Many Fuel Cell and Hydrogen proponents are either naïve or have a "hidden agenda." The naïve ones have not performed the basic calculations to show how many renewable devices will be required to replace oil (millions of windmills) and how practical it is to use these since they will be erratic and seasonal and cannot be located anywhere that power is needed. Those with "hidden agendas" are using the arguments as a way to develop nuclear power.

The "hidden agenda" designation is not applied to Geoffrey Ballard, founder of Ballard Power Systems and now Chairman of General Hydrogen, who is quite open about his support for nuclear. Dr. Ballard was named a "Business Leader of the Year" by Scientific American magazine in December of 2002 – one of only fifty such individuals to have received that honor. Dr. Ballard recently made two speeches from which I quote.

Speech 1 - Masters of Technology – a video tape from Scientific American – An Interview with Dr. Ballard

The interview begins with Mr. Ballard recalling the 1973 oil crisis in the United States and his realization of the need to replace the internal combustion engine because oil is a finite resource and cannot last forever. He relates the story of leaving his job and buying a motel in Miracle Valley, Arizona and beginning his research on batteries. He bought a restaurant and his wife ran it to put food on the table while he started his research. He speaks of his dream of there being a chance to find the energy conversion device that would allow a new economy to come into existence.

After rejecting lead batteries he began studying lithium batteries and lithium sulfur dioxide. After some time his attention moved to the fuel cell technology of the proton exchange membrane (the PEM fuel cell) used in the Gemini space missions in 1965, after accepting the limitations of batteries.

The fuel cell, even thought simple in concept, invented in the early eighteen hundreds and used in 1965 by NASA, was not useful for ordinary transportation because of the exotic and expensive materials required. Ballard realized it would only work if it was made out of ordinary materials. After more than a decade of work, optimum materials were found and money was invested from government and private investors. A new management team was installed at his company, Ballard Power Systems.

Dr. Ballard then describes the technology which uses methanol, a liquid fuel made from fossil fuels. Methanol is pumped into the vehicleís tank and a small chemical plant in the back of the car called a reformer, ìreformsî the methanol into carbon dioxide (released in the atmosphere) and hydrogen, which is sent to the fuel cell. There is presumably less pollution and more efficiency.

After successful demonstrations of the fuel cell, Ballard Power began attracting more investors. Daimler Chrysler was an early investor. Later investments came from other automobile manufacturers.

Dr. Ballard continued discussing advantages of the fuel cell, particularly relative to electricity generation, where there are major opportunities to reduce the peaks and valleys of electricity generation. Hydrogen could be manufactured with any excess electricity that might be available during the valley periods and then used to generate electricity at the peak periods.

Dr. Ballard also notes: "The Ballard fuel cell today would not be in existence if judiciously placed funds from the provincial and federal governments had not been given and placed with us in order to do the development."

The interviewer than asked about conservation. Dr. Ballard replied:

"Conservation will get you a little bit but it won't get you the energy levels that we need. I think that the Bush administration, the rhetoric I'm hearing about right now, has got it about right. They're saying they're going to produce more electric power plants, they're going to continue with the power plants they know how to build, gas, etc., which is very efficient, even going to coal. But at the same time, you'll notice in the rhetoric, there is a re-look at nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the future of a pollution free economy."

The interviewer continued with this line of questioning reminding Dr. Ballard that he had been Time Magazine's "Hero of the planet 1998." Dr. Ballard repeated:

"I want to move steadily towards a sustainable future. The only sustainable future we can possibly see with the energy levels we know we need is a hydrogen economy backed by a nuclear power infrastructure."

He then notes that moreefficient power plants that are less polluting can be built. In addition "sequestering" (storing in underground reservoirs) of carbon dioxide can also be used.

The interviewer continues by saying, "I want to get this right because itís not often you see a champion of environmentalism say nuclear power is the way to power electricity for the hydrogen economy because people say nuclear power, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl. The risks don't, and the dangers, do not outweigh the benefits."

Dr. Ballard then recalled the positive experience France has had with nuclear power. He noted that France had developed some very good techniques for waste disposal.

Speech 2 – World Hydrogen Energy Conference

Dr. Ballard also gave a key talk at the World Hydrogen Energy Conference, June 2002, in Montreal. In April 2003, this speech was available on line at http://home.generalhydrogen.com/pdf/WHEC.pdf.

Mr. Ballard opened his talk with a statement about the Kyota Protocol, to whit: "I believe no developed nation, which has seriously studied the environmental issues that confront us, can in good conscience sign this protocol."

He then notes that "Economic progress, as we know it, correlates very well with per capita energy consumption. So do all other forms of social progress."

He states that we need to limit and then reduce the use of coal and petroleum. However, he follows that with the statement that "It may be necessary to fully utilize and perhaps increase our utilization of coal and petroleum based energy production; but this should be done with great care, utilizing the latest technologies and insisting on cleaning or sequestering the Green House Gases they emit." Sequester means "bury" just as nuclear fuel residues are to be "buried" at Yucca Flats in Nevada.

Mr. Ballard notes that we must introduce a new Energy System, which, he suggests, be the Hydrogen Economy. Next he says "It must be noted, Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is only a currency, but it is such a currency that it makes all sources of energy available to the Energy Economy. It is the first truly reversible currency."

Well that leaves us a bit confused since we know what currency is and a gas doesn't seem to be a currency. Like "carrier," currency is a trendy word but not totally clear. But the key statement is accurate: "Hydrogen is not an energy source."

Further in his speech he notes "The Hydrogen fuel cell allows us to use any primary energy source to fuel our economy, geothermal, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, coal and petroleum."

Note the energy source list does not include hydrogen. Since hydrogen only produces electricity, we can understand the next statement: "As the world progresses to the Hydrogen Economy, I believe Hydrogen and Electricity will become so indistinguishable from each other that they will be referred to as a joint currency called Hydricity."

Next he replaces The Hydrogen Economy when he says "I believe that we will eventually emerge to the Hydricity Economy."

Maybe all of this makes sense if we look upon hydrogen as a battery. Instead of lead plates, we will have a tank of hydrogen. But by now, the reader should understand that hydrogen is normally made from some other fossil fuel, most often natural gas. And this is done at great expense using some other energy source to make the hydrogen.

Mr. Ballard then discusses Nuclear Energy: "I said I wanted to comment on Nuclear Energy. My comments are a direct fallout of our need for a new energy system. If the new energy system is to be a hydrogen economy we have already mentioned the potential for this system to accommodate any primary energy source. In Iceland it may be geothermal, in Sweden it may be hydro-electric, in Argentina it may be wind-driven. Throughout the world many remote applications will employ solar energy. But, environmentally desirable as these sources of energy are, they are unlikely to provide the vast amounts of primary energy that social progress will demand.

"If carbon-based energy sources must be set aside, and I believe they must, then the only remaining viable source, at this stage in our development, is nuclear. Yes, there will be other possibilities in the future. Recently there has been speculation in the press that Hydrogen could be mined directly from deep earth sources, and Hydrogen is the fuel and element of space. But within the scope of today's technology, nuclear fission is the only viable, clean source of large quantities of energy."

"During the last few years there has been a remarkable change in the rhetoric of economists, politicians, engineers and scientist on the subject of nuclear energy. On the science side, many thoughtful, world renowned, environmentalists have stated that they see no alternative to energy supply other than nuclear. Nuclear generated electric power does not pollute our atmosphere, and mitigates against global warming.

"On the engineering side we are hearing that remarkable progress has been made in the realm of safety. The nuclear industry has established a solid safety record during the past decade. Engineers are taking a system-wide view of the nuclear fuel cycle from mining nuclear ore to waste management and disposal. To quote from Scientific America, 'The Case For Nuclear Power:'

'Today 438 nuclear power plants generate about 16 percent of the worldís electricity. In the U.S. 103 nuclear power plants provide about 20 percent of the country's electrical production. Although no new nuclear facilities have been ordered in the U.S. for more than two decades, the electrical output of U.S. generators has grown by almost 8 percent a year as the industry matured and became more efficient. In the past 10 years alone, American Nuclear Plants have added more than 23,000 megawatts, the equivalent of 23 large power plants to the total electrical supply despite the lack of any new construction.'

"From the economists we are hearing that much of the cost of previous nuclear plants was a lack of uniformity and replication – each new plant being designed from scratch instead of evolving a standard and a pattern. Furthermore, the regulations that crept into the system to allay the public's fears because of incidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are largely unnecessary and not cost effective. These issues are being examined closely to build a level playing field for future nuclear plant construction.

"From the politicians, at the highest levels of government, we are hearing that Nuclear power production deserves a second look."

Dr. Ballard then discusses one of his favorite themes – pollution – especially in the inner city. One of his key comments in this section is:

"One of the important things about fuel cells and Hydricity is that they produce no carbon dioxide emissions at their point of use." (italics mine)

This is once more recognition that hydrogen is manufactured and the carbon dioxide emissions are at the point of manufacture, not at the point where it is being used. This is also true of electric cars, which generate no emissions but whose batteries are charged by electricity from power plants burning fossil fuels.

I bring these comments forth because Dr. Ballard is an important person in the fuel cell business. He firmly believes in his product and acknowledges that hydrogen has to be made from fossil fuels or with electric power, principally from nuclear power plants. His "agenda" is not hidden. Probably every conservative and every liberal and every independent would agree with him that fuel cells should be developed and should eventually run on hydrogen created by electrolysis. I think there would be agreement that wind turbines and solar cells should be developed and that hydrogen should be manufactured using the electricity from these sources.

Violent disagreement would arise based on his assertion that nuclear power would provide the electricity. At this point, he might no longer be lauded as the father of the fuel cell economy. Furthermore, surprise and shock will arise when proponents of the fuel cell understand that the fuel is manufactured from fossil fuels.

Dr. Ballard has made significant contributions to the world. He is clear in his position and is knowledgeable about his facts. His position is far more realistic and far more accurate than that presented in popular media articles on hydrogen.

However, he is not alone in assuming nuclear power as a major source of the electricity for the hydrolysis process. All the government reports have similar comments buried in some section or the other, with a reminder of how safe nuclear power has become and extolling newer and safer plants. Nuclear waste storage is typically not mentioned.

In a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Congress Takes Up Energy Bill, And Fireworks Are Expected" dated 4/9/2003, the following paragraph is included: "The bill also is likely to include $1 billion to build a federal prototype for a new generation of nuclear power plants that are intended to be simpler, safer, and designed to produce hydrogen for fuel-cell-powered cars, as well as electricity. The measure would also include federal loan guarantees for utilities that opt to choose to build new nuclear-power plants."

Top of Page