Register to reply

Bloom Box

by Kenneth Mann
Tags: bloom
Share this thread:
Kenneth Mann
#1
Feb21-10, 09:15 PM
P: 410
What is your opinion of this segment which appeared on "60 Minutes today (February 21)? It would, if it proves out, apparently make the "fuel Cell" a feasible idea for mass use.


KM
Phys.Org News Partner Engineering news on Phys.org
Comfortable climate indoors with porous glass
Crash-testing rivets
Customized surface inspection
sophiecentaur
#2
Feb22-10, 07:38 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,948
The link fails for me - the movie doesn't seem to download.
But, without seeing it, it looks like a something for nothing idea - which won't ever work.
Your fuel will still cost you money and will need distribution.
TaylorRatliff
#3
Feb22-10, 12:37 PM
P: 19
This is an interesting development, the real question is how much more efficient is this than current power generation tech? You still need fuel, for example gasoline, but a slow chemical reaction could be orders of magnitude more efficient than combustion.

I guess we'll find out Wednesday. Every bone in my body wants to declare shenanigans, but this so far appears to be legitimate. What is especially interesting is that many companies such as Google, Ebay, and Walmart are already using the industrial version of the Bloom Box.

Kenneth Mann
#4
Feb22-10, 01:01 PM
P: 410
Bloom Box

Quote Quote by TaylorRatliff View Post
I guess we'll find out Wednesday. Every bone in my body wants to declare shenanigans, but this so far appears to be legitimate. What is especially interesting is that many companies such as Google, Ebay, and Walmart are already using the industrial version of the Bloom Box.
I think we all probably have the same instinctive reaction. We can only wait and see. I can see a lot of pitfalls even if it is legitimate. As mentioned in the excerpt, GE, etal, for one. Also, I can't imagine that this will make OPEC very happy (it would greatly diminish the need for their products), and I don't see them taking something like this sitting down.

KM
Topher925
#5
Feb22-10, 03:39 PM
Topher925's Avatar
P: 1,672
Quote Quote by Kenneth Mann View Post
It would, if it proves out, apparently make the "fuel Cell" a feasible idea for mass use.
I already commented about this in the general engineering forum, but would like to add here that fuel cells are already commonly used for stationary power and APUs.

And OPEC won't really care about this technology because they still need some type of fuel, like natural gas. Fuel cells are energy conversion devices not energy sources.
sophiecentaur
#6
Feb22-10, 04:59 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,948
I managed to get the link to work eventually.
I hate the way 'these things' are presented. No one draws any distinction between the renewable aspects of wind, solar and wave sources and this, which requires fuel fuel fuel. Can journalists really be that dumb?
There has to be a question about how long the cells will work and how pure the fuel source must be to avoid contamination. That's always ignored in press releases and adverts. Would they give you a guarantee (money back) for enough years to cover your possible risk? It's very expensive, so it would seem.
Presumably the big companies that are using the system are getting it on a subsidised trial basis and they won't care if it fizzles out within a year or two.
Astronuc
#7
Feb22-10, 05:01 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
I find the following misleading:
He invented a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There's no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.
One nevertheless needs a chemical reaction - ostensibly between the oxygen (from the air) and the fuel - and the fuel will have to be 'cracked', or there is a direct oxidation.

Therefore one needs a fuel supply, and there will be 'products' - water, and probably CO2.

This is just another example of distributed generation. That's not a new concept. It's what people do with fuel cells. Perhaps the only innovation would be a cheap fuel cell that anyone can afford.
Kenneth Mann
#8
Feb22-10, 07:50 PM
P: 410
Quote Quote by Topher925 View Post
And OPEC won't really care about this technology because they still need some type of fuel, like natural gas. Fuel cells are energy conversion devices not energy sources.
If the box is as cheap as claimed, and if it is nearly as efficient as the other fuel cells, it could allow fuel consumption in motor vehicles to be halved - - cutting deeply into the demand for petroleum. (Of course, China and India may neutralize this saving - - Brazil and Russia won't need to use imported petroleum.)

Also, these cells are claimed to use many fuels, such as methane (derivable from wastes and abundant at sea-bottoms).

This could definitely pose a threat to OPEC.

KM
Kenneth Mann
#9
Feb22-10, 08:00 PM
P: 410
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
This is just another example of distributed generation. That's not a new concept. It's what people do with fuel cells. Perhaps the only innovation would be a cheap fuel cell that anyone can afford.
I agree, its use in stationary power applications is problematical, but in motor vehicles, maybe not. Its cheapness, if validated, would go a long way toward making this application viable.

KM
Topher925
#10
Feb22-10, 10:32 PM
Topher925's Avatar
P: 1,672
Quote Quote by Kenneth Mann View Post
I agree, its use in stationary power applications is problematical, but in motor vehicles, maybe not. Its cheapness, if validated, would go a long way toward making this application viable.

KM
Its motor application is most likely useless, just as with 95% of other fuel cell technologies. Like most energy conversion devices, fuel cells do not like transient operation and harsh environments (cold, heat, fast temperature change). High temperature fuel cells, which this technology most certainly is, are really only suitable for constant and steady stationary power.

Just by whats shown in the video you can see that the "bloom box" would undoubtedly not make it past 100 miles of city driving in a car.
uart
#11
Feb23-10, 05:28 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 2,751
Quote Quote by sophiecentaur View Post
I managed to get the link to work eventually.
I hate the way 'these things' are presented. No one draws any distinction between the renewable aspects of wind, solar and wave sources and this, which requires fuel fuel fuel. Can journalists really be that dumb?.
Yes they sure can. :) In fact they almost always are like that when reporting stories like this. To see how easily people can be misled about the scope of this fuel cell just look at some of the responses on that site. Like this one,
by dcmille290 February 22, 2010 6:44 AM EST
So many of you that have posted apparently did not even listen to the entire story before blabbing nonsense.
The unit can run on just about any FUEL! Even Solar!
So get off the Natural Gas crap and come up with real reasons you don't buy into this story. Go out an get an education, your ignorance costs our country millions.
I'd like to see the details on how it can "run on solar", as he did actually say that in the story. I can only assume he was referring to the solar cracking of water to hydrogen, but I think you'd need a pretty impressive solar concentrator plant to do that, it certainly wouldn't be happening with just one of those nice neat boxes.
sophiecentaur
#12
Feb23-10, 06:08 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
sophiecentaur's Avatar
P: 11,948
"I guess we'd better all "Go out and get an education" then. We must stop being "ignorant", learn to believe in Bloom and forget awkward notions like the difference between 'Solar' and 'Fuels' and that will solve all the World's problems.
famousken
#13
Feb25-10, 09:02 PM
P: 108
I have a question, how the heck are they cooling these things? I mean, that block was like what 6"X6", and he says it will power a house, my house has 240v/200A service, and its supposed to be twice as efficient as other means of generation, so about 50%ish right? Thats 48,000W of heat from a 6x6 box! without some kind of fancy cooling system, I would think that these would melt into a really expensive blob.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Algal bloom oxygen level? Biology 1
Global warming to put gardens in bloom General Physics 0