Rager,

"Just seams wierd to see the same harping over and over about the cost, maybe stuck in a time warp?"

More like if the cost to produce hydrogen is too high to markets will be smaller and smaller tending to the non-existient. That point needs to continue to be made since the numbers do matter so profoundly.

"or maybe just refuses to understand there is a SELLABLE by product that greatly reduces the cost of the energy from the hydrogen reactor.

OK...I will say it again
there is a by-product that when sold reduces the cost of the energy."

So what does the by-product sell for and what kind of processing must it undergo before sale? Does it require dehydration? Will somebody come and pick it up when you have sufficient tonnage? Do you ship it (hopefully not waterlogged) to a recycling center? What is the cycle cost for this part of the process?

Thanks,

Missed Chris's question, thanks for the reference. That matches what I got on the spreadsheet. Important thing to remember is to use comparable terms, equivalent heating energy and comparisons at Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP).

Chris,

Thanks.


To expand the dialogue a little bit...

A H generator will fulfill either one or two purposes.

1) To produce h to power a fuel cell (in which case the added cost of FC far outstrips the cost of installing a PV array - unless perhaps in mobile applications where a KwH is worth about 4X more than in via the grid). In either case, neither meets the criteria of being glad for "energy at any cost" category.

2) To produce hydrogen for combustion. This could make more sense. Maybe. In some areas, like Haiti, massive deforestation to produce charcoal for fuel has led to massive flooding, mudslides, etc... Does hydrogen fuel make more sense when it costs six cents/cu ft (STP)? Actually, not really when you consider and factor in the cycle dynamics of any metal based h producing system. Ask yourself (and please do prove me wrong if this phrasing seems overly prejudicial), "If I have to truck in reactant and X cost why am I not better off trucking in a VERY much more energy dense fuel like propane, diesel, etc?".

And too, with this scenario, if h is to be combusted, why not go straight PV to end use through resistance heating? Am I missing anything here?

Thanks in advance,

>There are plenty of places on this planet that would consider energy at any price a boon.

Show me one.

Where is HYVR's process less expensive than transporting in a direct combusion fuel alternative or providing electrons some other means?

I mean this sincerely.

If you think there is a market for "energy at any price" then let's look at that market niche.

> Put it this way...
if you were not coming off like a jerk I might take
some time and teach you about trading stocks.
You are proving how clueless you are by your last post.

So, begin by teaching me about how you did with trading HYVR.

Beginning to stop being a Jerk starts at home.

It's not an empty insinuation.

You were vocally, and according to your OWN postings, buying more and more HYVR. Hey, you got your dork handed to you in a croaker sack, that can happen and it's part of learning.

So, unless I missed some fantastic spike in the stock price that allowed you to dump you were among the bagholders, weren't you?

Where was your DD on HYVR?

It's ok, I've made larger errors and it's early to ask you to admit any of your own.

"Denial" it's just not a river in Egypt you know.

Which means what?

That the bloodbath you took on HYVR is offset by your being in the right place for a P/D?

Thanks anyway but I'd rather make my living by some means other than sucking dollars out of the dim-witted. And for that you can be grateful.

Show me any "empty insinuation" that I've made.

Take care

That says it all.

Mark it off on your 1040 as "Education Hard Won"

So, let's assume that you've been right all along and the critics have been wrong.

How do we measure that? Dollars are a good way to keep score?

What has my viewpoint cost or benefitted me?
Answer: $0. I've been neither long nor short the stock

What has your viewpoint cost or benefitted you?

cp

drop me an email at maxmegabucks@yahoo.com

The email you provided earlier did not work.

there will be one vetting question.

thanks

I'm not Jim. Never have been, never will be.

Take care.

Hey, look at the bright side, you can become an employee of HYVR at let's say, on the low side of $20/hr, and elect to receive stock instead of money.

That would make you about 1,176 shares an hour or about 9,400 shares a day! What a great way to build your portfolio. And don't worry, they don't need anything "remotely technical".

Get in there and kick some A**!

It must have been the vino... sorry about that.

Seriously though, no technological acumen was required to find out what was up with Hardly Your Valuable Retirement, just that you would have asked the questions that the critics suggested that any potential shareholder ask:

1) Is the value of the hydrogen produced greater than the cost of the inputs into the system?

2) What is the "all in cost" of the hydrogen produced?

Jeff,

Wake up and smell the drain cleaner.

Metal hydrides are what you have in your NiMH battery. It's the same technology that ENER has dozens of patents for to store hydrogen safely and non-combustibly.

IT IS NOT WHAT you get by reacting metals to produce hydrogen.

It's a wholly different technology, storage vs production, non-combustibilty vs highly flammable, etc.

C'mon man, it's over and we have been giving you chapter and verse for years.

Jeff,

I don't for a minute contest that Argy hasn't installed a unit at Terra Nova.

>How can you contest that the hydro unit is not being installed in a nursery, are you calling that a scam too?

And no, I'm not calling it a scam, and would offer that we don't know what, if anything Terra Nova paid, or what, if any savings they have realized.

But this wasn't the thrust of my "show me a market niche" question was it? Show us a real market, and it SURE isn't going to be displacing CH4 as a heat source - what happened to autos? Even in FC vehicles where a kW of electricity is worth about 4X that of the grid the numbers don't pencil out after taking into account FC efficiencies. Or, haven't you run the numbers? Or put another way, where are the inquiries backed by money from developers that your optimism would infer?

>this guy would beg to differ..
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2790043

Oh would he?

Where is his public statement that all is rosy with his new HYVR system? Since he's gotten a lot of press I'm sure he'd be glad to trumpet his latest coup.. What did he pay for his h generation system?

>Ask chipotle pickle he seems to know management as he has many times come to their defense.

Like CP I think the latest round of mgt have been good and decent people, but what you fail to grasp, and have for years, is that there is no market niche for grossly overpriced hydrogen.

If I have missed the point that there is a viable market for grossly overpriced hydrogen please point me to that market and show me what sales or inquires HYVR has had.

>With out the data (which imo is well passed being due to be published) about what and how much the by product is worth.
how can you contest the cost of anything.
Pure conjecture.

Not conjecture. HYVR has damned itself by it's own hand.

Sad but true, but at least they were honest, at least the latest pretenders to the Hydrogen Ball.

>ps: I dont have to show you anything, ask Hydro to show you, us and the world.

I would never rely on anything they would not proclaim publically via filings or their own publication.

Hope all goes well for you.

Don't feel too bad though. I know from personal experience how expensive it is to "believe", to the tune of about 37K gone down the toilet.

Now the folks at ARGY are going down the same path and they are not in the least inclined to accept any of the statements, qualifications or questions raised by the "critics" as anything other than mindless bashing.

And no, I didn't say it...

>However, I still stand by the fact that the technology works and is marketable.

None of the critics have ever doubted that the technology "works".

The problem is that it is a solution to a problem that does not exist. (Back to the tired old "show me ANY market" for hugely expensive hydrogen).

It's like saying that I can make a PC that costs 5 times more than those currently available? Where is the market for that?

This is so wrong:

>also again our resident basher keeps stating over and over how "the cost of 6 cents per cubic foot is too high, tell that too folks in industry that have no power available to them in remote sections of the world or even underwater like say submarines. I must again bring notice to the fact that they have a sell-able by product that reduces the cost.

Good. Let's take your example. Nuclear subs have gigiantic reactors that drive turbines to produce electricity to power their motors. Whatever they are, they are not without power!

Hey, you think HYVR has any market niche then show me. Show me where it is ever going to be cheaper to generate your own hydrogen with their process than buying it compressed or using propane or butane as a more easily transportable, storable and usable alternative.

Hi Chris,

RE: >I must say that the previous two posts made me grin and that's worth a LOT. Probably more than the stock right now.

It's interesting to me too...

Here we are again, a bunch of guys from opposite sides of the table, now with the object of our respective interest pretty much headed down the crapper. Kind of reminds me of the old western movies, where after the big fight one guys gives the other a hand to help him up off the floor, tells him he's got a good punch and buys him a beer.

I think we all learned a lot about ourselves and each other during this process. For my part, as Rager has said, we go WAY back and were on opposite sides of HYER and then HYVR. I know I told him when we spoke that I didn't have the slightest doubt that the tech could produce hydrogen but that the price would be a problem - and so it was. So, next time we meet, if it's on this kind of stuff, at least remember that I tried to save you some money.

For you guys who live up north, check www.ch2bc.org and seach for "Columbia"... the unused generating capacity on the Bonneville Dam system can deliver hydrogen from off peak electricity at the per gallon of gasoline equivalent of hydrogen for $0.37/gallon. We have our own friggin' OPEC here in the US and aren't deploying fast enough. Hydrogen HEV's will be huge and (HINT-HINT) the guys that make the refueling infrastructre and safe tanks (I personally favor advanced metal hydrides)are going to do very, very well for years to come.

All best,

M

Hey man,

Good to hear you're OK. You can post your email to me via private if you like.

The tech may be the same, and they may have run the crooks off, but there is still the same economic barriers, especially with small scale electrolysis making bigger gains.

Check ENER some time. 390 US patents, about 1100 internationally, fingers in many pies... just turning the corner after, can you believe it, 40 years.

M

Hope all is well with you.

Looks like they got canned to the pinkies...

M

Here is the text of the "Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Investor" newsletter of April, 18, 2004 re ARGY.

I have put David Redstone's remarks in italics.

All input is welcome.

M

4/15/04 AEC Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire Majority Interest In Subsidiary of Leading Renewable Energy Firm Sterling Technologies Offers Immediate Distribution for AEC's Hydrogen Production Unit to the Electric Utility Industry and Its Customers [Why is AEC putting "Immediate Distribution" in its headline when in an April 8 press release AEC said "the Company's alpha products scheduled for shipment in September 2004". What does AEC have that Sterling can immediately distribute? And is this "alpha product" a product or an alpha prototype? If an "alpha product", what is an "alpha product"? If an "alpha prototype", why would it be shipped? In commonly used R&D jargon, "alpha prototypes" are typically for in-house evaluation, "beta prototypes" are shipped for field testing.]

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 15, 2004-- Alternate Energy Corporation (OTCBB:ARGY) announced today that it has signed a letter of intent to acquire a majority interest in Sterling Technologies, Inc. from Sterling Planet, Inc. Sterling Technologies is the wholly owned subsidiary of Sterling Planet that deploys distributed generation technologies, primarily solar systems, through utilities and state-supported green energy programs. Sterling Planet's customers include 16 electric utilities and ESCOs (energy service companies) in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Nebraska as well as multinational corporations leading in environmental stewardship such as Alcoa, Dupont, The Coca Cola Company, Nike, Pitney Bowes and Staples. Sterling Planet also has sold renewable energy certificates to the federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. General Services Administration and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The acquisition is to support AEC's go-to-market effort for its hydrogen production unit. The transaction, which is scheduled to close on or before May 12, 2004, includes the purchase of a 51% interest in Sterling Technologies for cash and stock.

[How much cash? How much stock? What will the total price be? Per it's 10-K filed 3/16/04, AEC had $411,727, and per another press release raised an additional $2.75M in a private placement completed on 1/26/04. If AEC can afford Sterling Technologies (ST), can ST really be worth very much? What exactly does ST have that AEC needs, especially right now? Why are Sterling Planet's clients listed when AEC is talking about acquiring ST?]

"A large immediate market for AEC is the electric utility industry and their customers who want to be generating a portion of their power on-site using renewable energy.

[Why would electric utilities be interested in AEC's technology? Has a single electric utility ever indicated a real interest in replacing electricity now generated at a central plant and delivered over the grid (cheap) with electricity generated from hydrogen produced at the customer's location (expensive)?

How can electricity generated from hydrogen produced by AEC's process ever be cheaper than electricity from the grid, when (presumably) grid electricity must be used to make the ingredients for AEC's process in the first place, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics tell us that energy is lost at every step in any process involving the conversion of energy from one form to another? And what does renewable energy have to do with AEC? Renewable energy today is generally more expensive than electricity generated using fossil fuels. AEC says that its device requires no energy input at the point of use. So unless the factory that makes the ingredients for AEC's process runs on renewable energy (unlikely, since this would add costs for ACE), there is no place for renewable energy to be used in the process (beyond whatever percentage of the power delivered to AEC's reactant factory at any given time ultimately so happens to come from renewable sources.)]

"This includes utilities that are looking to reduce the need to finance expensive new power plants as well as supporting their clients' onsite power requirements," said Blaine Froats, AEC's Chairman.

[How can AEC's technology "reduce the need to finance expensive power plants" when more power will be needed to make the ingredients for AEC's process than can ever be recovered from the hydrogen produced by the process?]

"Sterling Technologies' knowledge of Renewable Energy Certificates, governmental and corporate subsidy and incentive programs, and practical, in-the-field experience in this area is unique in our opinion.

[Again, what can Renewable Energy Certificates possibly have to do with AEC's technology? Is AEC going to build its own renewable energy collection capacity to provide the power for the factory that will make the reactants that AEC will need to deliver to its customers?]

"We are looking forward to working with their management team whom we consider to be most professional, exceptionally competent, and equipped with very deep industry backgrounds," continued Mr. Froats.

For its part, Sterling Planet expects the AEC relationship to help extend and broaden the Atlanta-based company's national leadership position in the rapidly developing market for cleaner electricity from diverse, reliable, domestic renewable energy sources. . . .

Mel Jones, a co-founder of Sterling Planet, will continue in his current position as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sterling Planet. Mr. Murphy will remain as the Chairman of Sterling Planet in addition to his new role in Sterling Technologies.
About Sterling Technologies: Sterling Technologies, Inc. owns the assets of the Sterling Planet distributed power generation business. The company's credits include a 330 KW photovoltaic array with a 660 KW solar hot water facility for the 1996 Summer Olympics swimming venue at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. This was the largest solar project in the United States at the time. Since then, Sterling Planet has invested more than $1 million in solar systems development in partnership with various utilities, technology firms and suppliers. Currently, Sterling Technologies owns three solar systems in Florida and has a fairly extensive solar development pipeline.

[How is all of this experience relevant to AEC when AEC says that no energy needs to be added to its reactor at the point of use?]

Sterling Technologies is committed to working with clients in a multitude of ways that will result in the greatest environmental benefit for the lowest cost. The company's objective is to achieve a balance between costs and benefits over a mutually agreed upon period. Sterling Technologies assists clients in tapping subsidies and incentives to develop new sources of onsite generation powered by renewable sources, turn existing generating facilities "green" where such a conversion makes sound economic sense, and exchange Renewable Energy Certificates or "green tags" - both buying and selling - to maximize environmental benefit while controlling costs.

About Sterling Planet (sterlingplanet.com):The first company to offer every U.S. home and business a way to reduce the environmental impact of regular electricity production, Sterling Planet leads the nation in retail sales of renewable energy kilowatt hours. To date, Sterling Planet has sold to homes and businesses nationwide nearly 1 billion kilowatt hours of renewable energy, representing enough energy to power 94,500 homes for a full year and offset 683,500 tons of CO2. The environmental benefit compares to not driving 1.38 billion miles or taking 115,000 cars off U.S. roads. Sterling Planet is also the nation's leader in partnering with electric utilities and businesses to market and/or develop renewable energy. Currently, Sterling Planet has 16 utility partners nationwide in states such as Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island. Our mission: To harness the power of consumer demand to convert at least 10% of the nation's electricity production to environmentally preferable energy that is renewable, diverse, domestically based and low impact by 2012, while stimulating local economies and creating jobs.
About Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC; cleanwatts.com): Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC) is energizing the hydrogen economy.

No it isn't. Not one bit. Not yet anyway.

AEC is the first company to provide a hydrogen device for small-scale, on-demand distributed generation of electricity.

[Does the device provide hydrogen or electricity? Or both? How can any company allow itself to issue such a confusing statement?]

The device is immediately deployable and qualifies for Renewable Energy Certificates [How??]. AEC's proprietary discovery in metallurgy permits a small-scale unit to generate hydrogen from water through a "green" process at a fraction of the fossil fuel kWh cost of energy. [Huh?] AEC believes its product can have a revolutionary impact on the energy industry.

[H2FC most definitely does not believe it.] [Disclaimer and contact information omitted, see full press release for particulars]

H2FC's View: Some additional questions about Alternate Energy Corp.:
Why does the company's home page say that "AEC's achievements are already profiled in a variety of 'green energy' publications" including "a variety of news wires", when there is nothing "green" about the news wires AEC uses, and when any company (or individual for that matter - see Dennis Weaver) can similarly have itself "profiled" - all one has to do to be "profiled" by a news wire is pay the fee to the wire service.How can responsible management make the unintentional error of asserting that paying to have a press release distributed by a news wire constitutes being profiled by a green publication?

In a 2/4/04 release, AEC said that its newly signed design consultant "will work with Oak Ridge National Labs and United States Department of Energy to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications." Three days later a correction was issued, replacing "will work with Oak Ridge National Labs and United States Department of Energy" with "work with other appropriate entities". How could AEC have made a mistake like this? Did AEC perform proper due diligence on the design consultant before signing him? Why did the correction take three days to be issued? Is that how long it took for the press release to be brought to the attention of the right people at Oak Ridge Lab or DOE and for them to demand a retraction?

Why does AEC claim on its home page that the Toronto Star has "called the company's test results 'a new chapter in hydrogen production history'", when a search of the Star's archives (thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&inifile=futuretense.ini&c=Page&cid=992945693891&pubid=968163964505#archive_text) does not produce a single result for the name of the company or related keywords other than the company's own press releases?
Why does the AEC web site (cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.whitepapers) continue to say that "AEC's Hydrogen Technology White Paper is currently being developed and will be posted shortly", when AEC's CEO told H2FC last September that the paper would be available last October, and the company has since informed H2FC that the white paper is being withheld (except under non-disclosure agreement) until all patents are issued in order to protect the company's purported intellectual property?

Why does another AEC web page (cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.patents) says that a patent for "Hydrogen Production Technology [is] currently in the process of being filed", when as recently as 10/20/2003 the boilerplate in AEC's press releases said that "[t]he company is the patent holder of power recovery and fuel-cell-quality hydrogen production technologies" (emphasis added by H2FC), and when subsequent press releases say nothing at all about the status of patents for the hydrogen production process? How can responsible management make the unintentional error of claiming for months that the company holds patents which in fact it apparently does not? And what does "currently in the process of being filed" mean? Does it mean that AEC has a patent lawyer researching the prior art? Does it mean the inventor of AEC's device is writing up a draft of a patent application? Does it mean that at the time the statement on the web site was written someone was actually driving the completed application to the post office to mail it to the patent office?

Why does AEC's company description included in this week's press release claim that "AEC is the first company to provide a hydrogen device for small-scale, on-demand distributed generation of electricity" when this is demonstrably untrue? DESC, Stuart and many others have had such products available for a long time, while AEC still doesn't.

Why does AEC's company description included in its 4/8/04 (cleanwatts.com/newsroom.asp?id=newsroom.040804a) press release claim that AEC "is an energy company that provides a proprietary, high-grade hydrogen production process that is low cost and operates at ambient temperatures with no energy input." Is the AEC device some kind of magic device? AEC would undoubtedly say that it meant no energy input at the point of use. But how can responsible management even risk or overlook such a statement when the potential for misunderstanding among technically unsophisticated investors is so high?

In a 12/29/03 press release, AEC claims that it "owns an affordable, on-demand high-grade hydrogen production process that is expected to enable the hydrogen economy to replace the fossil fuel economy" (emphasis added by H2FC). Does AEC management recognize the truly monumental nature of this claim? Does management really "expect" this to be true? Where is all of the energy needed to make AEC's reactants in amounts large enough to generate enough hydrogen to replace the fossil fuel economy going to come from, if not from fossil fuels?

How can AEC continue to claim that "[c]urrent cost estimates indicate that AEC can produce hydrogen at a significantly lower cost [than reforming fossil fuels] and realize a strong profit even with selling it at a very competitive price", when the laws of thermodynamics tell us that it will always take more energy to convert a fossil fuel into electricity and then use that electricity to manufacture whatever it is that goes into AEC's process then it would take to reform the fossil fuel directly into hydrogen?

How can AEC continue to claim that "[s]imply, AEC’s hydrogen production process does overcome the input energy and high-heat issues typically found in other forms of hydrogen extraction", when the laws of thermodynamics, the best tested and verified scientific paradigm in human intellectual history, so plainly tells us that this is not possible?

How can the company in good faith promote itself as it does when it "acknowledges its own limitations in its inability to quantify specific technology claims at this time"? (from AEC's FAQ) (cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.faq)

H2FC's VIEW: Most if not all H2FC companies have made exaggerated claims and overly optimistic assessments, especially in estimates of time to commercialization and profitability. And errors do find their way into press releases from many companies. But in H2FC's view, AEC is exhibiting a pattern of over-statement and misstatement (or at least a careless disregard for accuracy) to a degree that, combined with the complete lack of information supporting the claim of a commercially valuable technology and the fact that AEC's misstatements always seem to paint the company in a favorable light, makes the the entire company suspect as anything but the most wildly speculative short term stock play.

AEC's hydrogen generator may work like a charm, generating hydrogen of high purity in a reliable manner. That in itself is not so difficult to do, and whether the AEC device can do it is not the issue here. The issue is the economics of AEC's process: the amount of energy required to set up the reactor and manufacture its reactants (and to dispose of or recycle the waste products) compared to the recoverable energy content of the hydrogen that comes out of the reactor. Low cost is the only thing that AEC even claims to have that can be of any value to customers and investors, yet AEC has not disclosed what those costs are or will be. Meanwhile, the company has made many statements in its press releases and on its web site that, whether by design or by mistake, could easily leave the average potential ARGY investor (someone who is worried about global warming and has heard the hype about hydrogen from the likes of Dennis Weaver but knows little of the relevant science) with critical misconceptions about what AEC really has. This is the crux of H2FC's reservations about this company.

I don't have the time to dig through those links at this moment.

Hopefully this synopsis, by David Redstone, publisher of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Investor (h2fc.com) will be helpful.

You will find the article at the site above.

M


4/15/04 AEC Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire Majority Interest In Subsidiary of Leading Renewable Energy Firm Sterling Technologies Offers Immediate Distribution for AEC's Hydrogen Production Unit to the Electric Utility Industry and Its Customers [Why is AEC putting "Immediate Distribution" in its headline when in an April 8 press release AEC said "the Company's alpha products scheduled for shipment in September 2004". What does AEC have that Sterling can immediately distribute? And is this "alpha product" a product or an alpha prototype? If an "alpha product", what is an "alpha product"? If an "alpha prototype", why would it be shipped? In commonly used R&D jargon, "alpha prototypes" are typically for in-house evaluation, "beta prototypes" are shipped for field testing.]

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 15, 2004-- Alternate Energy Corporation (OTCBB:ARGY) announced today that it has signed a letter of intent to acquire a majority interest in Sterling Technologies, Inc. from Sterling Planet, Inc. Sterling Technologies is the wholly owned subsidiary of Sterling Planet that deploys distributed generation technologies, primarily solar systems, through utilities and state-supported green energy programs. Sterling Planet's customers include 16 electric utilities and ESCOs (energy service companies) in Florida, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Nebraska as well as multinational corporations leading in environmental stewardship such as Alcoa, Dupont, The Coca Cola Company, Nike, Pitney Bowes and Staples. Sterling Planet also has sold renewable energy certificates to the federal and state agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. General Services Administration and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The acquisition is to support AEC's go-to-market effort for its hydrogen production unit. The transaction, which is scheduled to close on or before May 12, 2004, includes the purchase of a 51% interest in Sterling Technologies for cash and stock. [How much cash? How much stock? What will the total price be? Per it's 10-K filed 3/16/04, AEC had $411,727, and per another press release raised an additional $2.75M in a private placement completed on 1/26/04. If AEC can afford Sterling Technologies (ST), can ST really be worth very much? What exactly does ST have that AEC needs, especially right now? Why are Sterling Planet's clients listed when AEC is talking about acquiring ST?]

"A large immediate market for AEC is the electric utility industry and their customers who want to be generating a portion of their power on-site using renewable energy. [Why would electric utilities be interested in AEC's technology? Has a single electric utility ever indicated a real interest in replacing electricity now generated at a central plant and delivered over the grid (cheap) with electricity generated from hydrogen produced at the customer's location (expensive)? How can electricity generated from hydrogen produced by AEC's process ever be cheaper than electricity from the grid, when (presumably) grid electricity must be used to make the ingredients for AEC's process in the first place, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics tell us that energy is lost at every step in any process involving the conversion of energy from one form to another? And what does renewable energy have to do with AEC? Renewable energy today is generally more expensive than electricity generated using fossil fuels. AEC says that its device requires no energy input at the point of use. So unless the factory that makes the ingredients for AEC's process runs on renewable energy (unlikely, since this would add costs for ACE), there is no place for renewable energy to be used in the process (beyond whatever percentage of the power delivered to AEC's reactant factory at any given time ultimately so happens to come from renewable sources.)] This includes utilities that are looking to reduce the need to finance expensive new power plants as well as supporting their clients' onsite power requirements," said Blaine Froats, AEC's Chairman. [How can AEC's technology "reduce the need to finance expensive power plants" when more power will be needed to make the ingredients for AEC's process than can ever be recovered from the hydrogen produced by the process?] "Sterling Technologies' knowledge of Renewable Energy Certificates, governmental and corporate subsidy and incentive programs, and practical, in-the-field experience in this area is unique in our opinion. [Again, what can Renewable Energy Certificates possibly have to do with AEC's technology? Is AEC going to build its own renewable energy collection capacity to provide the power for the factory that will make the reactants that AEC will need to deliver to its customers?] We are looking forward to working with their management team whom we consider to be most professional, exceptionally competent, and equipped with very deep industry backgrounds," continued Mr. Froats.

For its part, Sterling Planet expects the AEC relationship to help extend and broaden the Atlanta-based company's national leadership position in the rapidly developing market for cleaner electricity from diverse, reliable, domestic renewable energy sources. . . .

* * *

Mel Jones, a co-founder of Sterling Planet, will continue in his current position as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sterling Planet. Mr. Murphy will remain as the Chairman of Sterling Planet in addition to his new role in Sterling Technologies.

About Sterling Technologies: Sterling Technologies, Inc. owns the assets of the Sterling Planet distributed power generation business. The company's credits include a 330 KW photovoltaic array with a 660 KW solar hot water facility for the 1996 Summer Olympics swimming venue at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. This was the largest solar project in the United States at the time. Since then, Sterling Planet has invested more than $1 million in solar systems development in partnership with various utilities, technology firms and suppliers. Currently, Sterling Technologies owns three solar systems in Florida and has a fairly extensive solar development pipeline. [How is all of this experience relevant to AEC when AEC says that no energy needs to be added to its reactor at the point of use?]

Sterling Technologies is committed to working with clients in a multitude of ways that will result in the greatest environmental benefit for the lowest cost. The company's objective is to achieve a balance between costs and benefits over a mutually agreed upon period. Sterling Technologies assists clients in tapping subsidies and incentives to develop new sources of onsite generation powered by renewable sources, turn existing generating facilities "green" where such a conversion makes sound economic sense, and exchange Renewable Energy Certificates or "green tags" - both buying and selling - to maximize environmental benefit while controlling costs.

About Sterling Planet (www.sterlingplanet.com):The first company to offer every U.S. home and business a way to reduce the environmental impact of regular electricity production, Sterling Planet leads the nation in retail sales of renewable energy kilowatt hours. To date, Sterling Planet has sold to homes and businesses nationwide nearly 1 billion kilowatt hours of renewable energy, representing enough energy to power 94,500 homes for a full year and offset 683,500 tons of CO2. The environmental benefit compares to not driving 1.38 billion miles or taking 115,000 cars off U.S. roads. Sterling Planet is also the nation's leader in partnering with electric utilities and businesses to market and/or develop renewable energy. Currently, Sterling Planet has 16 utility partners nationwide in states such as Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island. Our mission: To harness the power of consumer demand to convert at least 10% of the nation's electricity production to environmentally preferable energy that is renewable, diverse, domestically based and low impact by 2012, while stimulating local economies and creating jobs.

About Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC; www.cleanwatts.com): Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC) is energizing the hydrogen economy. [No it isn't. Not one bit. Not yet anyway.] AEC is the first company to provide a hydrogen device for small-scale, on-demand distributed generation of electricity. [Does the device provide hydrogen or electricity? Or both? How can any company allow itself to issue such a confusing statement?] The device is immediately deployable and qualifies for Renewable Energy Certificates [How??]. AEC's proprietary discovery in metallurgy permits a small-scale unit to generate hydrogen from water through a "green" process at a fraction of the fossil fuel kWh cost of energy. [Huh?] AEC believes its product can have a revolutionary impact on the energy industry. [H2FC most definitely does not believe it.] [Disclaimer and contact information omitted, full press release here.]


--------------------------------------------------------------

Some additional questions about Alternate Energy Corp.:

Why does the company's home page say that "AEC's achievements are already profiled in a variety of 'green energy' publications" including "a variety of news wires", when there is nothing "green" about the news wires AEC uses, and when any company (or individual for that matter - see Dennis Weaver) can similarly have itself "profiled" - all one has to do to be "profiled" by a news wire is pay the fee to the wire service.How can responsible management make the unintentional error of asserting that paying to have a press release distributed by a news wire constitutes being profiled by a green publication?

In a 2/4/04 press release, AEC said that its newly signed design consultant "will work with Oak Ridge National Labs and United States Department of Energy to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications." Three days later a correction was issued, replacing "will work with Oak Ridge National Labs and United States Department of Energy" with "work with other appropriate entities". How could AEC have made a mistake like this? Did AEC perform proper due diligence on the design consultant before signing him? Why did the correction take three days to be issued? Is that how long it took for the press release to be brought to the attention of the right people at Oak Ridge Lab or DOE and for them to demand a retraction?

Why does AEC claim on its home page that the Toronto Star has "called the company's test results 'a new chapter in hydrogen production history'", when a search of the Star's archives does not produce a single result for the name of the company or related keywords other than the company's own press releases?

Why does the AEC web site continue to say that "AEC's Hydrogen Technology White Paper is currently being developed and will be posted shortly", when AEC's CEO told H2FC last September that the paper would be available last October, and the company has since informed H2FC that the white paper is being withheld (except under non-disclosure agreement) until all patents are issued in order to protect the company's purported intellectual property?

Why does another AEC web page says that a patent for "Hydrogen Production Technology [is] currently in the process of being filed", when as recently as 10/20/2003 the boilerplate in AEC's press releases said that "[t]he company is the patent holder of power recovery and fuel-cell-quality hydrogen production technologies" (emphasis added by H2FC), and when subsequent press releases say nothing at all about the status of patents for the hydrogen production process? How can responsible management make the unintentional error of claiming for months that the company holds patents which in fact it apparently does not? And what does "currently in the process of being filed" mean? Does it mean that AEC has a patent lawyer researching the prior art? Does it mean the inventor of AEC's device is writing up a draft of a patent application? Does it mean that at the time the statement on the web site was written someone was actually driving the completed application to the post office to mail it to the patent office?

Why does AEC's company description included in this week's press release claim that "AEC is the first company to provide a hydrogen device for small-scale, on-demand distributed generation of electricity" when this is demonstrably untrue? DESC, Stuart and many others have had such products available for a long time, while AEC still doesn't.

Why does AEC's company description included in its 4/8/04 press release claim that AEC "is an energy company that provides a proprietary, high-grade hydrogen production process that is low cost and operates at ambient temperatures with no energy input." Is the AEC device some kind of magic device? AEC would undoubtedly say that it meant no energy input at the point of use. But how can responsible management even risk or overlook such a statement when the potential for misunderstanding among technically unsophisticated investors is so high?

In a 12/29/03 press release, AEC claims that it "owns an affordable, on-demand high-grade hydrogen production process that is expected to enable the hydrogen economy to replace the fossil fuel economy" (emphasis added by H2FC). Does AEC management recognize the truly monumental nature of this claim? Does management really "expect" this to be true? Where is all of the energy needed to make AEC's reactants in amounts large enough to generate enough hydrogen to replace the fossil fuel economy going to come from, if not from fossil fuels?

How can AEC continue to claim that "[c]urrent cost estimates indicate that AEC can produce hydrogen at a significantly lower cost [than reforming fossil fuels] and realize a strong profit even with selling it at a very competitive price", when the laws of thermodynamics tell us that it will always take more energy to convert a fossil fuel into electricity and then use that electricity to manufacture whatever it is that goes into AEC's process then it would take to reform the fossil fuel directly into hydrogen?

How can AEC continue to claim that "[s]imply, AEC’s hydrogen production process does overcome the input energy and high-heat issues typically found in other forms of hydrogen extraction", when the laws of thermodynamics, the best tested and verified scientific paradigm in human intellectual history, so plainly tells us that this is not possible?
How can the company in good faith promote itself as it does when it "acknowledges its own limitations in its inability to quantify specific technology claims at this time"? (from AEC's FAQ)

Most if not all H2FC companies have made exaggerated claims and overly optimistic assessments, especially in estimates of time to commercialization and profitability. And errors do find their way into press releases from many companies. But in H2FC's view, AEC is exhibiting a pattern of over-statement and misstatement (or at least a careless disregard for accuracy) to a degree that, combined with the complete lack of information supporting the claim of a commercially valuable technology and the fact that AEC's misstatements always seem to paint the company in a favorable light, makes the the entire company suspect as anything but the most wildly speculative short term stock play.

AEC's hydrogen generator may work like a charm, generating hydrogen of high purity in a reliable manner. That in itself is not so difficult to do, and whether the AEC device can do it is not the issue here. The issue is the economics of AEC's process: the amount of energy required to set up the reactor and manufacture its reactants (and to dispose of or recycle the waste products) compared to the recoverable energy content of the hydrogen that comes out of the reactor. Low cost is the only thing that AEC even claims to have that can be of any value to customers and investors, yet AEC has not disclosed what those costs are or will be. Meanwhile, the company has made many statements in its press releases and on its web site that, whether by design or by mistake, could easily leave the average potential ARGY investor (someone who is worried about global warming and has heard the hype about hydrogen from the likes of Dennis Weaver but knows little of the relevant science) with critical misconceptions about what AEC really has. This is the crux of H2FC's reservations about this company.

Thanks.

Good to see it exists, if only as a photo.

M

>I crossed checked some of HR4's info. I was confused as to why he only gave an example of the Fuel Cell news and that particular link that he provided was deceptive and was not directed to the article that was alluded to in the article.

The reason for giving the "Fuel Cell News" was that their website indicated that it was "Write Up" or some such but it was only a mention of their purported activities. If you can find a link to which their website refers, I'd be really happy to have it.

Yes, I'm biased but it is a bias that the company has earned.

I'd very much appreciate it if you could provide any link, correction or clarification to what I have posted as I am interested in maintaining only the most verifiable, contemporary information.

M

Great.

Show me the money.

Or is this like the Orini Lumber deal?

M

Thanks for the clarification.

Always welcome getting a well-done correction.

M

>Its actually not that difficult with a little research you can see on Raging Idiots board that he basically doesn't have one positive thing to say about any of the stocks he posts about.

Maybe he just puts his money on technologies that don't require pumping and half-baked would-be technology schemes.

Show him any viable economic niche for HYVR that is verifiable and I'd give you even money that he'll disappear.

It's a "put up or shut up" sort of thing.

M

Ballard will be going with a metal hydride storage mechanism from one of two vendors. Here's the rationale. You have these options with respect to hydrogen generation and storage.

1) Generate as needed, a la HYVR
2) Store at high pressure
3) Store cryogenically as liquid H
4) Store in a metal hydride

Convention metal hydrides hold 3X more than the same volume H tank pressureized to 5,000 psi and about 1.3 times more than H stored cryogenically. In either of these cases, AND IN THE CASE OF HYVR tech as well, the H stored/produced is combusible.

Not so with metal hydrides (as are found in your Nickle Metal Hydride battery)... that hydrogen is split and stored at the atomic level, NON-combusible and at low pressure safely bound to a metal hydride.

M

>Who is paying you for this deceit?

Prove it's not deceit.

Cite any credible source that indicates that HYER's process is cost competitive with ANY other method of hydrogen generation.

M

>Vancouver, Canada - Ballard Power Systems (TSX: BLD; NASDAQ: BLDP) and Sanmina-SCI Corporation, one of the world’s premier enclosure contract manufacturers, have entered into a Sales, Marketing and Product Development memorandum of understanding. Ballard and Sanmina-SCI will work together to commercialize and sell fuel-cell based backup power systems for the telecommunication industry.

And, surely you don't mean to imply that this will use anything other than a metal hydride, low pressure, compact storage system, do you?

M

>HYVR is building reactors, and they are finding ways to lower operating costs, but they are still far, far from being practical in comparison to fossil fuel generators. If you think that the company is making a profit on this reactor at Terra Nova you're kidding yourself.

The base numbers have HYVR's process being at least 6 X more expensive than electrolysis. And that's not even considering the cost of electricity from the nightly surplus (currently spilled over the dams) from the Columbia River system in Idaho, WA, OR... There are numerous, idle, aluminum smelting plants already wired that could be easily converted to electrolysis facilities. Distribution questions aside for the moment.

Off peak production from hydro is a significant, and unfavorable, economic competitor to reduction processes. It's even more severe than "off peak"... They don't even bother to generate because there is no/not much use...


M

CP,

Good to see you here.

For others, there is an ad hoc band of electrochemists, FC designers and engineers, who have made a hobby of debunking hydrogen technology scams.

While unknown to one another personally, it's been a fun thing to do. We've had the SEC turned out on one company, PR's retracted, expose's run in StockPatrol and other good works variously characterized as the work of (and I'm not exaggerating) "Criminal Nazi Hacker/Cracker Pro Basher Thugs".

M

Dadyo,

>The problem is ARGY has not divulged
the Purity of their output of H2...Possibly ARGY has
better Economics in their production system of H2.

If you believe ARGY, even their stated, "tested", purity levels are an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE lower than that acceptable, especially by AFC's....

M

There are quite a few million more to go.

Main problem is that there IS NO chemical reaction process that will produce hydrogen at anywhere near the cost of lower cost means such as electrolysis or steam reformation of natural gas.

Basically, all such process run up against the Second Law of Thermodynamics that, simply put, says that energy is lost in each stage of an energy conversion process. In ARGY's case, the energy inputs are those required to extract, refine, transport the reactants.

The amount of energy required to do that is always going to be a multiple of the amount of energy represented by the hydrogen that is generated by the process.

For real info on any variety of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies I'd suggest www.ch2bc.org an international clearinghouse for info and not associated with any company.

M

Maybe this will help with the DD.

More on request.

M

++++++

For ARGY Investors:

http://www.stocklemon.com/your_lemon.html

http://stockpatrol.com/tips.html

http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml

++++++++++

www.airproducts.com/Products/LiquidBulkGases/Hydrogen/HydrogenProperties.htm

Basically, 12 cubic meters / kilogram, or 932 cubic feet / pound or 7700 cubic feet for 8.3 lbs at STP. Now if you want to convert that to five hours driving endurance at a nominal cruising load, that works out to 1540 cubic feet / hour, just under 1/2 cubic foot per second. Under city driving conditions it will be a lot closer to 1 cubic foot / second. Using gallons, that is roughly four to eight gallons of gas per second.

+++++++++++

Survey on this

Fill in the blanks...

Fill in the pertinent info and see how easy it is to have your favorite stock suspended from trading.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/suspensions/34-45306.htm

It's easy, just delete the italics and insert the bold

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of New Energy your favorite company because of questions that have been raised about ***the adequacy and accuracy*** of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, the value of certain power generation contracts the value claimed for their technology, the existence and size of certain purchase orders for solar chips the amount of and costs of hydrogen generated by their process, and the status of New Energy's your favorite company strategic partner's</I> relationship with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Oak Ridge National Labs.

All the little footnotes pointing to the sources don't come out right in the posting but you get the idea. Busy gov't regulators appreciate it (they even write thank-you letters) when they are spoon fed what they need to know.



“BEST OF ARGY”

Didja know?

1) The Website says:

http://alternateenergycorp.dbdta.net/default.asp?id=corporate.companyprofile

The company has been covered in Fuel Cell Today, Solar Daily, Live Power News, Canada's Centre for Energy, and a variety of news wires.

Let's go find those writeups!

Fuel Cell Today reference

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryDirectory/IndustryDirectoryExternal/IndustryDirec...

Whoopsies</I>


2)ARGY Proposes Addition to the Board of Directors

And the website says: http://www.cleanwatts.com/boardofdirectors.asp?id=corporate.boardofdirectors.williamdizenzo

“Mr. Dizenzo became Senior Vice President of Worth Construction Co., Inc. in 1981.”

What may be known about Mr. Dizenzo?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24145

WASHINGTON – snip….Worth Construction, whose offices were reportedly searched as part of an FBI probe of Waterbury City Hall, was banned in 1998 from bidding on school construction jobs in New York City because of Pontoriero's alleged mob ties.

Company officials have declined to speak to reporters.
… snip….The FEC document did disclose the occupation and
residence of the two Worth executives -- Diana L.
Vossen (construction manager) of Danbury and <I>William
Dizenzo (senior vice president) </I>of Trumbull -- but
Pontoriero's occupation was left blank.

The FBI is examining records involving a $94 million upgrade to Waterbury's sewage-treatment plant that was overseen by Worth Construction.

Worth, which was founded in 1978, has been barred since April 1998 by New York City's School Construction Authority from ever bidding on school projects in New York.

They were subjects of an investigation of criminal connections that were between the president of the company and several organized crime figures, said Daniel McCormack, a spokesman for the construction authority.

Worth was disqualified from bidding on New York school jobs after Pontoriero refused to answer any questions from authorities about his alleged association with gangsters.

Snip…

Worth was also under investigation in 1997 by the New Jersey Attorney General to determine if it was run by organized crime (snip)…. because of their alleged ties to organized crime. One of the companies was run by
Richard Gotti, brother of former New York mob boss John Gotti, according to a report in The Record in Bergen County, N.J.

Worth Construction also surfaced in a 1998 federal indictment of Gotti's son, John Junior Gotti and 22 mob associates.

Not to worry, “Connections are good in business, right?


3) Bentley Group

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0EIN/2003_July_18/105552030/p1/article.jhtml

Mr. Blaine Froats, Chairman of Alternate Energy Corporation (OTCBB: ARGY) today is pleased to announce that application of the AEC assets that were acquired by the new AEC in May of this year have a value of
over USD $800 Million. (OH THIS SOUNDS GOOD!)

……… The Bentley Group
(Schenectady, NY), who specialize in valuation of business opportunities provided an opinion in September 2001, that the conservative value of
applying these technologies in the North American market was approximately US $841 Million."

And the Bentley Group is……

Tax Preparation Services
Bentley Group the
1311 Union St,
Schenectady, NY 12308
(518) 346-4060

The Bentley Group has over 20 years of extensive tax and financial management experience. Founded by principal owner, Tom Miceli, The Bentley Group has everything you need to meet both your personal and
professional financial needs.

Tom Miceli, known locally mainly for his fiscal skills, concedes he's pretty excited about his new sideline as managing partner of Capstone Racing LLC.

Capstone's Ms. Will a Way finished second by a half-length in the 2-year-old fillie's inaugural outing Thursday at Saratoga Race Course.
………

"I'm not about to compare our fillie with the proven success Funny Cide, but I definitely believe we have a thoroughbred of Stakes' races quality," Miceli said.

He said the Saratoga-based horse will be shipped to Belmont soon in preparation for the fillie's second start, expected toward the end of September.

Eighth Poles, Inc. Horse Training and Racing Management An Investment Opportunity to Own Race Horses Expertly Trained to Run Their Best Strategically Managed to Maximize Returns THE BENTLEY
GROUP 1311 UNION STREET SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK 12308
(518) 346-4060 Price to Investors Per Unit............................$ 5,000 Total (70 units).................$ 350,000

Got any spare money?


4) LET US HAVE YOUR MONEY!! WE CAN MAKE LOTS OF HYDROGEN!!!

And the website says:

http://www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.faq

A sugar-cube sized piece of our material, combined with the required chemicals and water will produce enough hydrogen to fill a cubic area the volume of a football field three (3) times.

SOUNDS GREAT? Problem: Football fields have NO VOLUME, So, 3 Times 0 = 0 ) hmmmm




++++++++++

What They Don’t Tell You

A work in progress. Verifiable updates and corrections much appreciated.

WHAT ANY INVESTOR NEEDS TO KNOW:

What is needed is a thorough and competent examination of the technology.

1) The cost of the materials required for the reaction
2) The cost of the reactor plus balance of plant and the weight and volume occupied by same
3) The cost of transporting reactants to the point of use
4) The cost of disposing of the spent reactant
5) Correction of the units that the company uses so they are not confusing units of "power" for "energy" and vice versa
6) Clarification of representations made regarding patent status.
7) Clarification regarding representations as to the amount of hydrogen produced through the process. Currently state that they can produce an amount of hydrogen “equal to the volume of three football fields”. Only problem, a football field has NO volume. Great way to avoid liability = claim to produce nothing.

UNLESS AND UNTIL that is done there will be:

a) No way to determine if a viable economic niche exists for the company's technology, and
b) No way to determine if the technology can be protected. "Trade Secrets" and "Secret Formulas" simply won't work in this case, the chemistry has been too well understood for too long. <I>Investors and prospective investors do not need proprietary information, just the economic basics.</I>

Here's why that matters:

An analysis of materials employed (or the spent reactant) will reveal the composition of those materials (and/or catalyst) – so much for “secret ingredients” and “proprietary formulas”. If there are no patents (and ultimately, patents surviving challenge) and no IP, then there is no protection for investors.

The oft repeated statement “call the company” is bogus. If the company is going to sell it’s stock (hoping you’ll buy) this information needs to be available to the investing public!

PATENTS

ARGY HAS CHANGED THE PATENTS THEY CLAIM TO HAVE:

On 2/6/2004

ARGY claimed: “AEC is currently focused upon the worldwide commercialization of its patented hydrogen technology.”

On 2/8/2004 That claim was changed to read: ” AEC is currently focused upon the worldwide commercialization of its patent applied for hydrogen technology.”

Digging deeper: The company website lists patents under link

http://www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.patents

The heading for this page is: <I>The following are patents that are filed with the Canadian Intellectually Property Office under the name of Alternate Energy Corporation.</I>

Ignoring the fact that there is no “Canadian <I>Intellectually</> Property Office” ..

If the company is to proceed with it’s stated goal of “moving quickly to complete the necessary engineering refinements and industry certifications required to enable mass deployment in 2004”

http://www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=corporate.companyprofile then it appears they are doing so without intellectual property protection of record.

CLAIMS AND WIERD SCIENCE

SUMMARY OF BENEFITS

<I>· Very low cost </I>
3) ARGY claims that it is a reagent process:
same link as 2)

<I>PROCESS</I>
From the website: “Though details of hydrogen production process cannot be disclosed at the present time, the following can be answered:
AEC’s hydrogen production technology:
· Is not Electrolysis.
· Does not require external energy input of any type during hydrogen production.
· Uses only bio-compatible elements (not harmful to the environment/humans).
· Functions at any temperature above the freezing point of the electrolyte”. </I>

The condition on the energy input is an intriguing one. So, how much energy is needed during off production hours?

4) ARGY admits only water, oxygen and hydrogen as outputs, (sic) only dissociation of water by the process, even when sea water is used.

same link as 2)

<I>OUTPUT </I>
· 99.9% tested hydrogen (gaseous form).
· Oxygen
· Drinkable water.

5) ARGY admits that the source of stored energy is in the metals used. Metal refining requires tremendous amounts of energy. This directly contradicts their claims to "low cost" and "very low cost".

6) ARGY claims that their materials present no safety hazards:

Same link as 2)

<I>· Low volatility – no special storage of material is required (unlike encapsulated metal hydride, which must be stored in oils, due to reaction with moisture).
By contrast, AEC’s material can be held in the hand. </I>

7) AEC claims that low-cost is less than $0.10 to 0.12 per KW, ( an oxymoron as KW is a measure of power not energy ). We may safely assume that what they mean is KWh.

www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.faq

<I>The least expensive hydrogen is currently derived from the reformation of fossil fuels such as natural gas, costing approximately $0.10 to $0.12 per kw. Current cost estimates indicate that AEC can produce hydrogen at a significantly lower cost and realize a strong profit even with selling it at a very competitive price.</I>

8) AEC vague claims concerning source fuel consumption:
same link as 7)

<I>A sugar-cube sized piece of our material, combined with the required chemicals and water will produce enough hydrogen to fill a cubic area the volume of a football field three (3) times. (Note: Football fields have NO VOLUME)
...
Based on results from current in-house testing, conservative estimates indicate that our current hydrogen production unit will produce an on-going supply of hydrogen required to operate a 1kw fuel cell for several months without maintenance. The only additional requirement is the continuous addition of nominal amounts of water during this time. </I>

So, in this claim they seem to have greatly trapped themselves. They have described a chemical battery where water goes in, water, oxygen and hydrogen come out that supposedly produces at least 2 X 30 days * 24 hours / day * 1KWh / hour > 1.44 MWh = 5.2 billion joules energy storage in the reagents.

Gasoline is 20M J/pound, so ARGY is claiming that the stored energy in their chemicals is equivalent to 5.2 billion joules / 20 million joules / pound gasoline = 258 pounds of gasoline, or roughly 43 gallons at 100% efficiency.

ARGY goes on further:

<I>AEC is targeting producing enough hydrogen per minute to run a stationary home unit of 6-7kw for months at a time without refresh of material (exception of water). </I>

Which means an equivalent fuel store of over 1500 pounds / 250 gallons of gasoline, even assuming 100% efficiency in their process.

9) ARGY misappropriated the name of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and US DOE in their 2/3/2004 press release:

<I>...and will work with Oak Ridge National Labs and United States Department of Energy to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications </I>

later changed to:

<I>...as well as work with other appropriate entities to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications.</I>

PARTNERS

From ASTRIS SEC reports

"In August 2003, the Company announced that it had signed a letter of intent (LOI) with Alternate Energy Corporation (AEC), a Nevada based corporation, to form a joint venture. The proposed joint venture plans to combine the Company’s fuel cell and hydrogen technologies to produce and sell complete stationary electric power systems for the vast household and business markets. Set up of the joint venture will begin once due diligence is completed on AEC technology by independent third party(s)."

Since that time, you'd think that the "due diligence by independent third parties." would be finished by now. How is the due diligence is coming along?




++++++++++



Cloddy, do you know?

August 5,2003 4:02 PACIFIC 7:02 EASTERN
(ASTRIS-ENERGI/ALT-ENERGY)(ASRNF)(ARGY) Astris Energi, Alternate Energy Corp. Plan Fuel Cell, Hydrogen Production Joint Venture
Business Editors/Automotive Writers

MISSISSAUGA, Ontario--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 5, 2003--Astris Energi Inc. (OTCBB:ASRNF), world leader in alkaline fuel cell technology, announced today that it has signed a Letter of Intent with Alternate Energy Corp. (OTCBB:ARGY), which has acquired the rights to a unique and reportedly low-cost technology for the production of hydrogen gas required for fuel cell operation.

The proposed joint venture plans to combine these fuel cell and hydrogen technologies to produce and sell complete stationary electric power systems for the vast household and business markets.

++++++++++++

Claims:

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bi/Bnv-alternate-energy.Rvnp_DO1.html

The company is the patent holder of power recovery and fuel-cell-quality hydrogen production technologies for residential, commercial and industrial use. Additional information is available at the company's website at www.cleanwatts.com

+++++++++++

To be analyzed:

1) ARGY has claimed since last Fall to have independent laboratory verification of the purity of hydrogen released by their process.

www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.hydrogen.facts

PURITY
· AEC attained a purity rating of 99.9%, conducted by Maxxam Analytics on Sept
20th,2003.
· AEC has reduced impurity rates from 5000 ppm (parts per million) to only 17
ppm, far superior than the 100 ppm benchmark needed for typical fuel cell
operations.

2) ARGY claims that their process produces hydrogen at low cost.

www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=technology.hydrogentechnology

<I>AEC Hydrogen Technology
History

AEC’s hydrogen production system leverages a proprietary chemical process that yields fuel-cell-quality, on-demand hydrogen from fresh or salt water, with no known harmful by-products - at low cost.

AEC first licensed the technology from the creator in July, 2003 and later acquired their proprietary hydrogen technology for all fuel cells globally in September of 2003. The technology had been developed for 23 years prior to it being purchased. </I>
...

+++++++++


http://www.alternateenergycorp.com

http://www.cleanwatts.com/default.asp?id=start

GT Designs will also supervise the certification of alpha products by the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and the United States Coast Guard; and will work with Oak Ridge National Labs and United States Department of Energy to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications.

As corrected:

GT Designs will also supervise the certification of alpha products by the Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Canadian Standards Association (CSA), and the United States Coast Guard; and as well as work with other appropriate entities to certify and develop the optimal design of the AEC hydrogen production system and its applications.

++++++

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0EIN/2003_July_18/105552030/p1/article.jhtml

Business Editors

LAS VEGAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 18, 2003

Mr. Blaine Froats, Chairman of Alternate Energy Corporation (OTCBB: ARGY) today is pleased to announce that application of the AEC assets that were acquired by the new AEC in May of this year have a value of over USD $800 Million.

<I>Nice Headline</I>

But reading further, “Mr. Froats, further stated, "A third party consultant, The Bentley Group (Schenectady, NY), who specialize in valuation of business opportunities provided an opinion in September 2001, that the conservative value of <I>applying</I> these technologies in the North American market was approximately US $841 Million."

Ahh, there’s the rub…