UConn James Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Link Missed this on Sunday night. The "60 Minutes" segment is in the link. The company will be debuting their product at a presser on Wednesday at the Google campus. Allow me to be the first here to say, "Wow." If this is do-able large-scale, and the inventor says it is, it's a game-changer. A small box in your backyard or basement could produce all the electricity for your home's needs. It will run on a variety of fuels, including natural gas, biofuels, conventional fossil fuels, etc. Several high-profile companies have already been using Bloom Boxes and report excellent performance with a very small footprint. The technology reportedly works using some form of "inks" that interact with methane and oxygen to generate power. What this "ink" is anybody's guess.
Fan in Chicago Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Link Missed this on Sunday night. The "60 Minutes" segment is in the link. The company will be debuting their product at a presser on Wednesday at the Google campus. Allow me to be the first here to say, "Wow." If this is do-able large-scale, and the inventor says it is, it's a game-changer. A small box in your backyard or basement could produce all the electricity for your home's needs. It will run on a variety of fuels, including natural gas, biofuels, conventional fossil fuels, etc. Several high-profile companies have already been using Bloom Boxes and report excellent performance with a very small footprint. If I understand this correctly, this box takes in a fossil source (natural gas) and converts it to electricity which makes this a generator. Instead of using diesel, it uses natural gas. How can this be a game changer ? The only thing this box does is reduce the energy loss typically taking place in the electricity grid. A game changer would be a revolutionary source of energy which this is not.
The Dean Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 If I understand this correctly, this box takes in a fossil source (natural gas) and converts it to electricity which makes this a generator. Instead of using diesel, it uses natural gas. How can this be a game changer ? The only thing this box does is reduce the energy loss typically taking place in the electricity grid.A game changer would be a revolutionary source of energy which this is not. Actually, they made it clear the box can take just about any fuel source, renewable or fossil fuel. But you are right, this is not a fuel, it is a revolutionary generator of sorts.
Fan in Chicago Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 Actually, they made it clear the box can take just about any fuel source, renewable or fossil fuel. But you are right, this is not a fuel, it is a revolutionary generator of sorts. And that is why I can't see this as a game changer. If we can develop an efficient method of producing biogas - that would be a small game changer. I think while the idea of distributed power is great, they serve a different purpose than what is a critical need - producing alternative fuels or energy sources that reduce environmental impact in totality (well to wheels analogy). In the medium term, sources such as solar, wind and biogas can be used to produce electricity. This electricity can then be used for electric cars. The elements that make this scenario happen need a lot of work - development of said sources, smart electric grid and better battery technology. Anyway, I am veering away from the subject of the OP.
Nervous Guy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 And that is why I can't see this as a game changer. apparently an expert disagrees with you....""If he can reach $3,000 for a 1 or 2 kilowatt system that provides both heat and power, that's a real game changer. But the real question is delivering," says Pernick." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bloom-box...0285&page=2
Fan in Chicago Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 apparently an expert disagrees with you....""If he can reach $3,000 for a 1 or 2 kilowatt system that provides both heat and power, that's a real game changer. But the real question is delivering," says Pernick." http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bloom-box...0285&page=2 having been in some form of energy industry myself for 19 years, I speak with some measure of authority. While I don't understand each and every aspect of energy and technology, I can certainly comment knowledgeably. Having said that, I mainly disagree with the word phrase 'game changer' with respect to this concept. It is a neat concept and certainly can have good potential applications. But it should not be marketed as a solution to either our energy or emission problems.
Nervous Guy Posted February 23, 2010 Posted February 23, 2010 having been in some form of energy industry myself for 19 years, I speak with some measure of authority. While I don't understand each and every aspect of energy and technology, I can certainly comment knowledgeably. Having said that, I mainly disagree with the word phrase 'game changer' with respect to this concept. It is a neat concept and certainly can have good potential applications. But it should not be marketed as a solution to either our energy or emission problems. just bustin your stones...did you see the 60 minutes segment? Pretty impressive IMHO. He was presenting it as a replacement of the grid and apparently can transmit "wirelessly". Also..."Capable of powering more than 100 homes while producing close to zero emissions" this is a good read. http://green.venturebeat.com/2010/02/22/bl...h-all-the-hype/
Fan in Chicago Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 just bustin your stones...did you see the 60 minutes segment? Pretty impressive IMHO. He was presenting it as a replacement of the grid and apparently can transmit "wirelessly". Also..."Capable of powering more than 100 homes while producing close to zero emissions" this is a good read. http://green.venturebeat.com/2010/02/22/bl...h-all-the-hype/ Thanx for the article and it is a decent read. But it is high on hype and low on technical content which I believe should always precede attempts to play up a new technology. In this specific case, if any generator takes in a carbon based fuel, whether fossil based or biogas, that carbon has to come out somewhere. Carbon Capture and Sequestering (CCS) technologies even on an industrial scale are very very expensive. We all would like to feed a carbon based source and then have nice and neat blocks of carbon coming out the back end. But unfortunately it is not that easy. Secondly, what the heck is 'infusing .... with solar energy' ? So you stick this in the sun and it generates electricity ? All solar panel developers might as well find a new job. Alternately, if you have to have an array of photovoltaic cells to feed this box, what is this box doing between those arrays and your home appliances anyway ? I am skeptical because from an engineering and science perspective, the claims made do not make sense.
DieHardFan Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Thanx for the article and it is a decent read. But it is high on hype and low on technical content which I believe should always precede attempts to play up a new technology. That argument may have some academia merit and I agree in principle but in the real world it died when beta was supplanted by vhs. In this specific case, if any generator takes in a carbon based fuel, whether fossil based or biogas, that carbon has to come out somewhere. Carbon Capture and Sequestering (CCS) technologies even on an industrial scale are very very expensive. We all would like to feed a carbon based source and then have nice and neat blocks of carbon coming out the back end. But unfortunately it is not that easy. In a successful test at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga over the past two years, engineers ran a Bloom box on natural gas for 6,000 hours and found it to be twice as efficient as a boiler burning natural gas, with 60 percent lower carbon emissions. 10/08 Article Personally, until utopia shows up I'll take an interim solution that is both economically and enviromentally superior to what is currently in use. Reminds me of the old joke about an engineer and physicist who were told that they could have their way with a young beauty but could only approach her from half the current distance each 10 seconds. Secondly, what the heck is 'infusing .... with solar energy' ? So you stick this in the sun and it generates electricity ? All solar panel developers might as well find a new job. Alternately, if you have to have an array of photovoltaic cells to feed this box, what is this box doing between those arrays and your home appliances anyway? How did you jump from 'infusing .... with solar energy' to insinuating that bloom is claiming the box is a solar convertor? If you want the basics on infusing in regards to fuel cells look here or take "Science for Liberal Arts Majors 101". As far as running photovoltaic generated electricity through a bloom box you are right; it makes as much sense as the economics and efficiency of using solar energy to make electricity directly but again I didn't see that proposed in the article. I am skeptical because from an engineering and science perspective, the claims made do not make sense.Please elaborate Mr Peabody.
Nervous Guy Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 Please elaborate Mr Peabody. I smell foul play, Sherman.
Fan in Chicago Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 That argument may have some academia merit and I agree in principle but in the real world it died when beta was supplanted by vhs. In a successful test at the University of Tennessee in Chattanooga over the past two years, engineers ran a Bloom box on natural gas for 6,000 hours and found it to be twice as efficient as a boiler burning natural gas, with 60 percent lower carbon emissions. 10/08 Article Personally, until utopia shows up I'll take an interim solution that is both economically and enviromentally superior to what is currently in use. Reminds me of the old joke about an engineer and physicist who were told that they could have their way with a young beauty but could only approach her from half the current distance each 10 seconds. How did you jump from 'infusing .... with solar energy' to insinuating that bloom is claiming the box is a solar convertor? If you want the basics on infusing in regards to fuel cells look here or take "Science for Liberal Arts Majors 101". As far as running photovoltaic generated electricity through a bloom box you are right; it makes as much sense as the economics and efficiency of using solar energy to make electricity directly but again I didn't see that proposed in the article. Please elaborate Mr Peabody. My responses themselves are an elaboration. I can understand that if a device is very efficient (i.e. it uses less input energy to produce the same output heat), then the carbon emissions compared to a boiler are going to be lower. But the article said 'close to zero emissions'. Even if you halve the emissions from a natural gas fired boiler, it will be nowhere close to zero. The study you quoted claims 60% lower emissions - a vastly different claim than the 'close to zero' in the article I was responding to. In any case, natural gas heaters made post 1992 are more than 80% efficient. Even those prior to 1992 were 65% efficient. How can anything get twice this efficiency ? As for the solar energy part - I am confused about what you are trying to say. The article I read claims the device can be fed natural gas, biogas or can be infused with solar energy to produce electricity. That is what I was responding to. What did I say that appears to be a 'jump' ? Also, how does the article about fuel cells relate to my argument against this device being able to somehow run on solar. To quote the material from your link, "A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy." Where does solar come in the picture ?
Fan in Chicago Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 I smell foul play, Sherman. In the articles or my explanations ? Care to elaborate ?
Nervous Guy Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 In the articles or my explanations ? Care to elaborate ? just free associating with the Mr. Peabody comment...coincidently with the possibility that the Bloom Box claims may be "over simplified" and/or exaggerated.
UConn James Posted February 24, 2010 Author Posted February 24, 2010 My responses themselves are an elaboration. I can understand that if a device is very efficient (i.e. it uses less input energy to produce the same output heat), then the carbon emissions compared to a boiler are going to be lower. But the article said 'close to zero emissions'. Even if you halve the emissions from a natural gas fired boiler, it will be nowhere close to zero. The study you quoted claims 60% lower emissions - a vastly different claim than the 'close to zero' in the article I was responding to. In any case, natural gas heaters made post 1992 are more than 80% efficient. Even those prior to 1992 were 65% efficient. How can anything get twice this efficiency ? As for the solar energy part - I am confused about what you are trying to say. The article I read claims the device can be fed natural gas, biogas or can be infused with solar energy to produce electricity. That is what I was responding to. What did I say that appears to be a 'jump' ? Also, how does the article about fuel cells relate to my argument against this device being able to somehow run on solar. To quote the material from your link, "A fuel cell is a device that converts chemical energy directly into electrical energy." Where does solar come in the picture ? I think they mean that a solar energy panel's output can be connected for the box to use it as its fuel source, vise conventional fuels. It wasn't mentioned that the unit has any photovoltaic capacity itself.
BuffaloBill Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 And that is why I can't see this as a game changer. If we can develop an efficient method of producing biogas My wife claims I can do this
Fan in Chicago Posted February 24, 2010 Posted February 24, 2010 I think they mean that a solar energy panel's output can be connected for the box to use it as its fuel source, vise conventional fuels. It wasn't mentioned that the unit has any photovoltaic capacity itself. In which case, my question is why do we need the box ? The PV will produce electricity which can be directly used in the homes. And Nervous Guy, I didn't understand the Mr. Peabody comment (he isn't associated with energy so I know squat about the reference )
Fan in Chicago Posted March 2, 2010 Posted March 2, 2010 Resurrecting this thread to share an article I just saw and a blog entry: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ference-update/ http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ Both pretty much think this Bloom box is lot of hype with little substance.
UConn James Posted March 5, 2010 Author Posted March 5, 2010 Screw photovoltaic! How about photosynthetic energy to power your home someday... using a bottle of water? This stuff may be in the hype/questionable mass market stage, but it's an awesome display of American entrepreneurship.
Recommended Posts