UTMC

<embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews ... r-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashpl ... ed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'>Watch CBS News Videos Online</a>

Sorry for the commercials, but this is pretty fascination. Hmmmm...motorcycle applications?

amazing!

Funny story... My roommate came home today and showed me the 60 min piece... Really cool stuff.

I love that the UTMC keeps the good stuff on the radar.

I saw this earlier today too, seems pretty cool. Interesting that they showed the companies already running them, because when the guy was holding those little cubes I was like, 'nah, couldn't be'

/RM

It's sure a clean alternative for anyone who has access to large enough amounts of decaying manure for biogas, or landfill gas, but for anyone else it'll mostly make the natural gas suppliers happy (and since that is running out, I have a vision...of coal town gas returning ).

What I find really interesting is how, according to the piece, the boxes at google use only half as much gas as a conventional powerplant. Thermal powerplants are very inefficient, because of the limits of heating and cooling, so this is highly interesting in that respect. What I missed were hard numbers - the little block can power a house, brilliant. How many kw? A big, multi-gigawatt coal plant costs about €1 per watt of installed capacity. Since these things can be installed wherever there are enough gas lines, they could be slightly more expensive as there won't be as much transmission losses. But that's what big utility companies would be looking at before it can turn from a "green thing" like what solar power is today to a truly competitive technology.

Still, the guy seems to have figured out one of the big problems of fuel cells, cost. Now, all that is needed is to make them run cool enough so you can stuff it all in a bike.

A step in the right direction. I hope.

I have about a zero tolerance for commercials, on the computer at least. Will try to watch it again later, when I'm awake.

Yeah, that commercial sucked. I also got frustrated with Lesley Stahl. Maybe it's because I don't watch TV and forgot how interviews happen. Seems like she either wouldn't let them talk, or stalled (pun intended) when asking a question.

The energy-per-footprint size is impressive, compared to the lesser-producing solar array on eBay's roof. But I've always been told that size doesn't matter.

It's the fuel aspect of fuel-cells that I wish wasn't a factor. As long as you are dependent on others for the fuel, you'll never have energy independence on an individual level.

"Our system can use fossil fuels like natural gas. Our system can use renewable fuels like landfill gas, bio-gas," Sridhar told Stahl. "We can use solar."

I don't understand how you can use solar as a fuel, but if this thing can run off of methane, I wonder if you could tie one into a spetic tank, to feed off the gasses produced. That'd be great. I could power my house with poo.

My ideal house would be off-the-grid with solar. With this FC, though, I'm changing my daydream. The technologies could compliment each other in a residential system. Have solar as the primary system, with FC as supplemental/backup, for cloudy days, or the low-angle and short days of winter. But sunlight is there, free for the taking. I don't want to pay a company for gas.

Ames wrote:Hmmmm...motorcycle applications?

Definitely. It's been done before, but needs moar go.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZhlwuSs6uPM&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZhlwuSs6uPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

My ideal house would be off-the-grid with solar. With this FC, though, I'm changing my daydream. The technologies could compliment each other in a residential system. Have solar as the primary system, with FC as supplemental/backup, for cloudy days, or the low-angle and short days of winter. But sunlight is there, free for the taking. I don't want to pay a company for gas.

Multiple source, plug in hybrid technology. That is what I see for the near future. Hopefully.

well well well



That's a fine choice of motorcycle, Mr May!

I like this, but as has been stated I am frustrated that we would still be dependent on others for our power. I put solar panels on my workshop as I was too lazy to dig a trench and run power from the house, now I use the zaps from there as much as I can for projects, stored in batteries when it is cloudy, and am planning on adding some panels to the house for the water heater and ultimately the HVAC and kitchen appliances. Hell, I would consider a windmill if I had the room.

Rev wrote:It's cool, but the "fuel+air+black box=more power" equation makes me a little skeptical. Is this somehow different than putting a small, expensive generator next to your house?

I believe the difference between a small generator and the people at Google saying they are using half as much natural gas is that a chemical reaction other than burning is going on inside of it. Apparently he has been able to eliminate the waste that occurs when heat is transferred to energy.

Bigshankhank wrote:Hell, I would consider a windmill if I had the room.

Windmills look awesome, I want three big ones on my land when I grow up

/RM

It always annoys me when journalists don't ask the basic questions about alternative energy. Kind of like when people take battery powered vehicles as "emission free".

Aside from energy, what else comes out?
How many kw/gallon of natural gas are we getting here? At least, they mentioned it was twice the efficiency of a turbine.

Very cool though. I agree that poo power would be awesome.

A heat machine, like a steam-turbine powerplant or a gas turbine cannot be made more efficient than 60%. The amount of useful energy it can extract from the heat energy generated by a chemical reaction depends, at the very end of the equations, on the temperature differences between what goes into the turbine and what comes out of it at the other end. Since you cannot expand your gas medium, whatever it may be, all the way to absolute zero, the only way to increase the temperature difference is higher temperatures. And even if you have turbine blades that can survive ten gajillion degrees, your gas will turn into some kind of plasma, atoms stripped of their electrons. Some very real technical limits. And that's theoretical efficiency. Most efficiency gains in power plants over the last few decades were down not just to higher operating temperatures but also improved, read less lossy, machinery.

We all know how inefficient piston engines are. Theoretically, they should turn 60% (with the kind of fuels and compression ratios available to Joe Shmoe) of the energy put in into movement. Reality puts some dampers on that.

Now, fuel cells, don't involve moving parts but work a lot like a battery. Instead of relying on heat to extract energy from a chemical reaction (although they produce a lot of heat, and I'd bet ebay can heat part of that building with what those boxes throw out), the electrons that trade places in the chemical reaction that occurs are forced to do so through a circuit. Electrons going through a circuit - electricity! So, more efficient in real life than other forms of turning fuel and air into electricity? Not that surprising.

Hm. His heart's in the right place, but when that guy said that if we had one in our house in ten years it wouldn't say Bloom on it, it'd say GE, I fear he may be right.
I'm sure companies like GE and so forth see Bloom as a threat. When big companies get ahold of something good, they cheapen it to make the most of thier profit margin, regardless of what actual good the product may be capable of providing to mankind.
Yet, I remain hopeful.

DerGolgo wrote:although they produce a lot of heat, and I'd bet ebay can heat part of that building with what those boxes throw out

What is "a lot of heat"? Could you, in a residential application using a small unit, put the waste heat to use to supplement the hot water heater, or even to go toward heating the house?

Also, are Fuel Cells an on-demand system, where if you turn on a light, the FC will start up to handle the load? Or does it have to run constantly?

Well, supposing that thing was running at 50% efficiency. Then, for every 1 kw of eletricity, it would produce about 1 kw of heat.
That has to be removed by the cooling system.
The more power you draw from a fuel cell, the less efficient it gets, the more heat it gives off.
So, if ebay is running what, 20 boxes at, lets say 2 kw electric each, with 50% efficiency, they'd get 40 kw of heat that has to go somewhere. Some will be radiated into the air by the boxes, and into the ground, but somewhere the rest has to be removed.
Depending on the cooling system and how hot the cooling medium gets, you could probably use it to heat a few rooms, maybe, using a heat exchanger, help your water heater along.
If these things are air-cooled, running a tube from the machine to your house would equal running a small space heater for free.
Some commercial fuel cells available now run at hundreds of °C, which means you can get very hot coolant - the hotter your medium, the more you can do with it (as opposed to large masses of a relatively cool medium). Like heating water, with a fuel cell running at maybe twice or more what it takes to boil water (like phosphoric acid fuel cells), that would be possible.
At least that's my theory, based on the fact that you gotta have heat losses. Also, commercial fuel cells in use today are in some places run in accordance with heat demands, rather than electric demand.

And the moment the fuel and oxidizer go in, while the circuit is closed, the reaction should go immediately, from what I understand.
BUT turning them on and off is, apparently, bad for them.
Maybe you can use a flywheel storage device to store energy from the thing idling.

I've also got to wonder how long those inks will last. What's the service life of those boxes? I can't imagine whatever they are using as a catalyst to be 100% efficient, and will probably lose effectiveness over time.
This is an uneducated question, though, so if anyone cares to chime in...


At any rate, I'd also like three big windmills on my front lawn. I'd also like an old horse named Rocinante, and the love of a fair maiden to which I may pledge my quests.

Maybe you can use a flywheel storage device to store energy from the thing idling.

I am fascinated by the idea of using flywheels. Always have been, like pedal powered woodworking tools, with bicycle gear drive trains, and big heavy flywheels.
I've also been trying to work out some kind of Magnet/Gravity/Flywheel perpetual motion machine in my head since about forever.
Yeah, nobody else has been able to do it yet, but why stop beating my head against the wall?

DerGolgo wrote:turning them on and off is, apparently, bad for them.

This makes the gas company smile. If you need to keep them constantly powered... seems wasteful. Might as well keep the car idling constantly, in case I need to run to the store for brownie mix, sake, roses and astroglide.

Maybe you can use a flywheel storage device to store energy from the thing idling.

Now we're building a complicated system that's not feasable on a small scale. Although I also have been fascinated with flywheel storage systems for years now, I'm just not sure about a scary big weight spinning crazy-fast like that in my house... safe containment system or not. (I would like to see one in real life though. Except for piccini9's flywheel. He's probably carving one now... a big, unbalanced block of granite. And his forehead is bloody. )

WeAintFoundShit wrote:I've also got to wonder how long those inks will last. What's the service life of those boxes? I can't imagine whatever they are using as a catalyst to be 100% efficient, and will probably lose effectiveness over time.

If there is in fact a service life to the boxes, that might be similar to the service life of batteries in a solar system, which need to be replaced at some point. How much/often to replace batteries in a solar system compared to the cost and frequency of replacing catalysts in a fuel cell, + the cost of fuel to make it go?

The electrical industry probably wants to see a fuel cell in every home. For the benefit of mankind? Uh, no. Maybe as an improvement for mankind, but there's always a +$ in the forecast. I cringe every time I see the Oil and Natural Gas ads, knowing that they would LOVE to see fuel cells using their product. Just another way to sell their stuff. Sure, the solar industry wants to make a buck too... after you buy their panel, you're done with them.

I don't know... Solar seems less complicated. Helios rides his chariot across the sky, sending light to panels. Out comes electricity which goes to storage batteries, and then, inverted, is sent to outlets so you can use your Aqua-Jet Foot Massage Spa while watching Oprah on the plasma, and drink a Keurig-brewed Lemon Zinger. Pretty much maintenance free, until you have to replace the batteries.

You saw the inside of the Bloom Box... looks like something out of NASA. In goes the fuel you buy, out comes electricity, heat, water, and carbon dioxide. What about maintenance issues? Filters... I saw filters.

I want my electricity, and I want it free.

Zim wrote:I want my electricity, and I want it free.

So, solar?

DerGolgo wrote:

Zim wrote:I want my electricity, and I want it free.

So, solar?

One of the things I've always wondered about, is using solar power to create Hydrogen. One of the problems with Solar, is the fact that the places that are best for solar power generation are the places that use it the least, at the times when it is least needed. Batteries suck and come with all kinds of other environmental problems. Why not massive solar farms that produce hydrogen into a pipeline for hydrogen fuel cells?

Zim wrote:If there is in fact a service life to the boxes, that might be similar to the service life of batteries in a solar system, which need to be replaced at some point. How much/often to replace batteries in a solar system compared to the cost and frequency of replacing catalysts in a fuel cell, + the cost of fuel to make it go?

That's my biggest concern with the batteries/solar array on my workshop, I am using two large marine deep cycle batteries, $80 each as I recall, and they are only good for what, six years? If I add too many more then you come up upon the problem of keeping the batteries cool, also.

Zim wrote:Sure, the solar industry wants to make a buck too... after you buy their panel, you're done with them.

Panels degrade, it takes about ten to twenty years, depending on the quality of the panels themselves. Figure when you need a new roof, you need to replace your array.

Rabbit_Fighter wrote:

DerGolgo wrote:

Zim wrote:I want my electricity, and I want it free.

So, solar?

One of the things I've always wondered about, is using solar power to create Hydrogen. One of the problems with Solar, is the fact that the places that are best for solar power generation are the places that use it the least, at the times when it is least needed. Batteries suck and come with all kinds of other environmental problems. Why not massive solar farms that produce hydrogen into a pipeline for hydrogen fuel cells?

Actually, if you put a lot of 'em into the south-western US deserts, you wouldn't need to convert to hydrogen. Converting to hydrogen and converting back is, unless you are talking ridiculous distances or carting around batteries in cars, more lossy than transmission losses. Which would be dumb, especially if you could get the juice for nothing after having made the initial investment.
Think about it, where are some of the USA's greatest energy hogs? Sunny California and Las Vegas, as well as the entire air-conditioned deep-south.

There are some clever technologies in the pipeline using batteries and clever metal catalysts to make hydrogen production more efficient. But for powering houses, moving around hydrogen, compressing and refrigerating it and turning it back into electricity, not really worth it, apparently.

Incidentally, on the flywheel storage thing: They are putting it in cars now. Some Formula something team (don't ask me wether it's one, two, whatever) is putting a 150 hp flywheel into their car to make use of hybrid-technology to cut down on pit stops. Just something that I caught on the telly in passing, so I can't be arsed to provide a link right now. These things are getting really fucking good (and how much cooler than a battery is a flywheel? ey? ey?).

Zim wrote: If there is in fact a service life to the boxes, that might be similar to the service life of batteries in a solar system, which need to be replaced at some point.

.


...


....


WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?

Someone call Bruce Willis! We've to go change the batteries in the solar system!

/cue Aerosmith

We've missed you, Dan!

Anything but Aerosmith!
Bastard.

...solution providers say the $700,000 to $800,000 price tag along with its ability to generate 100 kilowatts of electricity could make it a difficult sell.

Egad!

Link: Is the Bloom Energy Server Cost, Scale Prohibitive?

DerGolgo wrote:It's sure a clean alternative for anyone who has access to large enough amounts of decaying manure for biogas, or landfill gas, but for anyone else it'll mostly make the natural gas suppliers happy (and since that is running out, I have a vision...of coal town gas returning ).

Natural gas may be running out over there, but we've got a tremendous surplus in North America.

Anywho.. neato!

Pancake wrote:Natural gas may be running out over there, but we've got a tremendous surplus in North America.

Anywho.. neato!

It's not sustainable...and reserves all over the world are slowly depleting. Like oil and uranium, it will run out eventually, and the more is used, the quicker it goes. Same bell curve as oil.