Posted on 02/22/2010 4:36:25 AM PST by MindBender26
(CBS) In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that's inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.
You'll generate your own electricity with the box and it'll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.
It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive - until now.
K.R. Sridhar invited "60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl for a first look at the innards of the Bloom box that he has been toiling on for nearly a decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
The #1 GREENHOUSE GAS that is killing our mother, the Earf.
However it depends on not just oxygen from the atmosphere but a “fuel”. What is that fuel...natural gas? ethanol? and where does it come from? Just how efficient is this invention at converting this fuel to electricity? To the science ignorant dolts on CBS news and coming from our public schools the article makes it seem as though this breakthrough runs on air.
Well, that is ONE of their problems. But the SOFC variant has a number of others, specifically that the solid oxide "electrolyte" requires: 1)high temperatures to function at all, 2)is very brittle, and 3)tends to crack while undergoing thermal expansion (which is necessary due to requirement 1)). I'd want to see how they solve those other problems. At this point, the supposed advantage is "they don't use platinum", so the particular drawback of the expense of using platinum is apparently addressed. I know that there have been some advances in "nanostructuring" the solid oxide to get the conductivity down (made very thin), which also helps with the thermal expansion problem.
yep, and did I read that it was "wireless".
I don't think that I'd want to get in the way of the energy transmission path. ZAP! ka-POW!
I'm an EE, and this article pegged my BS meter.
Ever wonder why the shuttle flies upside down?
I think you actually saw the story and are aware of the plan. good for you. gee most of the comments look like flat earth folks. I wonder how many thought we might have a gizmo in our comoputer that would link computers to the world?
The cost of energy is strangling our economy. Econ 101. The cost of a product would include cost or raw materials, cost of labot, and cost of energy to produce it.
Our labor costs can’t compete with the Chinese and third world, but our efficient means of production probably mean we can garner the raw materials and make the product (steel for example) competitively with the Chinese. If we had a significant advantage in energy, that would help level the playing field. The real crime the global warming alarmists are committing is making us non-competitive in the realm of energy costs. If we used the coal we have, drilled where we know we have abundant oil and natural gas supplies, and jump started our nuclear energy program ,we could be on the ay to energy independance in no time flat. Not to mention, employing millions of Americans to build the plants, drill the land, and lay the pipelines. Added benefit would be keeping our $ here rather than sending them to Hugo, the Saudis, etc.
> What is that fuel?
Yes, they really don’t make that obvious.
However, on page three of the online article, they state:
> Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.
So the $750,000 fuel cell they sold Google runs on methane, and gets twice the fuel efficiency of a ‘traditional plant’
I presume they are referring to a standard turbine natural gas plant, because ‘combined cycle’ natural gas already gets 60% thermodynamic efficiency, and doubling that is impossible.
LOL. Yeah, that one was almost - but not quite - as good as the hit piece 20-20 awhile back did on (ford? gm?) pickups, and their "exploding" gas tanks.
There is no “up” in space...
Not only does the Space Shuttle fly with the windows pointed towards the Earth (upside down)... but it flies backwards as well. The tail of the spacecraft precedes the nose. The reasons for this are simple. First off, is the sun. The sun has immense amounts of radiated power in space, where there’s no atmosphere to protect the humans. Putting the spacecraft with it’s bottom to the Sun means that the heat-resistant tiles on the bottom are the most exposed to the full power of the Sun, thus keeping the astronauts safer and cooler than they would be otherwise. Second, the cargo bay. Again for reasons related to the sun, and more importantly, for reasons related to space junk and micrometeriods, the cargo bay is shielded as much as possible, by the body of the Shuttle. Third, propulsion. When the Shuttle prepares to depart it’s position orbiting the Earth, the first thing it must do is slow down. The Shuttle is slowed by firing the two smallest of the five nozzles on the back of the craft. The deceleration provided ‘flips’ the Space Shuttle over by standing it on end, which puts the belly down. Having the belly face the atmosphere is important, because now those same tiles are required to shield the astronauts from the heat of re-entry. Remember - the astronauts have no concept of sitting ‘upside down’. There’s no gravity, and thus, no ‘up’ in the standard sense. The Space Shuttle can fly any way it wants to, and the astronauts don’t know the difference.
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae524.cfm
This is a solid oxide fuel cell, it produces electricity chemically. It is not a heat engine and does not follow the rules of a heat engine.
I have been following SOFC technology for years. I was aware that this company was claiming that is was further along than its competitors. I would have like to watch the story but forgot to set the DVR. I’ll watch it later when I get a chance.
There are competitors with different approaches to SOFC that can give this a run for the money. Bloom is definately ahead in the game if they have product running in the field though.
It only took 4 postings to get to the heart of the matter.
I’m glad to see others get it.
The left DOESN’T WANT US TO HAVE READILY AVAILABLE ENERGY.
Especially if you can power your house “off the grid” - they have no control over you that way.
The point I was making is that while we know that fuel cell technology is real it isn’t the magic cure for all energy related issues.
If this technology was as great as this inventor says it is then this would have been marketable on a consumer scale years ago.
They used either natural gas or propane to power fuel cells, which would then provide electricity. The only emissions were to be warm/hot water and CO2. News about them dropped off the radar.
My biggest question to them was how much natural gas or propane did they consume and would it be cost beneficial to break away completely from the electrical grid. Not one of them ever answered that question.
“As far as needing energy to start it - ever try starting a car without a battery?”
Actually I have, many years ago... And my airplane not so many years ago.
Yes. The fact the fuel cells use platinum makes it tough to get the costs down until someone figures out a replacement for it and that is one of this guy’s claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.