New energy technology that might change everything

[Astroboy]

A new company emerging from secrecy about to go public with a revolutionary fuel cell that may put a power plant in every home. No joke.

The Bloom Box - 60 Minutes - CBS News

Backed by powerhouse investment firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers who funded Google, Amazon, etc. and with current customers in testing phase at eBay, Google, FedEx, and others. Note in the segment comparing the thousands of solar panels and the small foot print of the Bloom Box power plants. Providing 15% of the energy for that big building in such a small area is amazing.

If this thing is for real it could be one of the biggest things to hit the energy market. While you guys are wasting you time arguing about climate change these guys are putting their time to productive use. The next revolution is in energy and only a small part of it has to do with global warming. Any country that doesn't recognize this is going to be left behind. As it stands China has already leap-frogged everyone to become the world's leader in solar panel production. Put your money in gold if you want to join the next bubble. As for me, I'm going to keep a very close eye on this company. If it ever goes public I'm laying down some serious money on it.

 

[Jose Collado]

While you guys are wasting you time arguing about climate change these guys are putting their time to productive use..

Isn't it always the way. Whilst people waste their energy yelling and arguing about something, someone, somewhere, is secretly putting their energy to good use. In this case. Possibly literally.

 

[Schuyler]

Excuse me, but read the article. This device may be more efficient, but it uses fossil fuels and simply turns that into electricity. This device won't do anything to 'solve' the energy problem (which is a far different issue than climate change) and for the AGW Alarmists, it's just another CO2 generating device. I'd love to have one of these thimngs in my back yuard, despite the fact that it reaches temperatures of 1000 degrees celsius. But I'll have to have a natural gas feed to it or dump gasoline into it before it's going to make any electricity for me.

 

[conor]

Excuse me, but read the article. This device may be more efficient, but it uses fossil fuels and simply turns that into electricity. This device won't do anything to 'solve' the energy problem (which is a far different issue than climate change) and for the AGW Alarmists, it's just another CO2 generating device. I'd love to have one of these thimngs in my back yuard, despite the fact that it reaches temperatures of 1000 degrees celsius. But I'll have to have a natural gas feed to it or dump gasoline into it before it's going to make any electricity for me.

We got to start somewhere. Solving the energy crisis won't happen over night. I see I am now an alarmist. Well in that case you're a denier. You reject the scientific consensus as a lie, and I listen to everything that comes out of every person's mouth that seems to have authority. At least, they're the two worst case scenarios, right? Either your a raving lunatic or I'm a mindless drone. Which is it to be then? Congratulations, rationality and calm debate have left the building ...

 

[Astroboy]

Excuse me, but read the article. This device may be more efficient, but it uses fossil fuels and simply turns that into electricity. This device won't do anything to 'solve' the energy problem (which is a far different issue than climate change) and for the AGW Alarmists, it's just another CO2 generating device. I'd love to have one of these thimngs in my back yuard, despite the fact that it reaches temperatures of 1000 degrees celsius. But I'll have to have a natural gas feed to it or dump gasoline into it before it's going to make any electricity for me.

Maybe you should read the article. You've made some assumptions that are not supported by the article and ignored other rather amazing, if true, breakthroughs. Rather disappointed by your thin skin attitude regarding AGW and your knee-jerk negative reaction to this story.

1. It is a combustionless process. Byproducts are heat and water. Don't know where you got that 1000 degree Celsius figure from. Maybe from other designs. No need to use alarmist info that doesn't exist.
2. Uses inexpensive alloys for the fuel cell modules unlike previous designs.
3. Uses half the amount of natural gas to produce electricity as traditional power plants. If you don't think this is important then very little will satisfy you. Do you think AGW alarmists would reject a car that gets 100mpg even if it uses petrol? Please.
4. Most western homes have a natural gas hook-ups. Why is this a problem? Even if you didn't have it you could always hook up a propane tank or solar panel to it. Again no big deal.
5. Device can be powered by multiple sources of fuel or solar. It doesn't need to use fossil fuels.
6. Efficiency is exactly what energy breakthroughs are all about. That coupled with cost of production. I didn't say this is fusion technology. But you don't need brand new tech from scratch to revolutionize things. You just need to change the tipping point when one type of technology becomes clearly better and the benefits of cost, efficiency, and being environmentally clean makes this choice a clear winner.
7. The very small footprint vs solar panels make this clearly more practical in almost any application especially residential where space is limited.
8. Don't know why anyone would be against it. No one, including AGW alarmists, believes there is a perfect solution right now or in the near future that'll solve everything. Everyone knows that it'll have to a combination of conservation, efficiency, renewables, and new tech that will be needed to tackle energy issues.

 

[Schuyler]

I stand by what I said. This is a fossil fuel using device that emits CO2. IF you are 'concerned' about AGW, this is NOT the device you want to hang your hat on. I did not call anyone here, including conor, an alarmist. Further, there are NO figures on ROI for this device which might (might!) reach $3,000 in a few years. You don't know if it is five years or 30. You don't know the maintenence needed. There are no figures for how efficient this method is. And if you STILL NEED FOSSIL FUELS you haven't fixed anything. If it IS more efficient then you have simply prolonged the problem, not solved it. This is not a 'zero point' energy device. Whether your an AGW alarmist or not, SUPPLY is the real issue here. eBay says they saved $100,000 compared to standard power rates, but they paid several million dollars for these devices. If you want to get away from fossil fuels for the home, go solar.

There is a great discussion of this device on slashdot with over 500 replies: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/22/1915250

 

[TClaeys]

If you consider AGW to be a problem then to cut CO2 emmisions in half would be a good start, ... no, .. a great start. Just because it doesn't solve the entire "problem" 100% it buys us time. In due time new technologies will unfold if we use history as any kind of guide. So slowing down the problem is actually good in my view because it allows more time to develop better methods of dealing with energy needs and lowering Co2. I don't think we're in any kid of situation where we will be able to give up fossil fuels altogether cold turkey. I just don't think that is possible. Either way, we will need to develop alternatives to it ultimately, so cutting it in half and giving us more time would be of great benefit.

I'm not saying this is the answer, but we sure need public awareness, testing, modification, research, and a will to get off the juice. And it ain't gonna be easy.

 

[icculus]

Apparently it can accept multiple types of fuel—can you input geothermal?

 

[pixelsmith]

We got to start somewhere. Solving the energy crisis won't happen over night. I see I am now an alarmist. Well in that case you're a denier. You reject the scientific consensus as a lie, and I listen to everything that comes out of every person's mouth that seems to have authority. At least, they're the two worst case scenarios, right? Either your a raving lunatic or I'm a mindless drone. Which is it to be then? Congratulations, rationality and calm debate have left the building ...

LMAO!!! what consensus? your "consensus" was debunked long ago my friend.

 

[pixelsmith]

i think a solar powered steam engine with an additional electromagnetic propulsion system is the way to go.

 

[TClaeys]

LMAO!!! what consensus? your "consensus" was debunked long ago my friend.

I think the consensus he is referring to is the fact that every major scientific organization in the world has backed human caused climate change. I think there is certainly more to be learned, but if the consensus was debunked so readily so long ago, then why haven't ANY of the organizations changed their views or offered up a retraction?? None of them have. Proabably because despite the seemingly shady recent ongoings scientists, and the scientific community at large, still thinks we play a significant part in it.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything and I bowed out of the lengthy Paracast debates because I've had my say already. But I can assure you that the "consensus" has not been debunked and at this point all the groups still adhere to AGW to some degree.

 

[pixelsmith]

please forgive me TClaeys but you are sadly mistaken. there never was a consensus in the first place.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report.

 

[Astroboy]

I stand by what I said. This is a fossil fuel using device that emits CO2. IF you are 'concerned' about AGW, this is NOT the device you want to hang your hat on.

If it burns hydrogen it does not emit CO2. No one is hanging anything on any ONE technology or device. Only you are making such a charge.

Who cares about AGW arguments? You clearly are obsessed with this subject. There are other more important issues to me that effect us right now. Do you really want to continue to use fuels that pollute the air and water, that cause us to go to war, that make us support dictatorships, that make us vulnerable to price shocks from foreign suppliers? AGW is the least of my concerns.

Further, there are NO figures on ROI for this device which might (might!) reach $3,000 in a few years. You don't know if it is five years or 30. You don't know the maintenence needed. There are no figures for how efficient this method is.

That is correct. And neither do you. So why get all upset over it? I'm sure the people at eBay, Google, FedEx, Walmart and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are complete morons who have never heard of ROI and costs of new technologies never come down. And I'm sure a charattan can easily fool all of these companies which are all utter failures.

And if you STILL NEED FOSSIL FUELS you haven't fixed anything. If it IS more efficient then you have simply prolonged the problem, not solved it. This is not a 'zero point' energy device. Whether your an AGW alarmist or not, SUPPLY is the real issue here.

When did anyone ever expect to completely eliminate the use of fossil fuels overnight? Fossil fuels will be with us for a long time. And I don't underestimate our ability to get at it. Every year it seems people are discovering new oil deposits. There is plenty of supply. We have numerous permits for oil drilling that have not even been started.

Why would you need to completely eliminate it to fix anything? You are making up arguments that few people who are realistically trying to achieve in the near future are saying. We don't need to completely get rid of anything. We just need to substantially curb its use even if this is done through efficiency instead of outright banning.

It's like trying to get rid of pollution in LA from cars. Ain't going to happen. But what has happened over the last 30 years is that cars are cleaner burning and more efficient. In addition, the gasoline also burns cleaner. What difference has this made? I can tell you that I can see the mountains from my living room. This wasn't possible in the 80s when smog could cause visibility to be reduce to about half a mile. It was disgusting. Yet this all happened while the number of cars has multiplied along with the population. The air is cleaner. If we were waiting for our all electric vehicles that can go 500 miles and costs $15,000 then nothing would have gotten better. You can wait all you want for a zero-point energy device but that is just unrealistic and accomplishes absolutely NOTHING.

If you want to get away from fossil fuels for the home, go solar.

I would love to say that this is true but this is also unrealistic for a lot of people. The sun doesn't always shine. You need a large roof or backyard to install it. Some neighborhoods forbid it. I won't work for people near the Arctic circles that get little or no light for months at a time. Solar panels are still very inefficient.

Fortunately, and unfortunately, China's sudden jump into the leadership position of solar panels has reduced the price by half for many markets. They're kicking our butts but for consumers it's great. Hopefully, your local utility company or state will give you nice rebates for installing it.

Ideally I would like to see as a good solution a solar panel that gets better than 50% efficiency and affordable. This would be used to create hydrogen and oxgen and have the hydrogen stored in some high density tank that is no bigger than a frig. This tank will then power a fuel cell to provide electricity and heating with only water as a by product. Currently the latter two don't exist but there are many smart people working on it. I'm hoping that this new fuel cell company may be solving the first part of the equation.

I would also love to see all the high rise buildings use thin film solar on every window so office buildings could become power plants instead of being polluters. It's possible but just too expensive at this moment. Also the construction industry is rather slow at adopting new tech.

There is a great discussion of this device on slashdot with over 500 replies: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.../02/22/1915250

Using another discussion board to discuss your points? Really now. You're losing your touch.

 

[TClaeys]

please forgive me TClaeys but you are sadly mistaken. there never was a consensus in the first place.

OK, Ok. Let's take the IPCC and throw them out. Still every scientific organization across our planet has said AGW is true to some degree. Name one of the scientific organizations that has retracted their statements.

Or, let's look at the scientists themselves, or better yet the Earth scientists that are currently working in the field. The most recent survey of over 3000 Earth scientists (a pretty good sample.. about a third of all asked to participate) said this: 90% said temperatures were rising and 82% said humans play a significant part. These are not politicians or beauracrats, they are scientists working in the field.

Consensus, to my understanding, means general or widespread agreement. So when 8 or 9 out of 10 working scientists agree on something I thought that was consensus. The consensus could be wrong of course or in error or conspiring to tax everyone to death, but still I would call this consensus. Maybe in fairness I'll start saying "almost all".

Sorry for derailing the point of the thread( the development of alternative energies -Bloom box)
I won't continue on this tangent any longer.

 

[pixelsmith]

Where do you come up with this stuff? You could not be more wrong.

 

[pixelsmith]

Using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists.

 

[Astroboy]

Please don't hijack this thread. There is already a dedicated AWG thread. I'm asking nicely.

 

[Astroboy]

Bloom Energy officially launched it's product today. Their website finally contains some information regarding their new fuel cell technology.

Bloom Energy | Be The Solution

How it works:
Bloom Energy | Be The Solution | Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: How it works

Current customers:

• Google (interesting side note: Google recently obtained the rights to buy and sell energy commercially)
• Staples
• ebay
• Bank of America
• Walmart
• Cox
• FedEx
• Coke
• University of Tennessee
• (and unmentioned in the website) the CIA

Highlights of their technology:

• Non-combustion electrochemical process of converting a variety of fuels into electricity including biofuels that produce no CO2. Regular fuels such as natural gas produce nominal amounts of CO2.
• Each unit is size of a typical parking space. Each unit provides 100 kw and can fully power a 30,000sf office building or 100 average size homes.
• Operates at 800C and above. This is part of its design since the high temperatures help to increase the efficiency of the conversion to electricity.
• Is modular, scalable, and hot swappable. Units can be serviced while running.
• Can be installed in hours.
• Does not use precious metals or corrosive elements. No moving parts.
• Has had a near 100% availability rate in installed test sites
• ROI 3-5 years.

From this article:
John Doerr On Bloom Energy Launch:

"One potentially disruptive feature of the technology is that it works both ways: fuel can produce electricity, but it can also go the other way so that electricity produces fuel. Sridhar foresees the killer app for his technology becoming practical in about a decade: a Bloom home energy server combined with solar panels or some other renewable energy. The electricity from the solar panels could produce fuel, which can be used to produce electricity to power the house or even to gas up your (modified) car."

Hmm, just like what I have hoped for.

From the press conference:
LIVE: The Bloom Energy Unveiling Event!

eBay is going to convert this month to use exclusively bio-gas to power the Bloom Energy units so they will emit zero CO2.

 

[conor]

Even if you don't think global warming is happening, the oil IS going to run out

 

[bobheck]

Even if you don't think global warming is happening, the oil IS going to run out

Well at least we finally agree on something. That is, if oil is not actually an abiotic product. They found more oil on the surface of Titan than is known to exist on earth and I think it safe to assume there were no dinosaurs or swamps on Titan in the past.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html

That aside, as the fossil fuels deplete gradually, new forms of energy will be developed to fill the void. So, everything should actually work out quite nicely.