suitable for ultra low cost manufacturing; and to begin to move through necessary testing with existing and new customers. This will take up most of our time in 2004. If successful, Porvair will become a highly competitive carbon bi-polar plate manufacturer, and therefore is well placed to take advantage as and when PEM fuel cell markets develop.

[motzu] 13/5/2004 11:25

There are many initiatives regarding fuel cells. You have to distinguish 3 segments:

- Stationary Fuel Cells

- Mobile Application

- Portable Applications

The stationary market is already in the early commercialisation phase, the mobile or auto is still years ahead. Some auto makers have already built some prototype but costs are still prohibitive. But the real hurdle is to build a "hydrogen highway" with all the refueling and transport infrastructure. There are still many challenges ahead.

However, one sub-segment is already on the move and that is for buses. However, they need yet to sort out the problem with refueling stations.

The portable segment will be for cell-phones and note books. Some manyfactures are already experimenting with fuel cells for notebooks.

In fact Porvair does not produce membranes for fuel cells. From memory, I might be wrong, they are producing a superconductive sub-component for fuel cell stacks built by UTX Fuel Cells.

Porviar has already started to ship the second generation of these sub-components to UTX. And UTX president has stated that for next year he is looking at a $400M fuel cell business.

I don't expect UTX fuel cell business to be profitable by next year. However, Porvair should benefit regardless of UTX profitability. I see Porvair as a highly geared play on UTX fuel cell Program.

Regarding oil prices and world energy prices, it looks like in the last 15 years prices were unusually low and prices will be higher in the forseeable future.

Short term prices were squeezed by the Iraq situation and a huge demand from China. However, the Chinese economy has started to slowdown and the Iraqi situation will stabilise in the next 3/6 months prices should come down significantly.

The big push for fuel cells will come from the US where the law makers are debating about the Energy Bill.

On paper and based on certain field tests it looks like that some stationary fuel cell systems would be able to produce a cheaper, cleaner and more relible source of energy than oil.

The other point is strategic, economic and political. With one stroke, the US could launch a new hi-tech indutry creating thousands of jobs, reduce significantly their trade deficit and achieve energy independence.

Watch the E-Bill.

[pippin] 10/5/2004 08:10

I think sentiment will turn sharply when people realise that high oil prices will make fuel cells much more economically viable AND reduce vulnerability to the Middle East (Iraq developments).

I expect a flurry of developments and new initiatives in the next few months.