http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6221135.shtml
Any of you smart people know anything about this? Supposed to be a clean, alternative energy source that might change da world? Anyone know if this is feasible? I guess eBay and some other companies are trying it out now.
i happened to see the guy on 60 Minutes this week (i never watch that show) and as he was talking i was thinking it was vaporware, until they said Google and some other places for like a year already
i think it comes down to the manufacturing process at this point
Sounds interesting. If it's eco-friendly and produces tons of power, then I'm all for it. Especially if I can buy one for $3000 and not have to pay power bills anymore.
Originally Posted by badger
you still need to pay for natural gas or something to power it. it's just more efficient
the guy was saying that the power companies should be buying them eventually as well
It should still make things a lot cheaper. I wonder if you could do something similar for electric cars? And the idea of these things powering remote villages in poorer countries is pretty cool. This plus water purification = lots of lives saved.
Very cool. I guess we will soon see if it takes off. Those were some impressive companies already using it though.
They're website is up and running today.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/
I don't know what came of the idea, but I remember last year a company had supposedly designed tiny nuclear power plants that would be placed within the ground and could power entire neighborhoods with a very small cube. I forget what they had planned for the waste, but I recall it being pretty genius.
Anyway, these cubes would be about the size of a trash dumpster.
Anyway, I love these ideas. Energy independence should be our nation's top priority.
if alternative energy and green stuff wasn't all tied up with global warming and Al Gore/liberal/Democrat stuff i think there would be more of a common ground
Yep, it absolutely would be. Also, if it were sold more as a national security and sovereignty issue (which it is) then I think it'd be much more acceptable.
Nah, you'd only be able to drive it around in your back yard...
One of the primary examples of how politics has failed the American people is on display in regards to energy independence.
Nuh-uh! You could fart in the seat and it would go outside your neighborhood.
It all has to make sense economically. Therein lies the problem.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
I have my doubts about this. It's not like there aren't 1000 companies working on developing economic fuel cells already.
I wanted to hear how this is different than other fuel cells but the 60 Minutes piece addressed almost nothing except that supposedly they don't have to use platinum. Instead we got a stupid "wow!" response from Leslie Stahl (who is a moron) when they talked about feeding in sand to make some of the components. WTF? How is that remotely interesting or relevant? Use sand as a power source and you'll get a wow from me.
Is it clean? Well, you still have to feed in hydrocarbons or pure hydrogen so it's still spitting out CO2 - either directly via hydrocarbons or indirectly via the production of pure hydrogen. The efficiency makes it "greener" but I wouldn't call it green at all.
Can it really be mass produced at a reasonable price? This has been a problem with fuel cells.
Is it reliable? This has also been a problem with fuel cells.
If it is to be used in homes, how will we get and store the fuel? If you don't already have gas in your house and don't have a propane tank or something you might consider this a hassle.
I'd love to see us move to reliable high efficient fuel cells. I'm just not sure what Bloom has done that others haven't already other than putting the hype machine in full force.
Edit: So I guess the ceramic squares is what replaces the platinum so I guess it is news afterall.
Last edited by jkjsooner; 2/24/2010 at 05:44 PM.
These and many other questions were answered in the article.
The problem with that is that people don't seem to want to consider the external costs of our energy sources when deciding whether something makes economic sense. There are real, measurable costs associated with all forms of energy; these costs vary by orders of magnitude amongst the different sources. Until people understand this and we have some mechanism in place by which the actual consumers of energy pay the full cost rather than allowing society as a whole to pay for the externalities, we'll never make the right decisions regarding energy.
We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics. FDR.
i cant wait to see how this pans out. I would have a propane tank installed in a heartbeat for this. But if i have to spend $200 bucks a month on propane to make $200 dollars worth of electricity it would suck. what ratio would it be i wonder,
Posse Member hoping for middle manager, Yep , I dont know ****
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&CDean
I'm a tolerant mother****er.
I'll probably pass. I haven't really been into puzzlers since Tetris.
Posting Permissions
