Bloom Energy on 60 Minutes
tra...@optonline.net
Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
distribution grid.
The company has about $100mil backing from Perkins-Elmer, the well
known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
of these within 5 to 10 years.
They have a website at Bloomenergy.com, but I don't think there is
much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
probably find it with google.
On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
sell for $3000.
LSMFT
Gall dern right. I can't wait for my Bloombox. Should run on propane
just fine.
--
LSFT
Robert Neville
> The home size unit was anticipated to sell for $3000.
You need to listen a little more critically - a home sized unit _needs_ to sell
for $3K to be economical. The current units sell for $750K who want to brag
about how green they are and are only being installed because state and local
tax credits cover half the cost. That's not free money - that's taxes being paid
by Joe and Josepine Homeowner.
Right now they are being hand built, one a day. There are serious doubts that
Bloom will ever get them into mass production at anything close to the target
cost.
DD_BobK
> a nut. He may be a bit overly excited about the prospects, but that's
> part of convincing others to invest.
I didn't listen super carefully, I was fixing a doorknob. Plus I got
a bit too excited 20 years ago with the "cold fusion" thing.
There are more than a few companies (Seimens, GE, and smaller ones
too) working on fuel cells.
My limited experience with fuel cells (the ME dept down the hall was
testing a number of them) is that they are (were 5 years ago) about
10x more expensive per kwatt than a "not particularly" cheap micro
turbine combustor / genset.
I'd agree with sa's assessment.
Did anyone catch a conversion efficiency number? ie Percent
electrical energy compared to nat gas input energy?
cheers
Bob
ransley
I would take one, 20 big companies in CA are testing them, a few are
Walmart, Fedex Google,Ebay . John Donahoe Ceo of Ebay said they have
saved 100,000.00 in electric costs in the 9 months 5 boxes have been
running. But how long do they last. They are being tested now and
working well, but you need 20-30 years of reliable running to make the
investment worth while. So they will be sold more and more, but
longevity wont be known for a long long time.If priced right with
something like a 3 yr payback it would be worth it. We have plenty of
Ng to power them and its cheaper then the "commercial" electric rate
Ebay pays.
LSMFT
Yes they did, about 50% of conventional use. Half of what a
propane generator would take.
--
LSMFT
dpb
...
> I would take one, 20 big companies in CA are testing them, a few are
> Walmart, Fedex Google,Ebay . John Donahoe Ceo of Ebay said they have
> saved 100,000.00 in electric costs in the 9 months 5 boxes have been
> running. But how long do they last. They are being tested now and
> working well, but you need 20-30 years of reliable running to make the
> investment worth while.
Those two don't seem to compute -- who paid the upfront cost for these
test units and is that incorporated in the $100k number? I'd think it's
more like simply the difference in what they paid in fuel costs over the
time period, not total cost???
...
> longevity wont be known for a long long time.If priced right with
> something like a 3 yr payback it would be worth it. We have plenty of
> Ng to power them and its cheaper then the "commercial" electric rate
> Ebay pays.
Stationary power generation imo is about the biggest waste of
(increasingly limited) NG reserves as can be imagined. It's far more
valuable in the big picture as a chemical feedstock, space heating and
similar uses where there aren't other as viable alternatives.
--
tra...@optonline.net
> trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > The home size unit was anticipated to sell for $3000.
>
> You need to listen a little more critically - a home sized unit _needs_ to sell
> for $3K to be economical.
No, YOU need to listen. The founder clearly stated that the home size
unit would cost around $3000. That was the small unit.
>The current units sell for $750K
Right and they are the LARGE test units which put out a lot more power
than a home size unit and are being used by the likes of UPS. Do you
think the AC unit a homeowner would use costs the same as the one for
the FedEx building?
>who want to brag
> about how green they are
I didn't here any bragging about being green. In particular, there
was no mention of how much greenhouse gasses they do or do not emit.
>and are only being installed because state and local
> tax credits cover half the cost. That's not free money - that's taxes being paid
> by Joe and Josepine Homeowner.
No shit Sherlock. No one ever said it was free money. And to be
economically viable long term, they do have to be able to stand on
their own.
>
> Right now they are being hand built, one a day. There are serious doubts that
> Bloom will ever get them into mass production at anything close to the target
> cost.
There are always going to be doubts. If that was the standard by
which we dismiss things, we's have no automobiles or airplanes. The
fact that Perkins-Elmer, a venture capital firm that knows technology
and after doing due diligence, is willing to put $100mil into it, says
they believe it will have commercial viability. That doesn't mean it
will work. But it also means this isn't some small mysterious
company making outrageous claims that no one with experience and
credibility has checked out before giving them $100mil.
Jim Yanik
first,who believes anything 60 Minutes has to say?
They have no credibility;remember the Bush memos and Dan Rather.
2nd,remember that the fuel cells need power inverters
(more conversion losses) to turn the DC into AC.
They have the potential to fail,and then you need a new high power
inverter. It won't be a simple repair of the existing inverter.
(and what happens after a lightning strike? how much of YOUR plant goes
'poof'?)
Repairs will be at YOUR expense.
and you still have a distribution network;it's either gas pipeline or
delivery trucks.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
ransley
You think you know so much, you should call Google, Ebay, Walmart,
Fedex, and tell them they are idiots.
tra...@optonline.net
> first,who believes anything 60 Minutes has to say?
> They have no credibility;remember the Bush memos and Dan Rather.
>
> 2nd,remember that the fuel cells need power inverters
> (more conversion losses) to turn the DC into AC.
Sure there are conversion losses in an inverter. But there are also
losses in getting power from a plant in Ohio to my home here in NJ.
> They have the potential to fail,and then you need a new high power
> inverter. It won't be a simple repair of the existing inverter.
> (and what happens after a lightning strike? how much of YOUR plant goes
> 'poof'?)
>
> Repairs will be at YOUR expense.
The same things could be said for the AC units, high efficiency
furnaces or LCD TV's that are widespread today. Does that mean they
are all not viable too?
LSMFT
LSMFT
It's a good thing they kept it secret until they had actual deployments
of running systems. Otherwise they would have been put down by skeptics
and naysayers and no investments would have been made and nothing
developed. That is why there is very little innovation any more;
skeptics galore.
Joe
>snip<
> The company has about $100mil backing from Perkins-Elmer, the well
> known venture capital firm
>snip<
People at Perkin-Elmer back East will be surprised to learn that they
are venture capitalists, since they have only been making scientific
instruments for many decades.
On the other hand, Kleiner, Caulfield, Perkins and Byers in the West
may be miffed for not getting credit for their savvy investments in
risky high tech ventures.
Just for the record...
Joe
ransley
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:37:08 -0800 (PST), ransley
>
> <Mark_Rans...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You think you know so much, you should call Google, Ebay, Walmart,
> >Fedex, and tell them they are idiots.
>
> the PR value, even when it doesn't make financial sense in
> conventional terms
>
> BTW solar may actually be making sense now days but only because of
> the taxpayer subsidizing the installation. I am currently looking at a
> grid tie PV array for about $1.25 a watt installed. That gets my
> payback in the 4-5 year time frame, something that is attractive.
> Of course the plan is really unsustainable in any large scale or even
> particularly fair, though because the burden gets thrown back on the
> taxpayer, even if they chose not to participate.
> I traded in a clunker too, thanks suckers!
4-5 year is great, what system, what tax credits. Germany has a major
solar program most everyone particpates in, but not here in the US
Jim Yanik
Is anything I said incorrect?
LARGE companies can afford them,and have gas supplies at hand.
Knowing Google,I would not be surprised to find they are paying more to run
them than for utility power.
Jim Yanik
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Did anyone else here see the 60 Minutes segment last night on Bloom
>> Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
>> have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
>> effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
>> said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
>> methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
>> is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
>> distribution grid.
That 6" cube doesn't include the power converters to change DC to AC,nor
any regulators and safety devices that may be needed.
and what happens if the fuel cell has a problem? Or your inverter dies?
YOU will be the one paying for repairs.
>>
>> The company has about $100mil backing from Perkins-Elmer, the well
>> known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
>> full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
>> information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
>> compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
>> kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
>> at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
>> of these within 5 to 10 years.
>>
>> They have a website at Bloomenergy.com, but I don't think there is
>> much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
>> probably find it with google.
>>
>> On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
>> run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
>> sell for $3000.
>
> It's a good thing they kept it secret until they had actual deployments
> of running systems. Otherwise they would have been put down by skeptics
> and naysayers and no investments would have been made and nothing
> developed. That is why there is very little innovation any more;
> skeptics galore.
>
There are skeptics because there are plenty of scammers out there.
Also those who don't disclose the ENTIRE system,what other gear is
necessary,what other expenses an operator can expect to have.
the FULL costs,the bottom line.
George
Hardly, if they actually had practical systems that could be purchased
turnkey for $3,000 what difference would skeptics make? Everything I
read about this so far is nothing but marketing speak.
willshak
> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>
>> You need to listen a little more critically - a home sized unit _needs_ to sell
>> for $3K to be economical. The current units sell for $750K who want to brag
>> about how green they are and are only being installed because state and local
>> tax credits cover half the cost. That's not free money - that's taxes being paid
>> by Joe and Josepine Homeowner.
>>
I'm not Joe or Josephine homeowner, but I do pay taxes that go for
things that do not benefit me..
I pay school taxes and do not have any kids in school.
I pay a surcharge on my auto registration for the MTA (NY Metropolitan
Transit Authority), although I do not use the MTA.
Part of my taxes go for welfare, although I have never been on welfare.
There are many other things that I pay taxes for that do not benefit me.
>> Right now they are being hand built, one a day. There are serious doubts that
>> Bloom will ever get them into mass production at anything close to the target
>> cost.
>>
Do not underestimate US technology and manufacturing.
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
Frank
Maybe, but I've heard the only reliable fuel cells run on hydrogen and
major company working on figured at least 10 years before they had a
commercial product that was cheap and reliable. The cells would be
small and portable and could power your house or car. There has been
considerable R&D on these and I'd have a wait and see on these guys.
LSMFT
They are a DIFFERENT kind of fuel cell, not the kind you know. I guess
everybody missed that.
LSMFT
They either work for the oil companies or are damn stupid.
sa...@dog.com
Several public schools in my state CURRENTLY have operating hydrogen
fuel cells making a large portion of their power.
dpb
...
> They are a DIFFERENT kind of fuel cell, not the kind you know. I guess
> everybody missed that.
Which, of course, is part of the problem -- they've let precious little
actual information other than hype and generalities out.
Here's the most detail I've ever seen and it's of very little actual use
in understanding what's going on for either a material or energy balance.
One thing I've found most interesting is that having spent a
considerable fraction of career in R&D targetted to the generation
utilities via EPRI this outfit while based quite close to EPRI
headquarters has been resolutely adamant about approaching them for
either funding or for demonstration/pilot studies. Perhaps w/ the
principal's primary previous sugar daddy having been NASA he's simply
unfamiliar w/ the commercial power folks but that would seem hard to do
in Sunnyvale while EPRI's in Palo Alto unless is purposeful...
--
dpb
> LSMFT wrote:
> ...
>
>> They are a DIFFERENT kind of fuel cell, not the kind you know. I guess
>> everybody missed that.
>
> Which, of course, is part of the problem -- they've let precious little
> actual information other than hype and generalities out.
>
> Here's the most detail I've ever seen and it's of very little actual use
> in understanding what's going on for either a material or energy balance.
>
Sorry, forgot the link...this predates the 60 Minutes piece; may be from
whence they got the idea for the segment, who knows...
<http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_746740_page_2.htm>
--
ransley
> LSMFT <bole...@aol.com> wrote innews:djzgn.18395$OJ6....@newsfe22.iad:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ebays Ceo said they have saved 100,000 in 9 months with 5 units, not
suprising considering on NGs lower cost
dpb
...
> Ebays Ceo said they have saved 100,000 in 9 months with 5 units, not
> suprising considering on NGs lower cost
Again I'd ask -- does that cover cost of the units or simply the
differential fuel cost? I gather the units were supplied by Bloom, not
purchased but don't think it was said specifically.
It's only what an actual commercial unit's amortized cost would be that
would be significant in the long run; very few development demo projects
are cost-effective overall because so much is written off as R&D expense
by the developer of the technology. Is there any information that isn't
so here, too????
--
The Daring Dufas
> Did anyone else here see the 60 Minutes segment last night on Bloom
> Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
> have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
> effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
> said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
> methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
> is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
> distribution grid.
>
> The company has about $100mil backing from Perkins-Elmer, the well
> known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
> full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
> information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
> compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
> kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
> at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
> of these within 5 to 10 years.
>
> They have a website at Bloomenergy.com, but I don't think there is
> much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
> probably find it with google.
>
> On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
> run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
> sell for $3000.
Here's a link to some folks who have been working on fuel cells for
some time. The second link is to the folks who supplied fuel cells
to NASA for spacecraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fuel_cell_manufacturers
TDD
ransley
Looking at what I saw its made of isnt expensive, how long the unit
lasts is unknown. I will be sold for more than its worth im sure
sa...@dog.com
GM may have spent 1 million dollars on development, and prototypes of
the Chevette, which when mass produced, sold for $2500 a copy. That
$2000 even included a share of the massive advertising campaign that
was used to promote them.
The present Bloom units are handbuilt prototypes.
dpb
> Jim Elbrecht wrote:>> -snip-
>>>> Looking at what I saw its made of isnt expensive, how long the unit
>>>> lasts is unknown. I will be sold for more than its worth im sure
>> If I remember all these numbers more or less correctly, and have done
>> my math right-
>> ebay?
>> 5 units at $750K = $3750K
>> Saved $100K /month.
>> Payback 3 years.
>>
>> Might have been 'saved $100K in 3 months' - even at that a 9 year
>> payback is pretty good. [better than what I've seen for wind & solar]
>>
>> Jim
>
> i think it was 100k in 9 months
That was the number ransley posted, anyway...perhaps
commercially-produced units can have a payback, hard to guess from
essentially no hard facts. And, of course, there's still the question
of just what is the material balance of the process. If it's using NG,
the C has to go somewhere. Is there air involved? If so, that's NOx
also one would presume. And, again, imo, using NG for stationary power
generation in large quantities is simply an asinine waste of it in
comparison to its value as chemical feedstock, etc., etc., going into
the future.
--
bud--
Where do they get the hydrogen?
--
bud--
AZ Nomad
It's exacted out of hundred dollar bills.
Jim Yanik
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> LSMFT<bol...@aol.com> wrote in news:Jrzgn.4001$XI1....@newsfe04.iad:
>>
>>> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>>>> Did anyone else here see the 60 Minutes segment last night on Bloom
>>>> Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
>>>> have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
>>>> effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
>>>> said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
>>>> methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
>>>> is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
>>>> distribution grid.
>>
>> That 6" cube doesn't include the power converters to change DC to AC,nor
>> any regulators and safety devices that may be needed.
>> and what happens if the fuel cell has a problem? Or your inverter dies?
>> YOU will be the one paying for repairs.
>>>>
>>>> The company has about $100mil backing from Perkins-Elmer, the well
>>>> known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
>>>> full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
>>>> information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
>>>> compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
>>>> kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
>>>> at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
>>>> of these within 5 to 10 years.
Oh,if a fuel cell uses hydrocarbon fuels(like propane or CNG),it's going to
emit carbon,probably in the form of CO2 or CO.
>>>>
>>>> They have a website at Bloomenergy.com, but I don't think there is
>>>> much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
>>>> probably find it with google.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
>>>> run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
>>>> sell for $3000.
>>>
>>> It's a good thing they kept it secret until they had actual deployments
>>> of running systems. Otherwise they would have been put down by skeptics
>>> and naysayers and no investments would have been made and nothing
>>> developed. That is why there is very little innovation any more;
>>> skeptics galore.
>>>
>>
>> There are skeptics because there are plenty of scammers out there.
>>
>> Also those who don't disclose the ENTIRE system,what other gear is
>> necessary,what other expenses an operator can expect to have.
>> the FULL costs,the bottom line.
>>
>
> They either work for the oil companies or are damn stupid.
the stupid ones are those who blindly believe in anything that's on TV.
(especially the deceptive 60 Minutes)
Those who refuse to consider the FULL situation.
Jim Yanik
> Frank wrote:
>> Maybe, but I've heard the only reliable fuel cells run on hydrogen and
>> major company working on figured at least 10 years before they had a
>> commercial product that was cheap and reliable. The cells would be small
>> and portable and could power your house or car. There has been
>> considerable R&D on these and I'd have a wait and see on these guys.
>
> They are a DIFFERENT kind of fuel cell, not the kind you know. I guess
> everybody missed that.
>
what happens to the CARBON in the hydrocarbon fuels? where does it end up?
do you even know?
Jim Elbrecht
>Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:14:39 -0600, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ransley wrote:
>> -snip-
>>>> Looking at what I saw its made of isnt expensive, how long the unit
>>>> lasts is unknown. I will be sold for more than its worth im sure
>>>
>>> The previously quoted $750K isn't what I'd call "inexpensive"...
>>
>> If I remember all these numbers more or less correctly, and have done
>> my math right-
>> ebay?
>> 5 units at $750K = $3750K
>> Saved $100K /month.
>> Payback 3 years.
>>
>> Might have been 'saved $100K in 3 months' - even at that a 9 year
>> payback is pretty good. [better than what I've seen for wind & solar]
>>
>> Jim
>
>i think it was 100k in 9 months
>
Yup-- made me find the transcript.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135_page3.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
It was Ebay-
they are about $700-800K
Saved 100K in 9 months.
But I don't see where it says how many boxes they used. Sheesh- lousy
reporting, or purposeful obfuscation? They show 5 on a lawn-- but
who knows if that's Ebay's or Google's lawn.
this time I heard the Ebay guy say;
"When you average it over seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the Bloom
box puts out five times as much power that we can actually use."
So did it make $500-600K worth of power in that 9 months? Or is
everyone just pulling numbers out of their wazoo?
Jim
[Here's the video link if anyone hasn't seen it yet-
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml?tag=currentVideoInfo;segmentUtilities
dpb
The previously quoted $750K isn't what I'd call "inexpensive"...
--
dpb
So, when they get production units, _THEN_ will be the time to tell what
actual operating costs are. Precisely my point that there's no useful
data in what has been given to date.
--
Jim Elbrecht
>ransley wrote:
-snip-
>> Looking at what I saw its made of isnt expensive, how long the unit
>> lasts is unknown. I will be sold for more than its worth im sure
>
>The previously quoted $750K isn't what I'd call "inexpensive"...
If I remember all these numbers more or less correctly, and have done
chaniarts
i think it was 100k in 9 months
Robert Neville
>"When you average it over seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the Bloom
>box puts out five times as much power that we can actually use."
Wasn't that compared to the PV array on the roof? Considering cloudy days and
the number of hours of direct sun on non-cloudy days, that's not a surprising
number.
tra...@optonline.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
The $750K unit was the larger, refrigerator size commercial units
being used by FedEx, Ebay, etc. And they are hand-built prototype
units for testing, not mass produced units. Let's say the $750K unit
is 10X the size of a home unit. So, the price of a similar
prototype home unit might be $75K today. When you get to volume
production, dropping that $75K to the forecasted $3K isn't really that
unreasonable. For example, look at plasma TVs. The first actual
production units sold in stores went for $45K. Today you can get a
bigger, better one for less than $2K.
AZ Nomad
>On Feb 22, 6:31 am, sa...@dog.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:17:42 -0800 (PST), trad...@optonline.net wrote:
>> >Did anyone else here see the 60 Minutes segment last night on Bloom
>> >Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
>> >have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
>> >effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
>> >said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
>> >methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
>> >is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
>> >distribution grid.
>>
>> >known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
>> >full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
>> >information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
>> >compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
>> >kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
>> >at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
>> >of these within 5 to 10 years.
>>
>> >much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
>> >probably find it with google.
>>
>> >On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
>> >run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
>> >sell for $3000.
>>
>> a nut. He may be a bit overly excited about the prospects, but that's
>> part of convincing others to invest.
>I didn't listen super carefully, I was fixing a doorknob. Plus I got
>a bit too excited 20 years ago with the "cold fusion" thing.
>There are more than a few companies (Seimens, GE, and smaller ones
>too) working on fuel cells.
>My limited experience with fuel cells (the ME dept down the hall was
>testing a number of them) is that they are (were 5 years ago) about
>10x more expensive per kwatt than a "not particularly" cheap micro
>turbine combustor / genset.
>I'd agree with sa's assessment.
>Did anyone catch a conversion efficiency number? ie Percent
>electrical energy compared to nat gas input energy?
I was amused at the comparison to NASA. There are some major differences:
1) bloom uses cheap materials 2) bloom doesn't use aerospace quality fuel.
How long before the unit cruds up to the point where it will no longer operate?
Until somebody provides this data, bloom can be safely ignored.
Jim Yanik
news:2s08o5p2h18i7ldpn...@4ax.com:
if it's outputting so much power(more than what your home uses),it can go
back into the grid and you would receive income for the surplus power.
Of course,you will be consuming propane/CNG 24/7 to produce that power
24/7.
Oh,and you'll need to match phase and freq with the power company.
and you still need to dispose of the carbon it produces.
(using hydroCARBON fuels)
TANSTAAFL.
Jim Elbrecht
wrote:
Could well be. It does make the sentence more grammatically
correct.
Still boggles my mind that since the first thing any reasonable person
does is figure out what the payback would be- it seems like 60 minutes
could have hinted at it.
Jim
ransley
>
> - Show quoted text -
Life expectancy cant fully be known yet, just tested and guessed. So
they have to be cheap, which they wont be. It cant be ignored as thats
the way alot of new tech things are.
m...@privacy.net
> using NG for stationary power
Its used all the time for "peaker power plants" here in
Midwest.
Have two friends who work at one. Several jet
turbines powered by NG
AZ Nomad
do you have a point to make, other than showing a stupid animation of
somebody doing a google search for "fuel cells" "connecticut"?
dpb
Yes but that doesn't mean it's wise usage of NG. Expedient in short
term, yes; given difficulties raised in the alternatives has often been
essentially only alternative left... :(
--
dpb
...
> The $750K unit was the larger, refrigerator size commercial units
> being used by FedEx, Ebay, etc. And they are hand-built prototype
> units for testing, not mass produced units. Let's say the $750K unit
> is 10X the size of a home unit. So, the price of a similar
> prototype home unit might be $75K today. When you get to volume
> production, dropping that $75K to the forecasted $3K isn't really that
> unreasonable. For example, look at plasma TVs. The first actual
> production units sold in stores went for $45K. Today you can get a
> bigger, better one for less than $2K.
Maybe, one can only hope and wait and see...
If it's really real one (at least I w/ 30+ yrs in commercial power R&D
do) wonders why they've not been interested in working w/ those who have
inside track w/ the generation folks...
I can't think of any other alternative technology that has become
commercially viable (even counting the subsidies in place for "green")
that hasn't been that route.
Maybe the guy has something but it's hard (spelled "impossible") to tell
at the moment just what that is and how real it might be.
--
AZ Nomad
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:36:09 -0600, AZ Nomad
><azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
>Well, if you were just a teeny tiny bit smarter than dirt, you could
>have followed that serch result and found a plethora of information
>about hydrogen fuel cells currently in use. You would even know where
>they get the hydrogen.
>But, you'd have to be at least a teeny tiny bit smarter than dirt...
All irrelevent, asshole.
The problem is that hydrogen isn't a fuel source. It is an energy
transfer medium and a really shitty one at that.
dpb
> very little gas efficiently to produce a lot of power.
>
> Supposedly there are vast untapped reserves of NG under the U.S.
"Maybe" and "supposedly" are key words here...
_IF_ (that's the proverbial "big if") this thing were to turn out to be
very efficient that's a possibility, granted. It certainly hasn't been
demonstrated to be so yet. Cold fusion was apparently great until it
was attempted to be replicated elsewhere and shown to be an experimental
error at best or hoax at worst. Jury is still out on this...
I continue to think NG is definitely not a judicious choice for
extensive stationary generation in present form of either gas turbines
or in gas-fired boilers compared to the alternatives.
--
Bob F
> Robert Neville wrote the following:
>> tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You need to listen a little more critically - a home sized unit
>>> _needs_ to sell for $3K to be economical. The current units sell
>>> for $750K who want to brag about how green they are and are only
>>> being installed because state and local tax credits cover half the
>>> cost. That's not free money - that's taxes being paid by Joe and
>>> Josepine Homeowner.
>
> I'm not Joe or Josephine homeowner, but I do pay taxes that go for
> things that do not benefit me.
> I pay school taxes and do not have any kids in school.
But you probably went to public schools. Or, your neighbors kids do. And they
become productive members of society, which benefits you. Uneducated people are
far more likely to become a burden on society.
> I pay a surcharge on my auto registration for the MTA (NY Metropolitan
> Transit Authority), although I do not use the MTA.
If you drive, traffic is a lot less because of the MTA.
> Part of my taxes go for welfare, although I have never been on
> welfare. There are many other things that I pay taxes for that do not
> benefit me.
Or they benefit you indirectly. Just making society as a whole work better
benefits everyone. Not every tax has to benefit everyone to be worth its cost.
I note you were not complaining, so I suspect you personaly recognize this.
Bob F
Does the $100K saved include the cost of gas?
Bob F
> dpb wrote:
>> LSMFT wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> They are a DIFFERENT kind of fuel cell, not the kind you know. I
>>> guess everybody missed that.
>>
>> Which, of course, is part of the problem -- they've let precious
>> little actual information other than hype and generalities out.
>>
>> Here's the most detail I've ever seen and it's of very little actual
>> use in understanding what's going on for either a material or energy
>> balance.
> ...
> Sorry, forgot the link...this predates the 60 Minutes piece; may be
> from whence they got the idea for the segment, who knows...
>
> <http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_746740_page_2.htm>
That says that it doesn't release carbon, which is obviously erronious if it is
using carbon based fuels.
If these things are 50% efficient, the excess heat could be used to heat houses
at the same time they power them.
dpb
> dpb wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>> LSMFT wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> They are a DIFFERENT kind of fuel cell, not the kind you know. I
>>>> guess everybody missed that.
>>> Which, of course, is part of the problem -- they've let precious
>>> little actual information other than hype and generalities out.
>>>
>>> Here's the most detail I've ever seen and it's of very little actual
>>> use in understanding what's going on for either a material or energy
>>> balance.
>> ...
>> Sorry, forgot the link...this predates the 60 Minutes piece; may be
>> from whence they got the idea for the segment, who knows...
>>
>> <http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_746740_page_2.htm>
>
> That says that it doesn't release carbon, which is obviously erronious if it is
> using carbon based fuels.
Which is only one of the many mysteries yet to be revealed by the Wizard
behind the curtain in the Land of Bloom...
There's a minor inconvenience of 2nd Law and conservation of mass that
_will_ have to be dealt with eventually. Maybe they've got it down and
it is something radically new and different; there surely isn't enough
information yet publicly available to make one confident of such. And
surely the 60 Minutes segment doesn't do anything to help in that regard.
--
dpb
> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:30:22 -0600, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
>
>> sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:42:51 -0600, dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>>> dpb <no...@non.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> using NG for stationary power
>>>>> Its used all the time for "peaker power plants" here in
>>>>> Midwest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have two friends who work at one. Several jet
>>>>> turbines powered by NG
>>>> Yes but that doesn't mean it's wise usage of NG. Expedient in short
>>>> term, yes; given difficulties raised in the alternatives has often been
>>>> essentially only alternative left... :(
>>> It could just as easily be an awesome use of NG. maybe the thing uses
>>> very little gas efficiently to produce a lot of power.
>>>
>>> Supposedly there are vast untapped reserves of NG under the U.S.
>> "Maybe" and "supposedly" are key words here...
>>
>> _IF_ (that's the proverbial "big if") this thing were to turn out to be
>> very efficient that's a possibility, granted. It certainly hasn't been
>> demonstrated to be so yet. Cold fusion was apparently great until it
>> was attempted to be replicated elsewhere and shown to be an experimental
>> error at best or hoax at worst. Jury is still out on this...
>>
>
> applications. Bloom has a new version of a fuel cell, and is claiming
> it has some new advantages, but fuel cells in general are already
> proven technology, and have been around for a long time. Fuel cells
> work. That's already been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> Bloom just has to prove his can be made smaller and cheaper for the
> same output, to compete with many other fuel cells ALREADY AVAILABLE
> ON THE MARKET.
I'd say Bloom has far more than "just" that to demonstrate...and there's
a lot of things to make "just that" happen.
Power to 'em if they can; I'm not holding breath just yet.
--
krw
Of course, you forget the cost of money.
>i think it was 100k in 9 months
Making the payback 28 years, ignoring interest and maintenance. Not
so good, even if it's not a lie.
sa...@dog.com
Your objections have been pretty much along the lines that fuel cells
couldn't work. Reality seems to disagree with you.
jb...@triton.net
judgement yet. CBS' report has no useful information. Another news website
claimed the box "mixes oxygen with...renewable fuel like solar..." for a
chemical reaction..!! Yet another points out the fuel/oxygen mix has to
be heated to a very high temperature. So where's the energy for *that* come
from? Google "saves" $100,000 because of the state government heavily
subsidized the investment (with money the state does not have). And then
there's the magic "ink".
Nothing to talk about yet.
Nonny
"dpb" <no...@non.net> wrote in message
news:hm1nku$15b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>
I'm as skeptical as the next guy, and also have the background to
do my own time/value/cost analysis of a device. Even with good
math helping someone, the more you dig into any complex system,
the less reliable is the result. Even when you have a black box
with a NG/Propane pipe running in, an inverter on the side and an
AC line run to the home's meter, the number of variables and
assumptions in particular are astounding. For instance, what do
you assume the payment for power fed back to the grid will be over
the life of the unit? What's the life of the unit? What will it
cost to repair the unit when it (expectedly) breaks down? What
will the replacement unit cost? What will the grid SELL power for
over the cost of the unit? What will the cost of NG or Propane be
over the life of the unit? What will be the ratio or loan to
equity when acquiring the unit? What will be the interest cost of
borrowing and the amortization period? What will be the LOST
interest that could have been generated by the equity and also the
amortized portion of the loan? What will labor cost to repair the
unit over its life?
These are only a smattering of the assumptions that must be made
to analyze the cost effectiveness of the unit. OTOH, we live with
assumptions every day and ranges of probability can be assigned to
each one. In a nutshell, it's usually a crap shoot and if you are
selling them or have bought one, you'll pick assumptions favorable
to you. OTOH, if you're a competitor, you'll pick variables and
assumptions that tell your tale better. Now, it's a biased crap
shoot.
However, there can be other factors involved that are not directly
related to cost/reward, such as distribution of our power
generating ability, ability to meet peak demands, use of existing
infrastructure and social good in reduced emissions. There are
also downsides, including the increased cost to regulate the new
devices, how can taxes foisted on utilities be supplemented or
reallocated with the new devices online and even minor things like
a device being improperly installed and backfeeding a line thought
to be dead.
It's a great thought to have distributed power generation like
this and I'm sure that if the concept and pronouncements prove
correct, that the loose ends will get worked out.
--
Nonny
Luxury cars now offer a Republican seating option. These are
seats which blow heated air onto your backside in the winter
and cooled air in the summer. If they were democrat car seats,
they would just blow smoke up your rump year-round.
m...@privacy.net
DGDevin
"Jim Yanik" <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote in message
news:Xns9D27753FC2085...@216.168.3.44...
>
> first,who believes anything 60 Minutes has to say?
> They have no credibility;remember the Bush memos and Dan Rather.
60 Minutes has given itself some black eyes over the years, their spear-job
on Audi being another example (they rigged a car to malfunction when they
couldn't get it to malfunction on its own). I sometimes see stories on 60M
that disappoint me, like the creampuff interview with the head of Blackwater
(the guy never broke a sweat) or Lesley Stahl asking Anton Scalia such
poorly-researched questions that he visibly lost interest in the interview
from then on.
However it's a bit silly to claim they have *no* credibility, they've done
their share of good journalism as well. It isn't a perfect science,
everybody gets it wrong now and then, and at least Rather, his producer and
a couple of others lost their jobs over their antics.
The trick is to take in info from a wide variety of sources and be critical
enough to sift the wheat from the chaff. Nobody should take what 60M says
on faith, but then nobody should do that with Fox or CNN or the Chicago Trib
or the LA Times either--they've all made their share of journalistic
blunders over the years..
tra...@optonline.net
>
> >> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >>> dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> using NG for stationary power
>
> >>> Its used all the time for "peaker power plants" here in
> >>> Midwest.
>
> >>> Have two friends who work at one. Several jet
> >>> turbines powered by NG
> >> Yes but that doesn't mean it's wise usage of NG. Expedient in short
> >> term, yes; given difficulties raised in the alternatives has often been
> >> essentially only alternative left... :(
>
> > It could just as easily be an awesome use of NG. maybe the thing uses
> > very little gas efficiently to produce a lot of power.
>
> > Supposedly there are vast untapped reserves of NG under the U.S.
>
> "Maybe" and "supposedly" are key words here...
>
> _IF_ (that's the proverbial "big if") this thing were to turn out to be
> very efficient that's a possibility, granted. It certainly hasn't been
> demonstrated to be so yet. Cold fusion was apparently great until it
> was attempted to be replicated elsewhere and shown to be an experimental
> error at best or hoax at worst. Jury is still out on this...
Speaking of cold fusion, there was another 60 Minutes story on that
about a year ago. Turns out there are several respected labs around
the world that are still working on it. After carefully accounting
for energy in vs out, they are still seeing more energy come out than
can be accounted for and can reproduce it reliably now. Now that
doesn't mean it's actual nuclear fusion, particularly because the
normal by-products have not been seen. But something apparently is
going on and it looks like the reason they get similar results as the
original two professors is that they are doing some things slightly
different and the process is very tempermental. It could very well
be that something new has been found, but exactly what and if it has
any commercial appeal is unknown. But research is actively
continuing to try to understand what exactly is going on.
60 Minutes asked one of the repected physical chemistry organizations
to recommend a highly qualified chemist to go take a look at what one
of these labs was doing. He spent time there and looked at how they
were measuring energy. He said initially he was highly skeptical,
but after doing due diligence and looking everything over, he agrees
that they are in fact getting more energy out than they are putting in
and he cant explain it.
tra...@optonline.net
> LSMFT <bole...@aol.com> wrote innews:Jrzgn.4001$XI1....@newsfe04.iad:
>
> > trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> >> Did anyone else here see the 60 Minutes segment last night on Bloom
> >> Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
> >> have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
> >> effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
> >> said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
> >> methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
> >> is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
> >> distribution grid.
>
> any regulators and safety devices that may be needed.
> and what happens if the fuel cell has a problem? Or your inverter dies?
> YOU will be the one paying for repairs.
Who pays for the repairs when your car has a problem? Or when your
AC or furnace goes out?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The company has about $100mil backing from Perkins-Elmer, the well
> >> known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
> >> full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
> >> information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
> >> compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
> >> kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
> >> at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
> >> of these within 5 to 10 years.
>
> >> They have a website at Bloomenergy.com, but I don't think there is
> >> much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
> >> probably find it with google.
>
> >> On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
> >> run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
> >> sell for $3000.
>
> > It's a good thing they kept it secret until they had actual deployments
> > of running systems. Otherwise they would have been put down by skeptics
> > and naysayers and no investments would have been made and nothing
> > developed. That is why there is very little innovation any more;
> > skeptics galore.
>
> There are skeptics because there are plenty of scammers out there.
Sure there are scammers, but I hardly thing Bloom falls into that
category. Don't you think Kleiner Perkins did lots of due
diligence before they gave this guy $100mil and knew that it would
ultimately take $400mil to get to production? This venture capital
firm has been around silicon valley for 4 decades and has funded some
of the most successful startups in history. Sun Microsystems, Compaq,
Google, Amazon, Genentech..... They certainly have access to the
best and brightest minds that would know fuel cell and any other
technology involved.
>
> Also those who don't disclose the ENTIRE system,what other gear is
> necessary,what other expenses an operator can expect to have.
> the FULL costs,the bottom line.
It's still a start-up company that is doing hand built prototype
testing. It's not at all unusual for a new company to not disclose
everything until they are at a point where they feel it's
appropriate.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com- Hide quoted text -
tra...@optonline.net
> LSMFT <bole...@aol.com> wrote innews:UkEgn.55287$G_2....@newsfe15.iad:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> LSMFT<bole...@aol.com> wrote innews:Jrzgn.4001$XI1....@newsfe04.iad:
>
> >>> trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> >>>> Did anyone else here see the 60 Minutes segment last night on Bloom
> >>>> Energy? They are a CA based start-up company that is supposed to
> >>>> have a revolutionary fuel cell technology that is simple and cost
> >>>> effective. They showed a cube that was maybe 6" on each side and
> >>>> said that it was sufficient to power a house. It runs off nat gas,
> >>>> methane, possibly other carbon based fuels. The goal of the company
> >>>> is to have one in each house, business, etc and eliminate the
> >>>> distribution grid.
>
> >> That 6" cube doesn't include the power converters to change DC to AC,nor
> >> any regulators and safety devices that may be needed.
> >> and what happens if the fuel cell has a problem? Or your inverter dies?
> >> YOU will be the one paying for repairs.
>
> >>>> known venture capital firm and will need around $400mil to get it into
> >>>> full development. As usual, their was a lot of missing
> >>>> information. Like at today's rates, what does the nat gas cost
> >>>> compared to an electric bill for the same amount of energy. Or what
> >>>> kind of greenhouse gases does it emit. The founder came off as a nut
> >>>> at one point when he stated his goal was to have every house using one
> >>>> of these within 5 to 10 years.
>
> emit carbon,probably in the form of CO2 or CO.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> They have a website at Bloomenergy.com, but I don't think there is
> >>>> much info there. If you want to see the actual 60 mins video you can
> >>>> probably find it with google.
>
> >>>> On the other hand they showed real refrigerator size units being test
> >>>> run by companies like FedEx. The home size unit was anticipated to
> >>>> sell for $3000.
>
> >>> It's a good thing they kept it secret until they had actual deployments
> >>> of running systems. Otherwise they would have been put down by skeptics
> >>> and naysayers and no investments would have been made and nothing
> >>> developed. That is why there is very little innovation any more;
> >>> skeptics galore.
>
> >> There are skeptics because there are plenty of scammers out there.
>
> >> necessary,what other expenses an operator can expect to have.
> >> the FULL costs,the bottom line.
>
>
> the stupid ones are those who blindly believe in anything that's on TV.
> (especially the deceptive 60 Minutes)
>
> Those who refuse to consider the FULL situation.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
Geez, I don't see anyone here blindly believing anything or failing to
consider the FULL situation. I do see you being extremely negative
and trying to dismiss a strawman that you created.
dpb
...
> Your objections have been pretty much along the lines that fuel cells
> couldn't work. Reality seems to disagree with you.
My objection is simply that there's much hype and little fact.
Fuel cells _do_ work; they aren't magic.
These are some novel concept that hasn't been documented as to how; what
is the energy and/or material balance, etc., etc., etc., ... The
previous NASA-supported work from which these apparently evolved also
work; they're known but don't have anything close to the performance
claimed on this innovation.
Simply no solid data from which to judge just what level of innovation
is really present inside those unlabeled black boxes.
When that revelation of reproducible data occurs, _then_ they'll have
something (or not)...
--
dpb
...
> It's a great thought to have distributed power generation like this and
> I'm sure that if the concept and pronouncements prove correct, that the
> loose ends will get worked out.
"...if the concept and pronouncements prove correct, ..." :)
Ayup...there seems to be an echo in here...
--
George
> in many places. Sure seems like there is plenty of reproducable data.
Of course there is and there is a very good reason why current fuel
cells are typically used on space craft etc and not much more. But this
thread is about magical fuel cells using unstated and unreviewed
technology.
The only thing we know about their "magic fuel cells" at this point is
marketing hype. There is exactly nothing to form any sort of conclusion.
As soon as they produce data that can be peer reviewed they are in the
same class as the magic weight reduction pills or super oil additive or
whatever other "magical" thing is being hyped.
>
> Do some simple intenet searches for terms suchs as "Hydrogen Fuel
> Cells" and there are MILLIONS of hits.
>
Robert Neville
>The only thing we know about their "magic fuel cells" at this point is
>marketing hype. There is exactly nothing to form any sort of conclusion.
>As soon as they produce data that can be peer reviewed they are in the
>same class as the magic weight reduction pills or super oil additive or
>whatever other "magical" thing is being hyped.
A little more data is leaking out here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14461347
Key paragraphs follow - note the last sentence:
There are about six main types of fuel cells in various stages of commercial
viability, and experts often break the field into "low temperature" fuel cells
that rely on hydrogen and "high temperature" solid oxide fuel cells that can use
other fuels like methane or natural gas.
Solid oxide fuel cells operate at red-hot temperatures � usually about 1,000
degrees Celsius.
"Because they operate at high temperatures, they can accept other fuels like
natural gas and methane, and that's an enormous advantage," said Michael Tucker
of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "The disadvantage is that they can
shatter as they are heating or cooling."
Solid oxide fuel cells are not new: since 1999, the Department of Energy,
researchers and leading companies have been collaborating on efforts to
accelerate the commercial readiness of "SOFCs."
"Solid oxide has always been the holy grail of fuel cells, and there are a lot
of companies working on it," said Mike Brown, vice president of UTC Power in
Connecticut, a division of United Technologies and a leading fuel-cell maker.
"The issue is durability and cost. Fuel cells have to be as durable as
utilities, and operate for at least 10 years."
Earlier this month, UTC Power announced that the new Whole Foods Market grocery
store currently under construction in South San Jose will use a UTC Power fuel
cell system to generate 90 percent of the store's electricity needs; since a
byproduct of fuel cells is heat, the thermal energy will be captured and used
for the store's heating, cooling and refrigeration.
Bloom's secret technology apparently lies in the proprietary green ink that act
as the anode and the black ink that acts as the cathode. Bloom executives would
not disclose the composition of the ink. Small cells are then stacked to make a
larger device. A key question for Bloom is "stack life": How long are the stacks
going to last? What warranties are they providing their customers?
"What has to be proven by any fuel cell manufacturer is that their technology
can operate reliably for years, ideally 10 years, with the 'four nines' � 99.99
percent reliability, or very little outages," said Scott Samuelsen, director of
the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of California-Irvine
and a professor of mechanical, aerospace, and environmental engineering. "At
this point, Bloom has excellent potential, but they have yet to demonstrate that
they've met the bars of reliability."
George
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:01:48 -0500, George<geo...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2010 10:40 AM, sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:18:54 -0600, dpb<no...@non.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> sa...@dog.com wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Your objections have been pretty much along the lines that fuel cells
>>>>> couldn't work. Reality seems to disagree with you.
>>>>
>>>> My objection is simply that there's much hype and little fact.
>>>>
>>>> Fuel cells _do_ work; they aren't magic.
>>>>
>>>> These are some novel concept that hasn't been documented as to how; what
>>>> is the energy and/or material balance, etc., etc., etc., ... The
>>>> previous NASA-supported work from which these apparently evolved also
>>>> work; they're known but don't have anything close to the performance
>>>> claimed on this innovation.
>>>>
>>>> Simply no solid data from which to judge just what level of innovation
>>>> is really present inside those unlabeled black boxes.
>>>>
>>>> When that revelation of reproducible data occurs, _then_ they'll have
>>>> something (or not)...
>>>
>>> Hydrogen Fuel cells are CURRENTLY installed and working successfully
>>> in many places. Sure seems like there is plenty of reproducable data.
>>
>> Of course there is and there is a very good reason why current fuel
>> cells are typically used on space craft etc and not much more.
>
>
> other places. Fuel Cells have been around for well over 100 years.
Sure, been around for a long time and whats your point? But sorry, they
are not in common usage for very practical reasons. The CT school thing
is nothing practical and is just throw a bunch of tax dollars at
something to feel good.
*AND* you missed the point of my reply entirely. We know nothing about
the "magical fuel cells" which are the topic of this thread.
>
> Even Sprint (among others) is aggressively working to develop hydrogen
> fuel cells for CELL PHONES.
Do they have them yet?
chaniarts
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The only thing we know about their "magic fuel cells" at this point
>> is marketing hype. There is exactly nothing to form any sort of
>> conclusion. As soon as they produce data that can be peer reviewed
>> they are in the same class as the magic weight reduction pills or
>> super oil additive or whatever other "magical" thing is being hyped.
>
> A little more data is leaking out here:
> http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14461347
>
> Key paragraphs follow - note the last sentence:
>
> There are about six main types of fuel cells in various stages of
> commercial viability, and experts often break the field into "low
> temperature" fuel cells that rely on hydrogen and "high temperature"
> solid oxide fuel cells that can use other fuels like methane or
> natural gas.
>
> said Scott Samuelsen, director of the National Fuel Cell Research
> Center at the University of California-Irvine and a professor of
> mechanical, aerospace, and environmental engineering. "At this point,
> Bloom has excellent potential, but they have yet to demonstrate that
> they've met the bars of reliability."
4 9's is about 52.5 minutes outage/year.
Jim Yanik
news:9tnao5h7n66p678l3...@4ax.com:
if they burn hydrocarbon fuels,where does the carbon go?
Answer;CO2,a greenhouse gas.
from Wiki,on natural gas;
Before natural gas can be used as a fuel, it must undergo extensive
processing to remove almost all materials other than methane. The by-
products of that processing include ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes and
higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, elemental sulfur, carbon dioxide,
water vapor and sometimes helium and nitrogen.
seems like this isn't so "green".
Douglas Johnson
>sa...@dog.com wrote:
>...
>
>> Your objections have been pretty much along the lines that fuel cells
>> couldn't work. Reality seems to disagree with you.
>
>My objection is simply that there's much hype and little fact.
I don't really expect a 60 minutes story to be the equivalent of a presentation
at a technical conference. Bloom Energy is the assignee on 52 patent
applications: http://tinyurl.com/BloomPatents
There is a lot of detail in them. Some of the patents seem to be peripheral to
the main ideas, but that is what you would expect.
My take on them is probably the same as most people around here: They are
serious, they are real, and it is a long hard road from here to where they need
to be. -- Doug
Douglas Johnson
>*AND* you missed the point of my reply entirely. We know nothing about
>the "magical fuel cells" which are the topic of this thread.
Did you really expect 60 minutes to bore their audience with technical details?
http://tinyurl.com/BloomPatents shows Bloom Energy's current patent
applications. That should give you a starting point for technical details. I'm
sure there is a lot they are holding as trade secrets right now. I would.
-- Doug
Douglas Johnson
>4 9's is about 52.5 minutes outage/year.
True. But that's far more reliable than the grid around here.
-- Doug
Douglas Johnson
>if they burn hydrocarbon fuels,where does the carbon go?
>
>Answer;CO2,a greenhouse gas.
>
>from Wiki,on natural gas;
>Before natural gas can be used as a fuel, it must undergo extensive
>processing to remove almost all materials other than methane. The by-
>products of that processing include ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes and
>higher molecular weight hydrocarbons, elemental sulfur, carbon dioxide,
>water vapor and sometimes helium and nitrogen.
>
>seems like this isn't so "green".
I guess it depends on what you compare it to. Beats the socks off of coal.
-- Doug
dpb
...
> Hydrogen Fuel cells are CURRENTLY installed and working successfully
> in many places. Sure seems like there is plenty of reproducable data.
...
The subject of these is nothing at all related to H fuel cells....that's
the whole point.
--
Robert Neville
>>The subject of these is nothing at all related to H fuel cells....that's
>>the whole point.
>
>Now you are just being dopey.
Did you read the San Jose Mercury article posted here?
Robert Neville
>>Did you read the San Jose Mercury article posted here?
>
>Yes.
Then you will have noted that low temp hydrogen fuel cells are not what's being
discussed in this thread.
Jim Yanik
news:kqrao5p8im01ima2m...@4ax.com:
I agree,but it loses to nuclear.
IMO,we should find a way to use nuclear power to convert our coal into auto
fuels.
AFTER we drill ANWR and the offshore fields.
Jim Yanik
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>*AND* you missed the point of my reply entirely. We know nothing about
>>the "magical fuel cells" which are the topic of this thread.
>
> Did you really expect 60 minutes to bore their audience with technical
> details?
I don't trust 60 Minutes to give an honest story.
They have lost their credibility.(Bush memos and Dan Rather...)
sa...@dog.com
wrote:
It didn't say that in the article. It also pointed out that there are
many types of fuel cells and all are related.
Were you aware that the Bloom fuel cells can run on a wider variety of
fuels, as well as the ones the low temp cells are limited to?
Do you have these mental problems every time someone comes out with a
new car model? Claim it's all hype, and BS, despite the fact that
there are millions of cars already on the road?
Douglas Johnson
>I don't trust 60 Minutes to give an honest story.
>They have lost their credibility.(Bush memos and Dan Rather...)
I don't completely trust any news organization, by itself, to give an honest
story. Not CBS, NBC, Fox, or whoever. I've been personally involved in a
number of incidents that later made the news. More often than not, I wasn't
sure they were talking about the same thing.
But on the other hand, just because someone has said something false, it does
not mean everything they say is false. If it is something important, check it
with other sources. In the case of the Bloom story, it appears to be fairly
accurate, even if told with a bit of wide-eyed awe.
-- Doug
Robert Neville
>Do you have these mental problems every time someone comes out with a
>new car model? Claim it's all hype, and BS, despite the fact that
>there are millions of cars already on the road?
No. But I do have an engineering degree and have been a practicing aerospace
engineer for over 20 years. I'm also reasonably well educated and capable of
discerning thought. There are basic thermodynamic laws involved here and my BS
detector starts flashing bright red when a company looking for investors to bail
out the venture capitalists conveniently glosses over what I know to be serious
engineering problems that companies like GE and Siemens have failed to overcome,
despite investments of billions of dollars.
The icing of the cake for me is when the lead VC for Bloom happens to be the
company that hyped "it" as being the invention of the century and wouldn't
release any details for months. You remember "it" don't you? Or maybe I should
use its official name - the Segway.
Jim Elbrecht
>sa...@dog.com wrote:
>
>>Do you have these mental problems every time someone comes out with a
>>new car model? Claim it's all hype, and BS, despite the fact that
>>there are millions of cars already on the road?
>
>No. But I do have an engineering degree and have been a practicing aerospace
>engineer for over 20 years. I'm also reasonably well educated and capable of
>discerning thought. There are basic thermodynamic laws involved here and my BS
>detector starts flashing bright red when a company looking for investors to bail
>out the venture capitalists conveniently glosses over what I know to be serious
>engineering problems that companies like GE and Siemens have failed to overcome,
>despite investments of billions of dollars.
Doesn't sound like the venture capitalists are looking for relief;
"According to Green Chip Stocks, John Doerr � the billionaire venture
capitalist that is currently backing Bloom Energy�s invention � says
there aren�t any plans in the immediate future for an IPO. They
report:
Doerr said it�ll be nine years before they think about an IPO, even
though it has �substantial revenues and orders.� According to Doerr,
there is simply more �capital required to grow a great green company.�
"
>The icing of the cake for me is when the lead VC for Bloom happens to be the
>company that hyped "it" as being the invention of the century and wouldn't
>release any details for months. You remember "it" don't you? Or maybe I should
>use its official name - the Segway.
Yeah-- the loser. He even thought Netscape, Google and Amazon could
amount to something. He's even snowed Forbes Magazine into putting
him on their Midas List. They probably just watch too much network
TV.
Healthy skepticism is good. But you're way over the top on
negativity here. Is it just because of 60 Minutes?
Jim