Fuel Cell Viability

Unknown

I find it curious that any (sensible) person would wish to cast doubt upon the exciting future of fuel cells, given the liberal potential for growth within our heating community.

We as an industry, should be embraceing the fuel cell with optimism, rather than skepticism. All over the world developers of Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells are participating with companies we do business with on a daily basis, alongside government and military projects to further develop CHP fuel cell technology for stationary residential heat and power supply applications.

Fuel cell viability has suffered from the same problems numerous other important technological advances have: that of being a technology push rather than a market pull driven economy. That has certainly been the case throughout much of the history of the fuel cell. Development is carried out by companies and people with significant scientific ability but less commercialization skill.

But, there has been a switch in this trend with increasing involvement of more traditionally consumer-focused industries. While technological advances continue to be made at a rapid pace, major corporations have strategically targeted specific market segments and amassed highly skilled partners. Only now can we begin to more accurately speculate on timeframes for seeing real products on the shelves of the supply house.

Stimulating demand through commercial growth

The Hydronics industry is vigilantly focusing on overcoming any significant barriers that may stand in the way of advancement in efficiency. German companies such as Viessmann, Buderus and Vaillant are passionately involved in the development of stationary CHP (Combined Heating and Power) systems, all of whom rely heavily upon major US players as far as their cell stacks are concerned. Such high profile companies as UTC Fuel Cells and Plug Power have been tapped for their expertise with this technology.

Can anybody really doubt that a company such as Vie$$mann has the ability to overcome pricing objections to systems that can run so environmentally friendly? The task for the months and years to come will be development of smaller devices in the 3kW to 10kW range for residential home markets that can easily attract the general public rather than the present niche markets that exist today.

Real demand market drivers

What then will drive any significant sales of stationary fuel cell appliances? There appears no one single answer. However, market drivers can be identified in all of the relevant sectors.

As stationary fuel cells produce heat and electricity, home and business owners can reduce or eliminate their requirements from other sources. This will result in significant financial saving. A fuel cell based CHP unit, of the correct size for an individual residence or business facility will self-provide all of its own heat and power requirements to the building, perhaps even selling any left-over electricity back to the grid system.

Worldwide demand is expected to rise for the CHP since they will enable residential users to produce their own power and heat with far fewer greenhouse emissions than traditional boilers produce. The American public must begin to recognize that the heat and electricity that these residential PEM fuel cell systems provide can be; less expensive, more reliable, more efficient and vastly more environmentally clean than the present system of burning fossil fuels.

They also have specific benefits in rural areas where an electrical grid connection is just not available. Where no grid exists, a fuel cell is able to provide power to a home or business with more reliability than any comparable generator. Even in countries with a grid system it may be extremely expensive for a remote household to connect to it. In this case, there is simply a much lower capital and operating cost than paying for the poles and then the kWH that follow. Since fuel cells are proven to produce high quality, highly reliable back-up power, many specific industries (particularly high-tech and telecoms) which can lose huge amounts of money per minute when equipment fails due to power outages, are becoming increasingly interested in the usage of these systems to address this issue.

Long term goals

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham told delegates of the newly formed International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE) that “Only a concerted international effort will speed the coming of the hydrogen revolution.” Warning that “The United States will need 50% more oil in 2025 than today, and with major developing countries like China and India facing similar increases, it is not enough for us to be successful 100 years from now, not even 50 years from now. We need to achieve tangible results in the next two decades.”

Of course the ultimate goal of fuel cell research is to produce a totally non-polluting power source, as does solar, wind or hydro power. In order to achieve this the fuel cell must run on a fuel generated entirely by renewable means. Getting hydrogen from renewables is certainly an option, but it remains to be seen whether it can be economically feasible. The technology and infrastructure to achieve this efficiently and cheaply is unlikely to be perfected for some years.

In the meantime, PEM fuel cell based CHPs will be powered by hydrogen extracted from fossil fuels, in a process known as internal reforming (extraction from hydrocarbon fuels) such as natural gas. This emerging technology is still light years ahead of the conventional fuel burning hot water heating equipment, shamefully being delivered to the vast majority of new construction and replacement boiler markets in the US.

Why have only a small number of professional hydronic heating contractors embraced condensing heat source technology? Statistically, the typical American just don’t seem as interested in conservation as the rest of the world, even though we are the largest consumer of it’s energy.

Consumption in the US must be managed. Until that is realized, we can expect to see more of the same. European manufacturers, using our R&D technology to bring high efficiency equipment to the global marketplace and singling out North American distribution as a market they believe is just not yet ready for these developments.

(From my Supply House Times article February 2004)

<A HREF="http://www.heatinghelp.com/getListed.cfm?id=296&Step=30">To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"</A>

Constantin

Have worked on fuel cells...

..can't say much as I am under an NDA. However, I do not think that FC's are comparable to condensing technology and other means of making heating systems more efficient.

As I see it, Fuel cells in mobile applications will probably not do much better for the forseeable future. There are simply too many other systems required to keep the FC happy (called the Balance of Plant). Instead, I think your article would have been more applicable if you'd looked at hybrid vehicles instead.

Hybrid technology allows IC engines to run more efficienctly in stop&go traffic, allows regenerative braking, and a number of other efficiency improvements with a moderate increase in complexity and cost... much like a condenser, modulating burner in a heating system.

Mobile FC's have very real shortcomings, starting with the extremely expensive ingredients required to build them, to the whole question of how to integrate them into our extant fuel distribution infrastructure or wether we want to spend the $$$ to build a whole new distribution system. Stationary fuel cells don't count, many use SOFC technology that does not require a separate fuel reformer.

Thus, I would caution your entusiasm regarding fuel reforming technology in mobile applications... all I can say is, have a look what they put into a fuel reformer and tell me how much that will cost, how long it will last given todays fuels, etc. Coming back to the heating side of the business, ever wonder why Viessmann does not sell the oil-fired VitolaPlus in the US? There is a particular contaminant in all fuels that is even more deadly for Fuel cells than it is for condenser sections.

Nevermind that IC engine technology has yet to reach its apex (electronic valve acutation, alternator/starter combos, regenerative braking, etc.). None of the large manufacturers want to play guinea pig... so adoption rates for new technologies in the car market are frustratingly slow. However, the current trend toward hybrid vehicles is a step in the right direction - these other technologies will benefit all IC-driven vehicles and may be hastened by hybrid's unique offerings (like 100+VDC buses).

Where a FC would displace the IC engine with a whole new technology, condensing boilers are a logical evolution of yesteryears extant technology. They run on the same fuels, they interface with the same things, etc. What they do offer is a jump in efficiency coupled with a moderate increase in complexity. Nearly every boiler maintenance guy/gal will be able to learn the ins and outs of a condensing boiler in short order. How about car mechanics and FC's? No way... but they could probably work on a hybrid vehicle with the right support.

I can also tell from personal experience that consumption in the US is managed by the DoE (though with very restrictive rules). I worked on three rulemakings: Residential AC & HPs, Washing Machines, and Water Heaters. These coming standards are based on my estimates what each increase in efficiency would cost. The EU has no standards-setting. Instead, they have the equivalent to the energy star and VERY high resource prices. Market forces do the rest.

Markets work here also... remember the size of cars after the oil crisis? How much do you think would efficiency jump if kWh unit prices were at $0.35 or the gallon of gas was $5+ like in the EU? We wouldn't need DoE rulemakings under those circumstances. Plus, EU citizens don't move around as much and thus see a greater benefit from installing more efficient systems.

Mark Eatherton

Well said Constantin...

tell us more about yourself. I've seen many of your well thought out and drafted posts. What do you (or have you done) for a living. You're obviously not the usual DIY homeowner.

Thanks for staying!

ME

Constantin

Thanks for the kind words...

Let's see... I'm originally from Germany, went to higher Ed over here though. Graduated in 1996 with a BS in Manufacturing and a BA in Economics from Tufts. Then went to work for Arthur D. Little, the oldest consulting company in the world.

Besides developing an outdoor gas water heater, I also got to see a lot of other technologies being developed for our clients. For those that don't know, while ADL became primarily a management consulting company in its later years, ADL got started by doing technical consulting and process development (which continues to this day at Tiax and CCL). For example, ADL commercialized scroll compressors (though well before my time).

I loved it there, a great culture and lots of very bright folks to look up to. While at ADL I became an expert cost modeler... which is how I got involved with the DoE and a number of other assignments where folks wanted to know in advance what impact this or that technology might have on their business. Thus, my assignments ranged from evaluating the viability of a particular invention to setting the standards for residential air conditioning. I also helped on operational efficiency deployments and have seen quite a few manufacturing facilities close up.

So give me an appliance, a few figures, and some time, and I'll tell you to within 5-10% how much it costs to build, what kind of a facility will be required to make it, etc. Naturally, this may predicate access to some confidential pricing information, though estimates made via catalogs can come close. Anyway, it was pretty amusing for my newly-minted wife to find herself touring a washing machine factory in New Zealand on our honeymoon...

My last assignment before getting married and going to business school was helping the folks at Sub-Zero build their cooking appliance manufacturing facility in Madison, WI. Starting with the resource requirements (got to know, lead times are 2 years for some capital equipment), to laying the plant out, to starting pilot production. Very neat stuff, good people, excellent management and hence my preference for Wolf cooking appliances. They are the best, bar none. Mr. Bakke and his management wouldn't have it any other way.

Now back in Boston, I'm working for Alvamed in the Intellectual Property field. However, I hear that my cost models are still getting their excercises over at Navigant and Tiax, the folks that bought the public service and technical parts of ADL (respectively) when ADL went bankrupt and got split 5-ways. I'm now in the process of getting a house rebuilt in Cambridge, MA.

SeattleNick_3

Meanwhile, on the left coast......

we are building this.....(copy and paste this link into your browser)

http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wtd/fuelcell/

1 Meg. at a cost of??????

Constantin

Funny, isn't it?

I wonder why they went with a MCFC instead of a SOFC. From what I have heard at a local energy conference, the MCFC technology is pretty much at a dead end, while Siemens/Westinghouse are moving ahead quickly with their Ceramic SOFC offerings.

I know that there are more MCFCs currently installed than SOFCs... however, a large user base does not overcome inherent weaknesses in the technology like short stack lives. I would like to get some more information to understand why the treatment management went with a MCFC instead of a SOFC.

SeattleNick_3

I thought it was modeled after this one in Portland, but I see now that one is the SOFC type....

http://www.energy.state.or.us/biomass/fuelcell.htm

And this is from the "more details" link on the King County site...

"Fuel cells are an emerging technology for the efficient, clean generation of electrical power from natural gas and the methane found in digester gas. Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs or "Direct" fuel cells) can achieve conversion efficiencies of 60 percent and up to 80 percent if the heat produced during the catalytic reaction is captured or used. By comparison, conventional cogeneration equipment, such as reciprocating engines, turbines and combined cycles, achieve lower efficiencies. Engine generators, typically found in smaller scale applications, are efficient to 25 percent; meaning they can convert 25 percent of their fuel to energy while 75 percent is wasted."


So it appears they were going after the extra heat generating capability of the MCFC for CHP (Combined Heat & Power).

Warming all that sludge does take a load of heat....

Will it work? We shall see.

Constantin

Combined-Cycle Turbines

from GE can achieve 65% efficiency when the waste heat is used... and 1MW is certainly above the "small-scale" threshold (which I see somewhere around 50kW or less). Nevertheless, the most important aspect is learning about the technology. Nothing replaces the real world, and many promising Fuel Cell technologies fell flat on their face once they left lab settings.

SeattleNick_3

I think some of the compression ignition dual-fuel recips that recover jacket water, exhaust and lube oil heat plus electricity get way up there in efficiency also. Low (relatively) installed cost helps them out too. If only they had the low emissions of the fuel cells...

Nick

jerry scharf

of two minds about fuel cells

(I guess the other 20 don't care about fuel cells.)

I'm just a bystander on this topic. Some people around here are playing with this stuff, but they are not people I know.

Fuel cells are fun technology, and it's always fun for me to watch the ebb and flow of new technologies. PEM was the hot horse 3-5 years ago, now SOFC is the hot horse. There's the nasty problem that every technology has killer chemicals that destroy the fuel cells. Most of them hate sulphur (a benefit of organic derived methane is very low sulphur.) PEMs hate CO, SOFCs love it... I think many smart people are trying to push this technology forward.

On the other hand, I kind of think "the hydrogen economy" is mostly a bunch of noise. There's no magic supply of hydrogen, just about everything ends up cracking it from hydrocarbons. So there's no improvement in CO2 production. Transporting and handling hydrogen is hard in many ways compared to methane, electricity or liquids. The inefficiency of current methods of the solar-> hydrogen-> electricity chain make that look less appealing than photovoltaics. So it's a nice step but not a long term ecological answer, IMO.

jerry

Constantin

Have the Horses Changed?

PEMs have their application niche in the transportation field due to the low temperatures required to get the fuel cell going. However, due to their reliance on platium group metals, they are very sensitive to contaminants such as sulfur. This is where reformers come in to prepare the fuel for the fuel cell.

SOFCs have their application in stationary situations only. That's because they operate at much higher temperatures and the cell stack consists of ceramics, not a plastic membrane as in the case of a PEM. The higher temperatures have the benefit of allowing the SOFC to internally reform pretty much any fuel you throw at it. However, the high temperatures will require external heating to get the FC going and the temperature + brittleness of ceramics pretty much precludes them from mobile applications.

Thus, I expect PEMs to continue to dominate the transportation field while SOFCs seem like the most likely candidate in stationary applications. However, either can accept alternate fuel sources to pure Hydrogen. The main benefit of hydrogen fuel sources is the simplification of the balance of plant found in fuel cells.

So now you have to weigh the tradeoff between increasing the complexity of every mobile fuel cell out there versus the cost of upgrading the national fuel infrastructure. This is why the gasoline reformer that ADL developed for the DoE was such a big deal (that division is now part of Nuvera). As was pointed out above, Hydrogen is expensive to create, hard to transport, and quite a engineering challenge compared to the bigger fuel molecules we're used to.

So what about alternative fuels? Try ethanol, methanol, and a number of other alcohols that can be derived from renewable resources. Unlike combustion engines, Fuel Cells do not require 99%+ of the water to be distilled out, making the generation of fuel for fuel cells a lot cheaper. In fact, fuel cells or their BOP need water and usually require additions of water to handle "drier" fuels. However, as with Hydrogen, you have to balance the benefit of having a infrastructure to distribute ethanol, etc. versus the cost.

For example. one of the foreign-currency preservation schemes of the Brazilians was an ethanol-dominated economy. By all accounts, it works even for IC engines, though the lower energy density of ethanol requires bigger gas tanks. Economically though the policy gamble was a disaster as fuel prices did not climb to a point where home-brew ethanol was competitive.

As for the Hydrogen economy, it may yet arise if competitive processes are derived to create Hydrogen, to transport it, and to house it. However, I am skeptical this will happen anytime soon. I would not want to be an engineer that has to design home appliances for hydrogen!

Uni R

Perhaps I don't get it, but...

To me, fuel cells seem to be glorified batteries. We still have to consume some other form of energy to separate the hydrogen. If we can get huge solar powered generators for this, then fine, but is it any more efficent from a home HVAC standpoint than just sending the electricity out the grid rather than distributing the stored energy as hydrogen?

Constantin

If you believe some of the pundits...

...we may have fusion reactors in our future. Said reactors would produce a near limitless supply of inexpensive power. Producing hydrogen under those circumstances could possibly make sense.

The only other scenario I see is if generating H2 in remote areas results in lower net losses than long-distance electrical transmission. Unlikely, I know.

jerry scharf

my dad worked in nuclear energy design

I am old enough to remember when nuclear generated power was going to be "too cheap to meter." Watching the whole process up close made me more than a bit cynical about limitless predictions. You're still dealing with gamma rays so radiation leaks and facility contamination will still be factors. I don't believe the magnetic bottles will be up to 7x24x40 years with zero problems, so you're back to fabulously complex and expensive systems with big risks. Now imagine the deregulated energy providers of today running these plants.

About the only things I know too cheap to meter are fiber optic bits and talk from politicians, lobbyists and pundits.

but we're way off from hydronic heating now.

jerry

Mike T., Swampeast MO

Possible Gains?

I believe internal combustion, hydrocarbon burning engines have an upper limit of about 33% efficiency.

If the "mobile" fuel cell conversion process of hydrogen to electricity is about 80% efficient and the fairly large electric motors used are at least 85% as well, there does [seem] to be something to be gained--even if the source of the hydrogen is hydrocarbon fuel.

I do realize that the production, distribution and storage of hydrogen is an ENORMOUS project--particularly when the current system is geared to the production, distribution and storage of hydrocarbon fuels.

Am I missing something or does the potential exist?

To Constantin: Any ideas of the relative efficiencies of converting hydrocarbons to hydrogen vs. electrolyzing water?

Constantin

You raise a number of good questions

For example, what is the limit of internal combustion engine efficieny? I'd have to dust off my Carnot cycle charts and check! However efficient a fuel cell is at converting Hydrogen to energy, there are a couple of things to remember.

For one, electric water heaters convert electrical energy into heat with about 99% efficiency. However, that does not make them more efficient than good gas water heaters, as there are some significant balance-of-plant (BOP) losses that precede the introduction of electricity into the house. Similarly, I would be surprised if fuel cells would not suffer from severe BOP losses, whether on-board or external.

It is my understanding that the maximum efficiency currently being dreamed up for large scale electrical generation is around 75% via combined-cycle turbines feeding off the steam made by SOFCs. Such systems are unlikely to ever make it into small-scale mobile applications. Possible uses as the technology scales down are ships and perhaps even train engines. However, the shipping industry would have to forswear the use of the worst sulfur-laden coal tar masquerading as oil they can lay their hands on!

The reason I am so skeptical re: the Hydrogen economy is simply economics. There are a number of alternative fuels such as ethanol (FC or IC) or even rape-seed oil (in compression-cycle engines) that would be much easier to transport, create, and use safely than Hydrogen. All of them would require a new fuel infrastructure, however either a ethanol or rape-seed infrastructure would be peanuts compared to Hydrogen.

Frankly, Hydrogen scares the pants off me, considering how hard it is to keep in place, how easily it results in a violent chemical reaction, etc. I recall some German car manufacturers coming up with an innovative (albeit very heavy) metal hydride container (or somesuch) to better contain Hydrogen during crashes. As I see it, containment is going to be the prime issue with Hydrogen. If it starts leveling houses, it's not going to be a very popular fuel.

As for which process makes Hydrogen easier (or less expensively), I'm afraid I draw a blank. I don't recall the relative efficiencies of either (if I ever knew them) nor have any idea where the industry has managed to go in recent years. What I do recall is a recent alleged breakthrough making Hydrogen via electrolysis a lot more efficient. What the actual impact will be remains to be seen.

Mark_25

This is basically called Co-generation. There's a few resources out on the net for this.
The trouble with Cogen is, most households don't have a steady kW requirement to keep the generator loaded, and efficient. There are a lot of other things to think about though, such as lube changes, and maintenance.
I've got an engineer buddy who's working on a 10kW cogen system for his house. He'll be netmetering back to the grid when he's not consuming full output.

Mark_25

Precisely my point as well. Handling hydrogen is a pain, and it's not cheap. Don't forget how small the H2 molecule is. Containment has got to be really tight. H2 is stored at extremely high pressure too, so that's not cheap either.
The supply of H2 is also a pain. Like you mentioned, there's no supply sitting around. And the cracking process takes energy. We need to be working on energy sources that will ALLOW using such things as hydrogen for energy transport rather than "production".

Mark_25

efficiency depends on the cycle. Constant volume or constant pressure, etc. Compression ignition engines such as diesels can approach 50% net power out in some circumstances. Gasoline consumer level engines rule of thumb is 30%. The higher efficiencies are mostly gotten in large stationary slow revving engines.

Constantin

Ladies and Gentlemen!

It is our luck that Scientific American has just released an issue with a long article on fuel cells. It should be in stores soon. I just glanced at the article and it seems to do a good job of explaining a number of issues associated with fuel cells and also compares the relative efficieny of fuel cells and their BOP versus an array of other technologies.

So, if you have an interest in fuel cells, pick up and read the May issue when it becomes available to you! Cheers!

Kal Row

in the automotive world at least

hybrid-electric cars match fuel cells at the end of the day, cause there are a lot of steps in getting the fuel to the fuel cell and most of them not cheap and many not very clean - there will be 6 more hybrid-electric vehicles for 2005 and many more to come

and hydrogen is a non-starter, there are holes in the technology yet to be invented, while battery tech is likely to overtake it to the point where 48volt power rails embedded, in only the main hi-ways is more then enough to make electric cars viable in the same timeframe

Constantin

Kal,

As mentioned above, have a look at the May Scientific American Issue. It has a lot of info that confirms your observations regarding fuel cells versus ICs versus hybrids in mobile applications. I glanced the article over at my uncles, then tried to buy it at a Borders - unfortunately, it's not in circulation here yet.

The SA article looked at the efficieny of the entire fuel supply chain as well as the devices turning said fuel into motion. IIRC, Hydrogen-powered vehicles were less efficient overall than diesel-hybrids, etc. due in large part to the inefficiency of generating the fuel in the first place. While I am not privy to the methodology they used as yet (I haven't had a chance to even read the article), my gut feelings re: the Hydrogen economy have been confirmed.

However, I do expect to see wider acceptance and use of fuel cells in stationary applications. Here, the scale is sufficently large (and the payoff economically viable) to make the proposition interesting. One remaining question though is how well even combined-cycle FC & turbine units will be able to compete with coal or other very-low-cost fuel sources.

S Ebels

The point a lot of people miss..........

Fuel cells, hybrids, heat pumps, internal combustion, fossil fuel fired boilers/furnaces and the efficiency of each. My humble NON-engineer thoughts on each........

Many greenies/tree huggers/environmentally friendly types (and I use those terms in a non-disparaging way) look at only one facet of all those energy/heat generating processes. A better question to ask is what is the most efficient form of generating "heat/Kw" and then balance that with the next question, which is, what is the least polluting method for producing the same thing.

Again, I look at Europe, Germany especially, where effciency and green energy are a way of life. When they rate the efficiency of a technology, method or process they look at the whole scenario, start to finish or in other words, from producing the energy to consuming it. For example, when they rate a heat pump, they factor in the cost and efficiency of producing the electricity and transporting it to its end use location along with the efficiency of the appliance actually using it. When they consider a fuel fired boiler they also look at the same associated costs to arrive at a final efficiency rating including producing the appliance itself. Also implied in the article I read was that the life cycle costs of each appliance are considered. I other words they account for the energy used in making a particular appliance once ebvery 20 years as opposed to every 10.

I was studying some articles on Viessmann's web site concerning energy efficient homes a while ago and it really opened my eyes as to what works and what doesn't. Hands down, a low temp water based system was the most efficient, start to finish. The only exception was a closed loop ground source heat pump which was marginally better by a small percentage. Air to air or air to water heat pumps aren't even shown as a viable alternative. Forced air heating is nowhere to be found on their chart, not even up on the radar. High temp water shows a marked drop in overall eficiency and steam is only used for district type heating applications. In addition, to be considered truly efficient, a solar powered device of some type must be incorporated to provide or at least preheat domestic hot water. Heat recovery ventilation is mandatory and they have units which approach 90% efficiency for ventilated air.

I think that the lesson there is that a lot of the stuff currently being hyped as the method of our heating "salvation" is in actuality less efficient than what is already out there. So the question becomes "Why are people demanding so few of these high tech, high effiency systems?"

The answer has to be that there isn't enough concern for the environment, nor is there enough pain in the pocketbook to cause the general public to even ask the question yet.

To me, that is very discouraging. When I think of the hundreds of thousands even millions of new homes that have gone up in the last 5-10 years............. It staggers me to think of what could have been saved by utilizing our best technology to the fullest. Instead, we struggle along having to practically beat home owners and to a greater extent, builders into buying this technology. I'm beginning to feel a RANT coming on so I better quit.

Constantin

Good Points!

Life-Cycle efficiency, etc. are usually lost on US consumers, most of which move every 7 years and hence derive less benefit from long-life appliances. Unlike Germany, renters here do not have the choice of moving all their contributions, including built-in kitchen, etc.

Furthermore, US consumers are obsessed with the up-front costs and pay much less attention to the operational costs. In Germany, it is customary to include high-ticket items in the mortage, thus evening out the pain. Construction loans here in the US seem much more expensive than regular home mortage rates...

However, I do believe that if the US was faced with similar fuel, electricity, and other charges and incentives as are found in the US that behaviors, by and large, would change. Once electrical rates go to $0.35 per kWh, I can assure you that more folks will either forgo AC or demand higher SEER units. For that matter, we may even see a reduction in the over-appliance of AC in many situations, such as office buildings that require the usage of sweaters in the summertime.

On the other hand, the US has always placed a huge emphasis on home ownership and on allowing folks to achieve that dream at reasonable cost. Witness hence the rise of the manufactured housing industry and other efficiency gains in construction (ICF, SIPS, etc.) and infrastructure (PEX, PVC, CPVC, etc.). As I see it, there is a huge untapped market out there full of opportunity for those that convince customers (and themselves) to try something new. Awareness is everything!

For example, I think the Karo system is very intriguing and may offer a great way to cool the house in the summertime. While similar systems have found wide acceptance in German installations, we continually shy away from innovative new ideas in home appliance use. This may be partially due to the litigious aspects of US society - companies like Viessmann elect to stay on the cutting edge in markets other than the US. Thus, the VitolaPlus oil-fired condensing boiler remains out of my reach because it's only sold in the EU.

Note the condenser in the Rear
-image courtesy of Viessmann.de-
click on image to be taken to VitolaPlus specifications

So it's not just an awareness issue. Allegedly, the high sulfur content in the US is holding Viessmann back. But somehow, Monitor's FCX is surviving. Thus, while I would prefer to buy the Viessmann product because I'm sold ont their engineering, I cannot... a darn shame. Perhaps if HTP brings out a modulating oil-fired Munchkin will Viessmanns hand be forced. In the meantime, I delude myself into hoping that a modulating and condensing oil-boiler will make it to our markets in time for our renovation.

Heck, I'm willing to be a beta-tester... anyone willing to let me test a unit under real-life conditions? Expected install date: Fall 2004. The Saga continues.

Constantin

Please note!

The May issue of Scientific American is now available on the Newsstands. Pick it up if you want to know more about fuel cells!

hr

Some excellent reading on this

can be found in this issue, May/June of Solar Today. The entire issue addresses Renewable Hydrogen.

The back page Readers Forum has an excellent "Why a Hydrogen based economy is the wrong answer" written by two professors from the University of Colorado in Boulder.

www.solartoday.org is a good place to research, although the May/June issue is not up, just yet.

hot rod

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"